< May 4	May 6 >

Guide to deletion

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donny Long[edit]

~~Subject is simply unnotable according to the general criteria and the pornographic actor criteria from WP:BIO. Vinh1313 (talk) 23:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Vinh1313 (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn based on info from • Gene93k. I didn't consider that he could be an award winning mope Vinh1313 (talk) 00:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you KIDDING?!?!? Donny Long is the most unintentionally comedic personality in his genre. Deleting this article would be a crime. James W. Ballantine (talk) 00:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Names like that are quite common for male porn stars. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PORNBIO. 2007 AVN Award co-winner (Best Oral Sex Scene - Video).[1] I will add the citation shortly. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added sourced reference to the subject's controvercial remarks regarding his colleagues and his subsequent banning from several industry websites. James W. Ballantine (talk) 01:40, 6 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 result was Speedy deleted as a hoax. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conor Phillips[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Fails the relevant notability guideline: unable to verify in reliable sources. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 23:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not listed at Councillors - Louth County Council. --Eastmain (talk) 03:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong/speedy delete. Issues with WP:TONE, VER, NPOV and NN. Article is vanity nonsense. Delete immediately.

Alleged to be a "TD" in the infobox. Absolute nonsense. The only sitting Sinn Féin TDs are Ferris, Morgan, Ó Caoláin and Ó Snodaigh.
Alleged to be a Louth Co Councillor. Also total fabrication. Nobody named Philips has EVER sat ANY local election in Louth.[2].
Alleged to be a notable GAA player. One confirmed game for a local Junior side is NOT notability.
And the rubbish about being a comedian with national coverage is just plain laughable. Guliolopez (talk) 10:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - misinformation, aka "lies". Camillus 11:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 02:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clare Quilty (group)[edit]

Closing another AfD recently, I said that having an AMG entry was a sign of notability; but I don't think this band passes WP:MUSIC, even with their AMG listing of two singles that reached 33 and 44 in a minor chart. Searching for info is naturally difficult because of their name, but this one [3] dug up lots of irrelevant hits and little info. They might be notable; but it's difficult to tell, and certainly not from the article. Black Kite 23:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Between the two chart singles and three albums on DCide Records I'd say they meet WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, that's my point really. The "chart singles" are on the Club Play chart, and the record label certainly isn't notable enough to meet WP:MUSIC either. It's sort of getting there, but.. Black Kite 00:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although it's close. My rule of thumb with AMG is not just an entry, but a bio; not sure which you meant. They have credits for a lot of people that would never pass WP:MUSIC, but when there's a bio, that tracks very closely with whether there are other sources. I'm finding PopMatters reviews of two albums and Washington Post and Washington Times reviews of shows. --Dhartung | Talk 00:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Club Play chart is set up specifically to note the most popular songs within the dance music genres; it's no less legitimate than the Modern Rock or R&B charts. Chart hits are definitive proof of a group's popularity. Chubbles (talk) 00:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 02:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources indicates to me that the article fails to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Complies with WP:MUSIC at least on the grounds of chart success and coverage. A cursory search finds numerous reviews and commentary from the legitimate music press on the band and its albums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debate (talk • contribs) 05:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). Clear consensus that the subject, which is inherently notable, can be expanded and thus is not a suitable candidate for deletion, on which the nominator withdrew. WilliamH (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spilsby railway station[edit]

A stub article with no context that has been tagged for quite some time. Is lacking even basic information such as opening/closing dates, details of operator/routes etc. DrFrench (talk) 23:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SOFIXIT. Coverage found in Google (esp. Google Books) indicates that the station was an important landmark in the 19th century. As mentioned in the Prod challenge, the town and rail line links give enough context to fill in the blanks. Sources found for closing dates, but they need to be verified. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Consensus has always found that stations are inherently notable and there's not evidence anywhere consensus is changing. As Gene93k indicates, this is a case for expansion, not deletion. I added a photo, which is a start. --Oakshade (talk) 23:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've expanded it a bit, I'm sure there's more on the actual station to be unearthed. Black Kite 00:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being a stub (even a sub-stub) is not a reason for deletion. Stephen Turner (Talk) 06:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has one fine source already, and even small railway stations are in fact the kind of topic which traditional paper encyclopedias cover. (For example Hallingskeid which has entries in at least two such encyclopedias.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a good candidate for deletion, since it can be improved through normal editing processes. AfD is not cleanup; in the future, the nominator may want to review DEL and BEFORE before making nominations like this. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 10:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination. Since posting the AfD, the article has already been improved beyond all recognition, so I'm happy to withdraw my nomination. I'd also like to add that the nominator (i.e. me) *did* reveiew WP:DEL and WP:BEFORE. I also reviewd WP:AFDP#Transportation and WP:STATION. Until I posted the AfD, the article had no useful information and had been tagged as a stub and requiring improvement since July 2007. I agree that in general railway stations are notable by default, but a closed railway station may not necessarily be notable - especially where there is no context to justify it (e.g. it may have been a temporary station). Being as the article had been left unimproved for so long and had not been picked-up by WikiProject UK Railways it looked like it was a 'hopeless case' article. Inadvertantly, the AfD has prompted others to improve the article to a point where it now deserves to be kept. DrFrench (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Fabrictramp (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A painted window[edit]

Unsourced article on an obscure play by an anonymous East German playwright. Didn't find any references in English. --Finngall ^talk 22:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Am unable to find any reliable sources in English or German hence this fails WP:V. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 02:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources indicates to me that the article fails to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-verifiable. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could find no sources to prove notability. Doctorfluffy (i can has msg) 22:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Lathrop Stanford Middle School[edit]

The result was Nomination withdrawn.. Indy424242 (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article should be deleted because it has little relevance to anything. The other two middle schools do not have a wikipedia page; why does this one?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Indy424242 (talk • contribs)

Speedy Keep - Ryan, stop it. You know the article is fine, and Jordan has an article here, and Terman here. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 22:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryanstopit Guess which two school articles will get nominated next... Mandsford (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I just did a big violation of BEANS. :P Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 23:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why Why is this article fine? It skimps on information, including what can be just ripped off from the website, has no interesting info, like notable alumni, which would make it more important. OK, so I was wrong about Jordan and Terman not having pages, but still. This is not relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.80.169.5 (talk) 23:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - see WP:Deletion - bad articles are not deleted, unless they are so bad they are impossible to fix. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 23:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep No reason for deletion given. This article needs work, sure, but I have no reason to believe it's not a notable school. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (no vote). Nomination rationale is thin. Google/Google News seaches show some non-trivial WP:RS coverage, but this school needs more. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the district article. Elementary and middle schools are typically merged and redirected unless they show notability by themselves, and I don't see anything that makes this middle school different. Nyttend (talk) 00:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason based on our criteria for deletion is given. KTC (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Palo Alto Unified School District. Nyttend has the right of it; middle schools should be merged unless they show some sort of notability on their own. Darkspots (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, no evidence of independent notability _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 02:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as stated above. Elluminate (talk) 02:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect I have nothing to add to what Darkspots and TC said. Enigma ^message 03:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by default; no valid deletion argument has been asserted. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a proposal to redirect to Palo Alto Unified School District has been made, but most people are agreeing to speedy keep per your argument. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 03:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And keep in mind this entire nomination was vandalism. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 03:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Five editors thinking it should redirect to the school district article undercuts your assertion that the consensus is to keep the article in its present form. I noticed you were a student at this school. Please take a look at WP:COI. Darkspots (talk) 17:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know WP:COI pretty well - as you can see, my edits to that page aren't promoting anyone's interests. As a double, I'm not even adding anything unreferenced to that page anymore. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 00:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete or merge according to Wikipedia's notablility page, only having 1 independent source is criteria for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.201.171.212 (talk) 03:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is a little suspicious, it's this IP's first ever edit - I suspect it's Ryan (Indy424242). And it does have more than 1 independent source, and it's not a criteria for deletion-although it should be fixed.03:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep by default. Out of process nomination with no deletion rationale given. This is essentially "Delete it because I don't like it." Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 10:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Fabrictramp (talk) 23:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heikki Lahtinen[edit]

Fails WP:BIO because he has never competed at the highest level (Olympics, World Championships, European Championships) of the mainly professional non-league sport: athletics. In this respect, his national championship victory means nothing - nothing - because he was the only competitor. Punkmorten (talk) 08:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: I'm not so sure. He turns up a lot of Google hits, some of them to obvious media sources, and he has a more substantial article on the Finnish Wikipedia. Almost all of the hits are in Finnish, however, and it'd be good if a Finnish-speaker could do some legwork. RGTraynor 14:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 05:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A 59 year old athlete is not sufficiently notable of itself to justify an article. It's arguable that this would be sufficient to justify an article even if he were competitive in open-age events. The fact that his victories appear to be in masters class age categories makes him even less notable. In international rankings he's only ranked 5th in the 55-59 male 20km walk event and international rankings for distance walking in masters don't go for longer distances than that. See http://www.mastersathletics.net/20-KM-Road-Walk-Men-Masters-Athletics.423.0.html If you have a look at this link, there's a huge number of potential articles here if an international top five ranking in an age class is sufficient to support notability. While the subject may be notable in Finland he doesn't appear to have any profile outside of Finland and therefore is unlikely to be sufficient to establish notability for inclusion in an English speaking encyclopedia. Debate (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I haven't done the necessary reasearch to say whether this article should be kept or deleted, but I must point out that if the subject is notable in Finland then he is notable enough for English Wikipedia. The "English" in "English Wikipedia" refers to the language in which it is written, not the subjects which are written about. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:ATHLETE. KTC (talk) 00:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources indicates to me that the article fails to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination, this biographical article continues not to meet verifiability concerns. (jarbarf) (talk) 22:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 01:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Itlizard[edit]

Not speedying this as spam, as there's that vague assertion of notability (the award), plus a number of editors seem to have at least glanced at this without being tempted to delete it - but this looks like an unsalvageable piece of spam ("other projects are planned but are considered top secret", indeed!). As always, perfectly willing to be persuaded it's keepable. — iridescent 21:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for now. The award the site won isn't cited and there aren't any other claims of notability. However, with some citations and the removal of some the POV elements (top secret?), I'd be willing to change my opinion. Tnxman307 (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable. KTC (talk) 00:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - might be a great site, but notability not established. Frank | talk 11:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of third-party reliable sources to establish notability (I've briefly searched Google News and Books, and found nothing). Jakew (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources indicates to me that the article fails to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 20:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). Ecoleetage (talk) 00:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chirping[edit]

Wikipedia is not Wiktionary. Delete from here and move to here. asenine ^{say what?} 21:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC) EDIT: I would do it myself, but I have next to no idea of Wiktionary style guidelines etc. I'd prefer for someone who knows what they are doing over there to do it, but if it comes to it I may have a shot. asenine ^{say what?} 21:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Delete~~ Merge-Falls under CSD A5--~S R S~ 22:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be better as a disambiguator? Jim.henderson (talk) 22:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would work as well. Delete and make as a disambiguation page.~S R S~ 22:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - the first two (technical) meanings of chirping would make an excellent disambiguation page. Meanings 3 and 4 should probably be removed per WP:TRIVIA or WP:NEOLOGISM. - Neparis (talk) 01:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and turn to dab. There's no reason to block people from viewing the edit history of this page, but at the same time, the page would be better as a dab. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 10:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge The telecomms usage has massive notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clean-up. Notable obviously. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colonel Warden; merging can be hashed out on the talk page. Stifle (talk) 20:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Make into disambiguation page. "Chirping" is a possible legitimate search term and users should be given some options. Powers ^T 23:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Fabrictramp (talk) 23:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deconstructing the Myth of AIDS[edit]

This article is about a non-notable documentary that is not available on either the Internet Movie Database or on other movie websites. It's only reference is from the website about the documentary. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable; promotional Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried looking for sources, but only see blogs, discussion forums, etc. In other words, no reliable sources. --Aude (talk) 22:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree. Non-notable.Renee (talk) 22:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N and Wikipedia:Notability (films). Wikipedia has plenty of AIDS-denialism WP:COATRACKs - this one won't be missed. MastCell ^Talk 22:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Total of 190 Ghits for "Deconstructing the Myth of AIDS."[4] I looked at every one of them and there's not a single RS in the bunch. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not many results on Google. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 23:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable WP:FILM. Bfigura ^(talk) 00:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although this has hundreds of hits on Google, many are either download or viewing sites, or passing comments. I found very little if any meaningful independent commentary and no film reviews at all (which is a hint nobody thought enough of it to write a review). This film has not been significantly noted as a documentary in any way. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn per above comments. KTC (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep notable writer and director, the film cannot be too non-notable. Chimeric Glider (talk) 01:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't necessarily inherited that way. If the creators of the subject have their own articles, then this material should be included there. Independent of them, however, the film itself doesn't assert notability in any way whatsoever.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 02:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources that assert the notability of the subject. Even using general notability guidelines rather than the specialized FILM guidelines, it doesn't qualify for inclusion. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 10:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but should RS be found feel free to have another go. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources indicates to me that the article fails to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - fails verifiability and notability very badly; basically spam. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. All relevant points have been made. Doctorfluffy (i put on my robe and wizard hat) 04:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia occasionally performs a service by writing informative, neutral articles about wacky stuff. Unfortunately there isn't any coverage from mainstream sources about this film that pops up quickly on Google, and the creator of the article didn't supply any, so there is nothing for us to write from. EdJohnston (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was 'delete per WP:CSD#G3. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPPPA[edit]

This is another silly hoax from Gangshen (talk · contribs) who is responsible for related vandalism on White spirit, speedied articles on Keenan Schlegel Incorporate, and a hoax "religion" Sunderianism currently also at AfD here. Delete as nonsense. JohnCD (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-It's obvious nonsense, Patagonian is spelled wrong, and if it ties to White spirit, it is nonsense.--~S R S~ 22:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G3 Obvious hoax. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almost Cheese & Crackers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Almost Cheese & Crackers

Article's only sources are actually just the DVD as it is for sale, and links out to the Creator's Wikipedia entries which are, themselves, of questionable notability. KevinCuddeback (talk) 21:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable and promotional.Renee (talk) 22:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional language, seems like an ad - 211.30.227.30 (talk) 10:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Save Myself and enjoiNico are trying to make this article less advertisementy and more like a good Wiki article. We're trying to find good sources, but it will take a little bit...BobAmnertiopsis (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Save I feel that this article, which I have done a lot on to stop the "advertisement" on, should be saved. It is an important video, and is noteworthy. It also has many sources now, which I have added, and many sections as well. Please do not delete this article. EnjoiNico (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 02:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Renee. Stifle (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-Notable.-- RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 04:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Save Instead of just telling us this article is inadequate, why not give us constructive cristicism. BobAmnertiopsis (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Why don't you let the creator assert notability. Editor of the wiki^{review my edits here!} 23:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 23:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth kingdom[edit]

The page seems to be about a term that has been made up. A simple internal search of the Commonwealth secreteriat webiste proves that such a term does not exist! Furthermore the article only seems to contain original research! Cameron (t|p|c) 21:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- as nominator...--Cameron (t|p|c) 21:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GoodDay (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, per nomination. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, why not? --Cameron (t|p|c) 15:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. On Google the term "commonwealth" does refer to the 53 sovereign nations but then within this article when you click on commonwealth of nations you get all of the appropriate information. So I think this article is redundant, though it's a pretty chart (but then I notice an expanded version of the pretty chart is in the article highlighted above). Renee (talk) 22:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Renee. —Nightstallion 23:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - term appears to have been made up. Stifle (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative View. - It appears that a consensus for deleting/merging both the Commonwealth republic and Commonwealth kingdom articles into Commonwealth of Nations is emerging. I support that idea and agree (with User:Cameron and others) that frankly both articles are a joke and not appropriate for an encyclopedia. My initial support for there being a Commonwealth kingdom article was premised on the fact that there was a Commonwealth republic article. I hope there will be volunteers for the work. I will help! However, this does beg the question why is Commonwealth republic not also nominated for deletion. Presumably because there is little extra information to "merge" into the Commonwealth of Nations article. I'm happy to support deleting Commonwealth kingdom but only if Commonwealth republic is merged. Redking7 (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think anyone here wants to merge? = ) So far nobody has !voted for a merge. As the term 'Commonwealth kingdom' does not exist the whole page ought to be deleted...it should not even be kept as a redirect. You can nominate Commonwealth republic yourself if you so wish but this is the page regarding the deletion for 'Commonwealth kingdom'. --Cameron (t|p|c) 12:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your comment above User: Cameron. On the Talk: Commonwealth kingdom page, in reply to the assertion by User:GoodDay that "The Commonwealth republics must stay. What else would you call a republic within the Commonwealth of Nations?" - you replied "Perhaps list of republics within the commonwealth? I agree with TharkunColl and g2; both this and the commonwealth republic articles are, quite frankly, a joke...and need to be dealt with!". I understood this to mean that you thought that both the Commonwealth republic article and the Commonwealth kingdom article were unsuitable for an encyclopedia and that both terms were also dubious? Regards. Redking7 (talk) 19:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologise, I may not have made myself clear enough. I did not nominate 'Commonwealth republics' for deletion as I believe some of the content can be salvaged (ie merged). --Cameron (t|p|c) 19:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all above. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 15:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with what's been said. 'Commonwealth kingdom' as distinct from 'Commonwealth realm' is entirely arbitary. So too is 'Commonwealth republic'. At various times in discussions at 'Commonwealth realm' it was asked how to distinguish kingdoms with indigenous monarchs from realms in the Commonwealth with Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom as their monarch. As I see it, there is no need to. Some users seem to be anxious to classify and organise states that do not need to be classified. Thus we have articles such as federal monarchy, Commonwealth kingdom, etc. I'll admit that Commonwealth realm is used infrequently, but even here, there is a desire to use it as an organisational tool far out of proportion to its actual significance.--Gazzster (talk) 01:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm intrigued, would you oblige me with an answer as to why you find the term out of proportion? --Cameron (t|p|c) 12:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned that, since our focus is the term Commonwealth kingdom. I don't deny that Commonwealth realm is a term that is used. But it's a quite informal term. I believe the Commonwealth of Nations uses it sometimes, as do some monarchy-related organisations. But there is no association of nations called 'the Commonwealth Realms'. There was a very long discussion last year at Commonwealth realm over whether the r in realm should be capitalised or not. It sounds daft, but it was objected that Realm made it sound as if CRs were an association of nations, which of course, they are not. They are all sovereign and unique. The closest that they come to be grouped together is in the Queen's title:'Queen of the United Kingdom and her other realms and territories, etc.'So you seev it is, as I say, an informal term. You would certainly not see an entry on it in the Britannica or Americana or Webster's. As far as I can see, only Wikipedia treats of it as an organisational tool. But that's by the by. --Gazzster (talk) 12:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that argument again. I'm (still) not quite convinced = ) but by all means, raise it at Talk:Commonwealth_realm or WP:CWR!--Cameron (t|p|c) 20:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly want to raise it again. I was just remarking that if we delete Commonwealth kingdom and Commonwealth republic because the terms aren't justified by the literature we could make a similar case for Commonwealth realm. But I don't want to get bogged down in that for another twenty pages.--Gazzster (talk) 23:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with you User:Gazzster. All three terms are of pretty questionable vintage! By way of comparison, we don't hear people refer to United Nations republics or United Nations kingdoms etc! Beyond that, I can add little to what I have said already. All three terms, of course, have no legal meaning. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Commonwealth realm is another matter, but I think we should be more careful with possibly dispensing with its article than with Commonwealth kingdom and Commonwealth republic. As has already been mentioned, Commonwealth realm is a term existant beyond Wikipedia. Also, the content of Commonwealth realm alone shows that there is enough to warrant its existence; the union is a personal one rather than official, but there is obviously a history to the relationship and certain distinguishing features of it. Republics and non-realm kingdoms in the Commonwealth, on the other hand, have nothing in common besides being, well, in the Commonwealth. --G2bambino (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very well said, I agree!--Cameron (t|p|c) 10:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Merge and redirect to Education in Alberta. Camaron | Chris (talk) 10:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alberta Initiative for School Improvement[edit]

Non-notable organization that seems to be using Wikipedia to promote itself, see WP:SPAM. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 19:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This isn't an organization. This is a program operated of the Alberta provincial government's Ministry of Education. I removed the copyvio. --Eastmain (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. I removed the copyvio (the article is now just a stub) and added a reference. Note that Alberta government documents are covered by copyright, unlike publications of the U.S. federal government. Notability is asserted by the amount of money involved, I suppose. --Eastmain (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Education in Alberta, where it can be discussed in context until sources and content expands to length where it is better served by a separate article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 22:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Education in Alberta per DoubleBlue. TerriersFan (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above recommendations. I'm in Alberta and I've never even heard of this (to avoid an accusation of WP:OSTRICH that fact did not enter into my decision) and I don't see how it's independently notable enough for its own article. As a sub-section of Education in Alberta, yes. 23skidoo (talk) 23:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I withdraw my previous keep vote, and agree that a merge to Education in Alberta makes the most sense. --Eastmain (talk) 03:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all above. Stifle (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge — as per above. Rosiestep (talk) 03:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Consensus is that an "introduction to..." article is not required for this topic, or at least not now and in this form, but that the author is invited to help improving the main article. Sandstein (talk) 07:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polymerase Chain Reaction (simplified)[edit]

This seems to be an unnecessary content fork. This isn't the Simple English Wikipedia. If the Polymerase Chain Reaction is not simple enough for the average reader to understand then that should be rectified. Beloved Freak 19:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 20:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed: As explained in the discussion for this page, there is a clear need for articles that can both explain this complex process to a general reader, as well as supply details to a more sophisticated audience. I don't know how to do both in a single text. Why do you suggest removing this article? There are jargon warnings and clarity discussions on the larger version. If you think its problems can be rectified, why not discuss it there ? PaleWhaleGail (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the main image has been removed, the article now makes no sense. I'll have to change my opinion to Delete immediately, since it will just confuse a reader. (Don't forget to delete the sub-pages as well.) PaleWhaleGail (talk) 14:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Making the subject accessible for the lay reader is an admirable goal that should be addressed on the primary article. Creating a simplified fork is not the answer. One specific subject, one main article. You could potentially have a "Polymerase Chain Reaction (overview)" sub-article with a ((seealso)) on the introduction section of the main article, but it seems preferable to just tighten up that intro itself instead. Avruch^T 21:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ditto to the above with regard to accessiblity. But PCR does not deserve to be systematically de-linked and replaced by this very poor substitute. GrahamColm ^Talk 21:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have rolled-back all of the changed links that I can find. GrahamColm ^Talk 22:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It looks like there is another article, Examples_of_PCR that is designed for a similar purpose as the subject of this AfD and created by the same user. The work and the object are admirable, and I don't want to seem like I am disparaging it at all, but I think the problem is just that the editor is new to Wikipedia. The examples article, while valuable as a teaching tool, isn't what we would normally expect of an encyclopedic tertiary reference article. I think that some elements of it could reasonably be condensed to the top level article, but any actual examples of PCR would need to be sourced (rather than based on the knowledge/observation of the editor adding them, which falls under the original research policy). This sort of issue is part of the reason why many academic experts have difficulty with Wikipedia, but hopefully PaleWaleGail will get past this and become the superb contributor she clearly can be. Avruch^T 21:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree and I welcome new contributors. I have made, (and still make), many mistakes. But PCR is a good article. Clearly, PaleWaleGail, will become a fine contributor. Please work on improving the original article in the first instance and use the Talk page. GrahamColm ^Talk 22:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That poster picture was removed from the main PCR article in large part because it is a copyright violation, it does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for non-free use. [5] This was discussed at Talk:Polymerase_chain_reaction#Lead_picture_change. PaleWhaleGail has not made any attempts to participate in discussions on the PCR talk page, even though I have in two separate instances created sections commenting on his additions to the article. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 22:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Madeleine, perhaps you can fill the rest of us in on the exact reasons why that figure so definitely "is a copyright violation". It (obviously) seems to be a valid case of Fair Use to me. 12.110.26.26 (talk) 22:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not appreciating the anonymous IP here. Anyway, per WP:NONFREE, it fails to meet these criteria:

No free equivalent : There is equivalent available and, assuming you're dissatisfied with its quality, you can improve upon it.
Significance : is this picture critical to understanding PCR? Given the other available diagrams, it does not seem to me that omission of this image would be detrimental to understanding.

This image was submitted for fair use as a poster, and this fair use category is intended "to provide critical commentary on the film, event, etc. in question or of the poster itself, not solely for illustration". I think this is pretty clearly a violation of that. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 23:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) If documentation of public domain status or release under a GFDL-compatible license can be provided, it may be used. This poster does not, however, qualify for fair use. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 23:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think this article is unnecessary fork that neglects consensus building; the author hasn't made much effort to improve the main PCR article. I'm against "intro to X" articles, improvements to clarity should be made to the main article. The author said nothing about creating this article on the PCR page, and proceeded to systematically replace links to PCR with links to this! If there is a need for an intro article, it should be a consensus reached on the PCR discussion, not something created and linked to without notification. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 23:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If kept, this article should probably be renamed Introduction to Polymerase Chain Reaction and the scope limited to that instead of forking every section. I let the folks at Polymerase Chain Reaction know that this AfD exists. Hopefully they can provide some input as to whether an introductory or simplified article is desirable. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 22:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No doubt PaleWhaleGail has added very valuable details to this very important technique. I to some extent share his/her concern that the general article is partly inscrutable to a lay audience. Nonetheless I've been generally disappointed by this user's approach to "improving" the main PCR article by creating completely new entries. Trying to "unseat" the existing ones without even attempting to improve them betrays lack of a cooperative spirit further evidenced by this user's stonewalling of attempts at changes of the newly created entries (see history of History of polymerase chain reaction). So I would look forward to this editor's contributions to existing entries, while asking to bear in mind that some topics of high complexity require prior knowledge that is more extensive than that of a lay person. Entries in Quantum physics and related areas are mostly highly bewildering to me, yet I do not expect to see a wiki entry in this field that is pared down such that it is comprehensible to me or others with intermediate knowledge of physics and maths.Malljaja (talk) 23:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to the main article. However, I invite the creator to help improve the PCR article to GA status.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a fork that we can do without. We don't create articles for "Intro to...." or "Simple version of...". If any article isn't at least somewhat comprehensible, then the lede (at the least) needs some work Bfigura ^(talk) 00:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC) Change to keep based on my getting educated :) --Bfigura ^(talk) 20:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But we do create "Introduction to .." articles. There are lots of them and they are very useful. In this case the word "simplified" should be removed and "introduction" used if it is kept. I want ot look at it more carefully before commenting further. --Bduke (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we do, see Introduction to general relativity, but is PCR as hard to understand? GrahamColm ^Talk 00:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not that hard, but it requires some knowledge of molecular biology (eg. DNA structure), enzymology, and basic maths. Palewhalegail has alluded to the main article being "unintelligible" in places, but only in the form of handwaving, not by giving examples for unnecssary opaqueness. Malljaja (talk) 01:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry all, looks like I learned something today. --Bfigura ^(talk)

Keep and do the necessary rewriting. AfD is not needed to improve an article--though it does seem to have the advantage of gtting a lot of people to look at it. I wonder how we can do this without the threat of deletion. We have a number of Introduction to articles and I wish we had a good many more--the title of this one should be regularized to that format. DGG (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And yet the creator of the article has now declared the article useless when stripped of its nonfree image and wishes to abandon it... (see above) Even if one thinks Intro-to articles are often useful, they should be the product of a consensus, we can't have "intro to X" become an excuse to spin off a consensus-avoidant fork. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 21:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To add to Madeleine's comment, PCR is not as complex as, eg, the theory of relativity–in fact it's quite simple (leaving aside the issue of some sections in the entry that seem a little obtuse or disorganised). So having separate entries for PCR in the long run may do more harm than good, causing issues with repetition or even conflicting information caused by edits by contributors unaware of the separate entries. The real issue here is that one user however well intentioned decided to author several new PCR articles without even having a go at the existing ones. This users opinion that the existing PCR entries are too difficult understand has taken on a stronger momentum than it may deserve.Malljaja (talk) 22:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Malljaja. If the article is too technical to understand, then clarify it, not fork it. Stifle (talk) 20:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ and rename and refocus to Introduction to Polymerase Chain Reaction as above. The main article is by no means unreadable (some rough spots that look like poorly integrated edits, a little lab-manual-ish in places), but it is 45 kb. Having a separate introductory article allows for the sort of context-heavy "lies to children" that would only bother the people who need the more detailed version. Most wikilinks should, of course, go to PCR itself, which has a hat note to the intro. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 21:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and recreate if the fine folks at PCR think it necessary after due discussion. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 16:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Introduction to Polymerase Chain Reaction. However, this should not mean that the introduction to Polymerase Chain Reaction should not be improved to be more easily understood. If the main article can be made clearer, then this can be folded back there, but it should be kept for now. --Bduke (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Avruch: Making the subject accessible for the lay reader is an admirable goal that should be addressed on the primary article. Creating a simplified fork is not the answer. Actually, the main article is quite readable even now. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some here seem to be suggesting we delete all 'introduction to' articles. I'm not sure I'd agree there, but I think this one is certainly getting a bit too specific. Richard001 (talk) 07:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedily Deleted (non-admin closure) by User:Cobaltbluetony per CSD Criterion A2 - Vandalism/test page. WilliamH (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodquest[edit]

Non-notable neologism, unreferenced. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 19:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks like this article got speedily deleted and then recreated. Now up for speedy again. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Fabrictramp (talk) 23:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rory W. E. Demetrioff[edit]

Unsourced biography of a not notable person for whom I can find no reliable sources. Thus fails WP:V and WP:BIO. Prod was removed. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With all his accomplishments, you'd think he'd get some mention in the Canadian media. As it is, no hits on this guy at all except for Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors. Blueboy 96 20:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above comments. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable independent sources are cited in the article, nor could I find any. Hal peridol (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources indicates to me that the article fails to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 20:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO due to a lack of references from reliable publications. (jarbarf) (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Sullivan[edit]

The article provides no information or reason (and I do not believe that there is any) that this character is more notable than any of the other leading three in the film The Departed, in fact Matt Damon received no official accolades for his performance that I can find in the awards section of the film article. The accolades go to di Caprio, Nicholson and Wahlberg (who got an oscar nom). There is no extra information in this article that cannot be in the film article itself, as the biography of Sullivan is essentially the plot (particularly his early life). Essentially, there is no reason that I can see (either through Damon, the character or the film) that gives this character notability. Furthermore it suffers from OR but this is a lesser point. I respectfully move for a merge/deletion and redirect to the film article. SGGH ^speak! 19:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and ~~Delete~~Redirect There is no non-OR material in the article that is not already in or cannot be merged into the main article, The Departed. -Seidenstud (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete isn't acceptable per WP:GFDL. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, see WP:MAD for an explanation that's actually understandable. ~ mazca ^talk 22:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - I agree fully that nothing in this article is worth separating from the main article on The Departed - as a character that appears in that film and nothing else, by nature all the information about him came from the film. ~ mazca ^talk 22:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 02:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources indicates to me that the article fails to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 20:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. If the character had appeared in more than one film I might say keep. I think the character is notable, but it seems that the article The Departed covers much of this already. I don't think the entire article should be merged, but I think more information in the Cast section would be okay, similar to the cast section in the Iron Man (film) article. --Pixelface (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Contains no real world information. Fails notability. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 14:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Duzgun[edit]

no source. previously deleted. Damiens.rf 18:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find any mention despite extensive search. May be hoax as League Cup didn't begin until significantly after the 1920s. Debate (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 02:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources indicates to me that the article fails to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 16:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chapps hamburger cafe[edit]

So far as I can tell, the only claim to notability is the one award, but it does not seem to be a particularly major award. But then, on the other hand, I dan't claim to be an expert on burgers, so stop me if I'm wrong. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That doesn't appear to be a notable award. Also, there don't seem to be any reliable sources regarding this particular restaurant. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS and WP:COPYVIO as most of the article is text from the Chapps website ArcAngel (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Barely escapes an A7, if only because of that award from AOL. The article essentially says it isn't notable--only nine locations. If we keep this, there's gonna be an awful lot of local joints that are gonna get articles. Blueboy 96 20:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TPH. Hal peridol (talk) 23:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources indicates to me that the article fails to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Zunwa[edit]

Apparent autobiography, no sources to establish notability. Kelly ^hi! 18:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable per WP:BIO, no sources listed. Tnxman307 (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO, WP:RS, and seemingly WP:COI. ArcAngel (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems non-notable to me with no sources. – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 18:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 02:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, non-notable. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 04:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources indicates to me that the article fails to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as with all vanity pages. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus to delete. Editors encouraged to trim the article in proportion to the actor's notability, keeping only material that is well sourced. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neg Dupree[edit]

nn person. fails WP:V, WP:N, and WP:RS. There are no independent, reliable, and verifiable third party sources that backs up claims made on the article. No references or citations. and most of the article is about a segment/act of a television show called "Balls of Steel". nat.utoronto 13:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP He appears weakly on mainstream British TV on Channel 4, as well as other programmes on mainstream British channels. He has also acted in Balls of Steel, Footballers' Wives, Eastenders, and The Bill. Not to mention blockbuster movie 28 Weeks Later. He is well known in the UK. So this article passes WP:BIO. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any independent, reliable, and verifiable third party sources to assert notability. So, no, it does not pass WP:BIO. nat.utoronto 21:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually yes it does because i've edited the page to make it meet WP:BIO standards. Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the page take make it Notable and make it meet WP:BIO standards. nat.utoronto claimed that "There are no independent, reliable, and verifiable third party sources that backs up claims made on the article. No references or citations. and most of the article is about a segment/act of a television show called Balls of Steel" Since my edits this is no longer true. There are independent, reliable, and verifiable third party sources that backs up claims made on the article. There are references or citations. The article is no longer only about a segment/act of a television show called Balls of Steel. Therefore this article no longer be deleted, as the deletion argument is no longer valid. Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should stay as this is a satisfactory article on a notable subjectHarry-fox (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, seems vaguely notable. Stifle (talk) 19:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If I understand this correctly, he has only made cameo appearances thus far? I'll continue to look for better sources. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Hilarious. He also appears on the show Balls of Steel, so keep per Ijanderson977 Kareeser|^Talk! 05:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @ Coccyx Bloccyx Unfortunately, you don't understand correctly as he has only had one Cameo appearance, the rest is just him working as a normal actor. Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you IJanderson977 for raising this point. Can you clarify which films he appeared in as a regular actor, other than this Balls of Steel thing? Much appreciated, Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @ Coccyx Bloccyx - He isnt really a film actor, he has only appeared in one film. He is a British television actor, here is list of all the programmes he has been in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neg_Dupree#Television
He has also works for Kerrang Radio. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, but Channel4 and E4 are not independent, reliable, and verifiable third party sources as they are the main broadcasters of the program of "Balls of Steel (UK TV series)"; TV.com is not reliable as it seems anyone with a free account can edit it; www.movietome.com/ is own by the same corporation that owns TV.com and essentially uses the same info; and www.timshaw.co.uk/, well, the claims that "Neg's Urban Sports have been seen by over 11 million people on YouTube." has not been verified by a creditable source, nor has it been verified by YouTube, or Google Inc., which owns YouTube; imdb.com is not reliable either as an artist or someone with an account could create a profile. nat.utoronto 19:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. So, are you basically accusing Channel 4 of making stuff up? The whole RS idea is to prevent hoaxing and posting of lies and false material and stuff that violates WP:BLP. I can't see corporate websites doing that. 23skidoo (talk) 23:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry, but when you are looking for information on television actors, television channel sites are usually a good starting point because believe it or not, they have information on televison and this is what this article is partly about . Also, what is wrong www.timshaw.co.uk this seems to be an independent, reliable, and verifiable third party source. imdb.com what is wrong with this site too, it also seems to be good source for actors. I have used television sites, since this is Neg Dupree's field. This does make sense if you think about it. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I have stated before imdb.com is not reliable either as an artist or someone with an account could create a profile. nat.utoronto 19:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well imdb.com is saying a similar thing to vivienneclore.com and you can not edit that site. Also im not really aware that Youtube report claims as you have mentioned, however take a look at this [6], this one clip has had over 885,000 alone. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and this one [7] over a million 1,073,000 plays, so i think we can belive the 11 million play count to be true Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) that would be assuming 2) Original Research. nat.utoronto 19:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - As well, vivienneclore.com is not an independent third party source as Clore and company have some sort of working relationship and or connection to Dupree and some of his fellow "Balls of Steel"ers. nat.utoronto 20:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - To be more precise, according to Neg's website, Clore is Neg's agent: [8]. nat.utoronto 21:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Im not using the original research to edit the page, im just showing you the youtube videos, to prove that the claim is true, as you doubted the claim. Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been re-listed on 2008-05-05 for further input. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only citatons are facebook, MySpace, IMDb, or otherwise unreliable. He has a few credits here and there, but not quite enough to meet WP:BIO yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:BIO and WP:RS. ArcAngel (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based upon the Balls of Steel involvment and citation by the official website of a nationally broadcast television network in the United Kingdom, unless someone can prove the Channel 4 website is posting bogus information in which case someone notify the UK broadcasting authorities. 23skidoo (talk) 23:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Reliable sources. Do you know me?...then SHUT UP!!! _{Sarcasm is beauty} 00:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for similar reasons as Bryan Pisano. Sgt. bender (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Subject seems semi-notable. I think there's enough there for a stub, but it needs some trimming. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 10:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, weak keep. I don't think much of this guy, but he seems to just creep over the notability line. There are citations to E4. However, the image is probably a copyvio. Stifle (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC) Sorry, I seem to have double-voted. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP the subject's appearances on Balls of Steel have gained a substantial following in the UK - on top of which, his segments routinely get around about a million views on Youtube - certainly making him a well known, albeit cult, figure. A useful page, although could be trimmed to stub. Benjaminski (talk) 14:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus to delete - Editors encouraged to discuss possible merger or to expand further. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse speech[edit]

I think this page should be deleted, as it is an advertisement for David Oates, who is mentioned in the article. The ideas of hidden meanings in reversed speech dates way beyond him, and it is covered in the Backmasking article. There is nothing significant in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Ellipso (talk • contribs)

Merge anything significant with the backmasking article. Doesn't look viable enough for its own article. 23skidoo (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with backmasking or at the very least redirect there, it isn't that worthless that it needs deleted. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per those above. It looks like a duplicate to me. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see the differences noted about intentional/unintentional, a better merge target might be phonetic reversal. If somebody could point out the difference between those two, I'd say keep, but right now I'm not sure of what sets them apart. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Backmasking is intentional, wheras reverse speech isn't, so I do not feel the two articles should be merged as they aer not a mirror of each other. ArcAngel (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment Backmasking is NOT always intentional, and in many famous instances of supposed backmasking (i.e. Stairway to Heaven and Revolution 9), the phenomenon is usually described as exactly what is being described in this Reverse Speech article. I don't think this article is needed, but the main complaint I have is that it is clearly an advertisement for David Oates and his website/machine. The ideas he talks about were around many many years before him. See any arguments of "satan speaking through backwards music" dating to at least the 1960s. If one were to make an article about David Oates along the lines of the Richard C. Hoagland article, I would have no objection, but I have a serious objection to this article as it is, and especially the focus on Oates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Ellipso (talk • contribs) 19:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why not substituting links to Oates by links to another source that u like better? --Homer Landskirty (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid if you removed the references to Oates, the article would disappear. I wouldn't mind the article being changed, I suppose. I actually have been fascinated with altered sound since I was a kid, which is why I'm so interested in keeping Wikipedia's coverage of this subject free of blatant charlatanism. To be honest, though, I'd still rather have the Backmasking article expanded to include more discussion of unintentional examples and perhaps a small section on the more supernatural theories, such as Aleister Crowley's ideas about it. If it is decided to keep this article, then I will certainly take a crack at improving it, though. Dr Ellipso (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because: i think too that "Backmasking" and "Phonetic reversal" (i can say "hello" backwards...) and "Reverse speech" r 3 different things... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, ad for an unimportant crank. WillOakland (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a fringe theory, this has received critical attention (article published in The Skeptic as well as International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law), along with broader articles such as Journal of Psychology. WHen combined with the press attention (NYT OCWeekly there's enough for an objective article. We do have articles on fringe theories that meet NPOV. --Dhartung | Talk 21:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a fringe theory that gets ripped apart in more than one scientific article. Or merge and redirect into whatever the article about "recognizing patterns where there are none" is called. Lars T. (talk) 23:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pareidolia is the article you are looking for. Λυδαcιτγ 04:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All in all, it appears to be a balanced article, with criticism and promotion referred to. It's been written about before; David John Oates didn't originate it, and the article may have a little bit too much about Oates, but that can be remedied. I agree that it's different from backward masking and phonetic reversal. Mandsford (talk) 23:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As I use the words, backmasking refers to the process of recording a reversible message (which I would assume to be deliberate) , whereas reverse speech is a proposed phenomenon that occurs unintentionally in all speech. I don't recall any suggestions that the "messages" in "Revolution 9" and "Stairway to Heaven" are products of the the unconscious minds of the Beatles or Led Zeppelin (they're either said to be intentional or suggested by the devil). And I've certainly never heard anyone say that humans emit backmasked messages in their speech every 15-20 seconds. Λυδαcιτγ 04:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Though I've heard humans who seem to emit backside messages every 15 to 20 seconds... it's very distracting... Mandsford (talk) 13:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep and discuss. as there seems to be a unsettled dispute about whether or not this subject is distinct from the related subjects, the things to do is to keep it for the moment, and let the people who understand the topic discuss a possible merge on one of the talk pages. This isnt the place. DGG (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a neologism attributed to David Oates, but there is no apparent independent verification of the use and meaning of this term. The article in question is promotional in nature. On the other hand, backmasking is a contraction of the original term backward masking, which was defined and discussed widely in the 1960s. Unless there is multiple independent verifications of the use and definition of "reverse speech" (as opposed to "reversed speech") outside of Oates (per WP:V and WP:RS), the term does not even merit a redirect. B.Wind (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete and salt by Jimfbleak, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GE Real Estate[edit]

This article has been recreated several times; the creator doesn't think it is a violation of WP:ORG or WP:ADVERT. Do we agree? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G11 as advertising, per tag placed on page already. Clearly blatant advertising. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of course the article creator wouldn't agree. It fails WP:ADVERT in my view. But it has just been speedied, so this Afd is now moot. ArcAngel (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cbrown1023 talk 16:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

===Jon Young=== is notable you retard While this person may have performed or helped sell mixtapes for other folks in the past, he is not individually notable under WP:MUSIC or any other bio guidelines I have read.

Delete per the rationale I've provided above (nominator). Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article makes no claim of notability, only notability claim relates to the artist $hamrock. Tnxman307 (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 02:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources indicates to me that the article fails to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not to be confused with John Young. Locally well-known, but mixtapes do not get him close to the notability bar under WP:MUSIC. B.Wind (talk) 03:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. A number of nominators commented that the ensemble passes WP:BAND, but there are no reliable sources whatsoever quoted in the article to prove this. To take the WP:BAND criteria in turn; they clearly don't pass 2,3,5,6,8,9,10,11 or 12. As for the remaining criteria (1, 4 or 7), they may pass any of these; but this would require third-party citations. There aren't any, therefore, reluctantly, the only option is deletion. Please contact me if you have such citations and would like the deleted text. Black Kite 00:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Tobasco Donkeys[edit]

No proof that this is a notable band. No reliable sources turned up in a third party seaerch, only album is self released it seems. (Not to mention they spelled "Tabasco" wrong.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. NN. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:BAND. ArcAngel (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: They did not 'spell Tabasco wrong'. 'Tobasco' is a brand of wood burning stoves which inspired the name of the group. Zybthranger (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:BAND. (Also they did spell Tabasco correct) Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The band is very important and well-known in the Scouting community. Disclaimer: I just added a lot of information to the article--Ubernerd68 (talk) 23:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - This isn't some garage band, it is an established folk band well-known in the scouting community. Additionally, as they are releasing a second album, they should pass WP:BAND. For those who say it fails WP:BAND would you care to elaborate on how exactly it fails? The article does need to be cited better, though. Justinm1978 (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 02:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Has had a charted hit on any national music chart - Of the two sources I checked (Billboard and AMG), I can only find Sawin' on the Strings listed, and according to Billboard, it didn't chart, which is why it fails WP:BAND. They may be well known within Scouts, but the notability factor is - are they known OUTSIDE of that? There are no outside, independent links such as reviews or news coverage in the article that establish notability. ArcAngel (talk) 13:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources indicates to me that the article fails to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Notable. --evrik ^(talk) 16:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Notable on several points of notability on the WP:BAND criteria. It does need better referencing, that's true, but not deletion. Wim van Dorst (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep: I think it meets notability (specifically WP:BAND #7, as it is the representative of the Philmont backcountry bands that most of the 21,940 participants experience during the summer), but it definitely has problems with citations from reliable sources. However, I think that this can be improved. I believe I've seen some reliable sources that mention them, but just like most of the Philmont stuff, there are not really any online sources. I think keep it but tag it for needing improvement, and if no reliable sources show up (which is going to take a bit of work), then there's not much of an argument for keeping it. Zybthranger (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:BAND #7 only applies if it meets other criteria, which to me, it doesn't. One needs to provide third party sources outside of Philmont before I am satisfied notability is established, as per my original opinion. ArcAngel (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:WP:BAND says "A musician or ensemble is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria". I believe it meets #7, therefore, it is notable, by WP:BAND. And while I agree that it needs better referencing, I see that as grounds for marking it as 'Needs Improvement', and not outright deletion, because I think sources can be found. Zybthranger (talk) 18:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a paradox to me. I interpret #7 as applying to itself. But how can it do that? ArcAngel (talk) (Review) 18:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Could you rephrase it? Zybthranger (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Notable. It does need better referencing, that's true, but not deletion.-Phips (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just saying that it's notable isn't helping any. I'm finding no sources whatsoever to prove that they even exist. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:As I said above, I'm pretty sure I've seen sources that meet reliable sources, but as with pretty much all Philmont-related stuff and most Scouting stuff that I've seen, there are really no online sources - pretty much everything is in print, which is why nobody is finding any when they search the internet. Zybthranger (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as for "no sources whatsoever to prove that they even exist", a quick search just found this and this which would seem to prove that they exist. Zybthranger (talk) 14:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What also isn't helping its cause is no one is providing the third party sources or news coverage needed to establish notability outside of Philmont and Scouts. ArcAngel (talk) (Review) 18:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of actual notability, no sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smooth Ricky Suave[edit]

This person has received little or no coverage in secondary sources Oore (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. The article has changed siginificantly since nomination so much so that my nomination is no longer applicable.. NonvocalScream (talk) 12:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darius Guppy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

I actually question the article notability. The page appears to be largely unbalanced and does not appear that it can be corrected. Reads like an attack page, and is just a mess of BLP issues. Notable for one event? Perhaps an article on the actual "robbery". Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This policy may be applicable here WP:ONEEVENT. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obvious notability for multiple events - dozens of references in news and books. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just seeing the one event in the lead, and some supporting information further down. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless we have much much better sources. Tese are thin and tabloidish, not sufficiently analytical and dispassionate. Guy (Help!) 18:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We may be sure that newpapers such as the Daily Mail checked their accounts carefully since British libel laws are quite severe. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep asserts notability, with reliable sources. Al Tally (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Coverage beyond the largest event is thin, but it's there. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reliable sources demonstrate the notability of the subject. "Tabloidish" is not a word I recognize from policy. --Dhartung | Talk 19:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, This is factual information which affects several leading members of the British Aristocracy, close members of the British Royal Family and also cleary atributed contacts of British Parliamentary contacts including the new Mayor of London from May 2008. How can a statement of facts, well substantiated and about to be very explicitely referenced be an attack??. This is a matter of the utmost public interest. User: Cj1340 21:12 5 May 2008 (BST)
Keep - Notability is not in question. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 02:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 02:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Darius Guppy is clearly notable. Coaststocoasts (talk) 06:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Was covered in Sunday Times among other reputable periodicals. By the way, my natural instincts would be to delete...Guppy is an alumnus of my old school, the Lycée Charles de Gaulle, and the bounder has rather let the side down, by Gad! Rhinoracer (talk) 10:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - enough third party sources to reference his notability, and expand the article. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 10:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cbrown1023 talk 16:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solovox[edit]

Current state of the article aside, because that could be fixed if it were a notable subject. I cannot make out whether the article is meant to be about a project of Carlton Tietze III or the artist himself but neither the project (false + galore) nor the artist appear notable. There's no evidence of RS coverage that relates to the person/project as opposed to the organ and other musical products and no evidence either passes WP:MUSIC. Talk to_Cari^{the Busy Bee} 16:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem notable Olaf Davis | Talk 20:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 02:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources indicates to me that the article fails to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW. Stifle (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newcastle United Transfers[edit]

No verifiable references for what is a self-declared list of trivia. Fails WP:NOT and WP:V. Also, should it help anyone, all of this information, should it be notable and verified, should appear in the relevant player/club articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. – Pee Jay 16:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. – Pee Jay 16:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 16:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY as list or repositorie of loosely associated topics. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Transfers should be included in Newcastle United F.C. season XXXX-XX. --Jimbo^[online] 17:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Jimbo above, info is already much better presented in the season articles. MickMacNee (talk) 17:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above reasons. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 17:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should appear in seasons articles not separate article NapHit (talk) 18:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic. It's just a whole bunch of information without any description. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 04:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Radio London Films[edit]

This page seems to be promotional and non-encyclopedic. The article was created by User:Tizes whos only other major contributions have been to create this page and include a sources consulted page for the aricle Hans Lollik Island where the first source consulted happens to be Bruce Randolph Tizes. There is also a huge lack of citations or sources on the page to which the user was notified on his talk page [9] to fix already which has not been addressed. Delete. Stubbleboy (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 02:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is promotional but the company maybe meet WP:ORG for notability [10]. If kept, it must be recicled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caiaffa (talk • contribs) 06:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless cleaned up with clear evidence of notability. Stifle (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. asenine ^{say what?} 20:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obsolete article which indicates "set for release in 2007". Red flags pop up when the only edits to this article since April 2007 are bot-driven removals of image links and the tag to this AfD. B.Wind (talk) 00:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cbrown1023 talk 16:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Braves-Mets rivalry[edit]

Article has few sources, and is basically uncited analysis. Article history goes back and forth between fans of both teams adding biased material. Not salvageable as written, and while the rivalry is notable TO Braves and Mets fans, is really non-notable as an encyclopedic topic. BillCJ (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsalvageable OR anyway you cut it. -Seidenstud (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Article is beyond repair, and the rivalry isn't notable. Tool2Die4 (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A few things. First, I agree with the nom in that the article as it now exists is mostly personal analysis, if it were to stay, it would have to be entirely changed. Second, this is a bit of a hard topic to do a quick internet search on. The term braves/mets rivalry exists in a few forms, but I'm not sure if that deems notability. Virtually every inter-division set of two teams has some level of rivalry with each other, but does that warrant an article for each one? Most of the rivalry info will just be a rehashing of important events in team history, which the notable ones will already be covered on the teams page or elsewhere. I would oppose outright, but I'm going to see if anyone can produce evidence that this specific rivarly is notable beyond any other similar rivalries. Right now I'm not seeing it. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into each team's article page. Not notable enough for its own entry. ArcAngel (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not much is mergable. More than likely, the few sourced items are already covered in some fashion on the team pages, though we may be able to add the citations to the relevant items there that might not as yet have sources. - BillCJ (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-- per above, although somewhat notable, I would agree that it is not notable to warrant its own article. Whatever is not OR can be merged into the team articles. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep If this article can be heavily re-written, I think it can be salvaged. I do think it is notable because there are millions of Braves and Mets fans. Coaststocoasts (talk) 06:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, original research and a magnet and excuse for an article about the 90 other equivalently non-notable rivalries between the other possible combinations of the 15 MLB teams. Stifle (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Redirected to soldier. Sandstein (talk) 07:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military man[edit]

This appears to be an OR essay -- it meets the definition of "original synthesis," and while it may make claims that are true it has languished unreferenced for 3 years (tagged since November 06). A quick search on Google scholar turned up nothing on point, but if this is a phenomenon identified in sociological or literary scholarship elsewhere (and notably) then I'd be happy to see it stubbed with a couple of references. Avruch^T 16:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Something like this could be sourced, although the fact that it hasn't been for more than a year suggests that it won't be. While it's a fairly good description of a stereotype, this qualifies as original research. Certainly, we should be willing to change comment if someone undertakes to improve the article. Mandsford (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research. Stifle (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete by KnightLago, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Battle DS[edit]

Article cannot contain any reliable sources since it does not exist. « ₣M₣ » 16:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G3 Blatant misinformation on a game that doesn't even exist. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cbrown1023 talk 16:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Triggerslip[edit]

Looks like a smallish local band without being known outside the area, hence non-notable. Many small bands have produced an album that haven't appeared on Wiki; it's being notable that warrants a place within Wiki. Drivenapart (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was unable to find any independent reviews from reliable sources. Fails all other criteria of WP:MUSIC. -Seidenstud (talk) 17:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the way it stands. If the EW article does exist, it could be cited, but until then, does not meet WP:MUSIC. Tnxman307 (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 02:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources indicates to me that the article fails to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was deleted as vanadalism by User:Kubigula. non-admin close SYSS Mouse (talk) 16:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Rezinski[edit]

This article seems to be blatant vandalism and borderline nonsense. The speedy deletion was contested because it contains references (which seem at least partially invented, unless you believe an autobiography was written by a 6 year old), however, so I'm nominating for deletion now. Thanks. Rnb (talk) 15:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. . On their own, the WP:USEFUL arguments are unconvincing. Also, every article is a work in progress, as this is a wiki; it does not follow from this that we must keep every article. WP:NOT#IINFO, on the other hand, is policy. Sandstein (talk) 07:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Top 10 best selling cars in Britain[edit]

Long, unsourced page that recently survived a Prod. Major problem: even if you source this (it currently has no sources, but apparently did have reasonable sources in the past, which is of course bizarre), it is still a pure violation of Wikipedia is not the place for "Long and sprawling lists of statistics". Fram (talk) 14:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I put the prod on it due to lots of OR commentary. The commentary was removed so I didn't take it further. Some, but not all, of the lists are sourced but I am very sceptical of Top 10 lists in general on Wikipedia. I know that list articles can be useful but I think that Top 10s are often arbitrary. Why not Top 7 or Top 13? I don't think that this is a particularly egregious example, but I think there is a strong case for getting all the Top 10 articles and deleting or rewriting any that can't show that the Top 10 list itself is notable (independent of the items listed). Rather than keep lots of stats in Wikipedia (where they are prone to vandalism) lets just reference other sources when we need to. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Eight of the 33 years are sourced, so where did the stats for the other 25 come from? I'll have to throw in a WP:IDONTLIKEIT caveat, because I don't like the way this is organized anyway. The "little flags" option gets overworked on Wikipedia, and this one takes up a lot of space. However, "I don't like it" isn't a reason to delete. Mandsford (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful encyclopaedic information Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 02:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 02:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This information may be available in specialist libraries, but it's not generally available elsewhere on the web. Those of us with decades worth of specialist magazines in the cellar probably have most of it ... somewhere, but would need six months of unbroken digging to dig it all out and correlate it. The information turns up year by year in press releases, but is ever more heavily spun (posh word for distorted) by interested parties, making the very simple truth ever harder to distill from the resulting press archives. The information is nevertheless of much interest to wiki contributors. Entries under the wiki automobiles project frequently refer to sales volumes of individual models. Such references are generally inadequately sourced and are quite often plain wrong - presumably (again) indirectly sourced to ambiguous press releases from interested parties. Wiki has an equivalent entry on the US auto market - though there the interest seems to be in sales by brand rather than by model (which I find less relevant, since it's the individual models for which the design and marketing investment take place - though that's a personal thing slightly off topic for this para.) There seems to be a sort of quiet snobbism that finds anything so sordid as which cars sold best somehow unencyclopaedic. But if the cars hadn't sold well you wouldn't have heard of them, and cars such as the Mini and Ford Escort - it for that matter the VW Golf - wouldn't get the high number of edits (presumably reflecting a higher number of readers content to leave the entries unimproved).

There are very obvious things about it which need to be improved. Past disputes seem to have left aspects of the entry pruned down to a lowest common denominator level in terms of quality. But if something needs to be improved, that is an argument for improving it: not for deleting it

Regards Charles01 (talk) 09:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the reasons for my AfD nomination (and looking back at it, I'm no longer so strongly convinced that I should have nominated it, but I'll let the discussion run its course), I can assure you that "snobbism" wasn't one of them :-) I do believe that "which cars sold best" is a truly encyclopedic subject, but we have List of bestselling vehicle nameplates and List of automobiles by sales for this (those really should be merged, as suggested). A similar list, but for only one country and per year, seemed to me to go away from the encyclopedic and towards the purely statistical though. I've worked a lot on List of best-selling books and List of best-selling fiction authors: I think these have their place here, but I would vehemently oppose an inclusion of a weekly bestseller list (worldwide or by country), even though these get published in many newspapers and so on. We have to draw the line somewhere, but opinions can obviously vary as to where to draw it. Fram (talk) 12:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've no wish to impugn (nor even to impute) individual motives - yours or anyone else's. My 'quiet snobbism' impression is more a general one which derives, I suspect, from the way that wiki contributors seem disproportionately to have academic / scholarly backgrounds: the ones most directly concerned with 'doing commerce' - sordid or otherwise - are mostly too busy doing commerce to have too much time for reading / contributing to Wikipedia. Hard to 'prove', but it's an impression that is a part of where I'm coming from with this for all that. I guess I'd probably better 'stop digging' before I get myself into trouble....

On which 'best sellers' lists ARE beyond the pale for inclusion, clearly weekly best sellers' lists of anglophone fiction are a long way the wrong side of any 'scope' line you care to set down: for annual lists there's most probably a good justification. Especially since wiki users are almost certainly more bookish than the wider population. For my money, the UK top ten auto-sales by YEAR are comfortably within the scope for inclusion here, because of the number of other article subjects for which they are relevant. As I wrote already, it seems to me that the commercial success or failure of individual auto models is a whole lot more relevant to other subjects than name plates, which for many multi-nationals have been little more than marketing tools for several decades now, starting with the Japanese automakers whose domestic language is pretty unfathomable to huge cohorts of their most profitable customers, e.g. in the US and Europe. By the same token, unless you are particularly numerate and have a detailed knowledge of how auto sales evolved over the years, knowing that the DKW F5 was one of the top three best selling cars in Germany in 1936 (if it was: I don't know though I suspect it was) probably puts it into much better context for the non specialist reader than being told that 60,000 were produced in slightly under two years.

Regards Charles01 (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge This is obviously a work in progress and can be left to mature over time per WP:IMPERFECT. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per entries 2, 3 and 6 at WP:LC. Stifle (talk) 21:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - both listcruft and quite an obvious exemplary case for WP:NOT - just because stuff exists, we don't put them in encyclopedias, do we? PrinceGloria (talk) 17:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Stifle, and PrinceGloria —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was } snow delete. Blueboy 96 21:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween (2011 film)[edit]

Fails future film notability guideline. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete per nom. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No solid information to base an article on at this stage. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This film can really happen. At least let it stand for a couple of months, and if no reference shows up then, then feel free. But for now, there are rumors going around that there will be a film. So please let it stay for a little while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themenace1990 (talk • contribs) - moved by Onorem♠Dil 14:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC) from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halloween II (2011 film) after a page moved messed up the link to this discussion [reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We don't have articles for things that could happen. --Onorem♠Dil 14:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No references, may be a hoax. Macy (Review me!) 14:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia isn't a rumor mill. If sources appear that confirm the upcoming nature of this film, then an article may be appropriate. ◄Zahakiel ► 14:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: The article has been renamed to Halloween II (2011 film). --DanielRigal (talk) 14:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Delete - If actual references (rather than rumors) show up, the page can be recreated. But right now, there's, as someone above me said, "no solid information." --AquaHaute (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with not a crystal ball. That would just be silly. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 15:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My reasons for deletion have been stated by others. I believe WP:SNOW applies here. Does anyone oppose this? SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No disagreement, there's no chance this will be kept. Ice it. ◄Zahakiel ► 18:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CRYSTAL. ArcAngel (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is purely based on rumors, and there is no body. Plus, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 18:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Just an infobox, no sources, no content. 23skidoo (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. No sources; too far in the future for even IMDB to have it. Way too much WP:CRYSTAL; if the film actually gets off the ground in a couple of years, then the article can be recreated. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the film actually comes into production, then create the article again. Until then no. Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice when the time comes. This is just way too far out, and we're talking about a film here, speculatively, not the Olympics. WP:CRYSTAL firmly applies. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. If sources can be found that make an analysis of this purported trend, it can be recreated. As it stands the article violates WP:NOR despite the sources provided. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aidan rhyming trend[edit]

PROD template was removed, so I have brought this here. The article is completely non-notable, and of no value to an encyclopaedia. The article is based entirely on one source. Article has been deleted before via an uncontested PROD. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 13:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is referenced with multiple sources, it is highly notable and it deserves to remain. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One swallow doesn't make a summer. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There are multiple sources observing the phenomenon, . I disagree that this is highly notable, but it has been commented upon in multiple independent sources. Although the NYT link is a blog, I do think that with the book and website that there is enough to keep the article. It also bears noting that the articles' author is an unusually prolific content creator, and there is a good chance that the article will continue to be improved. Xymmax (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if being addicted to Wikipedia and a "highly prolific content creator" is entirely admirable, but sure, I'd add to the article if I found other sources. I know the rhyming trend has been noted in several other sources, printed and on-line. The 2007 name stats for the United States are scheduled to be released later this week and my best guess is that there will be several more newspaper articles across the United States commenting on the popularity of these rhyming names, most of which could be cited as sources for this Wikipedia article. I didn't create the original article that was deleted, but I thought it deserved to remain and recreated it. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. One New York Times piece, and a mention in a book is hardly multiple sources. More like two. All the New York Times piece tells us is that parents are calling their kids Jayden a lot in New York. I don't know how much detail the book goes into, but so far the article just says that the trend is a "millennial megatrend". The other sources are just providing the numbers of children in the US named each variant. The thing is, parents call their children lots of names. Some years, some names are more popular than others. Trends come and go. The New York Times article says that most of the children in New York were called Michael (although beaten when adding up all the varients of Jayden). Would a Wikipedia article about the Michael naming trend be appropriate? No, despite the fact I bet I could find a ton of baby naming books telling me Michael is a popular name. There is simply nothing inherently notable about this "trend" and a couple of sources briefly touching upon the subject is hardly a a basis for an entire article. Furthermore, this article contains pretty much the same info as when it was deleted previously, and I also don't see what the article creator's track record has to do with the notability of the article. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually there are three sources: the Behind the Name Web site, the New York Times blog, and the book by Rosenkrantz and Satran. I can provide far more than that and will. There are multiple sources to be had. The United States Social Security Web site provides the exact same information on the top 1,000 names for 2006 that is referenced with the list on the Behind the Name Web site. And there is an already existing article Michael on the so-called "Michael naming trend" that you just dismissed and on the history of that name, as there are individual articles on Wikipedia about the history and popularity of hundreds of other names. There is also an article on the most popular given names worldwide. The study of Onomastics, or the study of proper names, is devoted to the study of such things as the Aidan rhyming trend and the use of other popular names. Want more sources? I can certainly find them, even though every sentence in that article as currently written is backed up with a solid reference, including popularity stats and commentary from name experts. This is a notable subject and a notable article. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt the validity of the statistics, but this simply isn't notable outside of the onomastics (thanks for the new word) world. As you noted, Michael deals with its popularity succinctly within the article - an entire article isn't necessary for this. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I disagree. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Laden with problems, may be the author's maiden attempt at an article, hopes for improvement are fadin'; as an alternative, maybe it can be merged to Aidan, although I seriously doubt the premise that people are trying to select names that rhyme with "Aidan" or "Brayden", no matter what the "Behind the name" website might claim. Certainly, that doesn't explain Barry, Mary, Kerry, Jerry, Larry, Perry, Terry, etc. I'm persuaded. Mandsford (talk) 17:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the article in question or the sources cited? And, by the way, this is not my "maiden" attempt at an article. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but your entire article seems premised on one sentence in a Seattle newspaper article-- "We'll call it the 'rhymes with Aiden' pheonomenon for boys". Articles about baby names are generally intended to be a fun part of the lifestyle section of a newspaper, and I think that you've taken the reporters entertaining comments more seriously than the reporter intended. What's next, an article about the "Ailey rhyming trend" for girls? The "Ashton" phonomenon? This isn't the basis for an entire article. Mandsford (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Colonel Warden. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's basically a trivia section entry, plus a big chunk of statistics. Further, while notability as measured by appearance in sources is necessary for inclusion, it's not sufficient (per WP:NOTE) and I just don't think this is encyclopedic enough. Olaf Davis | Talk 20:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article starts out by writing in circles: The names Aidan, Braden, Caden, Hayden, and Jaden and their many variants are currently extremely popular in the United States. Authors Linda Rosenkrantz and Pamela Redmond Satran referred to it as a "millennial megatrend" in their 2007 book The Baby Name Bible. The popularity of each of these rhyming names has also been increased by the popularity of similar sounding names such as Aidan, Braden, Hayden, and Jaden. (In other words, Aidan, Braden, Caden, Hayden, and Jaden are popular thanks to the popularity of Aidan, Braden, Hayden, and Jaden.) Then there are a few sentences of actual content, followed by a long paragraph of statistics that don't prove any kind of trend. (The existence of multiple names on a single year's baby name statistics doesn't show whether those names are going up or down.) I note from Template:Names in world cultures that Wikipedia doesn't seem to have an article about American trends in given names, and it probably should. If such an article existed, I could support a slight merge of the most useful content from this article into it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Aidan. Even if there were citations from leading broadsheets, I don't think it quite stands alone, but it's certainly notable enough to record the trends and comments within that article. The articles on other rhyming names can still have a sentence with a link to that section. Please tabulate the stats. - Fayenatic (talk) 06:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research and general trivia. Stifle (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Baby name trends? How exactly is this notable? TallNapoleon (talk) 03:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The popularity of certain names certainly can be considered an indicator of the culture for a particular place and time. The Social Security Administration objectively documents the frequency with which particular "monickers" are bestowed, by tracking birth certificate information. The question of "what did you name your child" is required information. On the other hand, there are no studies that ask, "Why did you name your child ______?". There are no studies about why any particular name is popular, nor would it be practical to poll a statistically representative sample of, say, parents who named their child "Aidan" or something that rhymes with that name. As such, an article or book about popular baby names can't be taken too seriously beyond the annually-released statistical information. Mandsford (talk) 13:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the people who write those books do conduct fairly extensive surveys, including "Why did you name your child such and such?" The authors of the book I cited did so of a few thousand parents. This information belongs somewhere on Wikipedia. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the information is relevant for the article Aidan, probably worth a mention in Braden, Caden, Hayden and Jaden, and certainly a relevant observation for an article about the most popular names for 2006. There's a difference between noticing a pattern, and documenting a trend. While I don't doubt that the book authors have asked parents generally about the reasons why they chose the name they chose for a particular child; and that some of those parents reported that they named their child Aidan and gave the reason why; it's still impractical to do a survey regarding a specific name, like Aidan, and unlikely that it has been done. Mandsford (talk) 16:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination, the original research issues have not been addressed nor does it appear they ever will (or can) be. (jarbarf) (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on a minute. Empirical observation is a cornerstone of science. An observation has occurred that names that rhyme with Aidan are common and may be becoming commoner. Well, so what? I think that Bookworm857158367 has done a pretty good job of attempting to write an article which describes and supports this observation, and backing it up with some numbers (I agree these require tabulation for clarity). It may be that only a very few people in the scholastic world think there is any importance to this observation, but surely Wikipedia is a place which has room for articles which are important only to a very few individuals. As it stands, I think the article is weak, but I think that improvements could be made. My judgment then? Keep but Improve. (I don't think the material should be merged with the Aidan article). Preacherdoc (talk) 09:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, you hold on a minute I can appreciate what you're saying, but one of the main principles of Wikipedia is "no original research". If you've contributed to Wikipedia for awhile, the concept is familiar; if you're new to Wikipedia, I can say that the concept took me awhile to adjust to when I first started contributing, and I think others have felt the same way. The official explanation can be found in WP:OR if you want to see what "they" say about it; my take on it is that it's alright to write about theories and observations that have been published elsewhere, with appropriate citations, but that one can't base an article about their own empirical observations. Granted, one will find plenty of examples of original research ("O.R." or "OR") that's tolerated, such as in one of the way too many articles about TV show episodes; granted, the article has sources including some that have commented that there are a lot of kids out there whose names rhyme with "Aidan". Where the "original research" comes in is in concluding that there is an "Aidan rhyming trend" or that there is an explanation for why Aidan, Braden, Caden, etc. are popular choices. After the band Looking Glass released their sole hit in 1972, there were lots of girls named "Brandy". Empirical observation may be a cornerstone of science, but there's no scientific study to be observed here. Mandsford (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My comments were not directed to you personally, Mandsford. I've been a Wikipedian longer than you have; there is no need to quote the rule book at me. In my view, Bookworm857158367 isn't providing OR (although it is clear s/he believes in what s/he is writing). I'm not saying this is a brilliant article. I am saying that I think it shouldn't be deleted until it's had a chance to be improved: hence my request to "hold on a minute". Preacherdoc (talk) 23:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a brilliant article either. It's a few paragraphs that I dashed off with the intention of adding to it later -- a stub, in other words, exactly like a number of other stubs on Wikipedia, but one I thought should not have been deleted in the first place. I also fail to see how it's "original research" when every sentence is backed up with a citation indicating that several other someones said it. If this is deleted, I'll be adding the information to the Aidan article. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 03:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The main claim in this AfD is original research, which isn't really necessary, since the phenomenon has been mentioned in multiple legitimate media sources. Crystallina (talk) 17:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's clear that sources have been added, the article has been refined, and that I misunderstood the article as being an attempt to explain why names like "Aidan" and "Braden" are popular. I think that consideration should be given to moving the article to a different name, since I think it implies that people are setting out to do "rhyming". For whatever reason, the increased frequency of names that contain the sound ā-dən is documented; and as the article demonstrates, if all of the variants were considered together, they would rank higher on the list. In today's paper (and probably in papers earlier this week) are the tops for 2007 in the USA: Jacob, Michael, Ethan, Joshua, Daniel, Christopher, Anthony, William, Matthew and Andrew, in that order; Emily, Isabella, Emma, Ava, Madison, Sophia, Olivia, Abigail, Hannah and Elizabeth, in that order. For the most part, last years top ten names are in the top ten this year, albeit not in the ame order. Mandsford (talk) 21:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what if its documented? You just listed a bunch of popular names. Do we have articles devoted to their popularity? Should we? No on both counts. Wikipedia is not a place to showcase every documented trend. This article is about as useful as one telling us that more dog owners are calling their pets Rover. There is simply nothing of interest here. In response to the "multiple legitimate media sources" above, a one line mention that names ending "en" and "an" are currently popular, or a two sentence paragraph stating "Aiden, Caden, Hayden are Jayden" are popular is hardly the basis for an article. In fact the NYT article states that the myriad of spellings of "Jayden" make it a top 10 name in New York City. Is that it? Thats hardly a revolution. The NYT article also mentions loads of other trends in baby naming - yet why is this one deemed more notable than the rest? And I still don't believe the Aidan rhyming trend is anywhere near up to scratch. The entire statistics paragraph is original research, as it take figures for one year and uses this as proof for a trend - pure OR. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 23:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The stats are cited and they are in existence at the Social Security Administration web site. It's not original research. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it is you who is making a trend out of these stats. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 23:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. I cited two or three newspaper articles that called it a trend and noted those names' popularity. Then I included the actual popularity of the different spellings of those names for 2006, located on the Social Security Administration web site. The 2007 stats are now available and those can be added as well. If I had compiled those statistics myself from local birth announcements and said it was a trend myself, THAT would be original research. This most decidedly was not. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 00:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep – i.e., not delete. There's currently no consensus as to whether this content should be merged with another article, but that discussion should take place on the article talk page(s). Sandstein (talk) 07:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Islamization of knowledge[edit]

The article does not cite any reference since May 2007, I commented twice on the talk page ([11] and [12]) about the absence of references, but no editors were interested to reply. Imad marie (talk) 12:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Islamic philosophy. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Islamic philosophy. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article does cite a reference: the book titled: Islām and secularism by Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas. Also the nominator "blanked" the article, ignoring this solid reference. See [13] The lack of understanding by the nominator regarding references and his or her odd blanking of the article makes me think that this nomination is not so legit. Has the nominator even read the article? Or just looked at its arrangement and not seeing a reference in the usual location decided to start making wild accusations and just behaving badly? --Firefly322 (talk) 14:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Yes, I do look for references in their usual location, where else should I look? Second, I didn't file this AfD until I posted two comments on the talk page and no editor was interested to reply. This is a controversial subject, if any editor wants to publish it, he should post references in their "usual location", and he should reply in the talk page. Imad marie (talk) 15:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The current references are obvious to anyone who even skims the article. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question Imad, could you explain why you blanked the article as remarked upon by Firefly above? Olaf Davis | Talk 21:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I blanked the page after I posted two comments on the talk page objecting on the lack of refs, and I got no replies. So I was under the impression that this page actually had no "owners" and that someone posted his WP:OR one year ago. What I did is that I deleted unreferenced material which I did not believe was wrong. Imad marie (talk) 06:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course no article has individual owners, but I suppose you mean people willing to improve it? Either way I think this AfD (or a prod if it were less controversial) is a better course of action than blanking the page. Olaf Davis | Talk 08:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep *Article is well referenced. I was able to find references and links to leading figures and their works via the article, including Ismail al-Faruqi, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Ziauddin Sardar, Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas. Analysis is decent. References are decent. Nomination for deletion is an overlooking of details at best. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot cite those guys directly. As far as I see, non of them qualifies to be WP:RS, if you want to cite them, you have to find reliable third-party sources that talks about them, which I don't see in this article. Correct me if I'm missing anything. Imad marie (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since they have their own articles, it is acceptable to quote them as a reliable source, as they are notable scholars. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep references look acceptable, but need cleaned up- they are included as text in part of the article (including the ISBN number of the book), rather than in a references section. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. References and searching show notability for this topic, although this may need attention from an expert and/or an editor fluent in Arabic. Some of the front half of hte article comes across as WP:SYN, which may be where Imad marie's objections arise. We can't write "this primary source says this, that primary source says that, and thus" because that's introducing synthesis. There are, however, sufficient secondary sources from which we could cite such connections safely. --Dhartung | Talk 21:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 02:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an important and notable subject. Coaststocoasts (talk) 06:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, does not seem to be specifically notable. Stifle (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Islamic philosophy, by having this page re-direct there. It goes without saying that only the content that meets WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV should be merged.Bless sins (talk) 20:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Marasmusine (talk) 11:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fierce Talon[edit]

Future game article that has no sources, lacks citations, and reads like an advertisement. Fails WP:N. Delete Undeath (talk) 11:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:COI and WP:V --Non-dropframe (talk) 15:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreleased therefore unreviewed, without multiple reliable sources independent of the game it doesn't pass notability and there's nothing to write an article with. The article can always be reinstated should the game a) be released and b) establish notability. Someone another 16:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - As per previous comments. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 02:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources indicates to me that the article fails to comply with the verifiability policy. See also WP:CRYSTAL. Stifle (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy keep - nomination withdrawn with no other delete "votes". Stifle (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grogg[edit]

Minor product of a small souvenir manufacturer in Wales. Has some minor mentions in news media but does not appear to meet WP:PRODUCT. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

I am trying to start a page on my hobby which is collecting Groggs. A Grog is a clay caricature made at John Hughes World of Groggs in Trefforest Pontypridd.

I am not having much luck with this as my page gets deleted as advertising or not being interesting enough so I am trying to find links to Grogg news articles to combat this. This is not easy however, as Grogg collecting is not really that news worthy and is hard to prove. There are probably only a few hundred serious Grogg collectors in the world. Although there are probably lots more people who own just one Grogg. They are very well known in the South Wales area and in Rugby circles.

The Grogg shop as it is known locally is a notable tourist attraction in Trefforest and has a small museum. this has been mentioned by another user on the Trefforest page on here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trefforest

Thanks.

Harris578 (talk) 11:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is the main problem. Although interesting, the subject of an article needs to be WP:Verifiable through the use of WP:reliable, published sources to be included on Wikipedia. Until such sources become available, a free web hosting service may be more suited to your needs. -- saberwyn 11:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most Grogg stories are carried by our local papers. The south wales echo, the Wales on Sunday, and the western mail. Are these good enough? They have an on-line presence in icwales. check this out this news article

http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/sports/grassroots/cynon-valley-sport/2008/04/10/rugby-memory-of-model-professionals-91466-20735108/

and also this wikipedia page on the South Wales Echo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Wales_Echo

Thanks.

Harris578 (talk) 11:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding sources: The Wikipedia articles are definitely not valid as sources. As for the news articles, they appear to pass the bar: if you can use them to prove the information in the article (see Wikipedia:Citing sources for some guidelines on how), the survival chances of this article will be improved. -- saberwyn 12:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Seems to be notable enough that the BBC has covered it as well as other press sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have links to these news sources in my article. Please could someone help me change them into proper references. once I have seen it done I will be able to copy the format and do it myself. To be honest I find the help pages on here difficult to understand.

Harris578 (talk) 12:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Andrew's sources look sufficient to pass the verification bar. RGTraynor 12:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I converted the html links to wiki citations, and based on the same it appears notable. Who knew? Xymmax (talk) 13:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very niche product for sure, but notable nonetheless as evidenced by the sourcing. Small production numbers don't make something non-notable in collection world, quite the opposite is usually true. Nice work Harris578. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Great point, Keeper--a Ford is no more notable than a Porsche, although the former's production is higher. Otherwise, the article is verifiable and has been covered in secondary sources which serves to establish notability. Lastly, the article is written in a concise NPOV manner. Lazulilasher (talk) 15:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your positive comments. I will work hard to make this page informative, accurate and interesting.

Harris578 (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article cites several sources, including the BBC and NewsWales. Tnxman307 (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is now sourced. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 20:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 02:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Deleted by Trusilver. (non-admin closure) ◄Zahakiel ► 21:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plain hair[edit]

Possibly original research, possibily a hoax, either way it is completely unreferenced; recommend deletion on grounds of WP:V. Marasmusine (talk) 11:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete I had it down as a speedy, the giveaway, for me, was "was coined in 1976, by an anonymous student." --Richhoncho (talk) 11:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to comprehend your reasons for wanting this informative and helpful page removed from Wikipedia. As one of a dying breed of plain hair fanboys and club members in the early 1980s, I can testify to plain hair being both a style and a hobby. And, Richhoncho, please explain why that is a giveaway.Ilikephish (talk) — Masterofthedarkshadow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 11:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I stated my reason: It is unreferenced.Marasmusine (talk) 11:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plain Hair is a topic not commonly covered on the Internet. References are extremely scarce because Plain Hair almost completely died out as a culture before the use of Internet became common, and many people forgot about it. CaptainHigdon has done us all a favour by remembering this lifestyle and bringing it into the present with an Internet reference on Wikipedia.Ilikephish (talk) 11:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This onus is on the contributor to say where he got his material from. It doesn't matter if it was from the internet, or from a 50 year old magazine. If the information was just "remembered" (or "made up") then it needs to be removed. Marasmusine (talk) 12:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of citations from reliable sources which causes the article to fail to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete patent nonsense. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked for sources, but am unable to find some on the internet. However, the term plain hair was featured in a hair-guide I once read. I tried to find this on Wikipedia, but was unable to. Personally, I think this article should not be deleted until we can be sure it is a hoax. (RampagingWang (talk) — username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 11:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I am unsure as to why deleting this article is even an issue. Plain hair is a term that is used often in my community, usually in jest, and occasionally in serious converstaion to describe someone with that paticular style of hair. Though I have not read all of the information on the page before, niether have I read anything on the topic to contradict it.Hazzzzz (talk) 11:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC) — Hazzzzz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
If the content of the article can be proven (i.e. made WP:Verifiable) through the use of WP:multiple, reliable sources by the end of the deletion discussion (normally 5 days from the date the discussion was opened), it should pass the inclusion bar per Wikipedia's WP:Policies and guidelines. If this is not done, this is to be interpreted as a delete. -- saberwyn 11:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sorry, this sounds suspiciously like something dreamed up in school one day. There are zero hits on the UK Google for the allegedly influential "Society for Plain Hair Protection," no signs that this style actually exists, and no sources tendered. "[I]t is only properly recognised as plain by qualified plain hair enthusiasts" ... ? I'm bemused enough to wonder what qualifies as "qualified." Beyond that, I note that User:Hazzzzz's contribution list shows him creating the user page for User:RampagingWang, both of whom (as well as User:Ilikephish and the article's creator) are SPAs created yesterday. All four posted to this discussion within a span of sixteen minutes, with at least one case of buffing up another's post. I strongly recommend the chap responsible take a look at WP:SOCK. RGTraynor 12:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for there being no Google hits is because the "Society for Plain Hair Protection" does not have a website. The current owners of the society are looking into the creation of one at this point in time, to spread the knowledge of plain hair. The reason that i know this valuable piece of information is that my father Robert Taylor is one of the owners of the society, When he gets in later i will talk to him about the creation of a website, so that sources can be provided for the information stated on the Wiki article. Masterofthedarkshadow (talk) 13:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC) — Masterofthedarkshadow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Dreamed up in school one day? I think not. I cannot believe that you would even consider this. Somebody has tried to make an article on a true thing which is around in the area I live in, and you dare to say we dreamed it up in school? Ridiculous. (RampagingWang (talk) 14:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

But which reliable sources assert this, and its notability? The society's own website wouldn't be one because it wouldn't be independent. WilliamH (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do have an article from 'The Sentinel' newspaper with me now, dated May 11th 2001. It is about the SPHP. Unfortunately, the article is not on the sentinel website and I understand scanning it would be illegal. (RampagingWang (talk) 14:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Not to worry. I'm in touch with the Sentinel's archival department, and I'll get a copy of said article. RGTraynor 14:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... or I would have if it existed, which according to the Sentinel it does not. RGTraynor 17:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Doubtless this is why I was unable to obtain a copy through Nexis despite unbroken coverage back to 1998. Xymmax (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me you didn't actually look this up. Just read the article, it's plainly nonsense (or possibly someone's silly inside joke) even at a glance. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whatever its other flaws, for me one stands out: the article nowhere describes what "plain hair" is, what it looks like, how it could be recognized, what makes it differ from other hair styles. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Patent nonsense. If the SPAs that have commented want to find reliable sources for the proposition, no prejudice to recreating the article later. I cannot find any such source. Xymmax (talk) 14:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as above. Good riddance. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Plain delete - If it's not a hoax, it ought to be... if it's not nonsense, it sure reads like it. No sources found, even after attempts were mentioned as being made. ◄Zahakiel ► 18:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources. Almost certainly WP:MADEUP, especially seeing the number of SPAs commenting here. Highly suspect they found out about it here. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt it. Per the above link, it seems highly suspect it originated from there. Clearly a made up term and/or inside joke. WilliamH (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. WillOakland (talk) 19:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax being pushed by timewasters who are probably enjoying seeing us waste our time--Doug Weller (talk) 20:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete as a non-notable website per WP:CSD#A7. --jonny-m t 02:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fotoalbum.eu[edit]

This page looks like spam. There are also problems with notability: Google returns less than 30k pages to this site. Photoact (talk) 10:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One of many non-notable photo sharing websites. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CORP. --Non-dropframe (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article was AfDed when it was about an hour and a half old. The creator is an SPA, however. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, promotional spam to boost their traffic. Doctorfluffy (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 02:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an advertisement created to boost traffic and created by a single purpose account. No reliable sources. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD:A7 and G11. So tagged. Stifle (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Credit Home Mortgage Loan[edit]

Seems to be a home-spun essay of mortgage advice. SGGH ^speak! 09:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a how-to guide and this is unsourced original research. JohnCD (talk) 10:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research. Stifle (talk) 10:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete As per previous comments. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The topic is already covered in the article Bad credit. Most of it is unsourced original research. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 23:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and an original research essay.-- danntm ^T _C 23:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Original research. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete.

The headcount is slightly in favour of deletion, but not overwhelmingly so. On the "delete" side, I'm first discounting several spurious opinions, such as Ecoleetage's unreasoned "speedy delete". Most others make references to WP:NOTDIRECTORY, a policy that prohibits "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics" and WP:TRIV, a guideline that says: "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous facts." I find these rules to be applicable here. The article is a long bulleted list of appearances of various deities from various mythologies in all imaginable forms of media, mostly in the form of "X has appeared in Y" and listed in no apparent order within each section. Furthermore, most of the content is unsourced since the article's creation in February, giving rise to WP:V issues (even though most content can probably be verified from the cited primary sources).

The "keep" arguments do not adequately address these serious issues. WP:5P explicitly makes exceptions for WP:NOT content (Le Grand Roi); the problem is not the name but the content of the article (NickPenguin); "the crufters need somewhere to play" is not a reason to keep the perceived cruft (Yamara); "source further" is not a solution to the general incoherence of the article (DGG).

After weighing the strength of the arguments, therefore, I find that consensus is to delete this article. Sandstein (talk) 08:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time and fate deities in popular culture[edit]

The way to deal with bloated trivia sections in articles is to prune them, not to sp[lit them out into whole new "articles" comprised of nothing but trivia, especially when much of it is unsourced and appears to draw novel syntheses from other sources. Oh, and redlinked bands are not a good sign either. Guy (Help!) 09:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of trivia. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as written, though it's certainly possible that a few of these are notable enough to appear in the respective deities' main article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —Lenticel ^(talk) 12:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Deor (talk) 12:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see Wikipedia:JUSTAPOLICY. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete As per previous comments.Ecoleetage (talk) 14:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Lists (discrminate and organized list of notable subjects) and per Wikipedia:Five pillars ( notability to a real-world audience, verifiable, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning fictional topics with importance in the real world). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could explain exactly how these lists are discriminating (as opposed to including whatever scraps of dubious relevance anyone was able to come up with) and in what way they are organized (in particular, what the putative relationship between "time deities" and "fate deities" might consist in). Deor (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article only concerns specific time and fate deities with specific appearances in specific media. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think you could. Deor (talk) 18:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to have proven that sentiment wrong. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am highly sympathetic to this article, but without references that show that associated with time and fate dieties across cultures have been studied as a unit, the subject of this article inherently creates an original synthesis. If such references are found -- note, even if the studies do not explicitly deal with popular culture -- then grouping these dieties is no longer synthesis and this list then becomes a spinoff of a (possibly not yet written) article about the set, and how such deities are alike and different in various cultures. If such references are found within the 5-day discussion period, I'll !vote keep; if not, then the various sections should be merged/copied to the invidivual diety articles. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone didn't work hard on this. This is the result of me pruning all the miscellaneous crap from a bunch of other articles. And that is why it is a mess. IIRC I sorted it out a little, but there was a lot of redundancy there. There are other similar articles to this, and while I'm no really in favor of them, I think it's better to have the trivia separated from the actual article, particularly when the trivia overwhelms the article. I don't actually care if it's deleted. (I delete a lot of trivia myself)Andy Christ (talk) 21:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's been awhile since I've seen an ipc article nominated. Someone worked very hard on this, but it's a mess on several levels-- trying to combine the "Three Fates", "Father Time", "Janus" and other mythical characters that fall in the Wikipedia Category of "Time and Fate Deities"; listing every reference in a movie, book, or game to one of the characters; and throwing in unsourced statements (maybe Anakin Skywalker was named for a Greek goddess, but I've never heard that one before). Like Quasi, I'm not inclined to vote keep either. 72.151.55.27 (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Article is in the process of a revision. Nominated version versus current version. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trivia list articles inherently violate WP:TRIVIA by encouraging that which should be discouraged. WillOakland (talk) 19:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Feel free to read WP:TRIVIA and show me where it gives a valid reason to delete this article. Discouraged doesn't not mean forbidden, and citing a style guideline to support the deletion of content is not a strong argument. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 21:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, the mindset I've come to know all too well—that trivia lists can be "discouraged" (wink) by creating separate articles for them to grow. If you think that is what the guideline means then something is wrong with your mind. WillOakland (talk) 06:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought that "discouraged" in this context meant "someone can delete this content if they really want to, but if it looks like it might become otherwise useful in the future, it's better to keep it around and let other editors work with it". That might be a bit of a stretch, but I certainly think that this could be the start of a much more informative article, if it sticks around. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 11:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, just a massive trivia farm with little to no value. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivia, OR, etc.--Doug Weller (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, list of trivia and original research. Doctorfluffy (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and change name I think we are failing to make the distinction between the article content, which can be changed by clicking the edit button, and the article subject, which is what AfDs are supposed to be about. Right now this article seems to be a bare list of examples, but the subject seems notable, if a little poorly defined. Part of the problem with this article is it's name, and it would make more sense to have a articles focused on either Time or Fate deities, since they are clearly two different things. Or perhaps something a little more notable like Greek and Roman deities in popular culture. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 21:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Time and fate deities are not "clearly two different things", as they share a category (Category:Time and fate deities) and many ancient deities have offices that "clearly" overlap. (How can fate be separate from time?) As for my vote on the article, see below. --Yamara ✉ 07:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Really? I suppose that makes a certain amount of sense, but it's not a connection that comes intuitively to me. Must be something wrong with my mind :P --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 11:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Other than violating citation guidelines and perhaps some OR, I see no reason to delete this article. The subject is in fact, notable... and just because an article needs work doesn't mean it should be deleted. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 04:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strategic Keep I favor methods that work. User Andy Christ says above he used the article as a dump for listcruft. Bully for him, I say; I did the same on Immortality in fiction. The crufters need somewhere to play, or they return more readily to the serious articles. This is non-trivial reasoning and action that benefits Wikipedia. I've seen it work any number of times. --Yamara ✉ 07:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken, it's quite simple to keep the crufters from coming back: Prosify or delete the trivia section. WillOakland (talk) 07:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And how do these trivia sections keep coming back? Why, the unending tide of crufters unwilling to stay in the sandbox, of course. Please don't pretend that this kind of Prohibition works on a wiki than invites anonymous IPs from elementary schools to edit its articles. I would far rather they had their own pages clearly marked "...in popular culture" or "...in fiction" than have to spend the manhours watching every article. Seriously, I'm going to be one of the people having to do this to the dozens of articles of Time and fate deities, instead of letting this one be a harmless crufttrap. No thank you. I reject the additional drudgework and aggravation you recommend for me. STRONG KEEP. Who knows, maybe they'll even get an article out of it. --Yamara ✉ 08:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in my experience the sections typically return by someone (often an admin) quickly reverting their removal as "vandalism." In those cases where I've been able to sneak the deletion under the radar I don't see them come back. You have said outright that the material doesn't belong here but you want the article kept anyway. I hope the closing admin considers this. WillOakland (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's now Wikipedia:WikiProject Popular Culture, of which I am a member, which seeks to improve IPC type articles. We are just finishing an assessment drive, and we have quite a few articles under our scope that we can work on. The charge that no one is concerned with these types of articles is no longer strictly true, it is now an issue of time and perhaps fate. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 11:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all articles on "in popular culture" as inherently unencylopedic. Stifle (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Popular culture is a valid field of academic study with many books written on the subject. To dismiss all "pop culture" articles as "unencyclopedic" is dismissive and contributes nothing to the debate. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 21:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not merely a pop culture article, it is a a pop culture list article that, like so many others, has been created by dumping random trivia rather than referring to any academic studies. WillOakland (talk) 06:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You speak the truth. But just because you don't like something doesn't mean it should be deleted. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 06:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What??? I said the article should be deleted because it was created in blatant violation of a guideline, not because I "don't like" it (although I don't). WillOakland (talk) 03:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well there you go. Guidelines are just that... a guideline. We don't delete articles for violating guidelines, we delete them for violating policies. BTW, my meaning of the word "you" was the generic "you" which wasn't a reference to you personally. I never meant to imply that "you" stated that "you" didn't like pop culture articles, but since you have clarified your stance on the issue, it seems the misdirected attribution was appropriate in this case. Thanks. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 04:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDIRECTORY ("lists … of loosely associated topics") is a policy, however. Deor (talk) 04:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time and fate deities listed in an organized and coherent fashion is hardly "loosely associated". Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and source further. Certainly consider a split--there seems to be enough material here for several articles. Deletion is hardly an appropriate response to an article that is too long. Of course, the consensus is clearly against the comment just above--many IPC articles have been kept at AfD, and some are already fairly well sourced. I note it takes much longer than 5 days to deal properly with an article like this, but it would go faster if the people wanting to delete would instead help to improve. DGG (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Stifle's comment above. Just because it says "popular culture" in the title doesn't make it an actual referenced study of same. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nor does it make it automatically "unencyclopedic", which is a vague and subjective term. "All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings." - Denis Diderot explaining the goal of the Encyclopedia "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." - Jimmy Wales explaining the goal of Wikipedia Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, being "popular" doesn't necessarily make something unencyclopedic. But being unreferenced trivia does. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 23:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article is referenced and trivia is encyclopedic. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well lets be fair, the whole article isn't referenced. However, references for many of these can be drawn from the primary source. I tagged the article with ((Unreferenced)), which addresses some of the articles needs. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 01:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"References for many of these can be drawn from the primary source," in the sense that it can be established that many of the bits of trivia can be established to be accurate, in a sense. But for the article to satisfy WP:V, it has to be established, via reliable sources, that statements like "In the manga Ansatsu, Janus is the eighth Child in a series of bioweapons created for terrorist work" have some relationship to "time and fate deities," which is, I think, a higher hurdle to leap. Deor (talk) 01:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG and Le Grand Roi. The article is factual, interesting, and well-sourced. GlassCobra 03:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keepsies - per DGG and Le Grand Roi - there will be ample sourcing for this material. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 07:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alien RPG (working title)[edit]

Clearly fails WP:CRYSTAL. Games that are in development do not get their own article unless there is a very, very good reason--i.e., lots of publicity. No assertion of notability. This game barely even has its own website. When it's released, maybe it can get an article--not until then. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Reads like an advertisement, too. JohnCD (talk) 10:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL. Macy (Review me!) 14:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - Sometimes unreleased games are notable enough to get an article, because there's a little bit of news out there to describe them. But this is in such a primitive stage that it really can't pass any notability test, and has clearly devolved into WP:CRYSTAL. Randomran (talk) 20:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no way that this article should be kept, or not at least until it actually has a name. Coaststocoasts (talk) 06:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:CRYSTAL. Stifle (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:CRYSTAL as well. Chris M. (talk) 05:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. nneonneo ^talk 21:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep as redirect to The End's Not Near, It's Here ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Rose Cohen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Fails notability per WP:FICTION and WP:SOAPS. A character who made a short appearance in a s single episode. Article contains no real world information. In the first nomination the only reason it was kept it was that Wikipedia in not paper. After a year notability was not established. Magioladitis (talk) 09:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Magioladitis (talk) 09:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would there be a relevant episode article to redirect to as a plausible search term? -- saberwyn 10:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the character appeared in more episodes that would make perfect sense. But for a character who appeared in a single episode? I don't think so. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that redirecting a character to a single episode article does make sense, because people searching for the character will be automatically taken to the venue of her sole appearance. But its a matter of opinion. -- saberwyn 00:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:FICT for lacking any relevant out-of-universe content, and for a character of an infant appearing briefly in the series finale, none will be forthcoming. That really does look like a botched initial AfD, where almost without exception, the Keeps were "Keep per Matthew" and nothing else, parroting the fellow who gave no grounds to keep beyond "WP is not paper" and "This is a notable character." Based upon what definition of notability? RGTraynor 14:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The End's Not Near, It's Here. Catchpole (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Catchpole. If the series was continuing there might be a rationale to keep, but there isn't. This is not a keep vote. Stifle (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & RGT. No real-world content or context. I think a redirect is probably superfluous given the point raised above by Magioladitis. Eusebeus (talk) 13:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The End's Not Near, It's Here. If this character only appeared in a single episode, and given how short the article is, I support a redirect. And WP:FICTION is not even a guideline and WP:SOAPS appears to be outdated as well, saying "All soap-related articles, and character articles in particular, must meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for fiction." --Pixelface (talk) 15:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per clear consensus in previous discussion and fact that it cannot "fail" WP:FICT, which says, "references or links to this page should not describe it as 'policy'." Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect -- GRC, think for a bit. Read the article. This is about as minor a character as there is--no active role in the plot, one episode, end of the run. A redirect in this sort of case is an excellent example of a compromise way to do it. I understand the temptation to fight the deletionists every time they raise their heads, but some things are simply not worth separate articles. DGG (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Quite. What distinguishes the inclusionist / deletionist approaches from the knee-jerk partisan tribalism infecting such things in general is, well, not being knee-jerk about it. I'm sure I'd be counted as a deletionist, but if an article has good sourcing, that's an end to it; I've changed to Keep twice today upon the same. By contrast, I can't figure how the most radical inclusionist could claim that there are reliable, non-trivial sources about this character, what real-world context could possibly exist about her, or in what fashion and by what standard the character can be called notable. It bothers me when I see an AfD vote go a certain way, and shake my head and say "Well, it's that editor, what the heck else does s/he vote, no matter the evidence or lack thereof?" RGTraynor 21:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are a few accounts who only post to delete and who have even outright said that they are unwilling to argue to keep, whereas I have argued to delete on numerous occasions as seen at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions. I'm not incidentally opposed to a redirect without deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

summary i think something remarkable just happened. Except for Eusebeus and the nom, we have unanimous consensus here for a redirect. they dont want the redirect, but thats for the talk page of the article, or perhaps for Rfd. DGG (talk) 16:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the closer of the first one, I don't even see a need for a redirect to an individual episode. It's getting awfully bureaucratic. As least there's consensus on the non-notability though. Wizardman 17:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy redirect to psychosomatic. Stifle (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Psychosomantic[edit]

Contested PROD. Original research essay about an unsourced neologism. There are Google hits, including references to a "Journal of Psychosomantic Research", but they are all misprints for "Psychosomatic", or else people on blogs saying things like "damn. my lame spelling of psychosomantic went through before I could catch it. but maybe i just invented a new word... " JohnCD (talk) 09:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:This isn't even a word. I feel like a tourist (talk) 10:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up in one day. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to psychosomatic as it is a plausible typo. --Itub (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to psychosomatic as a neologism but plausible misspelling. Olaf Davis | Talk 21:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nominator: I support a redirect. The number of times Google throws it up as a typo for "psychosomatic" shows it is a plausible mis-spelling. JohnCD (talk) 21:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to psychosomatic as a plausible misspelling. Searches don't confirm the word as a notable neologism. — scetoaux (T|C) 21:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: As stated by others, this word only exists as a misspelling for a word that already has an article. This article is horrendous. I feel like a tourist (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. In fact, I think I'll do that now. Stifle (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 15:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan dogman[edit]

This article looks, from the original source site, to be a hoax [14], but of course a notable hoax can still have an article. However, there's no article on Snopes, nothing on Google News, a couple of mentions in books of dubious merit, nothing on Scholar, and none of the regular Google hits (and certainly none of the supposed sources cited in the article) amounts to a reliable source. I believe this fails WP:V as we can't tell whether it's fact or fiction and have no credible sources to help us along the way. Guy (Help!) 09:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the song release date (April 1, 1987) tells you all you need to know. Anecdotally, while I can attest to the Odawa/Chippewa shapeshifter reference as being legit, the claim that this is a longstanding Northwestern Michigan legend strikes me as dubious. I grew up not 50 miles from Traverse City and never once heard any such legend. Nor have I heard anything since moving back (and we've lived through 2 'x7 years since coming back). Delete as non notable hoax/self publicity attempt. Perhaps if the book had an Amazon rank higher than 1.2M ??? ++Lar: t/c 09:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the fact that it's published by Amazon's self-publishing imprint is also pretty telling. Guy (Help!) 19:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Almost by definition fantastic creatures are hoaxes. What makes them notable is the level of penetration the story has achieved in popular culture. There appears to have been a significant spike in interest in September 2007, however, I'm not finding too much after that and there are no notable secondary or tertiary sources. I would normally come down on this as a weak keep, however the fact that this looks like a case of viral marketing swings me the other way. See http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/exit-wolfman/ and http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/gable-film/ Debate (talk) 21:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable hoax. JuJube (talk) 14:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn hoax. Stifle (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax.-- danntm ^T _C 00:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, hoax article. (jarbarf) (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cbrown1023 talk 17:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wellington Phoenix FC results[edit]

Contested prod. Original concern was "Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. Furthermore, this information is already included in the club's 2007-08 season article." Prod was removed without explanation. – Pee Jay 09:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. – Pee Jay 09:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to delete this, then you can delete every other page about Football Records and previous results. Also, just because inof is listed elsewhere doesn't mean it should be deleted. Or else everypage on wikipedia can be deleted, as they're all made up of information from other sources. CipherPixel (talk) 09:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A comprehensive list of one club's results is not appropriate. Such a list could become infinitely long, and so would have to be split into several smaller articles. Fortunately, we already have a natural split in that we have individual season articles. Check and mate. – Pee Jay 09:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - There is information here not in the other article. - Shudde ^talk 09:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not much though. Only the LA Galaxy game is missing from the 2007-08 season article. – PeeJay 09:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's something though, just don't want to lose that. So merge and redirect. After a couple of seasons a list can be started List of Wellington Phoenix seasons so everything is easy to access. - Shudde ^talk 10:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's a plan right there. We've got a good system going here. – Pee Jay 10:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What a load of rubbish. Is Wikipedia not something you should be able to use to look up any number of things? You might as well nominate some of my other results pages i've started despite that information being damn near impossible to otherwise easily find on the internet.--IanRitchie (talk) 09:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I have already said, the information on this page is already listed in the club's 2007-08 season article, and I'm sure there will be a 2008-09 season article for the Wellington Phoenix, so any further results can go in there. There really is no need for this list. – PeeJay 10:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - And the harm in collating that information in one place?--IanRitchie (talk) 11:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Such an article could end up being infinitely huge. It's not appropriate. – PeeJay 11:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - And?--IanRitchie (talk) 11:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        And now you're obviously just being petty because an article you created has been nominated for deletion. – Pee Jay 12:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and this is not encyclopedic. It has been established before. Punkmorten (talk) 13:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm wholly at a loss to figure out the problem of the Keep proponents. This information is duplicated in its entirety in the appropriate season articles, and those articles are linked from the Phoenix's article. Is there a WP:IWROTEIT essay? RGTraynor 13:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Punkmorten. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 16:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Punkmorten and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. JohnCD (talk) 21:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge After one season there is nothing here that is not already in the Season page. Mattlore (talk) 07:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To everyone who has suggested that the two articles be merged: are you suggesting that the articles be merged and then this one deleted, or should this article become a redirect to some other page? I would recommend the former. – PeeJay 07:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing to merge anyway, is there........? ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Wellington Phoenix season 2007-08 page doesn't mention 'the Beckham game' - which it probably should no matter if this page is deleted or not Mattlore (talk) 08:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a sports almanack. Stifle (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have now added the match against Los Angeles Galaxy to the 2007-08 season article, so now the two articles are exactly the same except for their structure. – Pee Jay 18:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article - a non-notable list of match results. Information, however, could be merged to the corresponding article before deletion, if necessary. AR TYOM 10:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I oppose virtually almost all nominations for deletion, but this is really just information that doesn't belong on wikipedia, althrough it could be merged in some form or another. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 00:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cbrown1023 talk 17:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo Lacana[edit]

Child actor starring in an independent film titled "Tall as Trees". I'm not really sure whether this satisfies notability, and the article is poorly written. Nominating for AFD in hopes that the article will either be substantially improved or removed. Abstain. --Kravdraa Ulb (klat • sbirtnoc) 09:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: seems to be a shameless plug for a non notable film. I feel like a tourist (talk) 09:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First of all, most of the article has been cut-and-pasted from here. Second, the subject presented in the title of the article fails notability criteria for entertainers. Third, this article isn't about the actor at all! It's a previously mentioned copyvio mini plot description about an independent film which by itself also seems to fail Wikipedia:Notability (films). In conclusion, the article is non-encyclopedic. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 02:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no idea what this article is on about. Stifle (talk) 21:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cbrown1023 talk 17:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Free Lunch Comics[edit]

Non notable company, fails WP:CORP. None of the artists or comics from this company have their own article, they are a typicla small press publisher without indepth articles in reliable sources, major awards, ... 118 distinct Google hits[15], no Google news hits[16]. The google hits verify that the company exists, but not that it has received any major attention. Fram (talk) 08:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Seems to be just getting their foot in the door and aren't particularly notable yet. Doesn't pass WP:CORP at this time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 13:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it just about fulfils WP:V but is a long way of from WP:N and especially WP:CORP. I've seen better known comic publishers that did more. It is possible that it could be improved or more sources found later so I'd not be against it being restarted at some point when that information can be collected. Perhaps sandbox the current entry if this is deleted and work on it there. (Emperor (talk) 13:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources indicates to me that the article fails to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 21:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Masked Squirrel[edit]

unnotable comic strip. brew crewer (yada, yada) 08:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unverifiable and utterly non notable. Fram (talk) 08:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--totally unreferenced and non notable. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be WP:MADEUP; article creator appears to be a sock-vandal based upon the creators other edits at Yorkville, Illinois (where another SPA and IP keep repeating his edits). JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 02:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the above reasons. Could qualify for WP:SNOWBALL. (Emperor (talk) 03:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete Only 19 results on Google as of now. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 04:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources indicates to me that the article fails to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 21:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. All relevant arguments have already been made and there is nothing further I could add. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Secret Squirrel is notable, but this character is not. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. However, as iridescent has found valid sources, I'm closing as keep with cleanup rather than relisting. Bearcat (talk) 06:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Lau[edit]

Interior designer. First article by this author. Reads suspiciously like an advert. Is she notable? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and note that this appears to be a WP:COI/self-promotion case. An even worse version (now deleted) was created by User:Amylaudesign a couple days ago. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried to CSD it as G11 a few days ago, but the request was declined. ArcAngel (talk) 13:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the article can be improved by taking out the unneccesary links, and adding in more references that establish notabiltiy, that could persuade me to change my opinion. ArcAngel (talk) 14:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the admin who declined the speedy delete request. Unreferenced does not equal unreferencable and this one does seem pretty easily fixed, and apparently a bona fide notable figure in her field; on a 30-second Google skim I can find features on her in House Beautiful, BlinkDecor and Elle, hardly two-guys-in-a-shed fanzines. — iridescent 13:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Iridescent, who I'm sure will find time to expand and reference this article accordingly. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's on my ever-growing to do list but can't say when it'll happen. — iridescent 15:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, considered a "rising star" in her profession (though probably not a notable award in itself). She's an organizer of Design Miami[17] Ah, here we are: One of America's Top Designers (HB, 2004). Just needs non-primary sources and a whisk broom for the language. --Dhartung | Talk 22:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Iridescent and Dhartung. Jakew (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources indicates to me that the article fails to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 21:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 07:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hawker hurricane bd707[edit]

Wikipedia is not a memorial, and while tragic the article arguably supplies no information on the particular notability of the event. SGGH ^speak! 07:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although the actual disaster might be notable, the actual plane that was involved isn't. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 08:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quick Google search suggests that the preservation and restoration of this airplane made it notable before the fatal crash. I added some references from BBC News about the crash. The article could be moved so that the title refers to the crash rather than the aircraft, but in light of the aircraft's pre-crash notability, I would not favour a move. --Eastmain (talk) 09:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 09:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 09:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 09:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The restoration and crash of this now rare aircraft is notable by wikipedia standards, as can be seen by the extensive press coverage. Nick mallory (talk) 10:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question what lasting coverage has this event, pilot, or aircraft received? Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per references added by Eastmain an that it had undergone preservation and restoration before the crash. I've never seen anyone attempt to use WP:MEMORIAL to an inanimate object. --Oakshade (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Such information would ideally need to be placed in the prose not the title of the external link though. But you make a sound point SGGH ^speak! 19:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A NN preserved aircraft that suffered a NN crash. If there is any more substantial information on the aircraft, it should be added (with full citations) during the currncy of this AFD. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS, though a brief mention in the 'Survivors' section of the Hawker Hurricane may be warranted. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Peterkingiron. Wikipedia is not a memorial nor a news site. Stifle (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Nick Dowling. --Rlandmann (talk) 10:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Nick Dowling. Doesn't appear notable, though if proper sources are provide that show notability, article could be kept/recreated without prejudice, but with supervision from WP:AVIATION's relevant projects/TFs. - BillCJ (talk) 10:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Nick Dowling. MilborneOne (talk) 11:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough for own article. Move text and a suitable ref to Hawker_Hurricane#Survivors. Binksternet (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Small plane crash which received two days of news coverage. (jarbarf) (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing notable about the aircraft or the event has been sourced. All such incidents gain media coverage at the time but the test is whether it has any longevity and there seems none. TerriersFan (talk) 19:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since we have a flurry of delete votes, I have taken a closer look at this. I note that the article was nominated for deletion within 6 minutes of its creation. Since the original author was driven off by this disgraceful WP:BITE, I have spent a few minutes researching the matter and improving the article. I have cleaned up the references and have added a citation which demonstrates the aircraft's notability for another incident besides its demise. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since when have new editors been exempt from WP:N? I don't see anything wrong with nominating new articles on unviable topics for deletion as soon as they're created - especially as the deletion process takes at least a week. Nick Dowling (talk) 03:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The aircraft and its doings are demonstrably notable since they have been noticed by multiple, major reliable sources such as the BBC. This should have been obvious from the outset and so it seems clear that the nominator failed to search for sources. The article and original editor were both quite new. More appropriate action would have been to advise or assist the author or to tag the article as needing sources. Taking it straight to AFD was prima facie unwelcoming. This is quite contrary to our founder's Statement of Principles, in particular that Newcomers are always to be welcomed. The new editor User: CricketSussexccc has not contributed since this initial rebuff. Wikipedia is not a multiplayer game and we do not score points for acting like a player killer. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cbrown1023 talk 17:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctuary (Skulduggery Pleasant)[edit]

The article doesn't establish the real-world notability of this original research. brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As a non-notable fictional location that does not meet WP:FICT#Elements of Fiction, as it lacks coverage in secondary sources. Tnxman307 (talk) 19:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's not actually a fictional location, it's a fictional government. I didn't have room in any of the other article relating to Skulduggery Pleasant to elaborate on it properly so I created an article for it. The article will surely grow as more information comes to light and more books are released. I believe nine Skulduggery Pleasant books are planned. I reasoned that if the Ministry of Magic got an article then the Sanctuary should. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 02:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources indicates to me that the article fails to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The book is not yet notable enough that one plot element in it is likely to be notable. When the series succeeds to the extent of Potter or Tolkien, then will be time to write articles like this, for there will be sources. DGG (talk) 20:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well when you put it like that I suppose you're right. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 09:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forthcoming Madonna tour[edit]

No sources are cited, and the article is based on all rumour. Nothing has been confirmed, and therefore no article should be created... See WP:CRYSTAL. Save-Me-Oprah^(talk) 07:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Madonna herself has confirmed her upcoming world tour. 10:13,6 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.14 (talk)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A source has been cited which features confirmation from Madonna herself that a world tour will begin late summer 2008. I can add more if necessary. She has confirmed in various television and radio interviews. I created the article and I am working hard to remove any fan speculation - this covers set lists and tour names, which are pure rumour/wishful thinking. These have no place in the article. What does have a place is the fact that this tour WILL happen, and when it is announced, further information can be added to the article. --86.133.26.238 (talk) 12:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article pages on tours are rather iffy in the first place. The existence and announcement of a tour, be it forthcoming, in progress, or completed, is not sufficient reason for a Wikipedia article as I see it. They must have independent coverage that discusses them in detail. If the tour does not even have a name, it certainly breaks WP:CRYSTAL. -Verdatum (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:CRYSTAL. Too generic of a title- if a name for the tour hasn't even been thought up yet, it's way too much speculation. Even the infobox (as of right now) has "TBA" as the tour name. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete If actual citations could be made of third-party reliable sources (there is mention of an Italian daily), then it would certainly come a bit closer to article status. -Seidenstud (talk) 20:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete for now, when it is officially announced and has a name with further information that can be added to the article then it should be created. Atlantics88 (talk) 01:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 02:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Stifle (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Madonna confirmed the tour herself a few days ago. Dates to be announced this week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lecarlos (talk • contribs) 07:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's have a reference for that please. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy deleted at only editor's request. Fram (talk) 08:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dharamshala(disambiguation)[edit]

This page was created by myself by mistake. Please delete it. Dharamshala (disambiguation) page already exists; I clicked one redlink (which I thought was a link for dharamshala) which was actually a link for dharamshala(disambiguation) (where space was missing by mistake of an another author). GDibyendu (talk) 05:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 07:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy eligible, and tagged accordingly. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy Close (non-admin closure). Invalid deletion rationale. Moving an article does not warrant an Articles for Deletion discussion. WilliamH (talk) 11:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eardington Halt[edit]

Please delete, so I can move another page to this title. Thanks, Btline (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 07:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. Newbie unfamiliar with Wikipedia deletion policy and moving pages policy. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete and redirect to The Diplomats. Sandstein (talk) 14:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J. R. Writer[edit]

The discussion page for this article says there was a deletion debate in December 2005, but I am at a loss to find it (the linked page is red). Regardless of that, I have strong doubts that this article meets our current test for WP:BLP, biographical guidelines, musician guidelines, et cetera, no matter how funny I find it that he has a "CrackSpace" profile. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note the previous deletion discussion is here; the article had been moved. Black Kite 17:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the scoop Black Kite. What I find most astounding is that people have been trying to find sources for this "article" since mid 2005, and zero progress has been made. Its just one steady stream of constant vandalism and rumor mongering for three years running; full of fail. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I forgot to say - Redirect to The Diplomats. Black Kite 23:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 07:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Diplomats. Doesn't look like he has his own notability. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 08:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 02:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After giving this much thought and allowing 5+ days to pass, it is apparent that there is little to nothing in the way of reliable third party sources available about this subject. We cannot allow this edit history to remain any longer under these circumstances, regardless of whether or not a redirect is created afterwards, in which case I would propose only a hard-redirect be created until we come to a time when such sources can be found. Sincerely, Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources indicates to me that the article fails to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the comments above. Much more than "5+ days" have passed in a search for sources, the article has been lacking in that department for 2 years now, and fails WP:BLP as a result. (jarbarf) (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 15:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Salomon Satele[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Salomon Satele

Short, poor grammar article with no references. My attempts to find sources on Google and Dogpile did not turn up any hits. User who prodded the article thought it was confused with someone with a different name or that it was a hoax. Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 07:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Arizona Cardinals have no record of him.[18][19].--brew crewer (yada, yada) 08:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per WP:AGF. From the author's other contributions, this looks like an honest mistake for Hercules Satele, who just signed with Cardinals a few days ago. This editor and others have been creating "NFL player" articles for based on the 2008 draft. See C.J. Hawthorne for example. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:V. Probably not an intentional hoax, but not verifiable as true. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not sure if the author is confused with Hercules Satele or his cousin Samson Satele, but neither of them plays defensive tackle. I think it qualifies as a hoax in that this quite apparently isn't a NFL player, but I don't think it is any sort of clear bad faith. In fact, I would assume it was not. On the other hand, I really don't get short circuiting a proposed deletion just to nominate for AfD. I'm not saying that's bad faith, either. It's just puzzling. Erechtheus (talk) 01:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 02:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. Not necessarily intentional, but certainly not true. Stifle (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete let's at least wait until training camp and there's some media coverage of the players before creating articles on newly-drafted players.-- danntm ^T _C 16:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Intentional or not, the material is false and thus perpetuates a hoax. (jarbarf) (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Recreating as a protected redirect to scene (fashion). Sandstein (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scenesters[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Scenesters

Article is a train wreck of spam, flames, and vandalism. Was nominated before, but template was removed and replaced with a spammy talk page style message. Almost seems like more of a message board than an article. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 17:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 07:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Vandalism. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 08:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: spam and vandalism. Kill it with fire. 134.173.59.5 (talk) 09:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've declined speedy deletion per G3 because the initial version did not look like vandalism. BTW, there are quite a few GHits for the term. And why would this be the second nomination. It was initially tagged as proposed deletion and there is no previous AfD. --Tikiwont (talk) 11:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first attempt at an AfD, so I was following the process as best I understood it. It looks in the history like the first nomination was deleted improperly, and I'm wondering if whoever deleted it wasn't sure how to go through the proper process. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 12:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first tag was for a Proposed deletion which can be removed by anyone who wnat to contest the deletion upon which it is the right thing to list here so that consensus can be obtained I've now fixed (with help of Cenarium) the name and links of this page so that it reflects that it is the first deletion discussion. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral it could be argued that "Scenester" is a sufficiently notable neologism, but the article as it stood was trash. I stubbed it. One possible solution would be to redirect to Scene (fashion), not that that page is in a terribly good state either. -Verdatum (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Children should be scene and not heard. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if this article weren't a trainwreck (which it is) it would be more suited for Wiktionary (if they would have it). Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is the multiple-times-deleted Scenester related? (log and related AfD). Either way, delete; "scenester" would probably be a valid redirect to Scene (fashion), but the plural form doesn't seem as useful as a search term. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Stifle (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT.-- danntm ^T _C 04:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The vandalism that formerly made up this article is now gone, but all that is left is a dictionary definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; also, the article that it directs to, scene is itself a terrible mess of OR and rediculously unreliable sources that is in dire need of deletion. I feel like a tourist (talk) 03:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy Delete. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 16:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Creed[edit]

I could find no evidence in multiple web searches of Creed wrestling for either promotion listed. Moreover, the article claims he's friends with Adolf Hitler. Therefore this unreferenced article is a likely hoax. Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as hoax. Pumpkin, when you find hoaxes like this, no google refs etc..., you can usu. speedy tag it rather than go through a formal AfD. Eusebeus (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as hoax. No sources found. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. per comments above.Renee (talk) 00:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - as hoax. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 02:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 07:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.unnotable.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 08:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete note that there is not a speedy delete criteria for hoaxes. Catchpole (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Yes there is. WP:CSD#G3 may be used for blatant hoaxes. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G3 per above, clear evidence that this is a hoax. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete per CSD:G7. Stifle (talk) 11:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blues Metal[edit]

This is nothing more than uncited original research describing a style of music that the article itself even claims is "not widely considered to be a genre." This is nothing but one person's opinions on a style of music and a few specific bands that he/she happens to like. I feel like a tourist (talk) 06:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it says its not widley considered to be an actual genre of music but that doesn't make it any less real than rap or black metal I should know I wrote the damn article take the deletion tag off of it I think its a nice enjoyable article and come on cut me some slack I have only written like 2 articales and one of them got deleted. I was hoping that through my blues metal articale the term would become more popular and does anyone actually read these Articles for deletion pages anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crasherisntmydogsname (talk • contribs)

Weak Keep if the author or someone else references sources. Plenty of them on google books. 65.11.23.219 (talk) 07:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Crasher, you're not going to win over any hearts with that kind of statement. Anyway, a Google search comes up with a few websites mentioning metal blues/blues metal, but I'm not seeing any reliable sources. Maybe someone else can find them. APK ^{yada yada} 07:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment per my vote. Google search and scholar are unlikely sources in this case, however there are plenty of sources in Google Books, I would suggest referencing otherwise delete. 65.11.23.219 (talk) 07:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my God I hate when People think im tryng to win over any hearts besides ive updated the articale check it out tell me what you think. Wait you found blues metal crap on google im checking that out —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crasherisntmydogsname (talk • contribs)

I was referring to when you said, "I wrote the damn article take the deletion tag off of it." Being uncivil is unnecessary. APK ^{yada yada} 08:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep because of mentions in a Google Book search. It could be an interesting article if RS are added and a general cleanup. APK ^{yada yada} 08:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Changing to delete. I didn't know there was already an article for Blues rock until it was mentioned below. APK ^{yada yada} 10:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright sorry but come on is there really a good reason to delete the articale which like i said doesnt mention a thing about blues metal not being a real genre it just says that its not a widely used term. please give me specific things you dont like about the articale —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crasherisntmydogsname (talk • contribs) 08:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I feel that we should allow bands to blend different styles of music as they want without having to give every different sound a new label. There are already articles for various common styles of blues and metal, as well as an article on Blues rock, which is basically all rock that has a more obvious blues influence than other rock (despite rock in general being derived from blues from the start). You state that most of the artists who are considered to be in the genre of Blues Metal (and all of the ones that you specifically mention) are metal pioneers. This is true, and the reason for it is simply because metal in it's beginning stages was simply a "heavier" version of blues-rock. Therefore, while there may be definite hybrids of blues and metal out there, what your article really describes is early metal, which was simply the transition from rock (which came from blues) to a heavier form of rock which came to be known as metal. Wikipedia has plenty of articles on genres that are actually widely regarded as genres, and perhaps more importantly, there are articles on many bands such as those that you mentioned in this article. Just how Led Zeppelin or Deep Purple went about creating their own hybrid of blues and metal (metal, of course, being in its earliest stages at the time) can be discussed on the pages that are specific to those bands (and with references, of course) rather than needing its own page. I don't know though, it's just my opinion. This article very well could stay if it was just given some references and whatnot. I feel like a tourist (talk) 08:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry but I dont quite know what references are and you say its not a very good page because nobody thinks blues metals an actual genre but come on who uses terms like grindcore or death rock they have pages —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crasherisntmydogsname (talk • contribs) 08:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References on Wikipedia should take the form of footnotes placed within the text, which give the source from which you obtained the information contained in the article. This helps readers tell the difference between verifiable facts and other people's opinions or original research. What you need to do is find some sources that prove your statements to be factual and reference them in your articleI feel like a tourist (talk) 08:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like an idiot toddler but i still dont quite understand but ill try

Aaaaaaand your references need to be reliable sources (WP:RS) such as books and reliable news sources Try Google books, as our friends recommended. I feel like a tourist (talk) 08:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well now your just being difficult ive got references all over its not like ime just making up genres for fun come on cant you do anything you know what all this crap is. I dont know if your still here but check it out now i think ive got some great references—Preceding unsigned comment added by Crasherisntmydogsname (talk • contribs) 08:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than just listing references, you need to have footnotes that link those references to specific claims made in the article. Right now you have three references, and I highly doubt that two of them have anything to do with this article. I feel like a tourist (talk) 08:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

which 2? if i know it mite help me create better articales —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crasherisntmydogsname (talk • contribs) 09:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm pretty sure that now you're just completely joking, so I'll do you a favor and delete them. I feel like a tourist (talk) 09:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry that was a dumb question but you gotta say its gotten alot better with my changes and yours. Maybe you can take the deletion tag off now. I think blues metal is th best music ever however sabbath is my favourite band—Preceding unsigned comment added by Crasherisntmydogsname (talk • contribs) 09:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At this point the article remains almost exactly as it was when I nominated it for deletion. It's great that you enjoy listening to blues metal, but this does not mean that you should have your own Wikipedia page for it. I feel like a tourist (talk) 09:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious delete Blatant neologism per author's own comment above ("not widley considered to be an actual genre of music" - spelling typo in the original). Yes, you can find results when you enter two random terms together on a google. Here are the results of grunge rap, rhythm metal, gothic country, baroque hip hop, jazz trance, gothic reggae ... need I go on? Please disregard the weak keep vote that was made on this rather flimsy basis. As I write this, there are only two websites being referred to on this article. Neither are reliable sources. This source includes "greatest hits," "supergroups," "amazing guitars," "great drums" and "concept albums" in its list of metal genres. This is merely a web directory with a fancy name. The most absurd thing though is that this term is being used in reference to bands from decades ago and yet is not widely used in the many authoritative, reliable sources that have been published on heavy metal music. If that does not scream out neologism, I do not know what does. --Bardin (talk) 09:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be a jerk about it I mean who says all of those things can't be musical genres. I think I feel Like a Tourist is trying to work with me your just being annoying. My articales perfet and should have been made long time ago when blues metal artists first started playing. This is my first articale with actul references I also made Mike Dyball's page and edited alot of others. Ok im guessing everyones gone well lets pick this up later.

Wikipedia:Be bold —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crasherisntmydogsname (talk • contribs) 10:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article is purely speculative. Much of it, as I see, is redundant to Blues rock or Hard rock. I think this could be an article at some point but only if someone takes the time to do some research and find some actual reputable sources using the term. -Verdatum (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Bardin said all that needed to be said about this unsourced, all-but-nonexistant neologism - heck, I even get 360 hits from "satanic Mozartian music." I strongly suggest that the creator look over the links starting in WP:FIVE so that he can get an understanding as to what kind of material is permitted on Wikipedia. Ravenswing 17:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close Article was three minutes old when AfDed. The nom removed the sources, then tagged the living hell out of it with ((fact)) tags. The creator seems to be working towards making the article decent; give it time. Their reasoning about making the article in order to give the term wider mention isn't good, but I'm seeing enough in g-books to make this seem notable. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read the rest of the AfD discussion before you question the nom's motives, please. --Smashville^BONK! 21:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Smashville. All I'm trying to do here is keep bad articles off of wikipedia. Someone out there might be able to make this article good, but its creator is certainly not one of those people. The article as it stands is nothing but a bunch of poorly articulated personal opinions. And to JeremyMcCracken, the ref's that were removed were un-footnoted citations of "Race Consciousness: African-American Studies for the New Century" and "Database Systems for Advanced Applications: 10th International Conference ... By Lizhu Zhou, Beng Chin Ooi, Xiaofeng Meng." No doubt these sources had nothing to do with the article. I also removed two links to completely unverifiable and unreliable hommade websites. All I'm trying to do is show Crasher what should and what should not go into a Wiki article. I feel like a tourist (talk) 21:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Smashville that Jeremy McMcracken should read the rest of this AfD discussion before questioning the nominator's motive as well as providing another link to a google books search result, only this time with the term "blues metal" in quotation marks. Here are the google books search results for "grunge rap", "rhythm metal", "gothic country", "jazz trance", "complex metal", "country metal", "baroque metal", "romantic metal" ... need I go on again? All in quotation marks. Please do not go around voting keep for articles just because the term turns up hits on a google books search. I strongly suggest again that the closing admin completely disregard all keep votes made on this flimsy basis. For those who want to vote keep, please find a reliable source that unquestionably asserts that this is a legitimate subgenre of heavy metal music and not a mere neologism. --Bardin (talk) 01:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify that the speedy close was because the article was so new. I wish the nom hadn't removed the links, but I was pointing out that it wasn't complete OR, which it looked like at first glance, not accusing the nom of trying to pull a fast one, so please don't be offended. I was half asleep at the time.

The ELs looked relevant to me; I pulled them up first. They're not homemade as in geocities, but showing classification schemes on a couple of websites, which, to me, are valid for showing some level of notability, albeit not helping the content much.

I think the g-books are sufficient to demonstrate notability and show it to be a legitimate sub-genre, which is exactly why I included them. (Not the number of hits; it throws a lot of false positives.) A couple of examples- this one credits it as a style created by Foghat; this one (not very nicely) calls it the style of Great White. Per Bardin, it's a discussion, not a vote, so nothing is discarded. I'm an inclusionist; I get the impression that you're a deletionist, or even have a pet peeve for genre-related articles, but I personally think there's sufficient coverage. Just my opinion. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW the book refs that were removed are on g-books. I see where the creator was going with the first, the cited page, note 15 deals with the subject. I think some decent context could be added from it. The second deals with music at least, but I don't see what it's supposed to show. I think their citation of the Led Zeppelin biography was for the phrase "...in a variation of the heavy-metal blues espoused by Led Zeppelin...", but that's a lot weaker of a connection that some other sources could make. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if you can refrain yourself from painting those you disagree with in a negative light. You did this above with the nominator and you've done it again with me by suggesting that I am a deletionist or have a pet peeve for genre related articles. You have obviously not taken a look at my contributions otherwise you would have realized how absurd both accusations are. I made some valid criticism against this article and find it quite insulting that you would suggest that I'm opposed to it is merely because I have some superficial pet peeve or am just a deletionist. I am neither an inclusionist nor a deletionist. I merely follow wikipedia's policies and and the guideline on neologism is quite clear on this matter: A new term doesn't belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources specifically about the term — not just sources which mention it briefly or use it in passing. The book on Deep Purple uses the phrase "heavy metal blues" in passing and the Rough Guide book uses the term "blues-metal" also in passing. Neither discusses the term in any way whatsoever. Note 15 in the book on Race Consciousness does not even use the term blues metal. It only mentions in passing the phrase "metal's blues ancestry." It has no relevance to this discussion since nobody is disputing metal's blues ancestry but the supposed existence of a genre known as blues metal. The Database Systems for Advanced Applications has no relevance to this article either and so despite your insinuation above then, the nominator was perfectly right to remove both books as references from the article. This situation is even more absurd than most other neologism given that it is a term used in reference to bands from decades ago and yet there are only trivial mentions of the term. One can easily find sources using other neologisms in passing including romantic metal for Cradle of Filth, jazz-trance-folk for Snakefarm, baroque metal for Vinnie Moore, need I go on yet again? --Bardin (talk) 01:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well what else do you think I should do to the articale I like it but then I made it and I could 2 make it good Im just not sure if it needs much else and anyways if you think you can make it better why don't you instead of ripping on my articale skills. There are other things i need to say to Mr. I feel like a tourist you said that i was bassically describing early metal but think about it what if people played music like that today then it wont be early metal it will be blues metal and you said "I feel that we should allow bands to blend different styles of music as they want without having to give every different sound a new label" well iv got news its a little late for that just look at punk blues, funk punk, Deathrock, Deathcore the point is you bassically said there should not be fusion genres do you plan to delete every fusion genre page on wikipedia? well im adding things and honestly think its getting better check it out please give me feedback. And yo whats up with all citation needed crap whenever i try to fix them it just makes it worse so someone with way more experience then me should be doing it didn't you see my WIKIPEDIA: BE BOLD thing earlier come on be bold.--Crasherisntmydogsname (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like many of you want to delete it because its not a real genre but its real to me and many of my friends so it got to be real to oher people aswell. if someone made pages called punk rap, or gothic blues, or Southern brutal blackened funneral death doom metal hip-hop jazz grunge nobody is to say they don't exist (exept maybe that last one) just because its not real to you doesnt mean its not real--Crasherisntmydogsname (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Perhaps, but Wikipedia's rules do not permit articles on subjects the creators made up -- please see WP:NFT -- or where you cannot supply reliable sources. The definition of a reliable source would be a newspaper, a book or a magazine article discussing the subject. I'm afraid that you can't look at this as a case of "How do we bend the rules to let my article stay?" What we do here is see whether an article meets the rules; if it does not, it can't stay. Ravenswing 01:24, 6 May 2008

(UTC)

Im not making it up I have Refferences check them out Blues metal exists. I don't exactly think theres a typye o music called power violence but its on wikipedia. Exactly what rules am i breaking. I said its real its just not real to you. Blues Metal is a fusion genre created by Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple and Black Sabbath--Crasherisntmydogsname (talk) 01:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: As it happens, the Smoke On The Water book you referenced is in my local library. I had occasion to pop on over and look up your reference. The term "blues metal" is not found. Would you like to try again? Ravenswing 13:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Reply:This guy probably won't see this but for anyone visiting this page he didn't pay much attention when reaing the deep purple story because if you look up metal blues on google books you'll see where I got my reference from--Crasherisntmydogsname (talk) 01:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BE BOLD--Crasherisntmydogsname (talk) 01:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Im sure you all have good reasons for whatever you said but I just don't see it--Crasherisntmydogsname (talk) 01:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 02:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Along with the fact that "blues metal" is not widely recognized as an actual genre, this text taken from the intro paragraph of the heavy metal article explains why there is no need for a separate article on so-called "blues metal:"

"Heavy metal (often referred to simply as metal) is a genre of rock music that developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s. With roots in blues-rock and psychedelic rock, the bands that created heavy metal developed a thick, heavy, guitar-and-drums-centered sound, characterized by highly amplified distortion and fast guitar solos"

I feel like a tourist (talk) 03:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no nee for any articale on wikipedia--Crasherisntmydogsname (talk) 07:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Power violence isn't widely recognized either but its got a page because even though its not widely recognized it is still recognized just like blues metal. The way I see it there is no decent reaon to deleate my articale.--Crasherisntmydogsname (talk) 07:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Power violence article has a valid, verifiable reference. Yours does not. Ravenswing 13:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources indicates to me that the article fails to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I'm no real wikipedian but I just found this article ridiculous. I'm sorry if I'm kinda rude but I think I'll get straight to the point for Crasher- Your article has horrid grammar, your level of spelling isn't suitable for writing a full article without spell check, you lack references/sources, you have less knowledge of page making than me, the article is ridiculously redundant throughout, and you don't seem to know what wikipedia is for. This is more like a blog...actually more of a low marked 8th grade research paper with a bunch of red inked corrections. Except it lacks sources. Even here you're pulling information from nowhere, implying grindcore, rap, and powerviolence aren't real genres. The difference between those and your article is those terms are in relatively common use by a community dedicated to that sort of music, and rap's been established as music so no more "rap aint real music if it dont have melody" arguments. If I personally heard someone refer to Zeppelin, Sabbath, Deep Purple or some other band as blues metal, that might warrant a crotch punching. There are sites/critics that use, for example, "progessive emo" to define bands like Coheed and Cambria, and The Fall of Troy, but that doesn't make them real genres. One because they are few and far between, two because not too many people take them seriously and three that sort of genre may cause a couple bewildered looks. Just because I like those bands doesn't mean I'm gonna write an article with original/half assed research that doesn't follow the wikipedia article standards at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.251.144 (talk) 00:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey don't hold back--Crasherisntmydogsname (talk) 01:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So im not much of an editor if your better than me fix it and im not being sarcastic or rude (like some people I could mention) I really want you to help me also I think that a deletion tag is a bit extreme maybe just an original research or unverifiable sources tag like Power violence oh and my sources are to reliable--Crasherisntmydogsname (talk) 01:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whos to say anythings not a real genre of music if someone says rock is not a real genre (not that anyone would) that doesn,t mean it isn't so just cause you say blues metal doesn't exist doesn't make you right. Doesn't anybody find my articale good?--Crasherisntmydogsname (talk) 01:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This Probably isn't any of my buisness but . . . YOU'RE ALL FAGS! I can't believe how long you've been arguing just let him keep the articale and get on with your pathetic lives--I POWN ALL NOOBS (talk) 03:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)— I POWN ALL NOOBS (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You know, it's funny that our mysterious new friend "pown all noobs" is the only other person in the world who mis-spells the word "article" the EXACT same way as crasherisntmydogsname has spelled it ("articale") throughout this discussion! Crasher, please be WP:CIVIL, and leave our sexual preference out of the discussion. We have nothing against you or your opinions, it's just that according to Wikipedia guidelines, we think that your article does not belong on Wikipedia. Just because you have dragged this AfD on for this long arguing with all of us is no reason for us to give in and let you keep an article simply because you want to keep it. We have explained to you over and over why we think this article is a lost cause, and the fact that you really want your article to be on wikipedia is not going to make us suddenly change our minds. So may I say to you, please, stop, this has gone on for too long; we have explained the rationale for our opinions to you numerous times, you have told us how you feel, and arguing back and forth is not going to change the fact that most of us want this article to be deleted. I feel like a tourist (talk) 04:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even though that was very uncalled for he's right we've been arguing forever over the stupidest crap and since I wannakeep the articale why can't we just end it its not like I'm giving out false information just not widely used information which I would like to increase the usage of isn't that what wikipedia's for? And besides it's not like it won't get improved over time.--Crasherisntmydogsname (talk) 04:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok your right what I did was way out of line and I guess my articale isn't really that good so let's just delete it and I'm sorry I suppose Wikipedia guidelines should be followed.--Crasherisntmydogsname (talk) 05:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. While the number of apparent SPAs muddy the waters, there is little currently in the article to indicate that Mr Pisano is notable by Wikipedia standards. Supporting sources are exceptionally thin and don't meet WP:V standards. Pigman☿ 18:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Pisano[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Deleted via AFD in 2006. At that time there was no IMDB entry for him; today he has one with one entry, a non-lead role in a straight-to-video feature. There are no Google News Archive results for his name. All we have are a handful of non-reliable "references" including his MySpace and Geocities as well as non-independent sources such as a production company. Someone attempted to PROD this, but it was removed (in any case, PROD may not be legal as it had a prior AFD). The IP user then attempted to add the 2006 discussion to AFD, but was probably stymied by being unable to create this discussion page. Dhartung | Talk 06:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per submitter 65.11.23.219 (talk) 07:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pisano has a moderately notable acting resume in movies and commercials; however, I think the most important thing that makes him notable enough for Wikipedia is his role as Commander Ben Norstrom in a Star Trek episode. Furthermore, 65.11.23.219 just joined yesterday, so I believe the user may need more time to grasp what is necessary for a Wikipedia page. Dr.orfannkyl (talk) 09:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you refer to his role on Star Trek:Hathaway, a fan production, being associated with such material is not generally an basis for notability. (I'm sure you just forgot to mention that it is not an official production of the Star Trek franchise.)--Dhartung | Talk 20:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment smacks of sarcasm, Dhartung. Please refrain from trying to start an argument. JoeC2004 (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is someone trying to flame the argument? If so, these skewed comments should be removed. Sgt. bender (talk) 02:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bryan Pisano is on the IMDB and is therefore notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Also, agree per Dr.orfannkyl. JoeC2004 (talk) 12:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ There are several people on IMDB who apparently don't warrant Wikipedia pages -- his acting resume is absolutely unnotable. 65.11.23.219 (talk) 07:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.191.198 (talk) [reply]
- WP: Other Stuff Exists; read it. Dr.orfannkyl (talk) 13:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? Do people, especially a non-member, usually get two votes? Sgt. bender (talk) 19:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment First of all, this is a discussion meant to achieve WP:CONSENSUS, not a vote per se. Second, nobody's opinion should be counted more than the strength of their argument from policies and guidelines. --Dhartung | Talk 20:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pisano is more than notable and the article is thoroughly sourced. Pisano played an important character in a very notable science fiction empire. He also has played in commercials and other films. Has been significant vandalism on the page by IP addresses, not users. Sgt. bender (talk) 13:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are several people on IMDB who apparently don't warrant Wikipedia pages -- his acting resume is absolutely unnotable. There is no vandalism, just removal of lies - the short film Creepers can't be called a blockbuster - and errors - the man was born June 13, 1974. IMDB site is incorrect, and Wikipedia is duplicating the error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anymotion (talk • contribs)
- I believe the vandalism Sgt. Bender was talking about is the removal of Bryan Pisano's picture. Otherwise, changes to the article were considered vandalism because the sourcing wasn't clear. Also, WP: Other Stuff Exists; just because others on IMDB don't have Wikipedia articles doesn't mean that Bryan Pisano shouldn't. Dr.orfannkyl (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, why should he? Enlighten us. --Dhartung | Talk 20:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Calm down there, Dhartung. Read the stuff I already wrote. Several movies, an internet Star Trek Episode, a Nickelodeon commercial, and a IMDB entry; that makes him notable to me. Dr.orfannkyl (talk) 22:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am calm. This person, however, is not a notable entertainer according to our guidelines, no matter what you personally think. We want significant roles in notable films. --Dhartung | Talk 00:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Instead of broad statements aimed against Bryan Pisano and instead of insulting a fellow user who doesn't agree with you, why don't you back up your claims with some facts, Dhartung? JoeC2004 (talk) 01:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Phasers Set On Delete: I am sympathetic to newcomers not knowing what is necessary for a Wikipedia article, but that doesn't mean that an article sourced only by Myspace pages and bulletin boards about a completely non-notable fellow deserves retention. Far from portraying an important character in a notable production, he appeared in one of the numerous Star Trek fan film efforts. His sole IMDB credit is in a $30,000 indie film. There are also WP:BLP issues. Just out of curiosity, what elements of WP:BIO do the Keep proponents claim this gent fulfills? Ravenswing 17:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm concerned about the availability of reliable sources, or lack thereof. I can't find a single news article that mentions him. MySpace is not enough, and IMDB is also not considered reliable. --Aude (talk) 22:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 02:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've heard of him and I've seen some of the stuff he's been in. He's definately notable since he's been in several movies and is on IMDB. Also, what's with all the fighting higher in this page? Dhartung should really leave other users alone; he's obviously trying to start an argument. Beans are neither friut nor musical (talk) 02:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find it very interesting that Dhartung accuses Beans are neither friut nor musical of having a SPA considering that Beans are neither friut nor musical has had an account since October 2006. If the reason for creating the account was to help Bryan Pisano it was long and belated (and probably not the case.) Also with JoeC2004 having an account for seven months before this seems to point away from a SPA. Observation. Sgt. bender (talk) 05:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: With those two having a combined 21 edits to date before the Pisano article on April 30th and this AfD, I'm comfortable with Dhartung's characterization. The definition of SPA doesn't include when the account in question was created. When the SPAs all push the same premise: that a person with a single IMDB credit in an unknown indie flick has not only appeared in "several" works (for which sources are not forthcoming) and that they've somehow seen him ... well, that's a tall heap of coincidence. May I ask why people are so intent on claiming "insult" from an accurate characterization? Now ... beyond that, we get from contribution history that you're a friend of Pisano's. In which case, you know what to do to save the article: provide reliable sources that demonstrate that he has appeared in notable productions, and evidence of what elements of WP:BIO this fellow fulfills. Ravenswing 12:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created my account in 2006, how am I a SPA for Bryan Pisano? Clearly, you have no real argument and must stoop to insulting other members. I really have to ask, are you for real? Beans are neither friut nor musical (talk) 13:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your account shows ten edits within a four day span in 2006. The account also had three edits within a four minute span on April 11 of this year. All your other Wikipedia activity has centered around this AfD. What about these facts do you find insulting? Would you prefer the terms "sockpuppet" or "meatpuppet" instead? (As to whether I am real, I have over nine thousand edits, having made more edits since 5 PM yesterday than you have in two years. Plainly if I'm an account existing only to bolster someone else's argument, that someone is working way, way, way too hard at it.) Ravenswing 13:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ravenswing, are you suggesting that accounts made months and years apart are somehow in a grand conspiracy to keep a small article on Bryan Pisano on Wikipedia? Please tell me you're kidding. JoeC2004 (talk) 13:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're trying to dispel the notion that there's sock/meatpuppetry going on, chiming in with protest edits on the different accounts seven minutes apart isn't helpful. Ravenswing 13:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I ask again, are you saying that accounts created months and years apart are somehow connected in a grand conspiracy to save Bryan Pisano? You do realize how ridiculous that sounds, right? And how can you call my account an SPA when you don't make the same claim for user:65.11.23.219, who edited for the first time two days ago, and has commented on this article several times? Furthermore, I am only commenting so much on this article because of the insults being levied. So tell me, Ravenswing, are you biased or simply lying? JoeC2004 (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simple. 65.11.23.219 (which has commented twice, not "several" times) is a new editor, but the editor has also participated in fourteen unrelated AfD discussions; you can't claim its only purpose is to back a particular side in this particular discussion. By contrast, after not having appeared on Wikipedia in five months, what brought you back solely for this AfD? Both here and in your edit summaries, you demand adherence to WP:CIVIL, but throwing around accusations of lying and bias does not inspire confidence. Ravenswing 13:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Lord in Heaven, you ignored my first question again. Nevermind. You're just commenting on what you want to and ignoring flaws in your tales. What's worse, I'm sure you know that you're doing it intentionally to mislead people. I tried to have a debate, but it is obvious you just want to stroke your ego. JoeC2004 (talk) 14:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I'll leave that up to the investigating admin who applies checkuser to the issue. Ravenswing 14:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia per WP:BIO. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Bryan Pisano seems moderately notable. Coaststocoasts (talk) 06:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of coverage by multiple independent reliable sources. Also, considering the disruption and blanking of comments above, a checkuser might like to look into some of the accounts that have contributed to this AfD. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forget It You know what, forget it. I guess other users get some kind of pleasure by calling fellow members of Wikipedia SPAs, so voicing my opinion is worthless. And if you accuse others of being sock-puppets, SheffieldSteel and Ravenswing oddly chime in at almost the same time, saying the exact same thing, not to mention 65.11.23.219 being a clear SPA. You guys are just a pack of liars. Beans are neither friut nor musical (talk) 13:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: SheffieldSteel, according to his userpage, is in North Carolina; I'm in Massachusetts. I'm happy with an admin comparing our IP addresses. It's a pity you'd rather make this personal than do what you would need to do to save the article, but that's your choice. Ravenswing 14:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at the history of this page, Beans are neither friut nor musical's first comment was followed, not by a rebuttal, but by Dhartung marking him a SPA. It looks like Beans are neither friut nor musical tried to have a debate, but was brow-beaten into submission. It's clear he didn't make this personal until Dhartung decided to assume the reasoning behind his commenting. It's an unfortuante thing on Wikipedia that stuff like this happens. JoeC2004 (talk) 14:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources to verify his notability. Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An actor meets the requirements of WP:BIO if he or she:

Has had significant roles or been featured multiple times in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions.
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

These facts need to be shown from reliable sources. IMDB is not considered a reliable source since some of its information is user-submitted, but it can often be used to track down other information. In this case I am assuming that his appearance in "Failing Grace" was Pisano's most important screen credit, and I tried to learn more about that movie. It was produced by Mansion Media, but I was not able to find a web site for that company. Since the Google hits for 'Failing Grace' are so skimpy and no media coverage has been offered, it seems unlikely to qualify as a 'notable film' for the purposes of WP:BIO. If Pisano has not appeared in any notable films I don't believe there is case for having an article on him. EdJohnston (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, EdJohnston for trying to elevate our conversation. You make a good point, and I will not disagree with your statement. JoeC2004 (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing resembling a reliable source in that article. Geocities is often a telltale sign. --Smashville^BONK! 14:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Closing Admin. Without running a checkuser, it seems that JoeC2004, Dr.orfannkyl and Sgt. bender are most likely one and the same. See the DRV for Gary Hayes. If it looks like a duck... --Smashville^BONK! 14:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Oh, my. That does look fairly damning, does it not? Combine that with JoeC2004 and Beans tag-teaming to repeatedly remove SPA tags and delete other comments, it's about time for the pretense to stop. I was going to revert the deletions and send out some talk page warnings, but I think I'll wait for the sockpuppet blocks instead. Ravenswing 15:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was taking to ANI, but it looks like Dhartung has been there, done that and got the t-shirt. And found the DRV. --Smashville^BONK! 15:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't seem to have any major notability. Stifle (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very minor significance is claimed, on the strength of dubious sources -- and all spiced with dribs and drabs of innuendo. I hope his career goes well; if that happens, he can then get an article. -- Hoary (talk) 00:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Speaking of his career, it may be worth courtesy blanking this AfD once it's done. No one wants something like this on their resume. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Not with this being a recreated article, equally not notable. Ravenswing 03:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at this point the article lacks the sources, and the subjects lacks the roles, to prove notability.-- danntm ^T _C 00:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only vaguely reliable source appears to be the one about scientology, and that doesn't make him notable. David Underdown (talk) 10:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Through all the fun we've had, why don't we just compromise and keep the page? Sgt. bender (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While I'm unsure how ditching a clear consensus in favor of admitted meatpuppetry and insults constitutes "compromise," rather than state my opinion, I think it's quite seemly to let the closing admin handle this. Ravenswing 19:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete More than anything this is a fan page by former student(s) of Pisano's when he was a teacher in upstate New York. It's pretty transparent from the Facebook fan page for him that that is what is going on here. Waste of Wikipedia space.9:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Just because you didn't like Mr. Pisano's history class doesn't mean he's not famous. And by the way, that C in US History was not personal. Sgt. bender (talk) 23:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources to establish notability means that it fails WP:BIO, one imdb entry does not IMHO make the grade. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedied --B (talk) 12:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broekmania[edit]

Notability, unencyclopedic and WP:hoax. Did I miss any? 9Nak (talk) 06:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Many have also suggested a move to a more specific title. Sandstein (talk) 07:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Airline sex discrimination policy[edit]

Soapboxing article, with little if any encyclopediatic content. Soman (talk) 05:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, thinly sourced rant. --Dhartung | Talk 06:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've now properly labeled most of the sources - you can now see that the first reference for example is in fact a copy of a Times Newspaper article, so the article is actually rather well sourced. --Shakehandsman (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as potential libel, since there has been no legal finding of discrimination. WillOakland (talk) 06:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:SOAP, WP:COATRACK and WP:OR. Although the events are verifiable, the author(s) of the article have hand picked the incidents to be included in order to show some sort of a common link. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There clearly is a common link as the airlines have very close ties (and closer ties around the times the policies were formed). Also the article is well sourced so disagree with Dhartung. I'm somewhat uncomfortable with the title however as it doesn't really describe the issue and is rather POV. So keep the article but with a more neutral title please - .--Shakehandsman (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit - if the title is changed as in line with many of the suggestions here I would say Strong keep for the content itself.

Keep Article's references are in alignment with article. Perhaps article could be moved to better sounding title, but the title is accurate to the references. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as per nom and SWik78. BWH76 (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Well-sourced article. It is not soapboxing, it is valid topic. But article should be moved to "Airline sex discrimination controversy", instead of using the word "policy". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, what's the definition of 'controversy' here really? --Soman (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Controversy" is controversy. Or wait, I have a better title - Sex discrimination in airlines. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - - Comment, a controversy ought, to fulfill the meaning of the term, by controversial to some degree. I'm a man and do quite a lot of air travel, and I can't say that this policy, if it does exist, bothers me a single bit. Please see User:Shakehandsman's diatribes at Women's Aid Federation of England for some context of the pov-pushing of this guy, seeking to equate feminism with sexism. --Soman (talk) 15:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I said the article is well sourced and the references support all the claims. Instead of using words like "controversy" or "policy", a good title would be Sex discrimination in airlines. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Response I don't really see the relevance of Shakehandsman's POV or lack thereof on the Women's Aid Federation of England article. If this article is notable and NPOV then it's so regardless of his previous contributions. Olaf Davis | Talk 21:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        ResponseI really don't appreciate some of the comments made by Soman, particularly his suggestions as to what i am supposedly "seeking". Please see WP:AGF. How about discussing or improving content instead of attempting to remove large quantities of information completely? --Shakehandsman (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Apparently well referenced, and certainly interesting though narrow in scope. Scope should be extended, e.g. by moving to sex discrimination against men. I am sure it will be easy to find a few other, similarly marginal examples, and perhaps even some really relevant ones. (Aren't there countries where homosexuality is legal for women, and punished with death for men, for example?) Merging into sexism is probably not an option because that would give undue weight to the topic or the article would have to be shortened too much. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree the scope is too narrow, though perhaps moving to sex discrimination against men would be too general and again it would end up shortened tremendouly. How about a compromise of "Corporate sex discrimination against men"? - thus allowing all government sponsored discrimination (eg pensions, benefits, families, gay rights etc) to have it's own article. Alternatively Otolemur crassicaudatus has a suggestion which is equally workable--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep possibly needs some more work, possibly needs merged, but a clearly notable subject IMO. These are reasons for mending not deleting. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move per Otolemur crassicaudatus. It's sourced and seems like a valid topic. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my original Delete recommendation as attempts to "improve" the article described would turn it into a synthesis of unrelated policies of unrelated airlines. WillOakland (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:SOAP, WP:COATRACK and WP:OR Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Could you please explain on what basis you are applying these policies in this article? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can I suggest using the term "Seating" in the title in order to address eom people's concerns - e.g. "Airline Seating Discrimination"?
Keep and probably rename or merge to one of the articles suggested above, though I'm not sure which. Needs to have some mention of the airline's response or a defense of their policy if such can be found - that should cover the worry of WP:SOAP. WP:OR seems to be demolished by the references, and I don't understand the claim of WP:COATRACK at all. Olaf Davis | Talk 21:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename to "Sex discrimination in airlines" or something along those lines. Bad candidate for deletion, as it is well-sourced, verifiable and notable. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on current title and content. This may be a topic appropriate for coverage in Wikipedia, but not under this particular title -- not seating men next to unaccompanied children is hardly the airline sex discrimination policy. Given the past history of the airline industry with regard to sex discrimination (discrimination against women pilots, refusal to hire male flight attendants, restrictions against female flight attendants regarding age, height, weight, marriage, and pregnancy, plus sexualized treatment of flight attendants in advertising), the problems with airlines being overly suspicious of men who happen to be seated next to unaccompanied children would be unlikely to make the top ten list of problems of sex discrimination in the airline industry. That said, if this article were merged into a new Sex discrimination in the airline industry that focused primarily on the history of employment discrimination in the industry, it could be acceptable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Olaf Davis. Clearly notable. Stifle (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep probably needs a better name, but a sourced and noticeable policy.-- danntm ^T _C 00:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs an NPOV name, but the article is well sourced and notable. --vi5in^[talk] 19:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep but rename to something about seating policies. Article is backed up by nine reliable sources now. I must say that's a pretty bizarre policy and it the sort of the thing we ought to keep, and possibly add to a category about "moral panics". Was the first I'd heard of it. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rebbeca[edit]

Non-notable band. Have only released one album, free of charge. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 05:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On one hand, If NME is talking about them, then they can't be too far from notability. On the other hand, they are not yet signed to a label (even an indie label), they have only released a free album, and the article itself states that they are yet to achieve mainstream exposure. I think that they should wait a little while and come back later when they're a little more established. At that time, they can write a better article with better citations. Delete for now. I feel like a tourist (talk) 05:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. I feel like a tourist (talk) 06:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No major-label record deal, but "have appeared at venues across the UK in the last few years" sounds like a national tour or tours (or close enough), and the NME mention taken together with the other accomplishments probably translates to notability. --Eastmain (talk) 07:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but that's not verified. Stifle (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think wikipedia is a news archive. Plenty of bands go on national tours and make it into magazines. That doesn't mean that they are notable just they are getting close to a thousand true fans.65.11.23.219 (talk) 07:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I can see that the article should be taken down is on the lack of noteriety condition. Mind you I am not from anywhere near Liverpool and not especially a fan of the band, I just saw them at the V festival and wanted to find out about them and was surprised they weren't on Wikipedia.--JamesMadisonJr (talk) 13:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The V festival is a major event in the UK. If they really played there, it is highly likely they would at least get mentioned in the national press. Combined with the NME report, that should be enough to confer notability, if references can be found. MuppetLabTech (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources indicates to me that the article fails to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of citations from independent sources.-- danntm ^T _C 17:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should it not therefore be edited rather than deleted? Whichparts need citations? --JamesMadisonJr (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The entire page. The verifiability policy clearly states that it is for those seeking content to be included to provide citations. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Presently falls well short of notability bar of WP:BAND even if there were something from reliable sources supporting the claims in the article. Give them time to chart or to make a national or international tour, then gather up the citations and try again. B.Wind (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy Delete per G4, recreation of deleted article. -Djsasso (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Wynne[edit]

This is a recreation of a previously deleted article. Subject of article doesn't appear to have any real notability and this article may actually be a vanity piece. --MatthewUND^(talk) 05:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity piece. No news articles, no publicly released albums. 65.11.23.219 (talk) 07:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Considering I wrote this, it's not a vanity piece. The ABA article is a real news article and was widely spread at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Countryfan (talk • contribs) 18:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Written like a vanity piece, no signs of notability.Rob Banzai (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 02:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Then add some neutrality to it! If the guy is smart enough to get support from major sporting leagues for his own venture, I'm positive he meets the Wikipedia requirements! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Countryfan (talk • contribs) 19:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Rbanzai. Stifle (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Deal (band)[edit]

Just because this band has some loose relation to Dave Matthews does not mean that they are notable per WP:Band. I feel like a tourist (talk) 05:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable, does not pass WP:Band Notability Fallenfromthesky (talk) 05:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. I feel like a tourist (talk) 06:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources indicates to me that the article fails to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy Delete a7, non-admin closure by Lenticel ^(talk) 09:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Mara Safari Lodge[edit]

Seems to be an non-notable lodge. asenine ^{say what?} 04:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy this, the article does nothing to assert notability. I feel like a tourist (talk) 05:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. However, I've invoked admin discretion to redirect him to the band. Bearcat (talk) 06:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Bognar[edit]

This person's band is apparently notable enough for a Wiki article, but is he? I feel like a tourist (talk) 04:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by I feel like a tourist (talk • contribs) 06:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To answer the question at hand: no. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources indicates to me that the article fails to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability means delete. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Glow[edit]

Non-notable cover band with no major label releases. Article is full of POV from a possible COI editor and has a history section that reads like some kind of whodunit novel. Google search for "Eastern Glow" is artificially inflated by results from a song with the same name included in the soundtrack of a well-known TV show; however, the song has no relation to the band. GlassCobra 04:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails notability as per WP:Band.I feel like a tourist (talk) 04:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. I feel like a tourist (talk) 06:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:N, completely unsourced other than a myspace page and (even if the band somehow did pass WP:Band) appears unsalvageable in its current form. — iridescent 12:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep- this is an article that needs improvement, true, but I think that this article has a chance. (Note: I am and have been involved with rewriting and improving the article) Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 19:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC) After seeing what's going on here, delete. I'm sorry, but since I can't really source it, there's no way to keep improving the article. Plus, the discussion at the bottom just makes my brain hurt. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got any sources to indicate any kind of notability? GlassCobra 02:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- This is my first article, and I think it deserves a chance, just like any other page that is on this site. It might not have a lot of references, but that is because it is a local band, not some big-time labeled band that makes millions of dollars from album sales....yet. Give it a few years. --Les Paul Maniac (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the myspace test. Stifle (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content
How many sourced, notable article subjects have MySpace pages? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] Did you read that page at all? I'm sure plenty of other article subjects have myspace pages but few that are notable use it as a main online home. Stifle (talk) 11:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] Once again, I must point out that this is a "Local Band" not some big-time corporation band that has web-sites all over the internet. I want this page to last, and that is coming from someone who spent a lot of time trying to write this whole thing and than having Nwwaew revise it for me. I appreciate his help and it is sad that some people want to take that work away. --Les Paul Maniac (talk) 22:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] Please read WP:BAND and see if you honestly believe this band passes; if you feel they do, it's down to you (and anyone else who wants the page kept) to demonstrate they do. Wikipedia is not a directory of bands — that's precisely what Myspace is for. — iridescent 22:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] Ok, do you honestly think that a local band would have been nominated for a Grammy? That is what it takes to get onto Wikipedia for a band? That is the most blotted piece of BS I have ever read. I take the time to add something onto a "Free Encyclopedia" and than you guys want to take it off, what is "Free" about that? People go around re-writing pages and make them look bad, and yet they can post a page about something and get it on here. I seriously wanted this page to be on here, and I would have done anything to keep it on here. But it looks like you guys aren't going to let me anyways. Why? Why must an organization that is on the internet want to kick off one little page that probably won't get looked at that much, besides fans of the band? Why must a big corporation try and stop the publicity of a small little band that just wants to be known? I am trying to help these guys out, sure we have "Myspace", but Myspace only cares about Chart Topping artists, and won't show off some small up and coming band from Chicago. Why can't you just let it stay, these guys have great potential and I believe that they can make it, so if they do, you guys would have to make a page about it anyways, so why even bother deleting it now? Why can't you just leave it alone? --Les Paul Maniac (talk) 22:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A DIRECTORY OF BANDS OR A FREE WEBHOST and we have those notability guidelines for a reason! If you think any article deserves to stay it's down to you to defend it; we'd delete George Bush if he didn't have two mentions in major news sources. — iridescent 23:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] But Why can't there be exceptions, I am sure George Bush would make you guys have a page about him, he is the President. I want this page on here, and I am defending it, because it is unjust that because a page with low-standard sources should be deleted, if any other web-site such as Myspace would do that, we would have been deleted a long time ago. Once again, it is the internet, people already think that you have bad info anyways. Why can't there be a page where it has full-proof information but not huge sources such as a web-site, trust me if Eastern Glow had a web-site, I wouldn't have made a page on here in the first place. But Eastern Glow has not reached a level of importance to have a web-site yet. So I tried to get it on too here and I thought it would be fun to see it on here. Maybe than they would get recognition and move to the web-site status. Can the page at least stay until a web-site is worked out? --Les Paul Maniac (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] I have searched for sources in Google News archives, and also in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles. I found not a single one. Delete if no third-party sources turn up by the end of this deletion discussion. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] I would also like to add that Wikipedia has a page on "Big Foot" and yet he has not had confirmation of existance, so why shouldn't that page get deleted? --Les Paul Maniac (talk) 01:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] I'm not quite sure at this point if you are just making jokes, but I'll assume you are being serious. You appear to misunderstand the purpose of an encyclopedia as a collection of secondary sources. Whether a subject exists or not does not matter; what matters is whether the subject has been written about in multiple independent sources such as newspapers, journals and books. In other words, the world has "taken note"—that is what we mean by notability. (Take a look at this essay for a longer explanation.) If you take a look at the footnotes of the Bigfoot article you will see they are extensive: the world has "taken note" of the subject. So far, that appears not to be the case with Eastern Glow. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not intended to be used as a tool to promote up-and-coming bands, and, along the same lines, is not a free webhost (as Iridescent has already said). Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] If Wikipedia is not a free webhost, why do you allow people to post and/or edit pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Les Paul Maniac (talk • contribs) 11:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", but that does not mean that "anything goes" (we still ask that contributors adhere to the established policies). Letting anyone edit helps to encourage as large and diverse as possible a base of volunteer editors, something that sets it apart from other encyclopedias. See more about this at Wikipedia:About#Strengths, weaknesses, and article quality in Wikipedia. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] And yet people still edit pages and make it look like crap. All I am asking is that my page stays, there isn't anything wrong with it, and it makes no negative remarks towards anything, it is just about a band. That is all that I am asking, Please let my page stay. --Les Paul Maniac (talk) 20:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] If you see pages that look like crap, please feel free to fix them. GlassCobra 05:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] It is not your page. Stifle (talk) 09:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] It might not be officially my page, but I am sure the members of Eastern Glow believe it is their own page and would be saddened if it was deleted, I worked hard to add all of that info, and the great thing about bands are that information keeps coming and I can continue to make the page grow. --Les Paul Maniac (talk) 11:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] Which is what Myspace is for. Wikipedia has a very specific purpose and it's not a directory of bands. Please read some of the policies everyone above is advising you to read before you continue to work on this article. — iridescent 15:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] If you have such strict rules and policies, which I have read, why do you allow people such as myself to even put up a page, I can't always update a myspace, or else the page would be huge, and that it is why here on Wikipedia I like the different sections that can be created. I will continue the work on this page, which I have asked even earlier that if it could stay until a web-site specifically about Eastern Glow was put up, but no one answered it. --Les Paul Maniac (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] We have been repeatedly answering your question: No, it cannot stay, in the absence of any evidence of notability, because Wikipedia is not a free webhost. "Anyone can edit" does not mean "anything goes". When someone, such as yourself, begins editing in a way that is not in keeping with our policies, we point them to those policies and ask that they follow them. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] But what am I doing wrong, if I made a page making fun of something and brining a negative wave than I would surely allow it to be deleted, but that isn't that case, the policies of Wikipedia being an Encyclopedia, where it contains information that is of interest to some people, than it should be allowed to make a page about a band that is well known through out the Chicago suburbs. There is no good reason why this page should be deleted, it is a justified page and deserves to be on Wikipedia, I respect this site enough to put a page up myself, not waiting for some reporter to do it for me, I do my own work, and it took me a long time to get enough information to make this page. --Les Paul Maniac (talk) 20:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] ←This is getting ridiculous. If you continue wilfully refusing to read the pages you're being repeatedly advised to read, I'm going to treat you as a disruptive editor. You are very welcome to post in this discussion - or any other part of Wikipedia - but not if you refuse to work with anyone else. — iridescent 20:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] Didn't I just say I read those pages? I am sticking to what I think is right, and you are just presenting stuff over and over again, I get your point, but what is so bad about my page? --Les Paul Maniac (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] Read WP:BAND again, then come back and tell us specifically which of the criteria you think this band meets and why. If you can't answer that question, then please don't post again in this thread until you can answer it. — iridescent 20:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

- How many sourced, notable article subjects have MySpace pages? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Did you read that page at all? I'm sure plenty of other article subjects have myspace pages but few that are notable use it as a main online home. Stifle (talk) 11:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Once again, I must point out that this is a "Local Band" not some big-time corporation band that has web-sites all over the internet. I want this page to last, and that is coming from someone who spent a lot of time trying to write this whole thing and than having Nwwaew revise it for me. I appreciate his help and it is sad that some people want to take that work away. --Les Paul Maniac (talk) 22:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please read WP:BAND and see if you honestly believe this band passes; if you feel they do, it's down to you (and anyone else who wants the page kept) to demonstrate they do. Wikipedia is not a directory of bands — that's precisely what Myspace is for. — iridescent 22:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok, do you honestly think that a local band would have been nominated for a Grammy? That is what it takes to get onto Wikipedia for a band? That is the most blotted piece of BS I have ever read. I take the time to add something onto a "Free Encyclopedia" and than you guys want to take it off, what is "Free" about that? People go around re-writing pages and make them look bad, and yet they can post a page about something and get it on here. I seriously wanted this page to be on here, and I would have done anything to keep it on here. But it looks like you guys aren't going to let me anyways. Why? Why must an organization that is on the internet want to kick off one little page that probably won't get looked at that much, besides fans of the band? Why must a big corporation try and stop the publicity of a small little band that just wants to be known? I am trying to help these guys out, sure we have "Myspace", but Myspace only cares about Chart Topping artists, and won't show off some small up and coming band from Chicago. Why can't you just let it stay, these guys have great potential and I believe that they can make it, so if they do, you guys would have to make a page about it anyways, so why even bother deleting it now? Why can't you just leave it alone? --Les Paul Maniac (talk) 22:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A DIRECTORY OF BANDS OR A FREE WEBHOST and we have those notability guidelines for a reason! If you think any article deserves to stay it's down to you to defend it; we'd delete George Bush if he didn't have two mentions in major news sources. — iridescent 23:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        But Why can't there be exceptions, I am sure George Bush would make you guys have a page about him, he is the President. I want this page on here, and I am defending it, because it is unjust that because a page with low-standard sources should be deleted, if any other web-site such as Myspace would do that, we would have been deleted a long time ago. Once again, it is the internet, people already think that you have bad info anyways. Why can't there be a page where it has full-proof information but not huge sources such as a web-site, trust me if Eastern Glow had a web-site, I wouldn't have made a page on here in the first place. But Eastern Glow has not reached a level of importance to have a web-site yet. So I tried to get it on too here and I thought it would be fun to see it on here. Maybe than they would get recognition and move to the web-site status. Can the page at least stay until a web-site is worked out? --Les Paul Maniac (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have searched for sources in Google News archives, and also in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles. I found not a single one. Delete if no third-party sources turn up by the end of this deletion discussion. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add that Wikipedia has a page on "Big Foot" and yet he has not had confirmation of existance, so why shouldn't that page get deleted? --Les Paul Maniac (talk) 01:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not quite sure at this point if you are just making jokes, but I'll assume you are being serious. You appear to misunderstand the purpose of an encyclopedia as a collection of secondary sources. Whether a subject exists or not does not matter; what matters is whether the subject has been written about in multiple independent sources such as newspapers, journals and books. In other words, the world has "taken note"—that is what we mean by notability. (Take a look at this essay for a longer explanation.) If you take a look at the footnotes of the Bigfoot article you will see they are extensive: the world has "taken note" of the subject. So far, that appears not to be the case with Eastern Glow. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not intended to be used as a tool to promote up-and-coming bands, and, along the same lines, is not a free webhost (as Iridescent has already said). Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If Wikipedia is not a free webhost, why do you allow people to post and/or edit pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Les Paul Maniac (talk • contribs) 11:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", but that does not mean that "anything goes" (we still ask that contributors adhere to the established policies). Letting anyone edit helps to encourage as large and diverse as possible a base of volunteer editors, something that sets it apart from other encyclopedias. See more about this at Wikipedia:About#Strengths, weaknesses, and article quality in Wikipedia. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - And yet people still edit pages and make it look like crap. All I am asking is that my page stays, there isn't anything wrong with it, and it makes no negative remarks towards anything, it is just about a band. That is all that I am asking, Please let my page stay. --Les Paul Maniac (talk) 20:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        If you see pages that look like crap, please feel free to fix them. GlassCobra 05:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        It is not your page. Stifle (talk) 09:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It might not be officially my page, but I am sure the members of Eastern Glow believe it is their own page and would be saddened if it was deleted, I worked hard to add all of that info, and the great thing about bands are that information keeps coming and I can continue to make the page grow. --Les Paul Maniac (talk) 11:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Which is what Myspace is for. Wikipedia has a very specific purpose and it's not a directory of bands. Please read some of the policies everyone above is advising you to read before you continue to work on this article. — iridescent 15:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        If you have such strict rules and policies, which I have read, why do you allow people such as myself to even put up a page, I can't always update a myspace, or else the page would be huge, and that it is why here on Wikipedia I like the different sections that can be created. I will continue the work on this page, which I have asked even earlier that if it could stay until a web-site specifically about Eastern Glow was put up, but no one answered it. --Les Paul Maniac (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        We have been repeatedly answering your question: No, it cannot stay, in the absence of any evidence of notability, because Wikipedia is not a free webhost. "Anyone can edit" does not mean "anything goes". When someone, such as yourself, begins editing in a way that is not in keeping with our policies, we point them to those policies and ask that they follow them. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        But what am I doing wrong, if I made a page making fun of something and brining a negative wave than I would surely allow it to be deleted, but that isn't that case, the policies of Wikipedia being an Encyclopedia, where it contains information that is of interest to some people, than it should be allowed to make a page about a band that is well known through out the Chicago suburbs. There is no good reason why this page should be deleted, it is a justified page and deserves to be on Wikipedia, I respect this site enough to put a page up myself, not waiting for some reporter to do it for me, I do my own work, and it took me a long time to get enough information to make this page. --Les Paul Maniac (talk) 20:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←This is getting ridiculous. If you continue wilfully refusing to read the pages you're being repeatedly advised to read, I'm going to treat you as a disruptive editor. You are very welcome to post in this discussion - or any other part of Wikipedia - but not if you refuse to work with anyone else. — iridescent 20:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't I just say I read those pages? I am sticking to what I think is right, and you are just presenting stuff over and over again, I get your point, but what is so bad about my page? --Les Paul Maniac (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Read WP:BAND again, then come back and tell us specifically which of the criteria you think this band meets and why. If you can't answer that question, then please don't post again in this thread until you can answer it. — iridescent 20:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without a doubt KEEP okay seriously guys, this is a band!! wikipedia is a source of information for people who need to know stuff and this is a band that people know because they are quite known on MySpace. In fact i use this wikipedia page when im editing the names and composers for their songs. If this page gets deleted a lot of people will be dissapointed. dont let the fact that they have few sources as an excuse for getting rid of them. in fact why are you guys on this page if their an unknown band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetruth982 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC) — Thetruth982 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Thetruth982 appears to have made exclusively vandalism edits, save only for his contribution here. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 16:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Most "keep" arguments were made in ignorance of Wikipedia's inclusion policies. Sandstein (talk) 07:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sheep Tag (Warcraft III)[edit]

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

Non notable scenario for notable game. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 04:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is really good.
Keep.This is actually a very popular game in the Warcraft Scenario games. It would be ranked 4 behind Defense of the Ancients, Footmen Frenzy, Elimination tournament. It has also had 5 years of game development and has had several tournaments other than the world cups described in the wiki page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaVERICKShEEP (talk • contribs) 04:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC) — MaVERICKShEEP (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Sheep Tag is one of my favorite games on Warcraft III. It has a constant growing community of players, who's map design is being monitored by GosuSheep, who has spent years developing the game and creating a League, Annual World cup as well as internationally uniting gamers from USA to Europe 1000's of players play it. There are multiple forums and tutorials as well as Youtube videos about Sheep Tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrandAznDawg (talk • contribs) 04:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC) — GrandAznDawg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I agree with Maverick. Sheep Tag was/is one of the most popular games on WarCraft and they have a entry for ANOTHER mini-game on it? That isn't very fair. Sheep Tag has many tournaments, some in which you can earn money. There are dozens of clans, also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.101.29 (talk) 04:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC) — 68.104.101.29 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Do you have any statements which provide information to the effect that there are sponsored tournaments? That would go a long way toward asserting notability. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sheeptag is one of the first custom games that ever came out on Warcraft III, it was originally bigger then Defense of the Ancients (D.o.t.a). It is a memorable game to alot of users within the Warcraft community and is still being played throughout the majority of realms on Battle.net. There are many forums dedicated to this custom game and many youtube videos created on showing off one's skill within the game. I personally think this section should be created and remain that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.1.252 (talk) 04:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC) — 124.191.1.252 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Boy, the socks are out tonight. It doesn't MATTER if you think it is fun. I think the Myth II WWII mod was fun. that doesn't mean it gets an article in wikipedia. It gets an article in wikipedia if it is notable, contains verifiable information from reliable sources and can allow the article to be written in a neutral point of view. Otherwise, it should be deleted. Protonk (talk) 05:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability asserted in reliable sources. Most of the keep !votes this far have been ILIKEIT. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources. Custom maps, game mods, and such are not generally notable anyway. Most of the article is just trivia and junk, such as a long list of "clans". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Someone was saying that you do not have game mods or whatever, then why is there an article on [DOTA]? Which is another custom game for Warcraft. This custom game deserves a page on wikipedia! --Kekek1 (talk) 12:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to verifiability issues and lack of reliable secondary sources no hits on Google news, google scholar and google books. No good hits on google as most of the websites that I encountered where either blogs, personal websites, youtube and myspace. By the way, DOTA garnered hits on both google scholar and google news so my searches on those engines are valid.--Lenticel ^(talk) 12:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sheep Tag used to be one of the most popular games for warcraft, if not the most popular. The community is still large and if someone want to know what Sheep Tag is, wikipedia should be a way of finding that out. InvalidArgument (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No google book hits for dota. There are only 3 mentions of the game in google scholar but are only used as citations. Those 3 articles are about Warcraft as a game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.232.214.19 (talk) 16:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the only way to find sources; look at the References section of the DOTA article. It's been covered in newspapers like the Philippine Star and reputable gaming magazines like Computer Gaming World. Those are the kind of souces that are needed to meet the notability guidelines. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sheep Tag should be on Wikipedia, because it is a notible Community. Although a game it might be, many people grew up playing this game, and lived through it. This comminity, although dwindling, still exists, and should be viewed for what it is. More than a game, a "village" if you will, of people from all over the world, coming together with one goal, to have fun. Many people playing have put over five years of their life into this game, Why does five years of work and five years of living not deserve to be "notible" ? I emplore you to search your hearts, and keep Sheep tag inside Wikipedia, because the community deserves it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.183.20.2 (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above due to verifiability issues, lacks reliable secondary/third party sources to establish such. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep This is a very popular game on WC3 and the community is great. People who want to join this community, and start playing this game, should have a place to go to read about how this game works, and what it's all about. And that's where Wikipedia comes in. Deleting this simply because there are no reliable sources would be like deleting a self-biography made by george W bush because he didn't use any sources. it makes no sense. We players of this game ARE the most reliable sources you will ever find. And that's where it stands. This is a perfectly justifiable article that should be kept on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.202.135.140 (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it would make sense for us to remove an autobiography of George W. Bush, as it would not be written from a neutral point of view. You need to read Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:No original research and reassess your comment. Pagra shtak 19:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I cannot find any independent reliable sources for the subject to establish notability. By the own admission of some of the contributers here, the best source for this article appears to be original research, which Wikipedia does not allow. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability, "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." This seems to be the case here. Pagra shtak 19:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

note I do not know too much about this mod, but if you refer to the reference no.2, the British or european website, gave out 20 British pounds to a tournament winner in 12/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.232.215.238 (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pagrashtak summed it up perfectly. -Seidenstud (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete All of the talk about how popular this mod/concept is, and no reliable references to support it. Something smells fishy here. This seems to be blatantly non-notable. Randomran (talk) 20:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sheep tag is still known widely around the world by Warcraft III players. Although it is not as popular as it once was, it is still active in every server on Warcraft III. There is a community that has worked and played hard for nearly 7 years to play the hell out of sheep tag and try to keep it alive. We even have 10 hours sheep tag parties on the weekend with some the best sheep tag players. People are not as in to it as they were before because the skill level required to play it has skyrocketed. I went to a gaming convention where there were some Warcraft III melee pros playing, and I was playing sheep tag with a friend of mine. They instantly knew what the game was and when they watched me play for a little bit, they yelled in surprise how good I was and how high my APM was. I may have even converted a player that day. The point is, Sheep tag is a very fun game, and when theres a chance for a new player to arise, and they want to learn more about the game, Wikipedia should be a place to find this information. After all, on our forums, we get hundreds of posts per day. -GosuSheep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.129.49.65 (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- People simply knowing about it isn't enough, though. The community has to meet the verifiaibility and notability guidelines, which means it was talked about in reliable sources such as newspapers or major gaming websites, and none of you who want to keep the article have yet show that it does. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 02:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent coverage; fails WP:N, WP:WEB and WP:TOY and therefore should be deleted. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The game is widely known and certainly notable internationally. There are forums (e.g. stwc.bb2.org, www.clan-behh.com) that are extremely active; in addition to tens of thousands of results for the game on Google. The game even has a presence in well-known independent gaming servers and international gaming portals such as the Garena gaming platform (www.garena.com), which features dedicated Sheep Tag rooms. In my opinion, this certainly establishes the notability of the game.140.180.22.63 (talk) 09:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those are acceptable under Wikipedia:Reliable sources. That page and Wikipedia:Verifiability explain why, and also explain what are acceptable sources. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 09:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article does not have any third party reliable sources such as magazine reviews, news articles etc to assert notability or verifiability Gazimoff ^Write _Read 11:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Defense of the Ancients as Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne modding or as a section of Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne. There's a press mention or two of the broader topic of Warcraft III modding, such as E-Commerce News. Sheep Tag and DotA don't seem to be individually notable, but the broader topic of Warcraft III modding does. Also, a Google news search on "Warcraft III modding" indicates that some press coverage of this topic might be non-English -- any German readers able to help out? Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 12:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Defense of the Ancients is notable enough to be a Featured Article, so has enough content to stand on it's own. I would caution against such a merge.Gazimoff ^Write _Read 09:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - any AFD attracting this many "keep" socks is pretty much guaranteed to be non-notable. Stifle (talk) 21:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources to establish notability means delete. --Captain-tucker (talk) 18:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete, G11. Blueboy 96 20:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest M. Edsel[edit]

A new editor created this article as "part of a project to publish a centralized, free collection of in-depth information about people who have previously appeared in older or out-of-print editions of the "Who's Who" series by Marquis Publications. The remainder of the statement is on the article's talk page.

However, I do not believe Edsel meets WP:BIO. The ELs provided are either to articles that mention Edsel tangentially, as in "the lawyer for the group, Edsel" (as in the New York Times article) or do not mention him at all (as in the Dallas Business Journal article). There are some Lexis Nexis cases referenced but those are unavailable to persons without access to that database. There is an Ernest Edsel who wrote a book on diet, and I think it's the same guy but I can't be certain. The author Edsel is from Portland, Oregon, while our guy seems to be from Dallas. Google isn't any help either, with only 105 hits, and Google Books only returns the one book.

In addition, the article's creator, User:JudicialWatch, is showing some ownership on this article and has left some odd comments on the talk pages of an editor who added the ((likeresume)) tag to the article. There is an WP:ANI thread about his behavior.

Regardless of inclusion in a Who's Who book in the late 1980s or early 1990s, a biography should have reliable sources to reference. This article does not have them, so unless verifiable sources are found, the article should be deleted. KrakatoaKatie 04:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This guy may be successful, but there are not enough reliable outside sources to make him notable. --Eastlaw (talk) 05:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. In addition, the Marquis Who's Who is not as prestigious as the British Who's Who, and in fact is often considered borderline vanity due to it combining requests for information with book purchase "opportunities". My dad was in one, but I don't think it makes him notable. --Dhartung | Talk 06:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons presented. Additionally, Marquis Who's Who is not a reliable source, due to reliance on unsourced assertions from the subjects. Heck, I was in a fairly recent edition of that publication, and I make no assertion of notability for myself. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject is not significantly noted. I would also say, article content looks like a data dump CV of a successful business person. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others. All relevant points have already been made. Doctorfluffy (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others, we're not a resume hosting service. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but the main Marquis WW publication, WW in America, is a borderline usable source, having reasonably high criteria for inclusion. Asa librarian, I'm accustomed to using it with caution & many libraries continue to recommend it. Their peripheral publications, like WW in Business and Finance, the one used here, have very low standards, and do not represent notability. I think the information in them is of the same nature as a personal website, usable for routine bio facts, but I wouldnt trust it for the importance of anyone's role in anything. DGG (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable.--Berig (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep but cleanup. Cbrown1023 talk 17:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Daeschler[edit]

This person seems to be somewhat notable, but they seem to be using this "article" merely as a way of posting their credentials on the internet. Should this person be deemed notable enough for a Wiki article, the current article needs to be completely revised (actually, sense no real article even exists here, an actual article will have to be written from scratch, including in it the claims that the current entry advertises, which, of course must be verified). I feel like a tourist (talk) 03:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The article is new and may be currently worked on. The subject seems notable, but I agree it looks just like a CV. I would say add a tag that says the article is in the process of being rewritten. 65.11.23.219 (talk) 07:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but re-write there's evidence he's notable. It needs clean-up, not deletion _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 16:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. Wikipedia is not a resumé directory. Stifle (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's actually amusing how careless the nomination is--the very first hit in Google is his official website at the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia, where he holds the position of associate Curator and head of Vertebrate biology----and the entire article is copied from that, & could actually have been deleted as copyvio (but wait). The nom obviously never even looked in google for this one, or made an other attempt to verify anything. for that matter, he didn't notify the author, or the other ed. working on the article. He did put on quite a variety of tags, relevant and less relevant. Well, it can't be deleted as copyvio now, for I wrote a brief article from the sources in google and that Cari found in GNews. He is an extremely distinguished paleontologist, with much public interest in his work, as shown by multi media appearances and references in RSs. It's not uncommon for academic biographies to be overmodest and insufficient. DGG (talk) 01:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to pass WP:BIO and WP:PROF, I see nothing in WP:NOT that would lead to deletion. the article could use some work but that is no reason to delete. --Captain-tucker (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete a7, org. with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Global Alliance and Treaty Organization[edit]

Seems that the article is just stating the rules and policies. Tells nothing about history, or purpose. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 03:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I wanted to speedy this for having no context (I am completely unable to identify what the hell this article is about) but I am afraid it is too long of an article for db-nocontext. This atricle may be notable enough to be kept, but someone definitely needs to come in and explain exactly what this article is even referring to. I feel like a tourist (talk) 04:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. I really do not have a clue what this article's purpose is. I am placing it on CSD. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 06:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cyber Nations gamecruft that just reads horribly and has absolutely no context (I don't play the game but searching the topic came up with that game). Nate • (chatter) 06:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 16:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Armchair Martian[edit]

The one reference to this article confirms that this band exists but does not fulfill WP:BAND. Delete for lack of notability and no verification of the full discography. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nom said it all. Fails WP:MUSIC, and while I'm sure that the discography exists, it doesn't meet the requirements stated in that policy. Good luck with the future, though! PeterSymonds | talk 04:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Likewise, this band just isn't notable enough, regardless of how many albums they may have put out.I feel like a tourist (talk) 04:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable as per WP:MUSIC. asenine ^{say what?} 04:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage by reliable third-party sources. Only three Google News hits, and they all lead to Aversion. — scetoaux (T|C) 21:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 02:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources indicates to me that the article fails to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-Notable per WP:MUSIC.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 04:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Biography does not assert significance and also falls short of our verifiability guidelines. Editor of the wiki^{review my edits here!} 23:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Camaron | Chris (talk) 10:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shine Music School[edit]

This appears to be a private school for learning music that has no evidence of notability and limited ghits that only confirm its existence. _Cari^{Fellow Travellers} 03:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched web and news.google.com.au but only found advertising. No evidence of notability found. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Talk to_Cari^{the Busy Bee} 04:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Wp:N. Five Years 06:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing anything to assert notability; nothing on news.com.au, etc. [20] dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's clearly not notable.--Berig (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is not a school that offers general education with a musical speciality (which would be a keep or a merge); rather it is a service provider that offers specific paid lessons. Simply yellow pages material. TerriersFan (talk) 22:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not assert notability, so almost an A7 as a non-notable organisation. A quick check through the Internet turns up nothing that indicates this business is any more notable than hundreds of other music school businesses. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete No references or assertion of notability. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 04:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no assertion of notability. Stifle (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, no assertion of notability, no reliable sources, unverifiable. Sarah 07:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). Clear consensus that reliable sources assert the subject's notability. WilliamH (talk) 13:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delhi Gymkhana[edit]

Delete not notable per WP:ORG/WP:CORP. Ave Caesar (talk) 02:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. --Eastmain (talk) 02:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. New references indicate notability. This is a club for the rich and famous, it would appear.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eastmain (talk • contribs)

The sources lack depth of coverage requiring "multiple independent sources" which are not provided in the article. Two is hardly sufficient. --Ave Caesar (talk) 03:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references are good enough for me. This article, in particular, provides a good deal of information and suggests that it's a pretty significant place. Zagalejo^^^ 03:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The obligatory Google News search for "Delhi Gymkhana" looks quite promising as well as the links already mentioned. Ha! (talk) 03:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If 116 Google News hits aren't enough then how about 334 Google Books hits? There's absolutely no need to list any more sources in the article than are needed to verify the content. Notability depends on the coverage existing, not on all 450 of these references being listed in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The abundance of reliable sources indicates this is notable enough and verifiable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable enough based on the hundreds of related hits by third party news organizations. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's enough notability.--Berig (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Surnames aren't generally encyclopedic topics in their own right; they're pretty much dab pages at best. Bearcat (talk) 06:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shuckerow[edit]

There doesn't appear to be any research to back up claims and there's no evidence this is a notable last name. WP is not a genealogy project. TravellingCari _Speaketh! 02:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't think this obscure last name is notable enough for a Wiki article. I feel like a tourist (talk) 05:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article makes no claims of notability. I could see a disambig page, if there were articles for people with that name. Tnxman307 (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does anyone here actually know someone with the name "Shuckerow?" Coaststocoasts (talk) 06:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nope. Stifle (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Concensus that this person meets the notability standard of WP:PROF (non-admin closure). brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David W. Orr[edit]

Delete Notability not established per WP:BIO. Ave Caesar (talk) 02:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Thought the name looked familiar. Over 1k cites on his papers and books in just the first page. You wouldn't know it from the article, but he is a leader in the field of sustainable architecture (odd, given that he isn't an architect). A look at his Cv (or even the praise on the college website) would privode sources that can be found trivially to establish notability. Protonk (talk) 02:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this person is so notable, why is the article so small in size? Size isn't notability, but one would think his Wikipedia article would be bigger than this. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 02:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because people haven't put it in yet. There is no guarantee that notable information will make it into wikipedia. Protonk (talk) 03:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Protonk, information not there is not the same as information that doesn't exist _Cari^{Fellow Travellers} 03:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bulldog123 (talk) 03:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:PROF notability criterion in that his work is "widely cited by other authors in the academic literature", as per Protonk's link. Also evidence of general notability: interviewed in Grist, interviewed on the Paula Gordon show, profile as keynote speaking for Green Energy Ohio with lots of information on awards won books published etc, appears in feature documentary The 11th Hour as an environmental expert... and that's just from the first couple of pages of a Google search. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he clearly passes WP:BIO/WP:PROF. Deletion is not for cleanup (or for getting other people to do google search for you). Bfigura ^(talk) 05:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly seems notable enough, especially per Ryan Paddy's sources. Maxa megalon 2000 05:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's no need to even do a search to see notability - just click on the link to distinguished professor in the article and you'll see why he's notable. I even pointed this out when I removed the prod tag, so I was rather surprised to see this at AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was me that added the prod that Phil Bridger removed. The prod was added in good faith as the article had been tagged for notability for some time. Seeing the article listed here I revisited Google and have made considerable additions to the article to help establish notability - of which now there is no question. Further edits welcome as is WP's style! Thought : Instead of merely voting keep wouldn't it be better to edit the article as well? --Richhoncho (talk) 07:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know how many articles pass through AfD every day? I mean...I don't think it is realistic to assume that editors watching AfD for articles like this actually spend all of their time improving those articles in addition to voicing their support for them. Some, sure, but to each his (or her) own. Besides, most of these articles are someone's "baby" and if we add sources here, they are liable to add them (with a little love) to the article itself. I'm not saying that all the effort should just be in arguing over AfD, but it is a different kind of pastime than adding content to WP, which for me is very slow and methodical. It is nice to just let it flow sometimes. Protonk (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Man living in glasshouse shouldn't throw stones! I added a prod so I am certainly in the glasshouse on this one. OTOH Never mind the quality of the articles as long as the deletion logs are well done. Irony. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so confused right now. Who is throwing stones? What deletion logs? Eh? Explain it to me, as though I were a child. :) (reference lost on those who aren't Galaxy Quest fans) Protonk (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was a self-deprecating apology, maybe with a dollop too much sarcasm. Looks like he takes your point. --Dhartung | Talk 22:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The present state of the article makes notability quite clear, both per WP:PROF and WP:BIO. The awards mentioned and the named chair/distinguished professor appointments would probably already be enough to pass WP:PROF. Also, Protonk's link to the GoogleScholar search results give convincing evidence that the subject is an author of highly cited works. Nsk92 (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's notable enough.--Berig (talk) 20:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sufficiently more notable than the average professor. --Dhartung | Talk 22:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Non-notable actress. Only roles are in minor films. Malinaccier (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lucia Srncova[edit]

Probably fails the notability guidelines. From her imdb page [21] she has had two small parts and nothing else is listed. I Can find no significant coverage in reliable third party sources to show notability. Polly (Parrot) 02:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, two small film roles is a far cry from notability. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The notabilty would be thin to begin with, though the mini series would look promising - if there were sources, english or otherwise, with which to confirm. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 03:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable actress. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The roles are both minor. I wouldn't be amazed if she works her way up to notability in ten years or so, but this is now, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable.--Berig (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Notability concerns. Doctorfluffy (talk) 20:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 22:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I-wear[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, unsourced. Lemmey talk 01:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete. SOUNDS cool, but totally unsourced and no indication of notability. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NEO and also as a dicdef and link farm combo. Much of the article is spam.KleenupKrew (talk) 11:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to wearable computer. Potatoswatter (talk) 13:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost a reasonable G11 in my opinion, unless articles about t heir work can be found and discussions added. Astounding that this has been here since 2004.
Keep I took another look at the article and the current sources--it is not advertising, but an incomplete and inadequate article that needs to be developed further. Keep and expand. DGG (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC) 04:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I'm not sure about the name of this article, but this concept is becoming increasingly important in the fashion world, with (for example) major designer Hussein Chalayan getting huge press for showing robotic-type moving clothing in his recent shows. (See the review of Spring 2007 here--that was the really groundbreaking one--and the review of Fall 2008 here.) Mangostar (talk) 23:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sidenote: everyone should go watch the amazing video of Chalayan's collection here. Mangostar (talk) 23:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment: Here is a 2003 book on this topic[22] and another book that is forthcoming in July.[23] The 2003 book suggests a title: "techno fashion"? Mangostar (talk) 23:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has been a popular topic for more than a decade. See wearable computer, and cyborg when there are moving parts involved. No middle ground to scope out a new article. Potatoswatter (talk) 02:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a broader article is needed, but I do think what is happening recently is different that what has gone on before. See the blurb here for one author's take. I think that the difference is that designers are becoming more involved in this for aesthetics' sake. Wearing a dress that changes shapes because it's pretty is different than wearing a computer and different than cyborgs. Mangostar (talk) 02:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case the article should be on whatever the enabling technology is. Current fashion is inherently hard to deliver as solid unbiased facts. And the designers will never all agree to call it I-Wear. Potatoswatter (talk) 07:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a silly rationale, in my opinion. Just because fashion is hard to write about doesn't mean it can't be done (see fashion journalism). Your logic could be extended to contemporary art and many other notable topics. This is a constellation of related technologies that are being used in related ways by a variety of designers, so unified article should exist. We shouldn't hack the fashion article up because Wikipedians care much more about technology than fashion (revealing my irritation with systemic bias on wikipedia). Mangostar (talk) 04:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - IWEAR was a Paris fashion show, not the fashion that is described in the article itself. The one-sentence lede (article? The rest are links) actually says nothing about what it actually is. It is almost a collection of clichés that leave the reader leaving with as much information as when he/she started reading it. B.Wind (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp (talk) 02:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is not clear about its topic and has little to say about it. Specific clothing technologies are best covered in specific articles such as Zipper and Velcro. Colonel Warden (talk) 03:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Berig (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think this just could be moved to something like the inverse of wearable computer (digital clothing? cyberfashion? j/k) because this isn't the most common term and I'm not sure there is one. This is an emergent concept. But the article as it stands needs much work and I'm not free to do it. --Dhartung | Talk 22:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to wearable computer, leaning towards Keep. The phrase is used in the more fashion-oriented circles when it comes to products/tech allong these lines, so it could allways be brought back. I'm tempted to update the entry myself, but I'm just plain tired and as previously mentioned I can allways do it later. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 03:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Consensus is that this list is not independently notable and fails WP:NOT#IINFO. Sandstein (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Atlantic Airways Fleet[edit]

WP:AIRLINES deemed registrations irrelevant, and article fails to achieve notability Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 02:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete criteria A1. Article has no context at all. --neonwhite user page talk 02:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A1 per Neon white. I will now tag the article accordingly. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 02:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:AIRLINES consensus seems to be that fleet lists are generally not notable, and any exceptions must establish notability on a per-case basis. I also support removing similar sections that may be integrated into other articles, such as in most of the articles in Category:Airline fleets. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 04:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fleet tables are basically copied one-for-one from their respective sources, and I don't see the benefit they give to the encyclopedia. Neither airline fleet is notable in any regard so they fail that basic page requirement. WP:AIRLINES has also stated that registration tables should not be included in Fleet sections on any airline page, therefore merge requests are also irrelevant. Neither page has substance, unlike some other fleet pages that exist on the encyclopedia, and plenty of time has been given for substance to be added. NcSchu_(Talk) 04:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. AIRLINES consensus seems to be that fleet lists aren't inherently notable, and I can't see anything in news that asserts the notability of the subject. Celarnor 20:50, 4 May 2008
I have declined the A1 speedy deletion because it is clear from the title and content what the article is. It is not an article lacking in context to the point where the subject cannot be identified since it is clearly a list of Virgin Atlantic aircraft. Still, I agree with the above discussion that individual planes lack notability, so delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, it isnt clear at all what the point of the article is unless you are familar with airlines. It's all nonsense to me and likely to alot of editors and readers. --neonwhite user page talk 12:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "nonsense" in this regard?--Huaiwei (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning that there is nothing on the page to explain the meaning of the table and it's contents to people who arent already familar with airline fleets. --neonwhite user page talk 22:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Said article once existed within the Virgin Atlantic Airways article to list the various names of individual aircraft, and was moved to a dedicated list as a helper article to avoid clutter in the main article. This article should therefore not be assessed independently from its primary article.--Huaiwei (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But how is the information at all relevant enough for the main article anyway? I can't see how, especially, as I said, because the information is just copied and pasted from V-Flyer's database. Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate list of information, and the fleet isn't notable at all. There's no reason why every single aircraft should be listed in detail, regardless of whether it is on the main page or on its own page. NcSchu_(Talk) 18:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice with some interest that the individual who first split this table from the main page was none other than User:NcSchu [24]. Could you perhaps explain why you made the split in the first place, yet now calls for its deletion? Why did you not delete the table outright from the main article if the reasons you cite were relevant in any circumstance?--Huaiwei (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I congratulate you on your detective work, but why does that even matter? I originally split it because I was a newer editor, and also because I didn't see a problem with it. Now that look it at it, I can't see at all how the information is relevant and/or notable. I guess in your perfect world people would never change their mind. NcSchu_(Talk) 18:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course concensus can change, but I would expect better reasons than what you have cited. I find it all the more surprising that in this article's talkpage, you actually said "This page was created because it was taking up too much room on the existing Virgin Atlantic Airways page and it was agreed that because the information is relevant to the page but a bit too long, it would be best to put it on a separate page. This page is not meant to stand-alone"[25] when someone questioned its existance, the very reasons I would argue that the article should be kept.--Huaiwei (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I wasn't stating my opinion, but rather the small consensus gained on Virgin Atlantic's own talk page relating to the original split. Also note, that though I originally created the 'Virgin Atlantic Airways fleet' page, I created that only because another editor went along and created 'Virgin Atlantic fleet', the name of which I thought was incorrect and therefore corrected. My creating this page has no relevance as to my current thoughts. Upon reflection, I wouldn't consider the original decision to split the page to be based on any sound consensus. NcSchu_(Talk) 22:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that this article is in the mainspace of WP, and therefore the same policies apply to it as any other article. Whilst it is possible to have sub-articles, those sub-articles still need to be notable entities in themselves. For example, Australia has the sub-article History of Australia attached to it, which in turn has History of Australia before 1788 attached it. Each of these can be said to be sub-articles of its parent article, and each of these is notable on its own. Unfortunately the same can not be said of any of the articles within Category:Airlines fleets, which were moved from the main article due to cruftiness in the article proper, and as I have stated below, the solution to getting rid of horrible cruft is to delete it, not to create a separate article for it. Additionally, one tends to forget that concensus within WP:AIRLINES stands that these articles and tables (in regards to sprawling lists of registrations, etc) are not encyclopaedic and hence should be deleted. Additionally, the fact that these articles are not supported by reliable sources which discuss the topic in great details also needs to be taken into account --Россавиа ^Диалог 18:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I admit it would sometimes be handy to quickly look up individual aircraft, there are other places I can do that, and handy does not equal notable. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems to be rather useful information Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions 3.5 --neonwhite user page talk 20:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEDONTNEEDIT, WP:BORING and WP:USELESS applies just as well in many of the "Delete" arguments in this debate.--Huaiwei (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of the 'delete' comments on this page use any of those arguments whatsoever they are mainly centred on lack of notability and wikipedia is not a directory. --neonwhite user page talk 22:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 02:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This article seems moderately notable, but is quite boring. Coaststocoasts (talk) 06:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are many websites that list aircraft registrations in a database style manner. Wikipedia, being an encyclopedia, is not one of them. WilliamH (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not an aviation enthusiast site. Stifle (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NcSchu. SempreVolando (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it has long been held as concensus at WP:AIRLINES that sprawling lists of fleet tables and registrations, previous users, current operators, etc, etc are not encyclopaedic, with the exception of a few circumstances, such as Western Pacific Airlines, where the fleet itself actually was notable. Additionally, the sources being used for many of these articles are not reliable sources, they are mainly enthusiast sites with no expectation of fact checking and the like. Let's build an encyclopaedia here, and let's leave the fandom element to sites such as airliners.net. Furthermore, in the event that article length is ever used as a reason for the existence of these articles, the solution to horrible cruft is to delete it, not create a separate article for it. --Россавиа ^Диалог 18:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Understanding the fleet operated by an airline contributes to a better understanding of the airline, particularly when it relies heavily on a single model or manufacturer, or is a launch customer for a particular model. Retaining the fleet listing is also helpful in case one of the aircraft is involved in an incident and people search for the registration number. --Eastmain (talk) 02:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the list of aircraft names makes this information notable. MickMacNee (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while "notability is not inherited", this is a separate page for size reasons. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Mercado[edit]

Lack of notability Thief12 (talk) 02:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 02:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no news hits, no evidence of sufficient notability. JJL (talk) 02:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find anything to suggest notability. Soxred93 (u t) 02:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A redirect to the page of Objetivo Fama is probably a good choice too. Thief12 (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable.--Berig (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable; no reliable sources or assertion of notability. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 22:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Claims are not backed up by sources, and are not able to be found which makes this non-verifiable. Malinaccier (talk) 23:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 02:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources indicates to me that the article fails to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect. Bearcat (talk) 06:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge Lake Elementary School[edit]

Completely non-notable school, with less than 10 results on Google as of now. No assertion of notability. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 01:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to School District 27 Cariboo-Chilcotin per usual for elementary schools that lack independent notability. JJL (talk) 02:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above and precedent/WP:SCHOOLS TravellingCari _Speaketh! 02:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong redirect to School District 27 Cariboo-Chilcotin as said in the first comment, although I don't see that there's much merging to do. It's not notable enough to warrant its own article, however, per the nom. --JamieS93 02:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to School District 27 Cariboo-Chilcotin per usual for elementary schools that lack independent notability. TerriersFan (talk) 22:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 02:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to School District 27 Cariboo-Chilcotin. Content is already there. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the school district, per TerriersFan. Stifle (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete all. Singu larity 19:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This Runs Through[edit]

Band with no assertion of notability, fails WP:MUSIC notability criteria, no reliable sources, just MySpace/PureVolume promo links. Stormie (talk) 01:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

Delete No reliable sources seem to exist on the band yet, even with an EP on a supposedly notable label. Also delete Until Forever Finds Me, the EP in question ,for lack of notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- good point, also Left Out This Runs Through Songs. --Stormie (talk) 05:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC and has no reliable sources on article.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 02:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC guidelines for RS and notability (no official website, for one). After doing a Google search, there don't appear to be many RSs out there right now, so there's no rescue potential with this article. --JamieS93 02:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I have actually heard of this band before, and their label, Facedown Records, I would consider notable (enough) due to some of the bands that have been on the label, but as for this particular band, they are cannot be considered to be notable simply because their label is (barely) notable. And, since the band has broken up, it is a pretty safe bet that they won't be gaining any notability. I feel like a tourist (talk) 04:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable.--Berig (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 02:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 02:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources indicates to me that the article fails to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy Delete per G3. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 02:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aimee seabs[edit]

Hoax. Google reveals 23 hits for "Aimee Seabs," somewhat fewer than one would expect for a "two-time Grammy winner" and no evidence of any record named "A town called Georgia." It's also a little unlikely that she "gained prominence in 2000," as her birthdate indicates she was, at the time, seven. FCSundae (talk) 01:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, was busy googling when someone placed a speedy template... that may be more appropriate. FCSundae (talk) 01:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G3 per tag already on page. No evidence that this singer even exists, which is rather telling for someone who supposedly won Grammys (and at 7 no less). Clearly a hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A search for "Aimee seabs" (in quotes) turns up nothing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability guidelines. Person may not exist. Leoboudv (talk) 01:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if it isn't speedy deleted under G3. This is an obvious hoax. Erechtheus (talk) 02:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete per CSD:A7. No assertion of notability. Stifle (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

London music centre[edit]

Contested prod. A slightly spammier version of this article has already been speedied as spam; the ((prod)) has been contested so bringing it here to do it the long way. One-line substub, with no assertion of notability; a Gsearch (with a similarly-named rival excluded) retrieves no hits other than adverts and Wikipedia mirrors. Reading between the lines on their own website this appears to just be a piano teacher offering private lessons to groups. — iridescent 01:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - the very short edit history isn't as WP:BITEy as it looks, as the earlier version of the article has been deleted. — iridescent 01:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability standard of WP:ORG. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 18:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Man From Mercury[edit]

Non-notable film series, fails WP:MOVIE through no assertion of notability Booglamay (talk) 00:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable film per WP:MOVIE. Couldn't find anything resembling coverage in reliable sources on Google. Current references are self-published and insufficient. Doctorfluffy (talk) 18:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Berig (talk) 20:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only 6 Google results as of now. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 22:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Only sources are from geocities and the movie's own website. Malinaccier (talk) 23:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 02:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources indicates to me that the article fails to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Should this article be retained as a result of this AFD discussion I have tagged the page wikify because it does not appear the article meet's Wikipedia's Quality Standards. Regards. Stubbleboy (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per previous comments, plus this line from the article: "The series has been critically acclaimed by many, and is especiall popular at Stonehill College." Ecoleetage (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus - Keep Article can be stubified until sources are found ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bhakti Vaibhava Puri Goswami[edit]

Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 02:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 02:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep for now, until I can do a little more research into it. He does in fact appear to be notable, but I've not yet had a chance to do external research on him. TallNapoleon (talk) 10:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep needs a little more research. Sgt. bender (talk) 05:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am open to any information you come across in your attempts to research this subject. I haven't been able to find anything, but would appreciate it if you could find some information, references, etc. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 05:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Its virtually impossible to find any information on the above, mainly due to numbers of leaders who have a name Puri Goswami and due to the fact that his name will be rearly spelled this way. Wikidās ॐ 09:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources indicates to me that the article fails to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cbrown1023 talk 17:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mission[edit]

Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 02:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources indicates to me that the article fails to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 18:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AlBaho Case[edit]

This article appears to cover a non-notable legal case. It has been speedy-deleted twice before over a year ago, but it has popped up again. Both in late 2006 and now, I have checked, and the only real discussion of this case outside of wikipedia is one website that appears to have been created by the aggrieved party. The earlier versions of this article were created by User:JimA who I think was blocked for this. The current version is, from what I can remember, almost identical, but created by User:DomLor (WP:SOCK?). Earlier versions if this article appear to have been deleted in part due to WP:OTRS complaints. There is a bunch of stuff that it appears only admins can check on this, but I think that the non-notable aspect is enough to start an AfD. Wrs1864 (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, case with no notability regardless of its perceived earthshaking importance. Fails WP:V in most respects. --Dhartung | Talk 22:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if this was anything notable at all, there would be a news article about it. I looked in the Google News archive and found nothing. --Aude (talk) 22:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google comes up with very little results and no reliable sources — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 22:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; in the very best possible light this is an unreferenced hatchet job. I speedied this over a year ago, with nearly identical content, in response to OTRS complaints from one of the people involved in the case. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources indicates to me that the article fails to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete it probably is notable, but we need some sources. And the present article is obviously totally unbalanced. By a careful reading of what is there, the ultimate matter in question is a dispute about withdrawal of a manuscript from publication. I can't do the sourcing on this one. DGG (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]