The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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The result was Withdrawn with consensus to keep.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)} 18:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foiba[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be a notable term; little more than a dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn The ((notability)) tag had me swayed that it wasn't notable. Added references are now sufficient for a stub on this object. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep. This article is about a thing, not about a word, hence it is not a dicdef, even it is a stub which looks like a dicdef. Please think a little bit about this distinction, since as I understand you are quite active in AfD. As for notability, oh yes it is very notable in certain contexts. `'Míkka>t 23:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. Mikkalai is right. This is about a natural geographic formation in the Balkans--a huge sinkhole. So, it is noteworthy in its context--and that is the point about the article--and also for its role sadly as a convenient burial ground for various participants during WWII--including the Axis powers. Artene50 (talk) 01:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Noteworthy especially in the historical context (see e.g. it:Foiba). --Eleassar ^{my talk} 05:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, although I don't feel the article as improved to this point sufficiently distinguishes it from a local synonym of sinkhole or karst (or kettle (landform), although those are glacial and there's no indication in our article of how foibe are believed to have been formed). --Dhartung | Talk 06:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'd agree with TenPoundHammer (and the applicable otters) that it's pretty close to a dicdef, but I think it has good potential to expand beyond that. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A real thing, sourced, notable, more than one meaning, more than just a dicdef. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:11, 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. --John (talk) 21:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Lee Bush[edit]

Barry Lee Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be notable only for being shot; WP:BLP1E. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Between 100 and 200 cops are killed every year in the U.S. and aside from the friendly fire implication there's no indication of why this is anything more than a sad news report. --Dhartung | Talk 06:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLP1E; appears that the article was written right after the event, but there hasn't been any lasting notability. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:ONEEVENT, the place to get this covered was Wikinews. No evidence of notability beyond being shot on the job. Sad loss of a brave man, but fairly routine if you shoot people for a living. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 09:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:BLP1E does not apply though, WP:NOTMEMORIAL does. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:ONEEVENT, doesn't seem to have anything else notable than the shot.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 20:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A genuine tragedy, to be certain, but it does not meet WP's notability requirements. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:19, 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 no consensus to delete. - Philippe 02:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OGame[edit]

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

this page has been nominated for deletion before, and it was kept with only one source(which I can no longer find). however this source is/was only being used to back up one line in the entire page, I cannot find another source which would pass WP:RS. I believe the page fails WP:WEB as it is not notable and the page has almost no info which is not WP:FANCRUFT. Several tags have been placed on the page over these concerns and from what I can see they have been removed over time without the issues being address. One of the points in the original AfD (in September) was to give the article time, I believe enough time has passed without adequate improvement. John.n-IRL 22:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The current sources are two primary sources (one a forum link), two not in English, and one brief review that is not close to a genuinely reliable source. Tags don't manage to attract genuine sources, so deleting is appropriate now. 2005 (talk) 22:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Concerning the review which is cited from labusinessjournal.org. It appears users can submit there own articles for the purpose of increasing link numbers. See here. John.n-IRL 00:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The old source that is now a 404 is available at the internet archive: [1]. It's in German, though. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also throws a lot of g-news hits, but they're in German as well, so not sure if they are relevant. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Non-English references are as valid as English ones, preferably with a quote of the referenced portion and a translation. Otherwise it'd be awfully difficult to write about remote cultures, local phenomena, etc. - not to mention that most of en.wiki's traffic actually comes from non-native English-speaking countries. Flag down a German-speaking gamer and this problem will be solved. --Kizor 13:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't get me wrong- not saying they're not valid, I just can't tell. You're right, a German speaker would make things a lot easier. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Many of these g-news links are forum posts(it seems anyway, cant look at them all), and those from game sites are mostly commenting on the account numbers for the game. Not much information which could be used to expand the article. John.n-IRL 13:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: OGame seems to have a lot of reviews around. None of them seem to be "professional" (I mean published by games magazines) however, and IGN and other sites' policy is not to include browser games as for what I have seen. Examples for the reviews include [2] and [3]. I don't know if they qualify as valid sources. The official forum is the only official place where players are informed about things. Forum links are not seemingly accepted and one can't reference the main site because it doesn't have any information. As for the notability: it seems that the game is discussed a lot around the internet. Travian is even more notable than OGame and those references are not much better. I'm ready to remove most of the gameplay section because its impossible to reference that and the information there doesn't really belong here, I admit. I now ask you: can the aforementioned kinds of sources be used as references? Nyme (talk) 07:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those two reviews are user submitted, so not wp:rs. And the forum sites only really reference in-universe info which the page shouldn't really have.John.n-IRL 13:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say that "forum sites only really reference in-universe info"? Don't you see that the ref I used points to the game rules, which technically are not in-universe information? Well, there the usefulness as a source ends. But I think that may be used as a source. Nyme (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Game rules arn't really far from in-universe(I know they are different), but what the wiki article needs is information about development and reception aswell as gameplay. If the only thing the article can say beyond "2 million accounts" is gameplay/rules information, then it is essentially a gameguide. And the German sources dont seem to provide much information which would benefit the article in this sense. I'll keep looking though. John.n-IRL 16:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Stubify - I'm going out on a limb here, but I know that the game was incredibly popular for a while, especially in German regions. I'd suggest removing a lot of the manual or strategy guide information, possibly through a transwiki to Strategywiki. Other than that, I'd suggest that the sources would support a stubification, possibly supported with a smidgeon of WP:IAR. Other than that, if someone could find a suitable article to move/merge to, I'd support that, but Browser Based MMORPGs are still a relatively unresearched and undocumented concept. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 12:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Strip - Completely agree; take it down to what can be referenced from those German sources. If no independent parties care to comment on the gameplay and other game content, then neither should we. Marasmusine (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strip - I agree on this too. It is clearly notable and therefore should be worth its article, but I do agree on that the gameplay section may be removed. Merge could be done if there was an article of Gameforge, but I still strongly support preserving the article. Nyme (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and strip if necessary, per Gazimoff. User:Krator (t c) 13:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, concerning the German language sources, I cannot find any that would go beyond "a brief summary of the nature of the content" (wp:Web#Criteria).

• Keep, the game has over 3,000,000 players throughout the community, which is of clear significance enough to be a wikipedia article. None of the game manuals need to be there, so strip if need be, but the article itself should still exist. --Dark dude (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the number of accounts a site has is not a proof of notability. John.n-IRL 18:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets say a site has 100 million different IP adresss, but since number of accounts isnt notabiltibility, then thats stupid.Number of accounts does prove notability. (Note, I know this will ne strikenthrough becasuse this is an IP,but I forgot my password, and I didint put in my email adress lol)72.138.216.89 (talk) 21:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: For a topic with 25300000 Google hits, it seems strange that there are not more independent, reliable English-language sources. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete; default to KEEP. - Philippe 02:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

.рф[edit]

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

This domain does not exist, and is not scheduled to exist, so to state it "is the Internet country code top-level domain (ccTLD) for the Russian Federation" is fictitious. Without the existence of the domain, or any formal recognition of the domain from ICANN, the entire premise of the article is invalid. More information is in the Talk page. kjd (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, but make clear that this proposed TLD, even if implemented on Russian name servers, isn't yet sanctioned by ICANN. ICANN is a coordinating body and has no power to prevent anyone from starting a TLD, only to influence its affiliated stakeholders whether to recognize a TLD. See AlterNIC, New.net, etc. --Dhartung | Talk 06:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. It follows from the discussion (http://idn.wat.ch/wiki/index.php?title=IDN_ccTLD_Discussion) at a site belonging to ICANN GNSO, that .рф is the preferred IDN domain for Russia, and it also follows that there is a hurry to approve such domains. More IDN domains are discussed there, some with problems, but .рф seems clear. We should however wait before we write articles about .中国, .香港, .日本, .한국, .бу, .бг, .қз, .سعودية. ,سورية, .مصر, .ελ, .κπ, .भारत, .ไทย and more. Some of them are quite unclear what to have. --BIL (talk) 12:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, if the domain is actually implemented then it can have an article. Stifle (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's been proposed and reported upon, so it is neither hoax nor non-notable. If the ICANN rejects it then I think it can be reconsidered for deletion. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 04:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The references appear to mostly be from the organization proposing this new TLD, which would violate WP:RS and it is about a hypothetical, which violates WP:NOTCRYSTAL. I could see it (and many similar TLD articles) being created when the Internationalized domain name process for TLDs is closer to being finalized. Wrs1864 (talk) 13:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this isn't the real envisaged TLD for Russia. IANA shows that ".испытание" is currently being tested but gives no mention of .рф. ChrisDHDR 15:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that ".испытание" means ".test" in Russian and is just to test top-level IDN, like the usage of ".테스트", ".δοκιμή" and more which also means "test" in other languages. ".испытание" will not be the domain for Russia, instead ".рф" is suggested but not decided. --BIL (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep --JForget 22:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Federation of Internet Solution Providers of the Americas[edit]

Federation of Internet Solution Providers of the Americas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Possible copyright violation: http://www.fispa.org/who.php Ultra! 21:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Possible? It is a copyvio. G12 as almost exactly word for word copy of this. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Keep per cleanup. Unreferenced copyvio, fails the corporation notability guideline. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 00:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I stubbed the article and added some references. --Eastmain (talk) 23:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per cleanup, now a decently sourced stub. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Despite a name tasting of alum, it seems to be an industry association with reasonable prominence. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:19, 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 G12 as copyvio, by Ohnoitsjamie. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mumbo Token[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not an instruction manual (including game guides). 90.205.80.239 (talk · contribs) removed the PROD notice, citing this forum thread. However, a gaming website's forum does not represent Wikipedia consensus, and it should be further discussed here. This content already exists on several other sites, including GameFAQs and the Banjo-Kazooie wiki. — Insanity Incarnate 21:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• G12 Word for word copy from this copyrighted guide. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:56, 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 --JForget 22:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Main[edit]

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

This footballer has never played at a professional level and fails WP:ATHLETE by quite some way. No reliable independent coverage found so fails general WP:BIO guidelines too. ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Well short of meeting the criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia per WP:Athlete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 00:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete although it is a pretty decent article for a player that far down the pyramid, he easily fails WP:ATHLETE's notability. --Jimbo^[online] 12:20, 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 merge to Kanto_(Pokémon)#Safari_Zone and any other appropriate Pokémon regions. Fabrictramp (talk) 13:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Safari Zone[edit]

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

Article lacks any real world information. may fail WP:FICTION. Ultra! 21:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Kanto (Pokémon). It's not notable enough to stand alone as its own article. ZeroGiga (talk) 01:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable in the Pokémon universe. Merging to Kanto wouldn't be appropriate as there are Safari Zones in each of the Pokémon "continents". Stifle (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Pokémon. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 05:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 22:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashleigh Lewis[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. A Google search on her name only turns up fairly low-ranked stuff from Bebo etc from people of no notability whatsoever who happen to share the name. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 21:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Can't find anything either. -- Karenjc 08:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Apparently a non-notable actress/model. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not appear to meet criteria in WP:BIO. Peacock (talk) 03:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: 688000 Google hits for "Ashleigh Lewis" (without the quotes), 165000 hits for "Ashleigh Bridget Lewis" (without quotes), 2750 for "Ashleigh Lewis" (with the quotes) and one for "Ashleigh B. Lewis" (with the quotes). 69.140.152.55 (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, I can't find anything either. Nburden ^(T) 22:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 22:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited: The Evidence for Ancient Origins[edit]

Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited: The Evidence for Ancient Origins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Reads more like an ad; makes no actual assertion of notability and seems to be inticing us to buy it via external links. That can be cleaned, but notability is more of an issue. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Where can I buy a copy Mandsford (talk) 22:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Have you tried Borders? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, I'll do that right now. Mandsford (talk) 00:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as NN book; I'll also point out the irony that the tags at the top are about as long as the article text (bad sign?!) JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Particularly bad when the article text is almost entirely a table of contents. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 08:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, non-notable book. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above comments. There a few other similar Mormon book articles that need to go. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - I'm sure the book will turn up in one of the many Mormon articles anyway.--Doug Weller (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable book. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 02:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RingDivas Womens Wrestling[edit]

RingDivas Womens Wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. I stubbified this a couple of days ago to get the worst spam and laundry-lists off, but on further digging I don't think this warrants a page. No trace on any news organisation or reputable wrestling site I can find, and the article seems to be irredeemably spammy and sourced entirely from the promoter's own site. It also needs to be pointed out that the company is owned by Patrick Desmarattes, and the article was created by User:Pdesmaratt. — iridescent 20:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki311 21:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. Nikki311 23:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN, plus COI by creator and lack of RS. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 02:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Beren[edit]

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

Unsuccessful candidate in an election, no other claim to notability. Almost G11-able in my book, but decided against it. Blueboy96 20:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment High COI to boot--author is Steveberen (talk · contribs). How'd this last since 2006? Blueboy96 20:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not enough notablility.Ltwin (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep The sources are valid and other candidates who ran against Jim McDermott are allowed, see Carol Cassady. Although it'd be best if a losing candidate has something more for notability. There is some criticism by Hussein Ibish, but it sounds like that never went national. It's not like James L. Hart with eugenics. So I'm open to switching my vote.--T. Anthony (talk) 01:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep. An article can be a masterpiece and yet still not belong here if notability is a concern. Blueboy96 01:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's an essay not a policy or guideline. My main concern is that the "rules" on failed candidates itself strike me as somewhat unclear. Do you have a policy, or even essay, specific to this issue? Does a failed candidate being the nominee of a major national party, and having been a subject in the mainstream press, make him or her notable? I really don't know. I'm erring modestly on the side of caution for now until I find clarity on the matter.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On reviewing Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians I've decided to withdraw my "weak keep" vote. This person does not seem to have held statewide office or had sufficiently significant press coverage. Still I have some doubts so I'm not voting delete either. I think if deleted it should be "without prejudice" as in a person can recreate it if notability intensifies enough. I'll go ahead and remove him from List of former atheists.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. I found a NYT story about his petition to the FCC for "equal" radio time, when he was a candidate of the Socialist Workers Party, but that's a fairly minor event that never reached lawsuit proportions. It's amusing that he is now a Republican but not really something notable (especially when you consider the lefty origins of what became the neo-conservative movement). --Dhartung | Talk 06:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable political candidate. He can have an article only if and when he gets elected, which judging by the results last time he ran isn't going to happen. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep From: Steve Beren - To: Blueboy96 and others interested in whether this article should be deleted - with all respect, I would suggest that it is warranted to keep this article. I'll try to be objective as possible in explaining why. I am more than just a routine failed candidate, and I am also running against McDermott again in 2008. McDermott recently paid $1,000,000+ in legal fees and fines owing to (alleged) violations of wiretapping laws. He has depleted his campaign funds in paying these penalties, opening up the 2008 race a bit. While you state that I have no other important notability other than as a failed candidate, this is really not the case. I was a far left activist, communist, antiwar activist, Socialist Workers Party member, and atheist from 1968 to 1990, becoming a born-again Christian in 1995. The news articles linked to the Wikipedia article (e.g., the Bruce Ramsey article in 2006) discusses my former communism and former atheism. At www.steveberen.com, you can click on "amazing grace" and read about my conversion from atheism to Christianity. After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, I started to do the talk show and lecture circuit, especially talking to young people about my communist, atheist past and urging people to seek God and to be patriotic. During my time as a motivational speaker during this period (late 2001 to early 2006) I came into contact with Republican activists, was involved in the Bush re-election effort, and was recruited to run against McDermott in 2006 (and now again in 2008). Because McDermott is a very liberal candidate in a very liberal district, and because I am a former leftist who is now a conservative, the McDermott-Beren election has caught the attention of the media not just as a routine election but as an interesting and unusual matchup. Official filing to be on the ballot is June 2, and if a wait-and-see approach is taken to deleting my article, it will become clear that I am a Wikipedia-worthy subject and not merely a routine past candidate. I respect your intentions and of course I respect whatever the ultimate result of the process is, but I sincerely (and as objectively as I can) believe that it will be borne out on closer examination that this article is worthy of being retained. Thanks for considering this point of view.Steveberen (talk) 05:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)... additional comments by Steve Beren - just to stress that I am not merely a former candidate, but a current candidate, former atheist turned born-again Christian, former communist turned Republican, and former philosophical opponent of the concept of patriotism who is now a patriot. The page as it existed a few days ago had several negative media references, some deliberately posted by me to achieve less COI and more balance through the negative comments. But this might not have been apparent except to those who sourced out and read the references themselves. So I have updated the page, putting greater emphasis on the negative and controversial aspects of how the media and others have seen my biography. I did not mean to "vote" twice, so I have combined my two comments. I am not entirely familiar with the format and process, so please bear with me. - Steve Beren, 3:29 pm PDT, 5/10/08 ..... Futher comments (5/10/08, 10:04 pm PDT) - Wikipedia notability guidelines - this whole discussion has led me to review, for the first time, the Wikpedia notability guidelines - reading them I am sincerely persuaded that this should not be deleted - it is not merely a candidacy, it is a continuing topic of interest, the article has many outside sources over a period of time, the elections are part of it but not all there is to it, and the article is well-balanced, COI is theoretically possibly of concern but in this case does not actually have any reflection or biased content results, and negative comments are fair, accurate, properly presented, and properly sourced —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveberen (talk • contribs) 22:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you "vote" twice? I don't think you're allowed to do that,--T. Anthony (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - being a former Communist turned born-again Christian is rather predictable and ordinary, and doesn't establish any notability at all. Any assertion of notability is going to have to rest in the political campaigns, and the standard is, a political candidate is not notable enough for an article unless they actually get elected to a major office (such as the U.S. Congress). Merely running for office is WP:BLP1E. KleenupKrew (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't think it's common. I was looking for examples of it and I've found only a few. (Marvin Olasky is the only definite one I find) However uncommon personal situations in themselves don't make a person notable. If a woman had three widows named George this would be uncommon, but it would not necessarily make her fit for a Wikipedia article. Well unless her life became a TV movie or something. If "The Steve Beren Story" became a major motion picture he might merit an article even if he never gets elected to anything.--T. Anthony (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Recreate if he [chuckle] wins. -R. fiend (talk) 16:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - further comment by Steve Beren. It is not just a matter of "former candidate" or "communist/atheist turned Christian/Republican." It is both those things, PLUS current congressional candidate, plus current and controversial campaign against a very liberal incumbent who has (allegedly) been accused of ethics violations and alleged illegal actions. In Seattle, there are no GOP elected officials, so the congressional candidate is the candidate who is the main public face of the Seattle GOP. In many ways, my campaign follows the campaign role model of the conservative William Buckley mayoral campaign in 1965 in New York City. - Steve Beren, 5/11/08, 9:42 am PDT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.14.64 (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Just being ... an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.'" Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:POLITICIAN#Politicians - Steve Beren, 5/11/08, 10:50 am PDT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.14.64 (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as sufficiently notable political candidate for Wikipedia. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:21, 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 WP:SNOW delete, and good riddance. Stifle (talk) 20:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs with state names in the title[edit]

List of songs with state names in the title (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Another instance of a ridiculous self-aggrandizing, purposeless WP:TRIVIA list. There is no greater relationship between these songs; they are no relevant in terms of genre, theme, or any other important categorization. Bulldog123 (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Utter trivia. No common thread among these songs save for the fact that they mention states. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article serves no purpose.Ltwin (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete, per WP:NOT. I wouldn't object to a category, though I've been pounded on for that opinion recently :-) (In truth, I love lists like this but I agree it is trivia, not worthy of an encyclopedic article.)  Frank  |  talk  21:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should be pounded on for that opinion. :P Categories and lists are meant to be different ways of doing the same thing. Each has its strengths and weaknesses. If this is good enough for a category that can be read by machines, it's good enough for a list to be read by people. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Trivia. JohnCD (talk) 21:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete May have been floated as a trial balloon to see how we would react. Pop. Mandsford (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pretty pointless cross-categorization that results in sheer trivia. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Califordeletion JuJube (talk) 03:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't think a list or category would be very useful- as some have said above, it basically comes down to trivia. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, trivia and listcruft. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Since it doesn't even include Uncle Bonsai's "Iowa Apology Song", I have no use for it, and I don't feel like adding it myself. No, seriously--another basic listcruft. Eauhomme (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep --JForget 22:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Grant[edit]

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

Article lacks any real world information. Character name, actor name and years of appearance already in List of Brookside characters. Article may fail notability per WP:FICTION as well. Ultra! 20:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep "He was portrayed by Paul Usher and was in the series from episode one in 1982 until 1994 with several sporadic guest appearances in 1997, 1998 and the final episode in 2003" enough real world information to indicate he is very likely quite important. The article then asserts, ..."Barry Grant was arguably the hardest and most feared soap villain of all time" Needs some sources,certainly, but apparently the major figure in one of the historically most important soaps. I certainly am not one of those who want to keep articles on every insignificant fictional character. I have myself deleted some of the expired prods for the trivial characters from this series, & changed many others to redirect, working jointly & cooperatively with one of the people trying to screen out the minor articles from the more deletionist side of things. But removing this is wholly inappropriate and represent a total inability to see the virtue of compromise. One or two of the editors here argue that we should fight for every last possible character article, however minor, because otherwise people will try to delete even the most major. I still think that';sanover-reaction, but its nominations like this which make me see why someone might feel that way. Has enough real world info to show its a fictional character (many of the articles here a year ago didn't even do that); "may fail "WP:FICT" is a interesting way of putting it,because there is no agreed text of WP:FUCT, and the entire guideline and the necessity for one even remains totally disputed. anything and everything may fail WP:FICTION., but I cant imagine any acceptable version of it would elude the key characters of the culturally key fictions. But someone who knows the material must actually make some effort to source the basics at least, and the evaluative comments--thee are certainly enough sources judged by the other articles on this series--the details of the role in the plot can come from the fiction itself. DGG (talk) 02:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - He appears to be notable, although most news articles mentioning him are old and therefore subscription.[4]. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Didn't watch the series, but he's one of the few characters I can name. Googling confirms he was a key character and mainstay villain for a considerable period, something like Den Watts or Phil Mitchell in EastEnders. I'm no fan of the proliferation of articles about minor fictional characters either, from whatever medium, and in an ideal world this would redirect to the List of Brookside Characters which would carry potted biogs of the more important characters rather than being a bare list. In the absence of this, if any characters from Brookside merit a separate article, he's one of them. --Karenjc 08:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Week keep/Keep I had prodded some days ago, but after a discussion with DGG, I convinced that if there is any character in this soap that can be considered as important it's "Barry Grant". The article lacks enough real world information and I am not sure if the character was any significance outside the show but I hope this article can be improved and I would like to ask people more familiar with the subject to do so. I declined the option of merging this file into the list of characters since there are only names and years of appearances. Any merge would make things worse and not better for the List. I suggest we keep the article and hope for a serious improvement. We have to be a little patient and we can reconsider after some time. Extra comment: I am more worried about: George Jackson (Brookside). The charactered is much less significant and the reason I didn't prod him, it was this trivia section there which tries to give some real world information. But on the other hand, I can't verify if the information given is true of not. Please someone give a look at it as well. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Magioladitis (talk) 10:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge and redirect though not sure where. List_of_Brookside_characters would be the logical place, but that is simply a directory at the moment. Indeed, this entire universe is dire need of cleanup. As for User:DGG's point above: wrong wrong wrong. Mention of the character in real world contexts are simply in conjunction with the actor's career (who moved to the Bill); that is not real-world impact per WP:FICT. And as for the article's assertion Barry Grant was arguably the hardest and most feared soap villain of all time unless I see some credible source for that claim, I'd dismiss it as ridiculous guff - the kind of stuff that needs be expunged from Wikipedia. So: where's the real-world claims of notability for this character? Where's the real-world significance and impact? "Removing this is wholly inappropriate and represent a total inability to see the virtue of compromise." Are we reading the same article? Is that rhetorical escalation really justified by a completely in-universe article of a minor fictional figure that makes no claims outside of that in-universe world? Surely not. Eusebeus (talk) 14:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Obviously. Main character of a top TV soap in the UK of long standing. If one really enjoyed reading soap or gossip mags, or some TV commentaries, there would be loads of 3rd party refs. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Fabrictramp (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pocket Tanks[edit]

No evidence of notability or coverage by third party publications. (jarbarf) (talk) 19:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can't find any third-party coverage (because download sites don't count). I kind of thought I would, since I remember it being very popular when I was in high school, but perhaps it was just popular there. I was actually playing it when I saw this AfD. Freaky. AnturiaethwrTalk 21:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Found a CNET review, isn't massive but it helps, full review on Inside Mac Games and part of a games review round-up on Macworld. Together they just clear notability, for me. Someone another 12:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For the record, the nytimes.com link you provided above is NOT a "C|NET review". Note that no author is credited for the "review". It is a user-submitted download page hosted by C|NET ala download.com and the like. (jarbarf) (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the CNET review is actually by an editor of the site - contrast it with the user reviews tab. Also per Someone another. User:Krator (t c) 13:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation needed. What is the name of the person who authored the review you are referring to? I only see the co-op'd download.com link. (jarbarf) (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 02:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Haber[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BIO. Menzies7 (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. His haberarts.com site does have some longevity, and both he personally and the site are credited here and there, and one of his essays has been reprinted in a couple of books. At this point that's well below WP:BIO#Creative professionals. --Dhartung | Talk 21:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 03:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article doesn't point to anything particuarly establishing notability. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:23, 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. - Philippe 02:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin (Veruca Salt song)[edit]

Benjamin (Veruca Salt song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm fairly inclusionist with singles, but I think I have to draw the lien here. I just can't see any notability here. Feel free to point out whatever obvious point I've missed, however. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Didn't chart or do anything else that would make it notable per WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral The rabbit speculation might make it notable if it's widespread; would require better sourcing. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 07:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:CRYSTAL --JForget 22:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Britney's sixth studio album[edit]

Britney's sixth studio album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, this article should be deleted. TN‑X-Man 19:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No proof the album exists yet; WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL; the sources used are dubious at best (even by my lenient standards). If by some odd chance this article is kept, could someone please change its title to something approaching a properly formatted Wikipedia title? 23skidoo (talk) 01:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Crystallish. Blueboy96 01:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:CRYSTAL.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 07:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:CRYSTAL. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and a screencap of a MySpace message and an Italian fansite can't exactly be called reliable sources to verify the spectulation and rumours which surround the subject of the article. AngelOfSadness talk 20:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all X's #th album articles as inherently crystal-ballish. When there's a title, there can be an article. Stifle (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What a load of balls. These articles are all inherintly speculative and overzealous creations. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No substantial proof she is working on it, only rumors. No need for a whole page yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poisonparadise98 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per previous comments regarding the lack of notability. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Crystal violation. We really need to make crystal a speedy category ... there's no reason to undergo this effort.Kww (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 22:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soccer Administrators Day[edit]

Soccer Administrators Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No unique sources (indeed, one of the external links is dead), there are zero google hits for "soccer administrators day" and only three for "soccer administrator day", one a blog, the other two sites related to the supposed day. Nothing on Google news with either name. Corvus cornix_talk 18:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No substantial proof that this "day" even exists. It seems like every date on the calendar is National (insert anything here) day: National Talk Like a Pirate Day, National Numberwang Day, National Fahrvergnügen Day... Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Very Strong Keep Soccer Administrators Day is followed by 25,000+ youth soccer administrators. It is recognized by USYSA affiliated clubs, administrators & state organizations country wide. It is built in the same framework and structure as Administration Professionals' Day and Teachers' Day. It is a legitimate and genuine holiday that celebrates hard work of the youth soccer administrators. On The TouchLines Article --Jrydar19 (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC) — Jrydar19 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Don't !vote more than once please. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This link here is the only link I could find for this "day". One blog posting (and apparently how the "day" was created) isn't enough to verify it's notability. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Don't tell us it's important; show us the sources, not including those from the organization that promotes this "holiday". --Russ (talk) 20:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No independent reliable sources to indicate notability. Fails WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as NN. Guess what google turns up- you're looking at it. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 07:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A decidedly non-notable "holiday." (Not to be nationalistic, but we call it "football" in my country!) Ecoleetage (talk) 02:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all the above reasons. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete G12 (I was right) by Blueboy96, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grading Living Dead Dolls[edit]

Grading Living Dead Dolls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

How to Grade Living Dead Dolls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These two identical articles are pure original research, and Wikipedia is not a how-to guide or instruction manual. PROD removed from one without comment, so I bring them both here. JohnCD (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both They read like copyvios, and they're full of original research. And they're how-to guides to boot. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:50, 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 --JForget 22:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Joneses[edit]

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

There's ... almost nothing to say about this movie. No coverage whatsoever, actors are all redlinks, and it's in preproduction. Blueboy96 18:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, film is scheduled for release in December apparently only in Boston, where the previous film by this team was released. Not even to DVD. No reliable sources for the film or its creators. Corvus cornix_talk 18:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. All three references say it's in production, and WP:MOVIE says "...films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles, unless the production itself is notable per notability guidelines," which I don't think this is. AnturiaethwrTalk 22:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, plus, it's spam. - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 02:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:Movie sorry, try again after the press notices its release LegoTech·(t)·(c) 04:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN as yet; recreate if secondary sources emerge. —97198 talk 05:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:23, 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. Fabrictramp (talk) 14:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pimps and Whores[edit]

Pimps and Whores (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Yet another Myspace act with — when you strip away the waffle — what appears to be a grand total of one self-published single under their belts. When the highlight of your career is "being mentioned on website PopJustice" (for those who care, the "mention" in full was "It's only 'alright' but perhaps it will please some of the people who think Kylie should never be allowed to release anything which isn't a complete amylathon with feathers on its head and sequins cascading out of its arse"), I think it's reasonably safe to say you're not going to pass WP:BAND. But, this has been up for a year now and worked on by multiple editors — some of which aren't even SPAs — so maybe I'm missing something... — iride scent 18:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL; there is a possibility of this becoming a notable act when the debut comes out, but we'll see. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• ^{Not that it's really important, but Poets & Pornstars ([5], [6]) are better anyway Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

• Delete. Not a single criterion of WP:MUSIC appears to be satisfied. Nsk92 (talk) 22:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• De and lete - act is well short of WP:BAND. There's some crystal balling going on here, and not much in the reliable sources department. B.Wind (talk) 07:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --John (talk) 23:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Watch out there's a flying pig[edit]

Watch out there's a flying pig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Yet another Pink Floyd bootleg. As someone always contests these, bringing it straight here instead of ((prod))ding. — iridescent 17:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable bootleg album (isn't that a tautology? Most bootlegs aren't notable.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Might be notable if it were widely circulated and talked about, but short list of g-hits makes it appear that it's not. If it were kept, capitalization would require it to be moved anyway. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 07:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 22:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Structured data interchange[edit]

Structured data interchange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Can't seem to find any reliable source backing up the claims made in the article. The XML model for Office 2007 is OOXML, not Structured Data Interchange. No sources turn up in a Google search linking Microsoft or Office 2007 with SDI. In fact, structured data interchange is a generic scenario designed to be facilitated by RDF (think semantic web); and that is not a MS endeavour. The article has been orphanned and without edits for a long time. soum ^talk 17:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As the nom states, structured data interchange is simply a phrase meaning the interchange of structured data. While one might use the phrase in association with transfer of OOXML documents (which are an example of structured data), that's about as far as the connection goes. Article is almost certainly unsourceable - I haven't found any sources, anyway. Jakew (talk) 22:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete. This isn't some mystical OOXML thing. The nom is correct in that the article is really only about that instance of the use of the subject in an environment. That said, I think a decent article could be written about the scenario itself, not just how it happens in OOXML, but the best thing to do at this point would probably be just to delete it and start over if someone wants to take the initiative. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am not conversant in the technical details, but if I understand you folks correctly, reliable sources are not likely to be found for this narrow topic. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 23:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the article has no sources and makes bizarre and unbelievable claims:
  • It's XML, but based on SGML? Aside from this being contradictory, nobody uses SGML in new systems anymore, including Microsoft.
  • Independent of operating system and hardware. Since when does any data format depend on these? WillOakland (talk) 10:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as vandalism/hoax. ... discospinster _talk 17:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Einstein[edit]

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

Was a removed Prod. Article is about a college basketball player that is not the coverage of any secondary coverage. The article is most likely a hoax. ~ Eóin (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• G3 as hoax. He isn't mentioned in the source, or anywhere else for that matter. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:24, 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. Despite several WP:ILIKEIT comments from IPs, policy does not support the continued inclusion of this article. - Philippe 02:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Men's Room (radio program)[edit]

The Men's Room (radio program) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Insufficiently sourced - references appear to be self-referential. In the absence of a good dose of old fashioned reliable sourcing this article appears to fail on both verifiability and notability Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

• Delete Most of the sources are unreliable (YouTube, MySpace, etc.), and the few that are reliable are just trivial in nature. Fails WP:RS then, it seems. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with TenPoundHammer that none of the sources are reliable, all either from social networking sites, the station itself or very, verybrief mentions in local newspapers. Therefore it fails WP:RS. Not all morning drive shows are notable, in fact very few are. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 17:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are 2 references to the Seattle Post Intelligencer but my concern with this article is it's notability. The show is in a large market and I'm sure is very popular but it's still a local radio show. Some sort of recognition outside this market would change my mind. A significant award or syndication outside of the local market. Even being named to the Heavy 100 would indicate some notability. Not every show in a large market is notable. The images also have copyright concerns. --Rtphokie (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, strictly a local radio show. Not notable. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not Delete, the cast of the show and the radio station have all reviewed the article on air and agreeded with it. If you guys want to hear them talking about it, I can send you guys the podcast. The cast of the show feel that they deserve this article and have talked to wikipedia spokesperson and that spokesperson has said that they had enough evidence to have an article on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.126.49 (talk) 10:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not Delete,
  • the station broadcasts the show live via their website, meaning it can be heard worldwide
  • the show has also discussed the Wikipedia article on-air several times. It was because of the popularity of the show that the article almost immediately received numerous updates from fans of the show.
  • numerous times per weeks, people who have been listening online have written to the show from different countries across the world, including England, Japan, Australia, and France.
  • The show has been consistently getting top-5 ratings in the Seattle area that they broadcast out of since they began on KISW-FM in 2006. Before that, the same was true on the previous station, KQBZ-FM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.165.7.199 (talk) 23:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Show is notable for it is broadcasted on internet live around the world and many listener's from various countries across the globe write expressing their pleasure of hearing the program. It is also broadcasted on a huge local, being the entire state of Washington, not just Seattle.--Machineking1313 (talk) 06:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The podcast is downloaded from around the world and the market which it is broadcasted on is the entire Seattle area. The show is also on one of the premier rock stations in the USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.32.16 (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not Delete
  • many of the referenced YouTube videos in question are direct, on air performance, proving the shows ability to remediate itself through different outlets
  • the wiki in question was discussed on air with Wikipedia staff, which noted that the second major edition (current edition) of the Wikipedia met guidelines and had sufficient evidence to prove both notability and worth to the Wikipedia community
  • the show holds a large market share via radio broadcast in one of the largest rock radio markets in the country, the very same market that spawned many of the bands played during the shows afternoon time slot
  • also worth noting is that Steve, Miles, Thee Ted Smith, and Ben are not just disc jockeys as are popular on other stations. The show has a hybrid talk, news, and music format, which makes them Seattle/Western Washington personalities, more so than just DJs. They host events throughout the Seattle and greater Puget Sound area, and are recognizable beyond the radio.
  • the show survived station change, time change, and format change (from 100.7 KQBZ-FM to 99.9 KISW-fm) with much of its original audience intact, as well as adding the replaced Tom Leykis listeners, and more Seattle radio fans — Cougrrr (talk) 21:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete: of the three Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports (there are three, not two), one contains a paragraph about the show, and the other two mention the show in bullet-points. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 00:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 02:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saga Studios[edit]

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

Non-notable, haven't developed anything yet, just a group of hobby developers — Frecklefσσt | Talk 17:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Essentially says it's not notable ... only game listed on there is "under development." And unless I missed something, the only Yahoo hits that talk about this particular company are their Website and Wikipedia. Barely misses an A7 ... but if a somewhat more rougish admin feels inclined to spike this, be my guest. Blueboy96 18:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I also am tempted to nuke this, but I'm gonna let AfD run its course. Very clear failure to establish any notability; I'm amazed this gets preference for disambiguation. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Saga Studios (Film Production). --76.69.168.235 (talk) 21:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep --JForget 22:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Write Love on Her Arms[edit]

To Write Love on Her Arms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete. Fails to establish notability (listing amount of "friends" on FaceBook; noting encouraging messages received on MySpace??), reads like an advertisment and possibly Wikipedia:SPAM#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles. Appears to be a noble cause, but I don't see what seperates this from another clothing company with philanthropic ideals. Also, unreferenced and per the article they've only recently been established as a non-profit group (October 2007). -- Endless Dan 17:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. According to [7], the band Switchfoot is touring in support of the organization. Other news hits: [8], [9], [10]. Corvus cornix_talk 19:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Its not just a "clothing company with philanthropic ideals", TWLOHA is supported by many bands. Some of the article (facebook stuff etc) does seem like it is a little too trivia based but i think the article as a whole should stay. More work should be done on the article but that shouldnt mean it should be up for deletion. Perry mason (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's a non-profit organization that just happens to have gained a lot of popularity on Facebook and MySpace. If anything, it should be expanded and cleaned up to remove the advertisement elements. Spartacusprime (talk) 19:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Almost and Paramore also support TWLOHA. Paramore even has their own version of one of the shirts. As Perry mason said, it's not just a humanitarian-type clothing company. [11] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smitherd (talk • contribs) 19:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --John (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Steed Jeffs[edit]

Seth Steed Jeffs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seth Jeffs recieved a little bit of media coverage when he was arrested and later convicted of aiding his fugitive brother. But that fact itself doesn't satisfy WP:BIO notability guidelines. Reverend X (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a clear BLP1E case. If there is any new info in this article, it can be added to Warren Jeffs. Fails WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 22:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fairly minor criminal whose punishment is limited to probation. [{WP:ONEEVENT]] was written with this type of case in mind. --Dhartung | Talk 06:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Utterly non-notable. Being the relative of a notable person does not confer notability. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Any relevant information should be included at Warren Jeffs. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:25, 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. Freely viewable sources found are press releases, so notability hasn't been established.Fabrictramp (talk) 14:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kessel Food Market[edit]

Kessel Food Market (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I kind of feel bad for this one; growing up as a frequent WNEM watcher, I always enjoyed this chain's ads with founder Al Kessel throwing grocery products in a cart at random. However, for a chain that went under in the 2000s, I'm finding almost no verifiable information on this chain. The only sources I could find were either press releases or trivial in nature; the rest of the article is a directory of their locations. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment And yes, said directory was my doing. I admit it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: how about these? (maybe the second and third sources are trivial in nature?)
  • Mary Hendrickson; William D. Heffernan; Phillip H. Howard; Judith B. Heffernan (2001). "Consolidation in food retailing and dairy". British Food Journal. 103 (10): 715–728.(haven't read this; it's a paid source)
  • Serwach, Joseph. "With large chains and specialty stores looking to expand their markets, Detroit becomes a Grocery Battleground." Crain's Detroit Business 16.50 (Dec 11, 2000): 3. General Reference Center Gold. Gale. Montgomery County Public Library (MD). access date: 15 May 2008 (one paragraph in a full-length article) (password-protected)
  • "Kroger relocates divisions. (Supermarket Aisle)." Drug Store News 25.4 (March 23, 2003): 6(1). General Reference Center Gold. Gale. Montgomery County Public Library (MD). access date: 15 May 2008 (one-page article) (password-protected)

69.140.152.55 (talk) 04:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability, and the source that are cited are press releases. As a result, this article reads like borderline spam.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice against recreation. I hear and agree with the comments by my colleague DGG, whose judgment I trust, but it seems fairly clear that the consensus here is delete. - Philippe 03:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Millar[edit]

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

NN. General notability states that the person needs to have received an award or been nominated for many. Millar has not. He also has not made a wide-ranging contribution to his field. While he has written a Masonic history book, I had never heard of him or the book until I saw his WP article. GHit-wise, it's his website, WP, and then Amazon (where the book is no longer available new). The statement in the article about his "works being prized in Masonic collections" is misleading - there simply aren't that many such collections. The Museum of Our National Heritage in Lexington, MA, and the George Washington National Monument in Alexandria VA are the two leading Masonic museums in the US, and they have none of his work. The Masonic and esoteric research groups he is a member of are open to anyone who pays for membership. As a creative professional, the requirements are: The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors - No. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique - No, he is notable for making Masonic memmory ais that no one makes anymore because every place that needs one has one. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews - No. A gift given to the Grand Lodge of New York's library and covered in their in-house magazine is not independent. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries - No. The first three are not met, as shown above, and there is no indication that his work has been seen anywhere aside from New York. Therfore he meets none of the criteria for notability. MSJapan (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wow, what a thorough analysis. The nom says it all here -- this guy, plain and simple, fails all the notability guidelines. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• not so fast Freemasonry, a history is, according to WorldCat, in about 70 US libraries. Given the general scarcity of public and academic coverage of the subject, that might be significant. The publisher, Thunder Bay Press, is a fairly wellknown specialist publisher, not a vanity publisher. and as Masoneria : zarys dziejów it has been translated into Polish. Not saying one book makes him notable, but also not willing to assume the art isn't notable either. I don't trust that anyone has "said it all" till I've looked for myself also. Not saying the nom is wrong, but needs a search by someone else also who knows the subject. DGG (talk) 02:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm willing to consider that he's a notable historian of Freemasonry, but the lack of secondary sources in a search of Google Books, News Archive, and Scholar is not promising. Many of his publications have not been in fully independent journals, either. --Dhartung | Talk 06:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Appears to be a fairly minor researcher, nothing stands out to establish importance. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The article is completely unsourced, and makes no claim to notability. Doing some research and writing a book (even a book on obscure topics like the history of Freemasonry) does not make an author notable (anyone can write a book) - as the nomination states, there are criteria that make an author notable and this author has not met them. He does not meet the criteria listed at Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals nor those listed at WP:PROF. Blueboar (talk) 13:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Do NOT Delete. - the article, granted is unsourced, but as it contains information on a publishing author can be still maintained. It may not be of a notable subject, but as the freemasons are obscure i belive that this article should remain. failing this this article could be merged with the larger article of Freemason and included as a subject of interest under a new topic of Freemason publications perhaps

Gray-martyn (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment... are you saying we should have an article on an author who is not notable, simply because he wrote about an obscure topic? That just does not make sense to me. Blueboar (talk) 19:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 03:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Ryan[edit]

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

Article does not assert notability of the subject and does not cite any references or sources. -MBK₀₀₄ 16:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, non-notable local radio DJ. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the only references I can find are either press releases from his employer or the manufacturer of the webcam system he uses in studio or are related to a real estate agent in Arizona.--Rtphokie (talk) 13:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 22:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Bogard[edit]

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

Not a notable character in the Fatal Fury series. Does not seem to have appeared as a fighting game character. JuJube (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Fucking Christ... *Shakes head* This is OBVIOUSLY a hoax. Just WIPE IT OUT. It was created as vandalism and should be dealt with as such. ZeroGiga (talk) 01:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'm not familiar with KOF history, but looking at the edit history of the primary accounts involved in editing, MethodMan162 (talk · contribs) and GuiltyGearFan (talk · contribs) (who admits to being a sockpuppet of the former), I suggest speedy deletion as well, and to block both accounts for being vandalism-only accounts. JuJube (talk) 02:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As someone with no knowledge of this series, I don't see anything to suggest it's a blatant hoax, so I think the AfD should run, but no online sources to be found. Might be a hoax, might just be totally NN. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 07:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, probably a hoax. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Delete to List of Fatal Fury characters if it is not a hoax as seen from wikia if it is a hoax as seen from this discussion board then delete.  :§ is confused (sorry). §hep • ¡Talk to me! 04:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nuff said. Eusebeus (talk) 14:33, 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 by User:Toddst1. ... discospinster _talk 18:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erich Kofmel[edit]

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

This is a WP:BLP violation and should be deleted. The person's notability is doubtful to say the least: the third edit was a speedy deletion request. A single user has made almost all the edits to this article, and that user has almost no other edits. In this context, to begin the article by describing the person as a self-confessed egotist and a controversial figure is beyond unacceptable. We can do better than this. Please delete. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• G10 Seems to have enough negatively slanted content to qualify for an attack page in my opinion. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Definite Delete. per being WP:BLP violation. Hope it does get speedied. Prashanthns (talk) 16:36, 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 merge to From First to Last. Fabrictramp (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Good (American musician)[edit]

Matt Good (American musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable musician. Tagged as such since Feb. Damiens.rf 16:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to From First to Last. I have already redirected the other non-notable members. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to band. --Endless Dan 17:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Gee, someone really screwed up the page since I last edited. Some of this can be incorporated into the band's article, either in the body, or trivia. I say redirect. --Pwnage8 (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 22:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of ongoing conflicts 2007-current by world map[edit]

List of ongoing conflicts 2007-current by world map (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

self-confessed image gallery Sceptre ^(talk) 15:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. These images are all PD and on Commons, so this can be handled with a subcategory under the existing one. Categories of images act as galleries. --Dhartung | Talk 21:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. If only we could put Clearasil on the world's red blemishes. Mandsford (talk) 22:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 05:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As the creator of this article I agree that a subcategory under the existing one would be better. All I want is that the images won't just disappear in cyberspace. Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete from article space. I'm not sure what the nominator is suggesting. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 23:05, 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. It could be cleaned up a little, but it's not a terrible article, and seems to meet our policies. . - Philippe 03:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Viral email[edit]

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

Insufficient context. On February 8th, 2007 the article was tagged with ((context)). I believe this was a valid tagging. From that date nothing has ever been done to the article to improve it. I came across it today, and tagged it with a speedy tag of A1. The speedy tag was later removed. I beleive this article lacks sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Rockfang (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think there's sufficient context to identify the subject of the article, even if it lacks sufficient context to understand it. I haven't time to look for sources to establish notability, but I've found two mentions in an NYTimes blog and in articles about viral marketing; I'll be amazed if there are no sources out there to be found. AnturiaethwrTalk 15:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 15:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - seems to have significant coverage in WP:RS, therby passing notability guidelines. There is an Observer article and Google books mentions. Just because an article needs cleanup does not mean it should necessarily deleted. There are similar articles though: Viral marketing, Viral phenomenon, Viral video, Meme. Some merging may be in order.--BelovedFreak 15:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete More information is in Computer virus which Email virus points too. This is redundant information. It appears that the article is more about Viral marketing... as such it should just be merged into there. I think that Viral email is a misrepresentative name for what the article is trying to say. --Pmedema (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Viral e-mail is not synonymous to e-mail virus. An E-Mail virus is a harmfull program spread trough e-mail, with the intention to cause mayhem, steal data and similar. Viral Email refers to the marketing strategie to spread word about product or services quickly. If there would be a word closely related to it it would be spam, but i still don't think the meaning of those two words is similar. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 17:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment One of the reasons that "viral" became an acceptable marketing term is that computer viruses don't spread through e-mail the way they used to. "Viral" all by itself means marketing, not malware. --Dhartung | Talk 21:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - They do still spread through email, judging from my spam folder. There might not be as many attachment-based viruses, but the websites linked in those messages frequently serve only to install malicious software. In this context, I'd still label such messages as viral emails. nneonneo ^talk 21:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said below, we're talking about a certain behavior of e-mails. This is used by viral advertising, but not only. Some computer virus may spread like this too. Cenarium (talk) 22:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the article accordingly, don't hesitate to edit and add sources. Cenarium (talk) 02:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and cleanup. Per Belovedfreak, this is a notable subject. Afd is not cleanup, we don't delete when we have satisfying alternatives. The article needs to be edited, true. A merge would be appropriate as a last resort, but there is enough material for en encyclopedic article. Cenarium (talk) 16:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Merge with Viral marketing; very similar concepts, and a lot of overlapping information. Gary King (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article isn't even about viral emails, it's about viral marketing as a whole. No new information here that's not already in viral marketing. Snellios (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Redirect to viral marketing Snellios (talk) 22:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect to computer virus or trojan horse (computing), which is what I though this would be about from the title. Turns out it's more sales talk about the prospect of endless riches by getting people to use email forwarding to propagate your advertising for you. The article's text doesn't even say that, and neither defines the subject but contains only vague musings on viral advertising. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Everyone I know would certainly understand the meaning of "viral" here as indicating a marketing topic, not a trojan horse. If I went back in time to 1998, maybe, it would be different. --Dhartung | Talk 21:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to viral marketing. E-mail is just one of the means of spread. It's a valid and appropriate search term but not sufficiently separate as a topic. --Dhartung | Talk 21:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate between the computer-virus-laden email (which I am still getting to this day), and the marketing term. I'm not so sure the title is obvious. nneonneo ^talk 21:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The "see also" works fine, and the recent article expansion looks excellent. nneonneo ^talk 18:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This concept is different from that of computer virus driven by emails, as asserted in the Observer article. If I understand the various sources correctly, this phenomenon is analog to that of viral video, and is used in particular in viral marketing, but not only. It's a type of emails that propagate like a virus, from peer to peer. This behavior is different from spam. Actually, there is no article where the subject can be merged without giving an inaccurate or partial information. There are different types of viral emails, for example: emails spreading due to popularity (for instance, the George W Bush example from the Observer), emails part of a viral marketing campaign... It needs to be clarified on the page, in the intro, we may use ((otheruses4)). Cenarium (talk) 22:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems to be a significant subject in its own wright. The confusion here indicates it needs a good rewriting and expansion.~~
• Delete, neologism from the internet marketing world. Nothing to indicate this is a sufficiently separate topic from viral marketing nor sufficiently notable in its own right for its own article. Alternatively, would support either a merge/redirect to viral marketing, or a disambiguation, both as suggested above, but in any case just not keepworthy. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added sources for the article to the talk page from world-famous newspapers indicating that this subject is notable and not a neologism any more. Cenarium (talk) 15:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• merge weak keep - after reviewing the references and such, I still have a hard time seeing how this is really different than viral marketing. Email is just one of the important ways viral marketing spreads. For those that recommend it being merged into computer virus, I strongly disagree as that appears to be a very different subject. As far as things like the existence of viral video, the video is the subject, not the method of viral marketing propagation. Viral marketing is also spread via the water cooler, phones, web forums, etc. I don't articles on those. Wrs1864 (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's different because it's a certain behavior of emails, viral marketing use this behavior for profit. But this phenomenon is not restricted to viral marketing, there are a lot of examples where viral emails are not used for viral marketing, for example the Bush example, and others in the references. The goal of viral marketers is to create a promotional email with a strong probability to become viral. Cenarium (talk) 14:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, then merge the non-commercial parts into chain letter, which already covers email, web forums, etc.Wrs1864 (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reviewing the changes that bilby made, I have changed my opinion to a weak keep. I still can see it being merged, but bilby added quite a few good references. Wrs1864 (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've done what I can for the article, and I think that there should be enough non-trivial references to establish notability and context, although it still needs a lot of work. In particular there are a number of academic papers devoted to the subject, and while I've tended to focus on those from marketing, the discussion is somewhat broader than that. Merge might still be viable, but I'd suggest it isn't the best choice here - the term is in fairly common usage, and encompasses more than that covered by either chain letters or viral marketing (indeed, most viral emails have nothing to do with marketing at all, and in many cases viral emails are very much anti-marketing). Certainly much of the literature concerns marketing, as Wrs1864 has identified, but it is also covered by some of the "humor" literature as well as the communication studies stuff. Anyway, if it survives AfD I hope that someone more knowledgeable in the area will be able to expand it - if not, there's now (hopefully) better stuff to merge. :) - Bilby (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you and Cenarium just rescued the article. Great job! nneonneo ^talk 18:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable, reliably sourced. --Pwnage8 (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge content into chain letter (or into viral marketing), but do not redirect (people may be looking for "e-mail virus" instead – you may wish to consider disambiguating). 69.140.152.55 (talk) 03:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete; default to keep. - Philippe 03:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SWiK[edit]

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

No assertion of notability or evidence of coverage in reliable sources. Per guidelines on the notability of web content, there is no evidence of historical signficance, impact, prominent achievements or major innovation. No awards or independent coverage. Parent company, SourceLabs lacks a wikipage also. WLU (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 15:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable wiki. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, has some non-trivial published references: Linux Mag article and O'Reilly Radar. Others exist, but they're mostly of the blogs-on-teh-interwebs-say variety. – PranksterTurtle ^(talk) 14:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added reference. I'd almost say it establishes notability, except it's from July, 2005 - nearly 3 years old. It'd be nice to have some evidence it's expanded or done something in the 3 years since LM reviewed :( WLU (talk) 18:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because of the reference added by WLU. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 23:07, 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 --JForget 22:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Get Silly[edit]

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

Debut single by unknown rapper V.I.C.. Prod was removed on the basis that "Soulja boy's involvement makes it notable", but Soulja just produced the song (he's not the composer, performer or even backing vocal) and made an appearance on the videoclip. Damiens.rf 15:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per music notability guidelines for songs, most songs do not merit their own article. The musician themselves does not appear to have an article, it didn't seem to do particularly well in 2007 charts, and the single citation is a blog(?) or some other apparently self-published content(?). Soulja Boy's involvement is unclear, unsourced, and notability is not inherited. Top links from Google on "Get Silly" V.I.C. are youtube and MSN video - no evidence the video is getting coverage either. WLU (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - does not pass WP:MUSIC notability guideline. Not enough significant coverage in reliable sources. It could possibly be redirected to Soulja Boy, but probably not much point since he is not the artist.--BelovedFreak 15:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 15:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If the artist is a red link, then the song is very unlikely to be notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC and notability isn't inherited--Pmedema (talk) 16:16, 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 speedy delete, G3. Obvious hoax. Blueboy96 19:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Higgins[edit]

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

Bio of non-notable amatuer. No real g-hits. Evb-wiki (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 15:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 15:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 15:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not notable at all. Andrew nixon (talk) 16:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The infobox claims he has 20 first-class games, which would make him notable, but it's not true as a search at http://www.cricketarchive.com/ will verify. Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the claim that he has played for NSW doesn't seem to be true, and he would not appear to be notable. Also it's a lousy article. JH (talk page) 16:54, 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. it's referenced now. :-) . - Philippe 03:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Hunt[edit]

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

Non-notable radio show host. Subject apparently hosts a weekly (Saturday) late-night show carried on a handful of stations. No independent references whatsoever. Google turns up a press release on carried by Reuters and not much else independent. His show has a "hate" website (allenhuntshowsucks), but that's about it. He may become notable someday, but there's not enough sources to support it right now. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 14:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 15:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Selective merge into the WSB station article. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as subject has been the focus of multiple articles in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, a reliable secondary source, and is nationally syndicated. Article could be a bit more encyclopedic but it more than meets the verifiability and notability thresholds. - Dravecky (talk) 23:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If you could add some of those AJC references, I would be inclined to change my opinion. The AJC was the first place I searched and I came up with nothing -- and yes, I checked my spelling. I must admit I was surprised at how little I could turn up about him during his tenure at Mt. Pisgah UMC, as that is a pretty prestigious pastorate, but the mainstream press (confession: I work for a major metro daily newspaper) sometimes is a bit lacking in religion coverage, unless you're Jeremiah Wright. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply I had already added these sources to the article. In the References section, they're #1, 2, and 4 at the moment. - Dravecky (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's what we're looking for, and thank you. I'm still at a loss as to why Google didn't pull that up for me, but maybe the Google gods didn't like me (or Allen Hunt) that day. If you find a ref about his switch to Catholicism, you might add that, too. I'm going to let this AfD run its course, but I'm considerably more assured of his notability. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:51, 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. A unanimous conclusion. Unsourced and clearly fails WP:BAND. TerriersFan (talk) 01:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gospel Messengers Quartet[edit]

Gospel Messengers Quartet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable group, fails Google test, just a obscure group that disbanded, no lasting impact on culture, economy or society — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This one is a little tricky as based on Google results there seem to be a number of different and apparently unrelated groups by this name. No indication this group or its namesakes pass WP:MUSIC as far as I can tell. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 15:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't see any reliable sources on Google either. Fails WP:MUSIC. -- RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 17:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Methcore[edit]

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

Neologism (see WP:NEO). Partial copy of Metalcore. Contested prod. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete junk JuJube (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete... a WP:NEO mess. --Endless Dan 17:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Neologism, no evidence this genre exists or is notable. Wikipedia is not for stuff made up in one day. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is just silly. Spartacusprime (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Philippe 03:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Life support[edit]

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

I propose deleting the whole article. Everything on this page is covered by basic life support, and all it has is a disproportionately large paragraph on the catholic church's objection to the practice. It could be removed, or added as a paragraph somewhere else. rakkar (talk) 13:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete & Redirect. Paragraph in question could be moved to other page, but needs some cleanup first; it's fairly poorly written. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. This article and basic life support have little in common; the nominator appears to misunderstand one or the other of these articles (probably this one, as it's not very well written). Mechanical ventilation is the only intersection that I can see. BLS is something that is done by prehospital personnel (EMTs, first responders) whereas the subject of this article is something that happens in the hospital. This article is poorly worded and needs some reconstruction - it may well need to be moved or merged with something; however, a merge into basic life support is a mistake, as there is little overlap. I believe that it does cover a real and notable topic; were it better worded my vote would be keep. The religious objections portion of this article is questionable but may pass muster; I'm undecided on that paragraph. Merenta (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Move life support (disambiguation) to this location, and include both Basic life support and Advanced cardiac life support in the list. --Dhartung | Talk 21:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Shouldn't a disambiguation page be called a disambiguation page? Mandsford (talk) 22:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Merenta is right. Life support is a completely different subject from basic life support. I'm surprised that this is such a weak article given the potential things there are to say about it. Maybe there is another one on the same subject hiding out there and it can become a redirect. In any case, being a bad article is not a reason for deletion. It should be flagged for improvement and left to grow. That's what Wikipedia is all about. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As Merenta and DJ Clayworth have stated this article refers to a different subject than the emergency medicine basic life support article. It could be expanded quite easily (I'll willingly have a go at it!) or there may be something out there which it could be redirected to but certainly not basic life support or the life support (disambiguation) list which consists of discussed article plus fiction articles! Yes it appears to have a disproportionately large ethics section but IMO it should be left to grow. Nk.sheridan   Talk 22:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Intensive care medicine is the only redirect I have found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nk.sheridan (talk • contribs) 22:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Needs cleanup, but definitely a notable topic. Terry Schiavo taught us that. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 07:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to basic life support as it contains no useful and unduplicated information, without prejudice to expansion if proper information becomes available. Stifle (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Needs a lot of work, but definitely a notable topic. It's not at all the same as basic life support, so the article shouldn't be redirected there. Klausness (talk) 11:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I support Dhartung's solution. I'm surprised at how inadequate this article is, but I don't know enough to improve it. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 23:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's already a Life support (disambiguation) page, and the general topic of life support is different from both Basic Life Support and Advanced Cardiac Life Support, so I think this page should stay as the stub it currently is until someone expands it. It's a notable topic not covered by any other article, so it's worth keeping. Klausness (talk) 12:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Klausness. The merger proposal seems entirely wrong---Basic life support and Advanced Cardiac Life Support are obviously about EMT/ER-level interventions, while Life support is about the (instantly recognizable) phenomenon of being hooked up to life-sustaining machines in an ICU. The article is pretty bad, but you have to start somewhere, and the topic is distinct and notable.Bm gub (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: article seems POV. It contains an assertion that in some cases it may be unethical; then, it points out that the Catholic Church, which is commonly thought of as favoring it, actually has a more nuanced position, and concludes by saying that it may actually be illegal in some states, thus leaving the impression that nobody believes it ethical to unconditionally prolong life. Also, the article lacks sources. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 03:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. It may be useful to re-evaluate this article once it has been allowed to develop for a month or so.  Sandstein  06:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of 2008 presidential candidates' religious associations[edit]

Renamed to: Religion and politics in the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign

Comparison of 2008 presidential candidates' religious associations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a fundamentally flawed concept for an article, as it gives undue weight to issues that received little or no attention, and doesn't even include anything on Obama, whose controversies have received much more attention. Moreover, the article contains an extended hagiographic defense of Senator Obama, and could easily be campaign literature. Trilemma (talk) 12:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and the fact that the article's title is "Religion and politics in the U.S. 2008 presidential campaign", but the first sentence makes it clear that it won't be mentioning Obama's pastor, which has gotten the greatest amount of media attention. Happyme22 (talk) 04:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a wiki for a reason. Ewenss (talk) 04:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious keep - Religion and politics in the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign has been a major theme of coverage in the campaigns, from Romney's Mormonism and his speech, to Huckabee the former pastor, to Obama and the Muslim charges and Wright, to McCain and Hagee, etc. Plus sources debating the validity/non-validity of all that. Like I said on the talk page of the article, Immediatism is going to have to give way to some fair Eventualism as various people chip in as their lives permit. All the article is now is an intro written in 10 seconds and a copy-paste of material deemed too long (by chiefly Happyme22, and a few others) from the Wright controversy article. Ewenss (talk) 04:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The article needs work, and of course it needs at least a precis of the Wright-Obama affair, but those are content issues not relevant to AfD. Plainly this is a highly notable, and eminently sourceable, business.  Ravenswing  13:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. Comparison of people's religious views is by definition an analytic exercise that requires OR and POV. Thoroughly unsuitable for an encyclopedia article. Nsk92 (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you missed: Renamed to: Religion and politics in the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign Ewenss (talk) 16:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I have not seen that it was moved. But it does not change my opinion about the article. Its substance has not really changed and the topic itself is a clear magnet for POV pushing, OR and various fights that inevitably follow. Nsk92 (talk) 17:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, you're saying that if a topic is controversial, Wikipedia shouldn't cover it? As long as there's anybody in the country willing to pay two kids to delete sourced material about something twice a day, we defer all coverage to copyrighted encyclopedias that are paid to deal with inappropriate editing? (Or as a compromise maybe we can let the kids write it and then permanently-protect their version...) Wnt (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Straight from the "why aren't you wearing a flag on your lapel" school of writing. The change of title is even worse, since it implies that this is something more than a dirty laundry inventory of politicians and religious leaders. If you're basing your vote on Jeremiah Wright, John Hagee or the Fellowship Foundation, here's the latest gossip. Mandsford (talk) 00:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It might be messy, but religion has been brought up quite a bit, as well as in previous elections. It's something that's discussed, so it seems like a notable topic. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 07:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Gosh, regarding the nominator's rationale that the topic "gives undue weight to issues that received little or no attention", see the The Pew Forum. They have been holding conferences and aggregating published research and news articles about religion and politics in the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign (scroll down to see). Also see this link]. This is a major topic of notability and a terribly misguided nomination! CyberAnth (talk) 08:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - although I agree with him, this user was just blocked for using sock puppets including Ewenns who voted above. Wnt (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is notable, there is no question about it. But that is not the point. The point is that the topic is analytic and synthetic in nature and unavoidably requires OR. Also, it is a clear magnet for POV pushing and a veritable disaster in terms of balance and undue weight (just look at the current state of the article). Making polemic and analytic articles like this is the right way of turning WP into an ideological battleground. Nsk92 (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If the argument is that the problem of the article is that it doesn't include Barack Obama, then add Obama, don't ditch the article. That's kind of the idea of a wiki. There is no question that religion has been a factor in this race, with Huckabee's fundamentalism, Romney's Mormonism, and Obama's being portrayed both as a Muslim and a member of an anti-American black church (and of the post 9/11 anti-Muslim sentiment that exists in many). While our American 1st Amendment allows for Freedom of Religion, the fact has been that it has been difficult for anyone outside the religious mainstream to get into a top level position in American politics. Eauhomme (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep per the comments of Eweness, RG Traynor, JeremyMcCracken, and Eauhomme. With a stipulation, however: that the article is cleaned up and made more NPOV in the near future (thirty days seems like a reasonable time frame).--JayJasper (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a news website and nobody will care about this after November. If kept, move to Comparison of 2008 US presidential candidates' religious associations, as the USA is not the world. Stifle (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Never mind, moved already. Stifle (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, this is a fundamentally flawed concept, the article is clearly pro-Obama and its intention is to give excuses for the actions of Obama's pastor by describing "the criticism of Wright [as being] fueled by racism or double standards". The article goes on to list religious criticism of other candidates, which is all mentioned elsewhere on the respective articles for the candidates. The article's purpose is to promote Obama and to criticize the other candidates, and is an effort to minimalize the Wright controversy. This is not something that should be on wikipedia and I see no way it in which it can be cleaned up.--Southern Texas (talk) 23:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - this user was also (surprisingly, to me at least) indef blocked for being a sockpuppet. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Agree with STX, this is fundamentally flawed. Religion per se has not been a major factor in the 2008 presidential election, with the modest exception of Romney and LDS. The other controversies mentioned in this article have not been about religion, but about the usual political game of "Let's find somebody candidate X has been associated with that has said or done some outrageous things, and see if we can tie that somebody real tight around X." The same game is played around non-religious figures too, such as Obama and Ayers, Giuliani and Kerik, and so forth. Each of these games that is notable enough can be covered in the individual campaign articles; there is no reason to subset the "religious" ones and make an article out of them. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait. Someone started this article with text spun out of the Jeremiah Wright controversy, but the article may be improved with a little editing. I may try my hand at the text in a bit to see how it can be fixed - please check the revision before acting on the previous comments. Wnt (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. I've now made a first pass editing the text to demonstrate that it can stand on its own as a useful article. The article still carries some more subtle defects from its origin - all the references were originally chosen because they talk about Obama, because they came from the Wright article - but I think by now it should be clear that this article is worth keeping. Wnt (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Much of the concern about this article stems from the issues of WP:POV and WP:OR, and those are certainly valid. However, I believe that they can also be avoided if the tone of the article is focused on the role that religion played in the campaign and/or the voters' perceptions of the candidates, stated as objectively as possible and very well sourced. For example, mentioning that there were concerns with Jeremiah Wright's statements and Barack Obama's relationship with him, and stating what they were, or the false accusations of his Muslim religion and how that was an issue post 9/11--very easy to fall into WP:OR/WP:POV, but well-sourced could also get past that. Also same with issues on Mitt Romney's and Mike Huckabee's religious beliefs, etc. Eauhomme (talk) 02:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is with the entire concept of the article. I admit that Wnt's version is much better than the previous one. But the subject of the article is still too abstract and ill-defined to stand on its own. The very concept of the article is analytic and synthetic in nature and is thus fundamentally flawed. With such an amorphous subject matter there is no way to effectively deal with undue weight and balance issues that are going to inevitably arise here, especially when the article attracts more attention. How much space and in what kind of detail is there supposed to be devoted to a particular candidate? What is and what is not appropriate to discuss in the article? And so on. The article is an obvious magnet for OR and POV pushing and a recipe for all sorts of battleground problems. The factual material covered here is already covered in other articles with more well-defined subject matter, where all of these problems are easier to contain. Nsk92 (talk) 03:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could say that Islam or evolution are "potential battlegrounds". If you think the article is bad for some valid reason, fine, but so far as I know Wikipedia has not yet formally surrendered to vandalism and disruption. If people decide to make a policy against articles on politics, articles on religion, articles on anything controversial etc. then I won't be able to prevent this deletion, but as for now - you have no grounds for this deletion. Wnt (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I'm not sure what planet people have been living on if they think this topic is not eminently notable and source-able. 74.233.86.244 (talk) 07:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious keep - POV isn't a rationale for deletion, it's a rationale for improving the article. This is obviously an important topic in presidential elections - evangelicals are a critical voting bloc for Republicans, Catholics and Jews are courted by both parties, though lean Democratic; in this election cycle, there's been controversy over Romney's religion, Huckabee's being a minister, Obama's relationship with his minister, and the list goes on and on and on. The article could probably use a complete rewrite, but those are problems that are solved by editing, not deleting. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 14:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Religio-political controversies in the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign. The way it is now, the title doesn't match with the content of the article. --Pwnage8 (talk) 20:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "U.S." should be added to the name, but is "religio-political" a word? The precise name isn't really relevant to the AfD anyway.Wnt (talk) 18:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--JForget 23:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of patriotic songs[edit]

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

fails WP:OR and WP:NPOV,WP:Cite and WP:V. The fact that songs like Born in the U.S.A. (song),Danny_Boy,Swing Low, Sweet Chariot are included here shows how just about any song that mentions a countries name can qualify or is even remotely associated to a country. Ireland is a other case where one mans patriotic songs is a other mans Rebel Song and sure if Waltzing Matilda is in why not No man's land? Gnevin (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• How about trying to clean up the article?--WaltCip (talk) 14:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: That doesn't handle the basic problems: defining patriotic songs in a way that satisfies WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, and determining which songs qualify and why. I can't see a consensus developing on either.  RGTraynor  15:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:OR and WP:SYN by a country mile. Swing Low, Sweet Chariot a British patriotic song (seemingly on the strength of it being popular among English rugby fans)?  RGTraynor  13:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This list is just bursting with original research. I agree, "Swing Low, Sweet Chariot" is a stretch indeed. And what about the 847,000 patriotic songs that all came out after 9/11 -- stuff like Where Were You (When the World Stopped Turning) and Have You Forgotten? There are so very, very many ways to identify "patriotic". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete please please delete. Not only are some of these song's patriotic intentions completely subjective, the list is trivial. These are not nationally recognized songs written for the United States or any other country; they were not patronized. Bulldog123 (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sung to the tune of My Country Tis of Thee or God Save The Queen-- "There's not one friggin' source, why not one friggin' source, why is this here?" Mandsford (talk) 00:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's just too broad of a list- something like "Songs about a country" might be doable, but this is too generic. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 07:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Subjective, original research, trivia, listcruft, POV, etc. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Essentially the commentators are split on the question as to whether this is a dictionary definition or whether the page can be expanded to produce a full-blown encyclopaedic article. Taking into account the discussion on the previous AfD I see no easy resolution of this dichotomy through the AfD process. The page has been tagged for merge discussions but has yet to pick up any comments. My suggestion is for interested editors to engage the merge discussions which seem the best option for a consensual way forward. TerriersFan (talk) 01:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl necklace (sexuality)[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary DeeKenn (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A non-notable and trivial topic that does not warrant an encyclopedia article. Nsk92 (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm actually not sure whether an encyclopedic article on this topic would be possible or not, but the present one definitely isn't it: it's primarily a trivia dump of times its's been mentioned in popular culture. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: to Cum shot. (Gods, the things you never thought you'd wind up typing on Wikipedia ...) While I'm sure there are a zillion hits, there's no real notability beyond the other article.  RGTraynor  14:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ROTFLOL :) Debate (talk) 15:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not a serious or educational article. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 16:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Cum shot Facial (sex act). There are plenty of references to this in books, demonstrating notability. Unless there is enough content to develop it beyond a dictionary definition, then it doesn't need its own article and can be merged to Cum shot Facial (sex act).--BelovedFreak 16:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per  RGTraynor  and BelovedFreak. DCEdwards¹⁹⁶⁶ 16:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Belovedfreak's revised merge location. DCEdwards¹⁹⁶⁶ 21:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Cum shot, since it's really a subset of that anyway. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it is a dictionary definition, nothing more. (I disagree with merges proposed above; this is the result, not the act.)  Frank  |  talk  19:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as dictionary definition. I agree with Frank that it doesn't really seem to fit with Cum shot. (Not relevant to the discussion, but ewwwwww!) Aleta ^Sing 20:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I agree that Cum shot is mostly about porn, but it also refers to the act of ejaculation. That's only a small part of the article though, and unreferenced. A more appropriate merge would perhaps be Facial (sex act).--BelovedFreak 20:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Cum shot. I'm with RGTraynor on this...I never thought I'd say anything like this on Wikipedia. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, and I prefer facial (sex act) as it's more specific. A cum shot can be any ejaculation, but facial refers specifically to the ejaculation onto the recipient's body. Technically this could be anywhere from the face to the buttocks (and I suppose the feet if you like), but there isn't an overall term for this that I know. --Dhartung | Talk 22:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the reason I gave above. Also, a merger with Facial (sex act) isn't wise, IMO. That article deal entirely with the facial's role in pornography. Absent the "Role in pornography" section, and the article is yet another definition for a slang term, bringing us full-circle. DeeKenn (talk) 00:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A useful educational little article about a taboo subject. In the world of HIV we need to know all this stuff. Cum shot is about porn movies & hardly relevant, but facial (sex act) would be a possibility if editors don't want a separate article. --Simon Speed (talk) 00:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and develop further. Thee are certainly a number of sources for the use meaning and signicance as a sexual practice. Shartung is correct there are more general terms--this one is specific. DGG (talk) 02:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Dicdef, no potential to be anything but a dicdef. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: to Cum shot. It's a common form of human sexuality... If people can't handle it, then they should stay off the internet. User:Pwscottiv (talk) 05:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That it is a common practice isn't the issue. DeeKenn (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge So far as I an see, this article is not entirely worthless. It should be mentioned somewhere, though I agree perhaps not in its own article. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It is a very popular and notable sexual slang term. Plenty of reliable sources available on this topic.
  • The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English by Eric Partridge, Tom Dalzell, Terry Victor, Page 1455.
  • Pornography and Difference by Berkeley Kaite. (1995) Page 117.
  • Endgame: The Problem of Civilization by Derrick Jensen, Page 203.
• According to Pornography and Difference,

“

In fact pearl necklace is the slang phrase used in pornography to refer to instances of ejaculation on the female's upper torso.

”

The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English defines pearl necklace as:

“

semen ejaculated on a woman's throat and breasts, especially after penis-breast contact.

”

Thus pearl necklace is a term used to describe the semen ejaculated on a woman's throat. It has usage in pornography also. Pornography and Difference (page 117) gives detail explanation of the term, why the word "pearl" is used and its usage. This term has equivalent in Sanskrit also. For the Sanskrit eqivalent, see A Practical Sanskrit Dictionary by Arthur Anthony MacDonell, Page 229. Live Sex Acts: Women Performing Erotic Labor by Wendy Chapkis includes pearl necknace within "much safer sexual activities" (page 170). Popular Modernity in America by Michael Thomas Carroll (page 118) mentions the background of the origin of the term. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That it is well-defined and widely-used isn't the issue. The issue, to me, is can the article be taken further than just a definition? I have Partridge's book as well. I worship J.E. Lighter. I love words. I love etymology. I love slang and idioms. But, I also like my dictionaries and encyclopedias, and I (think) I know when they should separate. DeeKenn (talk) 04:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; see no reason why it can't be expanded beyond a definition.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; Why does this have less encyclopedia entry-potential than Mastication? Baiter (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That's a good example of an article that needs merging. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. DeeKenn (talk) 23:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as mandated by WP:V, a core policy, because of the lack of reliable sources. The "keep" arguments do not adequately address this issue.  Sandstein  06:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poe's law[edit]

Poe's law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Neologism. Doesn't exist beyond some forums on the net; no notable usage. Was deleted before in 2005 for the same reason. — Hex (❝?!❞) 13:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete Essentially a stealth vanity page for some random guy on a forum. "Sourced" to the forum itself and urbandictionary. Calling it a neologism would be too kind. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• comment: ostensibly not a "vanity" page, since it has been created by me, and I have no connection whatsoever with Mr. Poe. WP:NOTE should be judged based on the references given based on precedents for adages of online-culture such as Godwin's law, Hofstadter's law, Hutber's law, Ševčenko's law, Wirth's law and other "laws" you may never have heard of. The deletion in 2005 was due to practically no google hits (48). In the meantime, this number has increased by a factor of >100, and the adage is listed in the Urban Dictionary (which I grant you is not the OED). dab (𒁳) 13:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Urbandictionary is notorious for accepting absolutely anything submitted to it, and for having no practical fact-checking whatsoever. Attempting to use it as a source is silly enough, but when it's the only source, well... Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per nom and per Andrew Lenahan. No reliable sources to indicate notability and widespread usage of the term. Nsk92 (talk) 14:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep Scienceblogs is often considered a reliable source and a number of their bloggers discuss the notion. See for example [12], [13]. I'm not sure in this case that we considered them to be reliable sources since it isn't directly related to their area of expertise. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Nedinect to Cole slaw as an aterdative to demete. Mandsford (talk) 00:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no reliable sources (blogs generally don't qualify under WP:RS). One can also say it's a neologism. B.Wind (talk) 04:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Amounts to a neologism. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 07:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable neoblogism. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I came to Wikipedia to find out what it meant, because I had seen it used so often. If the article hadn't existed, I'd still have been in the dark. Noisy | Talk 17:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of an argument for a keep is that? Reminds me of Jimbo's quote featured in WP:V:"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." Nsk92 (talk) 11:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Too bad it won't be here much longer then. I guess it's back to Google for the curious. Mandsford (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable neologism. Merenta (talk) 02:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I see it a lot, it's actually gaining noteriety since 2005, three whole years ago.

71.62.4.205 (talk) 03:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a general WP:IKNOWIT argument. How about some verifiable evidence, please? Nsk92 (talk) 11:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable neologism. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - you would never ever ever see this in a real encyclopedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.149.39.49 (talk) 05:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - If I'm seeing it in the wild, it's notable. --SeanO (talk) 05:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? How about citing a reliable source or giving some policy-based reason? Nsk92 (talk) 10:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My policy is "If I think it's notable, I say 'keep'". Sorry, that's my opinion. You're welcome to yours. --SeanO (talk) 10:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I'm seeing "poe" as one who mimics fundamentalists here: [14] Rhebus (talk) 11:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A single reference to a blog/discussion forum that does not pass WP:RS. I would like to see actual evidence of sufficiently widespread usage confrmed by reliable sources per WP:V and WP:RS. Nsk92 (talk) 11:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I found this page because I saw a reference to Poe's law and did not know what it is. I am certain I am not alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.183.100.8 (talk) 01:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Common term especially in the blogging world, though not commonly understood by the masses. 70.71.196.146 (talk) 03:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)— 70.71.196.146 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please, not another WP:IKNOWIT argument. How about some actual sources, per WP:RS and WP:V? Nsk92 (talk) 03:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 05:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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