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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 12:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William A. Shopoff[edit]

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

Cites a couple sources but they're not really substantial. Borderline spam for The Shopoff Group, which you'll notice is a red link -- and possibly a red flag too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this and its redirect pages as no notability is demonstrated aside from being the founder, president, and CEO of a non-notable company.B.Wind (talk) 05:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - One article IMHO does not meet the requirements for reliable sources, since WP:BIO says "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability". --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete both. Fram (talk) 12:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Sasscer[edit]

Glenn Sasscer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of books by Glenn Sasscer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BK, fails WP:RS, fails WP:BIO, fails WP:COI, fails WP:N, fails WP:V, fails WP:SPAM, fails WP:single-purpose account, and so on and so forth. Google throws up a palty 21 hits, [4]none of which can be considered WP:RS. Qworty (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete very close to G11 advertising. Not one library has the one book he's published. A list of books with one published book on it is a new low. DGG (talk) 02:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Folks;

I created the page about Glenn after doing an interview for a magazine, yet to be published. I felt I wrote it in a neutral voice without a slant. I thought this was following the Wiki-policy.

If we need to eliminate the external links to remove any hint of COI, let's consider this course before we delete the entire article. While Glenn may not be widely notable now, I believe he will be in time. I can ask him to provide add'l sources for confirmation.

He has been previously published in various magazines and his book will be out for wider distribution within a month - libraries by the end of the summer. There will be people wondering who he is - I thought that was what Wiki was all about...

How do we edit this article to remove any hints of COI and keep it part of the Wiki-community?

Everett

UPDATE: I removed any reference to Geez Press or current contracts to eliminate or seriously reduce) the COI. Please reconsider. Thanks.

EG —Preceding unsigned comment added by EverettGee (talk • contribs) 20:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No sources, no indication of passing WP:BK or WP:BIO, nothing found in a search of Google News Archive. EverettGee, promoting a new author is not what Wikipedia is all about, sorry to say. --Dhartung | Talk 03:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Seems to fail WP:BK and WP:BIO. asenine ^{say what?} 03:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as for all vanity pages. Also, see WP:CRYSTAL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TallNapoleon (talk • contribs) 12:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 12:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Community Parent Education Program[edit]

The Community Parent Education Program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable training program by non-notable creator; no reliable sources to be found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. B.Wind (talk) 06:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No context (is this a local program? published in a book? sponsored by a government?), no sources, no reason this is any different from the many parenting programs for children with disabilities. I am moving the personal appeal to the Talk page; it has no apparent relevance to the article's deletion. --Dhartung | Talk 03:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom. asenine ^{say what?} 03:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It is very unclear from the text of the article what the subject of it actually is. No references to clarify the situation either. Nsk92 (talk) 04:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - unanimous consensus for deletion. In addition, no convincing evidence was presented that the subject meets WP:ATHLETE, particularly that he has played in a fully professional league. Separately, reliable sources were not cited to attempt to establish notability. TerriersFan (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Smith (English Footballer - Striker)[edit]

I originally PROD'ed this article about an English footballer on the grounds that he had never played in a professional league and therefore fails WP:ATHLETE. At that point an additional claim of a brief professional career was added to the article. The additional claim is that the player played professionally in South Korea in 2004. Given that for 11 months of that calendar year he was only 15 years of age, I find this incredibly hard to believe and can find no sources whatsoever to support it, whereas surely an English schoolboy travelling to the other side of the world and winning awards playing against grown men in a league which hardly any (if any) English players have ever played in would have garnered lots of coverage. Although the PROD template was not removed per se, I'm going to treat the addition of the extra claim as a disputing of the PROD and am therefore bringing it to AfD ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 23:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The claim that that the subject once played in Korea is unverifiable and likely false given that the subject would have still been at school! The only content that is verifiable is that he apparently signed for Leek Town in January 2008 and has played for Maine Road and Alsager.[5]. On the that basis, clearly not notable and fails WP:Athlete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above --Jimbo^[online] 07:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and remove link from Chris Smith, I consider this unsourced claim of playing in Japan as a WP:REDFLAG and in my efforts I cannot WP:VERIFY it, and have found information that contradicts it - his own page on a social networking site, which is a bad source so I have not provided a link. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I think the K-League claim is a hoax. On Leek Town's unofficial website, his penpic reads "CHRIS SMITH: (19, Striker) Forward signed from NWCFL side Maine Road in January 2008. Chris has also played for Alsager Town." Surely if he really played in the K-League, it would have been mentioned here, especially seeing as the former league teams of other players are mentioned. Bettia ^(talk) 14:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Good nomination, good rescue. Fram (talk) 12:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wet floor signs[edit]

Wet floor signs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Is this subject sufficiently notable to require an article separate from the Sign article, in the community's opinion? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete er, no, not notable. Next we'll have Wet Paint Signs, Closed for Lunch signs, Your Dinners in the Oven signs. Somebody's having a laugh : "Historians of the Roman period point to the introduction of wet floor signs (approximately 220 B.C.) as one of the main causes of the decreased rate of ankle-sprains among Romans..." - yeah, right! Camillus 21:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge After removal of "wit", I'd go for a merge/redirect with Sign, as suggested in nom. There's only so much you can say about a "wet floor sign". Camillus 20:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki to Uncyclopedia, if it hasn't been already. This made me crack up and the history is amusing, though yeah, it's just a safety sign, not that much notablility. Nate • (chatter) 22:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Utter nonsense. Someone save a copy though. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per removal of Uncyclopedic [sic] content, and per likely addition of verifiable, encyclopedic content. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Nate • (chatter) 23:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nonsense. Not even very funny. --Boson (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I beg to differ... "It is believed that wet-floor signs were first used... at the dawn of the floor age..." "Because the Germanic tribes to the North had not yet developed floors, they had little use for a sign that would declare a floor's wet state." Funny stuff. A regretful delete, as Wiki-satire. Dekkappai (talk) 23:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Delete Could be a publicity stunt for staples.com, see purchase link at end of article. Notability has been demonstrated here, and any commercial intent removed. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and recreate with Out of Order tag. Deor (talk) 00:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete until the article on the Floor Age grows to such as size that it needs this part spun out. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep After the humor is removed, there will be an appropriate stub which can be expanded with the available reliable sources. The present article is full of nonsense, but these signs satisfy WP:N on the basis of multiple reliable and independent sources with substantial coverage. Just do a Google book search for "wet floor sign". Most books on managing restaurants [6] and other property as well as on patient care [7] include at least the instruction to place one whenever there is a spill or a floor is mopped. Many legal textbooks discuss the clear negligence of failure to place one of these leading to a slip and fall lawsuit ["Business Law and the Legal Environment" by Ronald Aberdeen Anderson (1999) p 163 A Google News search shows scads of legal cases, starting in the 1980's, about accidents resulting from the omission of these signs [8] A book on warning signs contains over 130 words about the "wet floor sign": its effectiveness draws upon implicit knowledge in the average person that such a floor will present a slipping hazard, so that additional information may be omitted “Handbook of Warnings” by Michael S. Wogalter, p420, (2006). In sum, stub the article, but do not delete it. Reliable sources exist to create a short encyclopedic article, which might later be expanded to discuss the litigious climate of the late 20th century which resulted in the ubiquity of these little bilingual signs. Edison (talk) 01:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think you're right, Edison, that a well-sourced and encyclopedic article can be written on Wet floor signs. It seems pretty obvious to me, though, that the current article is a witty little hoax. The article could be stubbed down to nothing, with some good sources put in to help someone start a real article on it though, I suppose... Dekkappai (talk) 01:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it might be out of line for me to delete 99% of the content while it is up for AFD. But if it is deleted and then recreated, some people get heartburn about re-creating a deleted article, even when there is virtually no overlap and the re-created article has refs. One solution would be a paragraph in the Sign article with the refs (that article is presently unreferenced. These are more accurately Warning signs, but that article is focussed on traffic signs, with only a little paragraph mentioning all non-traffic warning signs. Edison (talk) 02:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, as one of those people who gets heartburn over recreating deleted articles on notable subjects, I'd still have no problem with this one being deleted, because, really, there's nothing "real" there to recreate... It'll have to be written over from scratch either way. Dekkappai (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • However, if you do decide to write a good and properly-sourced article on Wet floor signs, Edison, I'd be happy to change to "Keep." Personally, I can't get myself worked up into doing much research and writing on the subject though... Dekkappai (talk) 02:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hazard symbol might be another candidate for merging into, though it might be better to create an article on something like "Hazard signs" with a disambiguation note regarding traffic warning signs (posssibly moved to "Traffic warning sign" or "Warning sign (traffic)".--Boson (talk) 06:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The topic is notable and scholarly. If the article is currently imperfect then we improve it. Deletion is not an improvement. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Changing my "Comment/Delete" above to Keep in light of the Colonel's removal of the hoax/satire, and sourcing and starting the article out as a serious stub. Tough work, Colonel, but someone had to do it! Dekkappai (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Changing from my "Delete" above now that nearly all the (inappropriate) content has been removed. I would be equally happy or happier if the article were merged with an article including other hazard signs/symbols.--Boson (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If kept, should the article be moved to Wet floor sign (singular), when the deletion debate has finished?--Boson (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Edison. I'll do the page move now on the assumption that the closing admin will almost certainly keep this. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WARRIORS, (Script Series).[edit]

WARRIORS, (Script Series). (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contains lots of what appears to be Original Research, and it does not appear to be notable. Gary King (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:MADEUP. I can't believe the article has even lasted this long. Anthony Rupert (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it veers close to speedy delete territory. It could be a hoax, it could be something made in one day, and this article should be deleted. B.Wind (talk) 06:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Circle Versus Square[edit]

Circle Versus Square (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable comic, only in one publicaton; no reliable sources, author is a red link. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:WEB and WP:N, WP:V, etc. (Emperor (talk) 17:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
• Speedy delete - no assertion of notability - if anything, just the opposite. B.Wind (talk) 05:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn per addition of sources, with consensus to keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Average Australian Yobbo[edit]

Your Average Australian Yobbo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable album, issued only in concerts; no reliable sources, et cetera. If this is deleted, please see that Category:Kevin Bloody Wilson albums is deleted too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn per addition of sources. Looks much better now. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article could use some work, but I found several reliable Google hits. Anthony Rupert (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where? All I see are download sites and forums. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, I didn't realize those were download sites. Delete then. Anthony Rupert (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:Music#Albums, which states: "Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage. Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." The sites provided above do not meet this criteria. PeterSymonds | talk 21:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 22:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Unlike his daughter Jenny Talia, Kevin Bloody Wilson, while not quite a household name, is fairly well known in Australia, and while not my cup of tea, his albums sell reasonably well amongst his target demographic. For "reliable" sources are probably best found by looking through old editions of quality publications like Picture [9](what, no article!) and People. Given the nature of the material and the target market, (a subset of anglo, working-class Australian men or less politely Bogans), it is unlikely that reliable sources will be found, hence the weak keep; but I would take a punt this has sold many more copies than most of the Australian albums with articles on this encyclopedia. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- valid album release by a notable Australian artist. - Longhair\^talk 00:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Longhair and Mattinbgn. The Aria awards only started in 1987 and he won best comedy album in that year with the successor to this album. Google hits are not a reliable guide to notability for 1984. Even when it comes to downwload sites - he is a notable artist when it comes to downloading -see for example this article authored by Agence-France press. I suspect the download of his album is notable too - not totally sure where to go for sources on download statistics or sales - the artist claims sales in excess of 300,000 copies for this album [10] - how does one verify Australian album sales?--Matilda ^talk 00:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm still not seeing any reliable third party sources anywhere. Download sites are not an assertation of notability. Most keep arguments here are WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:USEFUL here, it seems. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Response - the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (music) states In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. The artist is notable - winner for example of an Aria award. Not sure what "officially released" means. He has it on his website. You can download the album in lots of places. I don't know what sources you would have access to for a 1984 release otherwise. So the notability is based on the artist. I note also his assertion that 300,000 sales for this album - more than most albums on wikipedia. I don't know how to independently verify the sales figure but I don't see why it should be a lie.--Matilda ^talk 01:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The album was an official (re)release, sold widely in popular music and department stores at the time. As Matilda says, the artist is notable, this is just one of his many releases, perhaps even his first. -- Longhair\^talk 01:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would be fine with a merge to the comedian's page. There doesn't seem to be enough standalone notability for the album itself (heck, I can't even find cover art anywhere). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cover art is now included within the article. -- Longhair\^talk 01:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• (Edit conflict times 2) That is was officially released is supported by http://www.aria.com.au/pages/ArchivedAustralianReleases-April2002.htm - released on CD by SMA This link indicates it is a Sony Music release http://www.sonybmg.com.au/cd/releaseDetails.do?catalogueNo=BBCD90797R It isn't my taste in music! but I think it deserves a place on wikipedia. Cover art can be found on the Sony page and on the Bigpond download page and ...--Matilda ^talk 01:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Standalone notability is claimed sales in excess of 300,000 --Matilda ^talk 01:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the fact that he managed to sell over 22,000 copies purely at venues and by mail order, resulted in his signing with a major record label is a notable achievement. The resultant second album subsequently winning an ARIA award. The fact that the album also managed to sell in excess of 300,000 is a notable achievement especially for what was essentially an independent release. Dan arndt (talk) 06:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Top-selling debut album from a notable musician and comedian. --Canley (talk) 06:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, fails WP:MUSIC for unreleased albums. No prejudice against recreation if sources found that confer notability. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Togetherland[edit]

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

Per WP:MUSIC, unreleased albums are not notable without substantial coverage in reliable sources. None provided. Three reliable sources found [11][12][13], all are mere mentions. Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:02, 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No substantial mentions of this unreleased album in third-party sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep, withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reynolds Guyer[edit]

Note: Page moved to Reyn Guyer. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unwikified résumé, possibly copyvio, no notability asserted besides "development" of a few games for Hasbro; this may or may not be a notable role, depending on how involved he was. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn I didn't know he was the inventor of those games; the fact that I didn't know his common nickname was also quite the impediment in finding sources. I have cleaned up the article, and I feel that notability is now asserted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The inventor of the NERF ball and Twister (game) is certainly notable, and there are numerous Google Books and Google News Archive results that corroborate that involvement. I don't know about any of the rest, but he's clearly a notable toy inventor. Move to his common nickname Reyn Guyer, though. --Dhartung | Talk 23:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, that helps. I didn't know he was nicknamed Reyn, so that made for few reliable sources when I searched. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as WP:CSD#A7 (non notable band). Also qualifies as a PROD delete, as no one commented here after 6 days opportunity to discuss, improve, etc. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scred connexion[edit]

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

Non-notable rap group, seems to turn up very few, if any, sources. None of the albums appear to have been on significant labels. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn with consensus to keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Format[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be a notable rapper. A few semi-notable collaborations but no reliable sources present.

Also, his albums, which seem to fail notability guidelines:

Music For the Mature B-Boy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

If You Can't Join 'Em… Beat 'Em (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fabric Live 27 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn per addition of sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:18, 8 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)} 20:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It is unclear if the nominator followed Wikipedia guidelines and made attempts to search for sources prior to AfD nomination. There does appear to be enough from just a search on Google News archives to pass WP:N or WP:MUSIC criterion #1. Keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I did indeed try to find sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• My apologies for suggesting that you might not have. Meanwhile, I've been adding some more sources. DJ Format has had a fair bit of press, including album reviews in major UK newspapers. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clearly notable according to the current draft of the article. Chubbles (talk) 02:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G12 as an extensive copyright violation of http://www.ashram.org/newweb/aboutashram.html weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sant Sri Asaramji Ashram[edit]

Sant Sri Asaramji Ashram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

POV fluff piece about a non-notable Indian charity leader. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that i need to add more references, but still windering how is it a 'fluff piece' ! Rohit Agarwal —Preceding comment was added at 07:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete seems to be a non-notable Indian charity, I could not find independent sources in English language, although a minor citation in Indian Yahoo news. Also the blog and self-reference to Wikipedia current sources used in this article are unreliable. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 08:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A most tragic story, but fails WP:MEMORIAL and WP:NOT#News. PeterSymonds | talk 20:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rhianna Hardie[edit]

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

A tragic yet non-notable story that is non-encyclopedic in nature. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, just a tragic news story. WP:NOT#NEWS --Dhartung | Talk 07:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Much more suitable for wikinews.--Fabrictramp (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete A7 by Rmhermen. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael S Tobin[edit]

Michael S Tobin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Vanity page about a place kicker. No notable and the only reference redirects to MSN groups. Macy (Review me!) 20:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A7 per tag already on page. No assertation of notability whatsoever. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 02:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caledon, Second Life[edit]

Caledon, Second Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable region in Second Life. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article does nothing to suggest why this region is notable, and I don't see a big wave of articles on other SL regions, either. 23skidoo (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Hiya. Sorry, this is a stub, and my first article. should be working on it in a sandbox, apparently. The region is one of the top visited location in Second Life, and is a strong center of SL culture. What is the best way for me to proceed to build the article without it being flagged? Librarianavenger (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Working on fleshing it out and improving citations. Thanks for your patience. --Librarian Avenger (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per absence of real-world notability. Did find a handful of passing mentions in reliable sources [14] but nothing of any substance. nancy ^(talk) 14:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Strong Keep, as "real-world notability" is only half the question here. As Librarian Avenger said, Caledon is one of the most significant, if not THE most significant regions in Second Life not specifically owned by Linden Lab. It has grown enormously within a very short period of time, and is the crest of the wave of the growing interest in steampunk even outside of the usual genre niches. Caledon has developed a strong community which extends beyond Second Life itself. Merely because of its virtual context, it should not be delegated to some bin of "notability" merely because a handful of people have not heard of it YET.
  
  This article can get fixed up, it just needs some time. Yes, I will admit to some bias as I am a part of said community, but in this case it merely means I can see where it can be a significant reference better than those who have not even visited. The significance of 3D immersive environments has yet to crest, as well. Corgi (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If the significance of 3d immersive environments has yet to crest, then this article is about a non-notable subject, and it can be deleted until it becomes notable. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 23:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - real world notability is all that matters here. If the only assertion of notability is that it is the most significant region in SL, then merge to SL. It only gets its own article if it is notable on its own. -- Mark Chovain 00:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Henrico County Public Schools#Tuckahoe District. - Philippe 02:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tuckahoe Middle School[edit]

Tuckahoe Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete nothing to show that this middle school is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Although the school's website has the stuff for showing notability (school in 50th year of operation, first school in the state to have the "campus" format rather than a single building, etc.), this article has never been expanded, and has been an attractive site for vandals. I conclude that the school officials would prefer their internet presence not be on the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and who can blame them? Mandsford (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the first two reasons given by Mandsford. Not having been expanded isn't a valid deletion reason, nor is being a vandalism magnet. I've added the article to my watchlist, so vandalism won't be a problem any more.--Fabrictramp (talk) 23:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Commment Not having been expanded would be a valid deletion reason in this case. Bear in mind that middle schools and elementary schools are not considered inherently notable, and that if the text of the article does not demonstrate some type of notability, a delete will follow. As noted, there seems to be enough information here to make a good article. I'm not going to try to fix it up, because I figure that if nobody at Tuckahoe Middle wants to maintain an article about their school, why should we do so? I'm glad that someone is keeping a watch on this, however. It's likely this debate will be relisted, and if the article has become more substantial, then it probably could be kept. Mandsford (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply We'll have to agree to disagree on this. I still don't think not having been expanded is a deletion reason. Lack of notability certainly is a deletion reason, but doesn't automatically correlate to lack of expansion.--Fabrictramp (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge into Henrico County Public Schools per ample precedent. User:Vegaswikian 21:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Henrico County Public Schools#Tuckahoe District until enough reliably sourced content justifies a break-out article. If we restrict articles in fear of vandals, this whole project is doomed. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to Henrico County Public Schools#Tuckahoe District per accepted practice. TerriersFan (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Mandsford. School does not appear to establish notability. Wizardman 19:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep or merge. A quick search shows that the school has gotten attention for some of its policies such as wide use of computers. [15]. But none focused on the school itself. That article for example mentions the school as one of a variety of schools attempting such policies. It might be possible to write a stub on this but right now I'm having trouble. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g11, advertising. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peopleahead[edit]

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

Unremarkable website, reads like an advert Stephenb (Talk) 20:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Complete spam. Czolgolz (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete clearly spam. Note that editor Peopleahead (talk · contribs) has clear COI and is probably a username violation. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 21:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete db-spam JuJube (talk) 00:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as blatant advertising. The article has been so tagged. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus; default to keep. - Philippe 03:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duccio Kaumualii Marignoli[edit]

Duccio Kaumualii Marignoli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete nn minor royal without anything notable that he has done - notability is not inherited Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not involved in this article, but from my impressions of reading the article, it should not be deleted. Sufficient referencing is given, and the article does not contain nonsense. Keep. Hamletpride (talk) 20:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Containing references and not nonsense is not the standard of judging biographies for notability, see WP:BIO. And I don't regard the referenced website to be in the nature of a reliable source. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm don't see anything about this guy that would be considered notable even by those Wikipedians who are in awe of royalty. Like all other royals, this person goes to the bathroom in the same manner as you or I. Mandsford (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Esther Kapiolani Kawananakoa, his mother, for now. She is one of two disputed heirs presumptive, and when she passes away (her two older siblings already have), that honor could fall on him, or on one of his five cousins. At that time I would consider him notable enough for an article. See House of Kawananakoa#Heirs Presumptive. --Dhartung | Talk 23:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Should not be deleted There are many stubs like this about minor royal figures. There are only 12 living members of the House of Kawananakoa left today on the line of succession to the Hawaiian throne.

209.244.43.99 (talk) 06:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable stub, being in a line of succession, no matter how small, does not make one notable. Delete Esmeralda Kapiolani Marignoli and Teresa Elelule Marignoli. We are not a genealogical repository. Charles 17:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, then redirect to Ring Ring (album) - Nabla (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Saw It in the Mirror[edit]

I Saw It in the Mirror (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable song, not the subject of any reliable third party sources. (Does anyone get the idea by now that I've been clicking "Random article" a lot today?) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The claim to notability here is arguably not enough to thwart speedy deletion; the lack of refs for anything seals the deal. Merenta (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Ring Ring (album) as a person may remember the song but forget the album that contains it. B.Wind (talk) 05:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - Nabla (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Humanitasia[edit]

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

No reliable sources on this film; Humanitasia on Google turns up 144 hits, nothing relevant among them. Tagged for factual accuracy since March. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This appears to be unverifiable. I note that the article's author also created the bio for this film's supposed producer, Jon H. Rexel, which suffers from the same verifiability issues (now proposed for deletion on that basis). I'd be surprised if the article on The Wheezer Bros. wasn't similarly problematic. --MHGW (talk) 11:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No references anywhere, except for clones and descendants of the WP page. Strong possibility of a hoax. Nsk92 (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete: as probable hoax. By the bye, Rexel and The Wheezer Bros. are also up for AfD now.  RGTraynor  16:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 12:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dara Guiney[edit]

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

Lighting designer. Declined speedy. Sole reference is a "case study" (advert) on lighting manufacturer's site. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable per WP:BIO. Reference makes one mention of the subject and is more concerned with lighting and I am unable to find other sources. TN‑X-Man 19:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not notable and orphaned. Macy (Review me!) 20:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. The article quotes Dara Guiney at length about using a new innovative product that has won awards.Disclaim (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to absence of reliable, third-party sources with significant coverage, as needed to establish notability. I've found nothing on Google Books or News archives, and nothing apparently usable on plain Google. Jakew (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no significant coverage, no awards means no WP:BIO passage. --Dhartung | Talk 08:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 04:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nico Haupt[edit]

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

Delete. Minor 9/11 skeptic. This article is made by the subject (see this google search) so obvious WP:COI and WP:AUTO is present. CyberGhostface (talk) 19:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Also wonder if a better image of the subject for the lead can't be found. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 20:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Deletion seems to be warranted, since imho the author is (ab)using this page as a self-adulating curriculum vitae. Also, being a public nuisance doesn't quite equal celebrity status or justify having an entry at Wikipedia. -Rittmeister 20:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Notablity not established. Almost all sources are blogs, etc. except for an interview in German.Steve Dufour (talk) 04:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nom. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nonnotable. In terrible shape and not worth fixing. Kalkin (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i would like to know why you deleted my name Nico Haupt from 9/11 conspiracy theories / No Plane thory ? It was there for years ! Also why do you block a discussion about google 1649ish ?

I'm also not a "minor 9/11 skeptic". I actually coined that term which is still used in England and created the whole 9/11 Movement with the first organisations and research groups !

I met Morgan Reynolds several times and he was influenced by me, Gerard Holmgren and Rosalee Grable.

I have 2 imdb entries and worked once with Christoph Schlingensief ! Do you wanna delete this too ?

What is wrong with you ? Ewing2001 (talk) 11:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)ewing2001[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, fails WP:MUSIC, doesn't provide 3rd party sources to alleviate concerns. If sources are found, happy to undelete. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wishful[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be a notable band in any way -- no major label albums, no third party sources, etc.

Also listing their albums, because if the band fails WP:MUSIC so does their material:

What Was What Is and What Could Have Been (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kicking Goals Banging Gongs and High Fives All Round (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Still Standing (Wishful Thinking album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

You Never See It Coming (EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

…And Then There Were Two (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

At Last (EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Day You Went Away (single) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I dont need you (single) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There are also a couple redirects to some of these pages. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 03:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 08:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

100% Millennium Hits[edit]

100% Millennium Hits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable album compilation. None of the other albums in this series have pages, and there don't seem to be any sources pertaining to the entire series. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 03:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I could not find any chart information for this New Zealand compilation. B.Wind (talk) 04:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus; default to keep. I'm loathe to make new policy or clarify extant policy here. My strong preference is that this discussion go to the Village Pump for clarification.. - Philippe 03:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 23, 2004[edit]

March 23, 2004 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I thought we weren't allowed to have pages for individual dates like this. This info is redundant to March 23 and 2004. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete March 2004 contains all of this information. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I went back and forth on this. There are several categories (Category: Days in 2003 and Category:Days in 2004) that are filled with nothing but pages like this. Is this an instance of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS? Maybe. But I think that the sheer number of pages of this type mean that this one can stay too. TN‑X-Man 20:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Then why isn't there a page for March 10, 1987 (On this date, User:TenPoundHammer was born)? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well said, sir. I checked a little more and I think 2003 and 2004 are the only years with individual days listed. I think this may merit further review, per 23skidoo's suggestion. TN‑X-Man 20:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It has been getting further review. See my note furthyer down this page. Grutness...wha? 02:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Very very 90-lb weaking keep. Although I agree with the nominator's rationale for nominating, the sheer number of articles out there suggests that I guess we are allowed to have individual day articles. I personally feel they're redundant, however I see no point in singling out just this one out of the dozens if not hundreds of similar articles. A review of policy, or a policy proposal (if one doesn't already exist) might be the way to handle this en masse. In answer to TPH's well-said comment above, maybe they haven't gotten around to that date yet? 23skidoo (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Very big comment - this is transcluded into March 2004. It seems most months before about 2006 are done in a similar way (more recent ones transclude Portal:Current events/Month Inclusion). I think there are January 1, 2003 to July 31, 2005. --h2g2bob (talk) 21:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant delete There may come a day when Wikipedia has a project of documenting individual dates, with 36,524 or 36,525 articles to document every day of a particular century. I'd personally favor that, but I can understand the reasons why it isn't done (such as vanity additions). Until that does become policy, the convention is and should be to cross reference this under March 23 and under 2004. Mandsford (talk) 21:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm still concerned, though, that all this AFD will accomplish if a Delete decision is made is removing this single article. There's still a full category of individual day articles, which based on volume alone places this into a different category that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Is it possible to do a mass nomination of so many articles? The March 2004 example is definitely the way to go on this - but what is the policy or is there even a policy regarding this sort of thing? 23skidoo (talk) 23:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - before this debate goes much further, can I ask you all to have a look at Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Removal of many individual date articles? Grutness...wha? 01:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. All info in March 2004. This may cause problems with confusion and duplicate information. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I looked at the discussion. So far, there's no indication that the door will be opening anytime soon to articles about individual days, although there apparently has been an acceptance about articles about individual months starting with January 1999, but not before-- probably a reflection of the myopic nature of Wikipedians who came of age in the "era of breaking news". Going to what 23skidoo says, I don't have a problem with nominating similar articles for deletion, for the sake of consistency. November 22, 1963 or July 20, 1969 or September 11, 2001 can become redirects, while the notable information in most other date articles can be merged. What articles do exist probably date back to a few years ago when Wikipedia was taking just about anything. As Joe Friday said about marijuana, change the law if you don't want it to be a crime. Mandsford (talk) 20:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now—I can not support a delete on this until we have a consistent policy on all entries under Category:Days in 2004, &c. Removing individual dates from the set while keeping the remainder seems illogical.—RJH (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think that there's any indication that this article is part of a set. Mandsford (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into March 2004.-- danntm ^T _C 21:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - events on particular days can be notable (December 7, 1941, March 5, 1953, etc), but the days themselves are not. Every day is another 24-hour cycle of the Earth around the Sun - will we be seeing June 21, 402 or December 18, 62782 BC anytime soon? The only exception I can think of is if (hypothetically) a certain day lasted 25 hours, or marked the end of a calendar era, or something intrinsic to it rather than to the events that took place then. This is not the case here, so let's delete. Biruitorul (talk) 04:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a 25-hour day once every year, and a 23-hour one, too - or do you not have daylight saving where you live? Grutness...wha? 06:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're quite right. Make that 26 hours. Biruitorul (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all individual dates provided there are several verifiable and notable things that occurred on that date (obviously no December 18, 62782 BC, and almost certainly no June 21, 402 either). These articles are useful collections of info that assist in providing chronological context. Everyking (talk) 06:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything happens on some date. That doesn't make the date itself notable. In a few cases (12/7/41, 11/22/63, 9/11/01, etc), the date does become etched in the collective consciousness. But I'm sorry, almost no one remembers this specific date. (And even if it were remembered, we could easily redirect to the event.) Which leads us to WP:NOTDIRECTORY. We are an encyclopedia, not the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. We are not here to document every short burst of coverage. For "what happened on a particular day?" type queries, we have day articles (January 1, January 2, etc) giving the most notable historic events that took place on that day. For people interested in a specific date, newspaper archives handle that sort of thing (or actually, month articles like March 2004, of which this is simply a fork).
  • And another point: what about notability? Where are the "multiple independent reliable sources" discussing the significance of March 23, 2004 qua March 23, 2004 and not as a function of the events that took place that day? We can't just wave that away in the interests of "providing chronological context". Biruitorul (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I think that enforcing that standard is the biggest problem in keeping this kind of article. Either there should be a decision on the part of Wikipedia to give inherent notability to all articles about individual dates in a particular period (such as 20th century) or the policy continue that no individual date merits its own article. The least attractive alternative is the one where between 10 and 20 people weigh in on whether they think a particular month/day/year in history is notable. The original policy choice on this was wise. I think it's presumptuous of our small group to decide that "March 23, 2004" was important, but that "March 24, 2004" was not. On the other hand, there's no denying that there were verifiable and notable things that happened on March 23. Mandsford (talk) 15:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this and all other articles for specific dates within its category, keeping those for the months of the form "XXXXXX 2004". We have been going through a boatload of deletion discussions of redirects of specific dates at WP:RfD; I'd recommend going through there (the latest set is in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 May 3; the original set with the justifications for deletion is in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 April 19. B.Wind (talk) 05:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we subst: the pages in, we can make them redirects but cannot delete them. This is due to the GFDL. --h2g2bob (talk) 17:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 21:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Lynn Cole[edit]

Kimberly Lynn Cole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't seem to be a notable actor; only source is IMDb. Only roles are cameo appearances and/or red linked films. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I believe the subject fails WP:ENTERTAINER. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Cheese Sandwich (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Why? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well I trust IMDB's accuraccy, and according to that she's played leading roles in several movies (albeit lesser-known movies). IMO that's makes her notable enough for inclusion. -Cheese Sandwich (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 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

The above points were taken directly from WP:ENTERTAINER which is a threshold for inclusion of actors. Which one of those points would you say the subject of this article satifies? SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the first and second. As to the first, she's starred in several movies cataloged in IMDB = notable IMO. Also, a google search shows many articles about her. She stars in a DVD being sold on Amazon (here). Look, I understand you guys are determined to delete this article, but it won't be because she isn't notable enough for a wikipedia article (unlike wikipedia articles about these notable topics: Horcrux, Misty_(Pokémon), or Adam_Hart). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheese Sandwich (talk • contribs) 14:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't mean to argue with you and I apologize if it seems as though that's what I'm doing but I just want to make sure you actually understand what notability means in Wikipedia terms. If you want to claim that the subject of this article meets the first of my above listed points of claimed notability, then the films catalogued on IMDB would also have to meet Wikipedia:Notability (films) since she's required to have had roles in notable films, not just films, and I can't find a single one of her films in which she has had a major role that can quialify under Wikipedia:Notability (films). Again, sorry if I'm coming across as overly polemic but IMDB ≠ Notability. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted, I'm just an inclusionist when it come to wikipedia, so my standards of notability are looser that others'. In my opinion (though not necessarily according to wikipedia official guidelines at the moment), published films sold to mass audiences = notable. Anyways, I've stated my reasoning behind my "keep" vote, and if I'm outvoted, then that's the way it goes. :) --Cheese Sandwich (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. Only mentions in Google News archive is a couple of tangential mentions in UPI stories so she doesn't seem to be quite notable enough. [16]. Capitalistroadster (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Capitalistroadster, as I was about to say basically the same thing. Jakew (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 12:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VaultLedger Tape Management System[edit]

VaultLedger Tape Management System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable product. Declined speedy for G11, so taking to AFD. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:PRODUCT. If the company making the product has its own article it can be included there. Does not warrant its own separate article. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable product, spammy, no RS. ukexpat (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete promotional article; "sister article" about company offering this has been speedied. B.Wind (talk) 06:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 19:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Thousand Cranes[edit]

A Thousand Cranes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Speedied six weeks ago by myself; restored per request from article creator, former member who would like to make a case for band's notability under our criteria, an opportunity I promised him. Daniel Case (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No matches under allmusic or metacritic. First two refs in article are passing mentions (of the type "oh yeah, A Thousand Cranes is playing too"), next two refs are the band's sites, last ref is a blog with a very short entry on the band. Gsearch isn't finding anything else. --Fabrictramp (talk) 23:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Fabrictramp. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. One premedical study outlining properties of onions one hand, and indications of traditional usage that are not backed up by reliable sources on the other hand, do not allow for an article on a therapy . As suggested below, incremental addition of material elsewhere might be possible keeping in mind editorial policies but also that Wikipedia does not give medical advice. Tikiwont (talk) 08:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Onion Juice Therapy[edit]

Onion Juice Therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Potentially pseudo-science talked up to sound like medicine. While some information is backed up, a lot of the rest sounds like an advertisement for a new-age treatment, with potentially dangerous statements and vast quantities of POV. Drivenapart (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The article does need some cleanup (and a spellcheck) but most of the issues raised by the nominator are fixable. This appears to be a notable element of Sufi natural healing, with the references provided to support that (nom. admits that some data - and I'd argue the core data - is backed up) so I don't see a reason for deletion. ◄Zahakiel► 20:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There may be enough for a mention in the article on Sufism, but there's hardly enough notability for a standalone article on Onion Juice Therapy, especially given this article's inevitable promotional nature. MastCell ^Talk 15:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete - Fad diet masquerading as a cancer therapy. Completely misleading, perhaps dangerously so. Not even close to notable, as far as reliable sources are concerned. With the exception of a single promotional Cornell press-release, the references are blogs and personal websites (and my own independent search found nothing more reliable). In deletion-relevant language: delete per lack of verifiability in reliable sources that address this particular subject (not just "onions" but "onion juice therapy"). Antelan^talk 21:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The majority of the article does not appear to be written from a WP:NPOV. There is a WP:COI issue with the creator/main contributing editor who has a strong personal interest in the subject (see website [17] and Talk:Onion_Juice_Therapy). The article also has WP:NOTABILITY issues. Although there are sources for onions having anti-cancer properties [18] I can find no independent reliable sources for onion juice therapy per se. See Google scholar results. The deductive reasoning - that because onions have anti-cancer properties therefore onion juice is an effective treatment of cancers - sounds like WP:OR to me. Nk.sheridan   Talk 21:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: A brief look at the cited sources says it all - blogs and NewsMax. There's nothing encyclopedic here, and no useable sources. It's not attracted enough mainstream attention to qualify as notable under WP:FRINGE. MastCell ^Talk 23:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree that most of the sources used aren't reliable enough, but there is at least one which is, the Cornell release. I don't think it's a blog or NewsMax. -kotra (talk)

Comment I doubt a single press release is sufficient to establish notability. What's more, the press release has a link to the journal where the study is, ostensibly, available - but there is no sign of that article on the journal's own web page. Now, that means I can't read the academic article itself - but I have serious doubts that a proper scientific article would act as a sufficient basis for a stand-alone article on "onion juice therapy". It might make sense to include a brief discussion of onions in flavonoids. cheers, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The press release cited by JamesMMc from Cornell University refers to peer reviewed articles in various journals . See; [19] also cited on Pubmed [20]. I have access to the articles if anyone want to ask questions. Nk.sheridan   Talk 00:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's more, the press release is not about onion juice therapy, nor are these papers. As you mentioned above, and I certainly agree, there is a WP:SYN that occurs in the jump from a discussion of the components in vitro and their effects on humans as a therapy in vivo. Antelan^talk 01:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I basically agree with your argument (at least, in this case the single press release doesn't support the claim of an onion juice "therapy", and that leaves us with basically just an individual folk medicine technique, which probably doesn't deserve its own article), so I've changed my "vote" from "keep or merge" to just "merge". -kotra (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong, Strong KEEP - DIRECT SCIENTIFIC QUOTE: "Our study of 10 onion varieties and shallots clearly shows that onions and shallots have potent antioxidant and antiproliferation activities and that the more total phenolic and flavonoid content an onion has, the stronger its antioxidant activity and protective effect," says Liu". From Cornell University. PROTECTIVE EFFECT!! This is a new user who has felt attacked and instead of working on the article has had to spend all of his time figuring out how to defend against multiple attempts to delete this article on the basis of opinion, not facts - before it is really ready to be judged. THE FACTS remain clear - Onion Juice Therapy is hundreds of years old and there is a wealth of information in reputable books that are written in Farsi, Urdu, Arabic and many other languages. It is widly understood in Islamic medicine. This long standing practice is now fully supported by hard scientific FACTS presented by one of the leading universities in the US, Cornell University. Books like The Medicine of the Prophet have attempted to translate some of these more important works and will be included - as new information will be added supporting this important therapy. In an effort to respond to some of the concerns raised the article has been trimmed down to it's basics. Those who ask for deletion should be prepared to answer for the lives of those who may not be able to afford expensive medical treatment or those who have educated themselves in the dangers and wish to try something natural. Lives are in the balance. People should be afforded the opportunity to see these age old advices and methods. JamesMMc (talk) 01:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC) — JamesMMc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment: I'm sorry, but are you really saying that anyone who deletes this article has blood on their hands? Because that would undermine your credibility fairly severely. Please peruse WP:NOT. MastCell ^Talk 21:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blood On Hands: If, Onion Juice Therapy is a safe, affordable and an effective treatment that cures cancer and people's prejudice or narrow thinking prevents it from being considered by the thousands of people who can either not afford the expensive for profit medical treatments or simply do not wish to expose themselves to chemo and radiation - as there is plenty of information that would suggest these treatments to be more barbaric than useful - THEN YES - I am saying your actions cause you to have blood on your hands. It is your credibility that is in question if you think otherwise. Conversely, if this treatment is unsafe, ineffective and I keep pushing it because I have some bias or vested or hidden interest - then the blood will be on my hands as well as the responsibility for having cheated people. JamesMMc (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, please peruse WP:NOT, particularly the section headed "Wikipedia is not a soapbox". MastCell ^Talk 16:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge - As per Zahakiel. Article suffers from exaggeration and POV, but those aren't valid reasons for deletion. Seems to be notable. If not keep, merge with onion, Cancer#Complementary and alternative, and/or Unproven cancer therapy (where I see a link to Onion juice therapy, so this article wouldn't be orphaned if it had the correct title). (changed vote from "keep" to just "merge" due to current lack of enough reliable sources for its own article) -kotra (talk) 03:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can believe that some chemicals in onions show potential anti-cancer properties in laboratory studies, and I can believe that there is an Islamic tradition of using onions. But onion juice as a treatment or therapy for cancer doesn't follow from any reliable source in the article. The author's obvious emotional attachment to the subject has led him to stretch a few facts into something beyond the scope of what a Wikipedia article should be in terms of original research and notability. However, perhaps some of the info based on reliable sources can be merged into onion or unproven cancer therapy (as suggested above). Peacock (talk) 03:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Peacock. This is pure WP:SOAP. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - note that WP:PEACOCK and WP:SOAP aren't in and of themselves reasons for deletion. If it fails due to the deletion policy, that's another thing. -kotra (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He referenced User:Peacock, not WP:PEACOCK. User:Peacock made the Delete arguments immediately preceding Nomoskedasticity's Delete argument. Antelan^talk 19:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my bad. My comment is pretty useless then, so I've struck it. -kotra (talk) 19:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I didn't know which one he was referring to until I clicked through and saw the bird itself. Antelan^talk 19:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOAP is part of WP:NOT. I figure claiming that the article is pure soap works pretty well as an argument for deletion: it is an instance of what Wikipedia is not. FWIW, I agree as well with the claim that there is no notability here; MastCell's description of the sources is right on target. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realize now that WP:SOAP is part of WP:NOT, and thereby a good reason for deletion if it's just soapboxing with no reliably sourced notable content; that's why I struck my entire comment, not just the first part. I still disagree that there's no notability here, though, and MastCell's description doesn't seem to consider the Cornell reference, which looks like a reliable source to me. -kotra (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply to this appears above, cheers, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reliable source that one researcher has found phytochemicals in onions which inhibit proliferation of cell lines in a Petri dish. That's a preclinical result, and the authors are fairly clear (in the discussion section of their article, which incidentally is PMID 15506817) to emphasize that the in vivo effect of these phytochemicals is unknown, and that any health benefits are speculative. The same author has looked at cranberries, black beans, apples, and tortilla chips in the same manner and reported similar findings (check PubMed). To take this one paper from 2004 and its in vitro findings and create an article on "Onion Juice Therapy" is textbook WP:SYN. My point is that the cited source, from Cornell, says nothing more than that onions, like many fruits and vegetables, contain chemicals which inhibit cancer cells in vitro. That's worth a footnote in onion or phytochemical, but not a whole article on onion juice as a cure for cancer - the source makes nothing like anything remotely resembling the claims for which it's being used in this article, and it certainly says absolutely nothing about "Onion Juice Therapy". Again, textbook WP:SYN. MastCell ^Talk 20:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You make a strong argument. This particular source alone is not enough to carry an article on this subject. There may be other sources that can, (for example some of the citations in this article might have some merit, if verified by someone, but as the article stands right now, it's probably not good enough. I'm changing my vote from keep to just merge. -kotra (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable under WP:FRINGE. -PetraSchelm (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and MastCell. No reliable sources exist establishing enough notability to warrant a stand-alone article. Yilloslime (t) 21:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rewrite Change the tone of the article. Place the therapy in historic and regional/cultural context based on reliable sources (no blogs or promotional booklets), then end with a section that briefly indicates what modern science says (onions contain certain substances) and doesn't say (high quantities of these substances cure cancer). Delete if no reliable sources are found, otherwise decide whether to keep or to merge with onion. Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We are still faced with the problem that there are no reliable sources for "onion juice therapy". The path you propose might be fruitful as a way to approach the issue briefly within other articles. But I still see no grounds for an article bearing a title that includes the word "therapy", the way this one does. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Aside from topic matter itself a few issues with the article to point out:

• This article created on 7th May after similarly named Onion juice therapy (note the lower case cf Onion Juice Therapy) was speedily deleted on 5th May (I think)
• WP:MOS would be quite clear that the article name is wrong to use title case and Onion Juice Therapy should be Onion juice therapy - but no point renaming until this AfD discussion completed
• See WP:Orphan - the article is not cited by any other mainspace articles

RESPONSE: The articlehas not been up for more than a few days!— Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesMMc (talk • contribs) 02:31, 11 May 2008

Also note, if this article had correct capitalization (Onion juice therapy), it wouldn't be orphaned, since one mainspace article links to it: [21]. -kotra (talk) 03:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue for discussion is whether the topic matter is notable or not. That evidence based medicine might reject the approach as unfounded or even disproved scientifically, or even therefore dangerous for its denial of proven treatments are not the issues here. Wikipedia is not about our western views of "truth" (ie not WP:SPOV) but rather WP:NPOV which permits significant minority view points. As such, us conventional medical adherents need to consider this article not as to whether we might think is a good idea or potentially dangerous for people to follow, but whether there is a non-trivial minority who adhere to this approach - i.e. we should treat the article in same manner as say homeopathy or traditional chinese medicine. So comment above of "Fad diet masquerading as a cancer therapy. Completely misleading, perhaps dangerously so" is not in itself a good argument for AfD - I personally have this same real-world view on homeopathy, yet would staunchly support the inclusion of homeopathy article here in wikipedia if that were nominated for AfD. So, IMHO, the two issues are:

1. For this AfD - is Onion juice therapy an established non-trivial approach taken in Sufi culture ? If so then the topic should be included in wikipedia (with suitable change in article name capitalisation)
2. If the topic merits inclusion, and this AfD dismissed, then there are quite separate issues as to WP:NPOV on claims of effectiveness, WP:PROVEIT, WP:cite from WP:Reliable sources to WP:Verify etc etc. Quite honestly if a fringe theory seems so wacky as to not merit significant mainstream medical research, then the lack of dismissive mainstream research does not tip the balance of how WP:NPOV and WP:Undue weight should apply to the article - mainstream assessment would still apply as predominant position of the article.

So what's my view on this AfD ?

• Onion intake or use of extract as a cancer prevention (as per the Cornell University reference given) is quite separate from the use of onions as an active treatment after cancer has already become established. So, being therefore tangential to onions as a active therapy, probably largely needs removing from the article (if article name were Onions as prevention and cure of cancer, then would be on-topic vs off-topic).
• Overall AfD - I'll reserve judgement for now as I would be swayed if some WP:RS could establish it as a non-trivial alternative/Sufi-cultural healing/medical practice (otherwise for the chop).
• I've left a heads-up on WP:ISLAM to see if other editors with knowledge of Sufism culture can help us on these issues. Especially relevant, I think, is MastCell's useful pointer to WP:FRINGE - I suspect pendulum currently for deleting the article, but it would be good to know if it is swinging in a vaccuum or if their is anything substantial in the way of the wrecking ball :-) David Ruben ^Talk 23:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Author Weighs In

To help illustrate the possible Islamic/Sufi Traditional Medicine bias here. this article used the template of Juice Fasting as a basis for it's creation. I do not see anyone weighing in on that subject article. It is a near duplicate to the Onion Juice Therapy article in presentation, POV, intent, etc.

If this was an article in the German, India, even Japan Wikipedia - no one would call this therapy non-medical. There is an enormous amount of work pointing to the benefits of raw naturla juices. The pharma industry has usurped these age old remedies for decades - have taken plant (natural) cures and have effectively stolen this knowldge and then made synthetic poisons that they can patent, own and profit from. The trend is moving the other way - NATURAL is best. Here is just one ofhundreds of examples out of most people's frame of refrence.

"The prophet used to “prescribe” food for ailments even more than he prescribed herbs or medicines. The Prophet used everything from barley soup to honey to camel’s milk to heal his followers and advised them to eat certain foods to prevent or cure other ailments. In fact, food is one of the oldest and most respected healing tools available to man. Even the first fruits of paradise - the apple and/or the pomegranate - have hundreds of curative properties (Yeager, p.21). The Chinese and Indian healers have used the properties of food to heal for thousands of years.

What is new is the medical mafias approach associating profit (not Prophet) with healing. Depriving people of this information will cost many lives and all who ask to delete share in that responsibility. People should be free to choose for themselves. Wikipedia is not in the business of deciding what is best for people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesMMc (talk • contribs) 02:31, 11 May 2008

Oh dear. MastCell ^Talk 15:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JamesMMc, (to perhaps explain MastCell's succinct reply), the Wikipedia:General disclaimer (link provided bottom every page) states "If you need specific advice (for example, medical, legal, financial, or risk management) please seek a professional who is licensed or knowledgeable in that area." and so Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer states "WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT GIVE MEDICAL ADVICE" (in bold no less) and your threat of "information will cost many lives and all who ask to delete share in that responsibility" is a gross breach of WP:AGF and our WP:Civility codes, for as the medical disclaimer continues, "None of the individual contributors, system operators, developers, sponsors of Wikipedia nor anyone else connected to Wikipedia can take any responsibility for the results or consequences of any attempt to use or adopt any of the information presented on this web site." If you can not work within these guidelines then you need to question whether wikipedia is a place you can work within. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#MANUAL - we don't instruct readers. Finally your statements of "I am saying your actions cause you to have blood on your hands" or conversely of "then the blood will be on my hands" are both untrue - the medical disclaimer concludes with "Nothing on Wikipedia.org or included as part of any project of Wikimedia Foundation Inc., should be construed as an attempt to offer or render a medical opinion or otherwise engage in the practice of medicine." - so no blood on anyones hands, and that's official policy. David Ruben ^Talk 19:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Building further on David Ruben's comment, it's of course one of Wikipedia's goals to have as accurate information as possible on all subjects, including medicine. But anyone who relies on Wikipedia for life-and-death medical information is.. well, I wouldn't say they have it coming, but it's not a smart thing to do. -kotra (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin award, perhaps?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Onions contain flavonoids which have an important function in mopping up free radicals and therefore limit cell damage. There are, however, lots of other natural products that contain similar flavonoids. I think that, while this is indeed a known therapy, the article should reflect this. As it is, the reader has no clue as to why onions may have a positive effect. Does the positive effect keep increasing as we consume more and more flavonoids? Hardly, there is a study on dark chocolate that shows a saturation effect. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  What ? You mean there is a limit to the amount of scrumptious dark chocolate I can claim is medicinally allowable - bummer :-) David Ruben ^Talk 21:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I think one needs to be very cautious in extrapolating from a theoretical benefit to claim that a substance prevents cancer. The canonical example is beta carotene, an antioxidant which "mops up free radicals". There was preclinical and epidemiologic evidence (incidentally, much stronger than that for onion juice) that beta carotene supplementation would decrease the risk of lung cancer. However, several huge, fairly well-publicized human trials later, it's become apparent that it's either ineffective or (more likely) actually increases the risk of lung cancer in smokers. It may well be that flavinoids "mop up free radicals" and that this translates into a reduced risk of cancer, but jumping from epidemiologic or preclinical studies to that conclusion is a bad idea. MastCell ^Talk 22:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. It is just one factor that may play a role, and research has not advanced far enough yet. What I'm thinking though is that it may explain how this therapy historically came to be. Perhaps there was a lack of flavonoids in the general diet of that time and area. Guido den Broeder (talk) 07:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that the webpage on Sheikh Nazim (1997), Natural Medicines, Traditional Sufi Healing Methods, eventually points back to this Wikipedia article, so it can therefore not be used as a source. Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Fram (talk) 13:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Highwinds Network Group[edit]

Highwinds Network Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod which will eventually arrive here. Seeking debate, improvement if poss. No opinion as yet. AndrewHowse (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you in advance for taking the time to consider allowing the Highwinds Network Group article to remain. I created the article to help educate interested parties about one of the growing, well-funded content delivery networks. If you reference the Content Delivery Network article, several CDNs are listed. Each of them has a Wikipedia article as well with basic information about the CDN. Some of these are smaller companies with smaller networks and less funding. When I originally created the Highwinds Network Group article, I included much more information such as links to national press about Highwinds, listings on industry websites, blogs, and partner pages, and information about partners such as Adobe and Microsoft. When the article was marked for deletion, I went back and edited it to mirror the types of information on the other CDN articles. I figured that way it would be kept up just like the other company's articles. I recognize that I am new to Wikipedia and as much as I have studied the rules and am trying to learn the correct procedures, I think I may need some help. Please let me know the types of information that should or should not be included on this article for it to not be deleted. I am happy to make the edits that you recommend. Thank you. Wjmoore (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see links to stories about funding, and I see a couple of lists. The lists of Adobe/Silverlight partners aren't really helpful here. What you need is some references to establish notability, in order to meet the requirements of notability of companies.

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are only a handful of content delivery networks in the world. It's an important tech subject, and any such company that obtains $55M in funding is pretty notable by definition. The coverage of the funding event in major publications (e.g. Red Herring) illustrates the point. Wikidemo (talk) 02:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Company in question has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and these are included in the article (thus meets WP:N). I would like to ask the nominator the rationale for nomination, as it is not described in the nomination. Is it being contended for lack of notability, or for other reasons? Arsenikk (talk) 09:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Rationale is that this page has a chequered history, including deletion for expired prod on 4 May, subsequent restoration as contested prod after the creator inquired at WP:EAR, and in my view some marginal notability issues. I brought it here to force the issue. One can contend that AfD shouldn't a forcing house for improve or delete, but it works to achieve that much better than anything else. Original creator has added more references to enhance claims to notability. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. There seems to be sufficient notability in the references. However as written and without inline citations the article is a bad read. However that is not a reason to delete, just a reason to cleanup. Maybe after a rewrite with citations the picture will be clear. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 08:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lille gaarbe[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary; disputed prod which is not a candidate for speedy deletion. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. and as unsourced neologism. JohnCD (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Rob Banzai (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Merenta (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NEO.-- danntm ^T _C 22:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete by Ultraexactzz, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paradoxonym[edit]

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

Word created by the author of the article, not notable. Drivenapart (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Has the appearance of a vanity page with the creator of the word writing his own article. No supporting citations of word notability or accepted usage. Rob Banzai (talk) 17:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Violates WP:MADEUP. Anthony Rupert (talk) 17:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This does have the appearance of a newly coined word, but that does not qualify for speedy deletion. It is not an "obvious hoax". No verifiability, no reliable sourcing, no Google scholar hits. Dlohcierekim 19:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I am going to decline placing a redirect, since "Johnston street" must be a very common street name, and redirecting to just one of the streets with that name will be confusing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johnston street[edit]

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

Unsourced article on a street with no indication of notability other than its status as a segment of U.S. Route 167. --Finngall ^talk 16:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. The article's title gives no clue, but this is a four-lane street in Lafayette, Louisiana, and there's a proposal to fix its traffic problems and there's a group on the other side called "Save Johnston Street". Someone felt that people outside of Lafayette, Louisiana, would want to read an online encyclopedia article about the issues involved in road construction that may or may not take place in the future. Mandsford (talk) 21:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:N as presented. Edison (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an independent article, but preserve page history and redirect to U.S. Route 167, of which this street is a portion. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 22:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mammo-screening[edit]

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

OR Essay, not an encyclopedic topic. SGGH ^speak! 16:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, clear case of OR. Scog (talk) 18:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or if this is a likely search term (I lean towards not), then redirect to Mammography.--Fabrictramp (talk) 23:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. An OR and POV essay. Nsk92 (talk) 23:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We dont have to decide on the scientific truth, but this article is certainly a one sided POV fork essay. DGG (talk) 03:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - POV, synthetic essay. Aleta ^Sing 15:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - OR, POV, WP:SYN; the list just rolls on. Merenta (talk) 02:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Clearly WP:OR essay which doesn't maintain a WP:NPOV. Nk.sheridan   Talk 21:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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