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

The result was redirect to Cold front. Cirt (talk) 23:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article does not does not cite reliable, 3rd party sources to assert notability within the guidlines for websites. VG ☎ 23:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a reason we can't redirect to Cold front? Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 00:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect - I dug around a fair bit, and this page didn't meet the 10-15 minute Google News and googling for news tests. Probably no RS available for expansion at this time. On redirecting, note that there are some 19,400 hits on Google (I know, I know - enough with the Google mentions) for "coldfront weather -irc," so it may be warranted. MrZaius^talk 02:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect to Cold front. Is a plausible spelling for that, which is notable. current article is not verified, so should go. even if sources found, should still redirect, and have a hatnote at Cold front for other use.Yobmod (talk) 14:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:06, 25 September 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. Snowball'ed seicer | talk | contribs 14:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable musician. It's very difficult to do a search for "fash" because a lot of hits for "fashion" keep showing up, so I did a Google search for "Brainmeat Records", and I can't find a single hit that isn't a copy of this article. Corvus cornix_talk 23:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; fails WP:N Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 00:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Amended: Speedy Delete per above & removal of only ref. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 01:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Arseces has removed the references to Brainmeat Records, so my previous comment now no longer applies, but now there is even less notability in the current version as of the minute that I write this, "get ready for this guy" is not a claim of notability. "Now at age 25 fash has become one of the best known electronic producers" is a claim of notability, but that's a non-sourced claim. Corvus cornix_talk 00:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 00:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. Is there an assertion of notability for either the Iranian musician (for which the page was overwritten) or the Australian electronica group (the earlier content)? —C.Fred (talk) 00:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems odd that they have the same discography. Corvus cornix_talk 00:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I can tell, that's because when an editor overwrote the article with the Iranian musician, he didn't change the discography. —C.Fred (talk) 03:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Esradekan Gibb. KJS77 Join the Revolution
• Speedy delete fails WP:Music. I couldn't find a single hit except this article either.— Ѕandahl ♥ 01:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A bit off-key in regard to WP:MUSIC Ecoleetage (talk) 01:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, would not appear to meet the WP:MUSIC notability criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete, can someone please throw the snowball now? Daniel Case (talk) 04:35, 22 September 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. Suggest editorial discussion on talk page of article about possible merge. lifebaka++ 04:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Was both tagged for speedy and prodded, but the author removed the tags. This article is unverified and the subject is not notable. seresin ( ¡? )  23:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep

1. Though I doubt the fact that this article meets notability (which, contrary to popular belief, is not actiually a policy, and therefore is not full justification), it is something someone would look up. Someone wanting to know what a Bionicle Makuta was aren't going to go to the virtually unknown Bionicle Wiki, they're going to go to their good friend Wikipedia.
2. The article that I split this from (Characters and groups in Bionicle) was just getting to long.
3. I notice that the warning states that it is underly verifiable. Well, it does have plenty of source, but for some reason anything on the citations beyond the little numbers won't show up, and I'm not a wiki-formating geek (no "references" section magically appeared).
4. Notability is not a policy, it's a guideline. It's not the word of god.

All in all, please listen to my argument before acting in haste. [[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|Tutthoth-Ankhre~ The Pharaoh of the Universe]] (talk) 23:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I choose to suggest deletion for any and all articles whose keep proponents use "I doubt the fact that this article meets notability (which, contrary to popular belief, is not actiually a policy, and therefore is not full justification)" as a keep reason. Corvus cornix_talk 23:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep it looks like it just might squeak bye WP:FICT, cant say I am an expert at telling how notable fictional groups are though.. - Icewedge (talk) 00:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and discuss on the talk page how to deal with the material. It is not obvious to me how this list should be handled. There are indeed a lot of characters, and dealing with them in group seems sensible; this is already a combination article, and merging it much further may not be reasonable. . Since we can verify from the primary source, we can arrange the material how we think most useful. I have sympathy for those who would like to combine this sort of material, but I'd have more if the merges didn't tend to lose material. There is one great virtue of a merge--there is not need to show anything about notability of the individual parts. Not that one necessarily can't, but it does save argument.DGG (talk) 00:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Totally in-universe, no independent sources and not notable.--Grahame (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I've formatted the refs properly so that people may assess them more easily. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 01:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back to Characters and groups in Bionicle. Article is written primarily in an in-universe style, and there is no indication of notability in the real world. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. Fancruft. No reliable sources to establish notability. Those references to "Federation of Fear" don't appear to work. The other references are blogs. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Commment Axl is incorrect. Though they are labeled as "blogs", they are actiually stories told in journal entries, quite distinct from, say, a myspace blog. [[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|Tutthoth-Ankhre~ The Pharaoh of the Universe]] (talk) 11:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see what you mean: they are stories disguised as blog entries. However they are from bioniclestory.com, unfortunately not a reliable source. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actiually it is, as it is an offical site made by Lego, the makers of Bionicle. If one goes to www.Lego.com, Products, Bionicle, a link to Bioniclestory.com is very obvious. Also, at the bottom of the many pages there is a compyright warning which cleary states that the site is owned by Lego. Lastly, recent bionicle commercials on TV say "go to Bioniclestory.com". It is an official site. [[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|Tutthoth-Ankhre~ The Pharaoh of the Universe]] (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia "reliable sources" states "Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources." (Emphasis mine.) bioniclestory.com is not third-party. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well where else am I going to get storyline info? Articles on fictional universes often use first-party (offical) sources. Also, Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. [[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|Tutthoth-Ankhre~ The Pharaoh of the Universe]] (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete That doesn't technically apply here. You are trying to convince us why this article should be kept, telling us to ignore all rules is not an argument that will win you this article's stay on this wikipedia. This article does not meet our notability requirements, which as stated are, significant coverage from multiple reliable 3rd party sources that are independent from the subject. The reason a primary source cannot be trusted as a source is because the primary source usually endorses the subject matter, and therefore cannot be used as a source to establish notability.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 05:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per DGG. Edward321 (talk) 13:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• It seems that G7 now applies to the article. However, given a few edits by other editors and this AfD, I decline to delete it. However, should another administrator wish to do so, feel free. Otherwise, this AfD can run its course. seresin ( ¡? )  23:57, 23 September 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. BJ^Talk 01:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Full of original reasearch, almost entirely devoid of sources and out-of-universe notability. He's cute though. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see two sources, though I cannot evaluate them. DGG (talk) 00:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article's valid, it's just flawed. Don't delete it, fix it.--76.10.75.168 (talk) 04:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Pretty well known video game character. KJS77 Join the Revolution 00:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read WP:ITSNOTABLE. Reliable sources need to be pointed out as such to indicate notability; just saying that it is does not hold water in an AfD discussion. MuZemike (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article is sourced, and being the main characater in a large number of games is a clear indication of notability. Edward321 (talk) 13:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

**An article written by "IGN Staff" does not strike as a reliable source in my view of the guideline. MuZemike (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The character does not establish notability using reliable third party sources, so it does not need an article. The one important source is already contained within Klonoa: Door to Phantomile. TTN (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. TTN (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Note — I believe Klonoa here refers to the video game character, not the video game series, so as to not get confused. MuZemike (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

• Snowball Delete — Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guntz looks like it's headed for the bin. (I also recommended there that someone look at this for deletion as it does have the same exact problems as Guntz.) MuZemike (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  A gross misappropriation of the term 'snowball'. You're in the mood of shoving WP:ITSNOTABLE in our faces, yet clearly ignore WP:ALLORNOTHING on the same page. SashaNein (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "Klonoa" the character is iffy notability-wise, yes, and does not need his own article until proven otherwise. However, the Klonoa page should actually be about the notable video game franchise "Klonoa", and it currently halfway is.
  In order to be encyclopedic, the page needs rewritten to focus on the series, with the main character as a major aspect of that topic, rather than primarily on the character with the series as a sidenote. But while the current page is written primarily about the character, it also contains other useful elements such as the gameplay descriptions, the "Klonoa series games" section, and the listing of Klonoa crossover titles that make it a reasonable basis for the eventual article on the Klonoa series.
  In conclusion, the Klonoa page is currently a misfocused draft of an article on a notable subject with the same title. But since the article about the series will need to exist eventually, and the current article contains enough of the content that will eventually be in that page so as to be useful to readers (minorly) and future editors (majorly), I believe it should be Kept and reframed. I would volunteer to write it myself, but I personally know little about the series, so that would be infeasible. I would be willing to do what I can though, by trimming the unnecessary bio details and writing a new lead that makes it clear the article is about the series. --erachima talk 17:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a character page, keep as a franchise page (like for example Bridget Jones) => Keep. Lose all the OR and character-related PLOT, but everything starting with the "Klonoa series games" section seems alright. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment — I would be willing to change to keep provided all material except the Klonoa series games section be removed, as all other sections talk strictly about the character and provides little or no context to the series as a whole. MuZemike (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

• • The other appearances section is trivia and should be removed, and the other characters section needs a rewrite as it is in-universe and not very encyclopedic. MuZemike (talk) 19:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per five pillars. Just kidding. Keep not because of the 5 Pillars nonsense, but because that this character has the chance for notability, he just needs some clean-up. AFD is not a way to clean-up an article. ZeroGiga (talk) 21:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

**Oh, don't remind us of that tripe again! MuZemike (talk) 22:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Gosh Muzemike, let's not get ad hominem shall we? ;) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/expand/shif focus/whatever as per SGeureka and erachima actually. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note — I strike all my above comments as it is clear that I have no clue of what I am talking about. I'm going to have some of that tripe, now. MuZemike (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List_of_elementary_schools_in_Hawaii#Honolulu. Cirt (talk) 23:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article about an Elementary school with no claim to notability with a non-encyclopedic page. I would have speedied it but I don't think it qualifies. mboverload@ 23:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

did you try a prod? it usually works for these, if one explains to the editors involved. DGG (talk) 00:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I usually redirect these to the school district they are part of, and explain to the author why. That would be my vote I guess, or you could withdraw the nomination and redirect it now. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm in agreement with Beeblebrox; a check at Category:Schools in Hawaii doesn't show that there's an article about schools in Honolulu (city or county). This sort of article isn't consistent with what is kept on Wikipedia. The usual outcome (not a specific policy, but a statement of what happens in practice) is that high schools are inherently notable, but that primary schools have to demonstrate that they are notable beyond being a school. I'm usually in favor of a few days debate on an article that seems to be part of a weeklong class lesson about Wikipedia, but in this case, this appears to be written by a teacher or staffperson. Wikipedia is not the place to create a web page for the school, nor to post a handbook. Suggestion is that if you want to keep this, create an article about the public schools on Oahu and add a link for Kamiloki. Even a paragraph is OK, but please, no mission statements. Mandsford (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to List of elementary schools in Hawaii#Honolulu per accepted practice. TerriersFan (talk) 02:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 02:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List_of_elementary_schools_in_Hawaii#Honolulu as suggested above. No indication that this school is special or remarkable in any way. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment On the other hand, if Kamiloiki Elementary School were in New York City, the discussion might look like this. Mandsford (talk) 23:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning the relative importance of a primary school is understandable, but not every school is the same. --Jh12 (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List_of_elementary_schools_in_Hawaii#Honolulu. --Jh12 (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:12, 24 September 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. Cirt (talk) 23:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Basically, if you believe someone is notable because "McCarthy has finished fourteen one hundred mile ultramarathon endurance runs. He has written a novel, 100 Miles to Destiny, based on his twenty-five years of experiences as a runner, and as a competitor in the Western States Endurance Run." then please vote to keep. If not please vote to delete. mboverload@ 23:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Furthermore, the novel is apparently self published. No libraries hold it, which sort of surprised me, because in cases like this the author usually donates a copy to his town library. DGG (talk) 00:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No independent reliable sources found that verify claims of notability. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:50, 25 September 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. Tiptoety ^talk 06:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Multiple issues: Article is an autobiography that fails the notability guideline. Also does not include sources that might hint at any notability. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 23:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete College instructor who clearly does not meet WP:PROF. DGG (talk) 00:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no sourcing to demonstrate WP:PROF. We66er (talk) 05:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete par being the nominator Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 10:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nice guy, but that's not enough. --Crusio (talk) 08:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. what Crusio said. I see no claim to notability, may be speediable as CSD:A7. Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted CSD G12 as a copyvio of this page. This should not be interpreted as a judgement on the notability, one way or the other, of this person. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

He has a lot of small claims to notability, but none of those claims appear to be enough to be included in Wikipedia. Article in current state does not meet the cut. mboverload@ 23:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Rapid keep a member of the National Academy of Engineering, which is equivalent notability to the National Academy of Sciences. No possible queswastion that members of national academies are notable. DGG (talk) 00:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a copyvio.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 02:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Samuel J. Howard has it right. Tagged with ((db-copyvio)). Deor (talk) 03:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While the keep arguments are long, they are not terribly persuasive. Notability is not inherited. lifebaka++ 04:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

No independent third-party sources given in the article. I can't find any through Google (only ~1200 hits - very few related and those are myspace type things). Seems like if this artist is actually "influential", there should be something meeting WP:RS out there. Anyway, delete as failing verifiability policy. Wickethewok (talk) 23:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I was unable to find anything on this person either, other than self-published material and the usual directory entry style things. Would not appear to meet the WP:MUSIC notability guidelines. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Hi i can understand your dispute after reading all this , i am only trying to offer, some information on a musician that played a part in the history of UK house music.in the very early days not much was put on record on when house music first came into the uk. The Theme is one of the first underground dance tunes to get picked up by a major virgins 10records

i dont feel any out of context claims have been made, i did try to add more links to show some of Unique 3s work.

here are some of the quotes on the theme

Unique 3 "The first & hardest on the UK House scene" [Pete Tong - Radio 1]

"This isn’t music, this is a physical force" [Mixmag]

"The new age, [Unique 3] stand as a testament to the new spirit of risk and adventure" [Paulo Hewitt NME]

"The Theme’ gave bass tones a whole new meaning" [Music Mag]

"Commitment to the underground" [Record Mirror]

this was taken from the Unique 3 myspace site, i did not use the quote as i cant find them on other web site. i would just like to contribute to the history of house music in the uk. --Radicalthinker (talk) 11:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Hello i pasted this form the criteria page for inclusion. Is cited in reliable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching in a particular music genre.

i feel this artist falls under influential in style i do feel the publications and people such a Pete Tong would have this removed from the the unique myspace site i also just found this below

The inclusion of Unique 3’s - ’The Theme’ on both The Chemical Brothers album of tracks that inspired them to make music: ’Brothers Gonna Work It Out’ & on Warp Records collection of early House tracks that inspired them to set up their world famous label, an album aptly titled:’Inspirations’, stands testament to this. - Virgin/10 Records Press Department.

--Radicalthinker (talk) 12:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

---

[edit] links The quotes can be found at Unique 3 i know this is the unique 3 myspace however i do feel if would not be possible for them to make such claims about The Theme if the quotes are not true, little information on David Bahar will ever be found this is an artist that has stayed away from the lime light and has just put a face to the name, thats what i think is rather interesting. this unique 3 site is nothing to do with David Bahar, 10 records is no longer trading but im sure Virgin records would not let unique 3 get away with any miss quotes. David Bahar chart hit was in the Black Echo publication short of getting a faxed copy i am pritty sure i will not find it on the web, this is why i did not include it as i thought that was not up to standerd --Radicalthinker (talk) 12:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

--Radicalthinker (talk) 13:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

• I don't think I understand what this guy Bahar has to do with Unique 3? From your descriptions, it sounds like he worked on one track with them and that is it. Unique 3 may be notable, but that doesn't mean this guy is. The only quasi-reliable source that even mentions Bahar is this discogs page: http://www.discogs.com/release/462981 . Wickethewok (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - he may be notable, but the article fails the verifiability policy. -- Whpq (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

unique 3 and the theme im getting a little worried here as why this is happening, i have shown that this artist was responserble for the Theme, and sold part of the copyright over to ten and unique 3. you have stated that you feel unique 3 may be notable, the only thing that make them notable is the theme, and this artis Bahar was on the first release of The Theme on the Chill Records label, i know that the discogs is the only thing i can find on the net about Unique 3 s first releas, thats one of the reasons i put the artical up here,this artical was first contested by speedy deletion, and more than one editor has said, ok,after discusion. im not saying this guy Bahar is Elvis, im just pointing out Unique 3 and the Mad Musician played a part in UKs dance history and did inspire some bigger named artist by their own admition. --Radicalthinker (talk) 19:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - There is a big problem with verifiability. The only reference is Discog and "quasi-reliable" is probably a good description as the content is user submitted. See WP:V for the Wikipedia policy on verifiability. -- Whpq (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This "Unique 3" group seems notable since, as Radical points out, there is information out there to write an article about them. However, David Bahar, who seems to be only involved with one of their releases, does not have any media coverage/verifiable information/etc. Not everyone who works with someone notable is notable themselves. Wickethewok (talk) 20:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Unique 3 and the mad musician as i say the only thing what would make Unique 3 note worthy is The Theme nothing ells can be found quotes refering to anything ell than the theme, this artist was given credit on the Chill recorings and some info can be found http://www.discogs.com/release/462981, it is true not alot to be found on Google, but i must ask are we look only to google if so what are we doing here, i do feel no extravigant claims have been made regarding Bahar, and as long as we stick to fact i think its rather unfair to delete.

---

New Link David Bahar Link please take a look at [[1]] go down to Disc 2 you will find The Theme Chill Mix. this is the Chill Records mix, on the credits for the chill records release is David Bahar. all the quotes that can be found on Unique 3 relate to The Theme, this artist was part of unique 3 at the time of releasing the theme, the title of the warp records album was ’Inspirations’warp is one of the best known indie labels in the UK i know you know your stuff,but im just making the point, they chose The Theme, Chill Mix on the album, this information was not put up by me, it is on the Warp Records Page and so is (independent). On the david bahar page if you follow the link CHill Records you will find cat number and artist listing I understand and respect what you are doing here and this Artist David Bahar, was unknown to you me and many others, i found him on myspace when i read the info regarding the theme that a bit of a shock to me as The Theme was a big tune in my life in its day, i wanted to make sure he was not making it up as i thought Unique 3 where just unique 3 and not the mad musician also, thats when i looked around found what i could and then put up the info here as i feel its a good place for true history to be noted,if you wish to disregard this piece of music history, i can only wonder why a piece of British dance music history that has been missed by Google to name but one, should be missed here just because of that, i will not include this artical in any other page, to make sure nothing could be said or implied that may not be the case, looking at the warp records Inspirations album i think it fair to give Unique 3 and the mad musician some credit here,what we need to understand here is that Unique 3s members changed a lot not sure if you know but Kevin Harper(Boy Wonder) the guy that worked with nightmares on Wax and was on Warp, Was one of the Unique 3 also befor the mad musician, When Bahar joined the team he kept on his name as the mad musician, but on the chill records label you will only find 3 names d bahar i park and p cargill, but it was unique 3 and the mad musician i will be more than happy to include, a link for Unique 3, i did put in a link for unique 3 but it was taken off,if you can find anything on unique i would hope you would leave this up and include the information on Unique 3. --Radicalthinker (talk) 23:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

reply just trying to make things easy here, please note Warp Records inclusion of The Theme on the Album [[[[2]]]]Bahar was part of Unique 3 at the time of the Chill Records release, Warp Records is an independent page, i have never put any thing up on it, unique 3 members changed many times, (Wickethewok) says himself "Unique 3 may be notable" i agree because the Theme was an inspiration to some now big names in music it is notable, and to remove the page David Bahar is missing the point, no extravigant claims have been made, its all about giving good honest and truthfull information. i have show in the discussion some quotes from some big names in Dance music, and provied the link to Warp Records showing independent record that The Theme was influential, and that David Bahar was given credit for this on the Chill Records label. --Radicalthinker (talk) 10:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Please read below the quote by wickethewok posted ok|Wickethewok]] (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

"he may be notable" but the article fails the verifiability policy. -- Whpq (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC) i think the link to warp records is enough for the verifiability policy it is third party, im sure given time i can find more, the more i look the more i seem to find, if you follow the link from Chill Records on the David Bahar page you can see the Artist name and cat number Catalog#: DB786, for the Chill Records release, The Chill Mix was the one chosen for Warp Records.what im trying to do here is show some history that has been missed by goodle because no one has botherd to in put the information, i think this artical is of interest as the links are valid and no extravagant have been made, its only fact[--Radicalthinker (talk) 10:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The quote is attributed to the wrong editor. I (user:whpq) am the one being quoted. In any case, there is no demonstration of notability, and more importantly, no demonstration of verifiability. Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source. All the content on wikipedia is user submitted, and the Warp article in particular provides no sources for any of its information. Nor does it make any mention of David Bahar. -- Whpq (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

reply to comment

i understand your (nor does it make any mention of David Bahar)but im not sure if all the information here is been read, it has been shown Uniqu3 release The Theme was on Chill Records befor chill 10 Records took over the Track and distribution,unique 3 artist appear on the chill mix on chill records D.Bahar I.Park, P Cargill, the cat numder is DB786, please note( DB) the artis was and working with unique that produced this track, but was an indepenent artist, (the mad Musician). as stated unique 3 members did change and that can be seen on the David Bahar page, as far as reliable source is, if you dont feel Wikipedia is a reliable source, whats the point in Verifiability, we read Wikipedia because we know its the info is more reliable that google search, you guys put so much time and effort in to make sure it is, and i truly respect that fact, are you saying that the warp records disc 2 showing the Unique 3 the Theme chill mix on 10 records, is not actualy the case,if that is true i think we need to look at removing that also. i feel some editors here are been unfair and nit picky, i have seen pages with far less infomation on them and they dont seem to be getting this kind of attention. i have ofered many quotes relating to The Theme, from pete tong to record mirror, and finaly put the point of warp record including the track on [[3]] --Radicalthinker (talk) 13:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Ok, please understand this: this debate is NOT about Unique 3. This is about DAVID BAHAR. Please stop trying to show that Unique 3 is notable/verifiable/etc. It doesn't particularly matter, the issue here is the subject of the article, not some people who he briefly worked with. Wickethewok (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Radicalthinker is trying to establish a rather tortured path to notability. As I understand it, the chain of logic proposed by Radicalthinker is:

1. Unique 3 is notable in UK house music
2. The song The Theme by Unique 3 was a hit and/or is notable
3. David Bahar in some way contributed to the song The Theme

Ergo, David Bahar is notable and should have a wikipedia page. Please correct me if i have misinterpreted with this simply summary.

However, this does not establish notability in a variety of ways.

As Wickethewok has pointed out, this discussion is about David Bahar and not Unique 3. So all the information about Unique 3 does not have much relevance especially as notability is not inherited.

Notability is established by showing third-party coverage about David Bahar in reliable sources. There is none offered in the article. There are none to be found in searching Google Web, google New, or Google Books. Nobody has written about him. Nobody has taken note of him.

None of the information is verifiable. I'm not saying the information isn't true. But there are no references which verify the information. Discog is user-submitted. And even if we accepted that, all it verifies is that he was a producer for the song. It doesn't verify any of the other information in the article, nor does it establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Thanks you got it to a T with the info you have submitted i think you have got all most a perfect understading of what is going on.However i can not understand how you can say the information relating to Unique 3 has nothing to do with this artist, everything on Unique 3 is in referance to The Theme, to which david bahar made a contribution,but was an independent artis i do also note 10( if a artist work, is included in a compelation this may also be submitted) with regard to user submitted Discog it was not put up by me, i just thought it would be a good place to find the information so i went to it. The Theme is without question notable,in your own words also he may be notable, but the article fails the verifiability policy. -- Whpq (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC) its on the warp insperations compelation Album and as stated record mirror pete tong ect, so that been the case unique 3 and the mad musician have a part in it, as its the chill mix on the Warp records Compelation that is the point im making here, some of your editors agree, that the Theme is noteworthy so the Unique 3 and the Mad Musician (david bahar) both credited on the chill records release they are like 2 peas in the same pod, but and not just the same group, please note, part of the critera for notabuility ( 10 the artist work is included in a compelation) the warp listing reads (the chill Mix) from Chill Records. Bahars name is on it--Radicalthinker (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)not sure why all this got highlighted, sorry [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. BJ^Talk 01:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fish Information and Services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The company does not meet the notability guideline for companies and organisations. It is small, privately owned, and rated as a small internet site by Alexa. The creator of the article appears to be spamming wikipedia by creating articles about the company, here, on Simple and on Spanish wikipedia. Matilda ^talk 22:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions and also at list of Business related discussions plusWikipedia:WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing. —Matilda ^talk 00:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

In this debate, the notability of the website is being called into question. I think that if I can show that this company is the market leader in this sector, than this would no longer be an issue (just as Google and yahoo! are leaders in their sectors and thus have articles). I know that sometime in the next week, an article is being printed in a Norwegian financial magazine (for those who do not know, Norway is one of the biggest fishing/seafood exporting nations in the world) that will show FIS to be the market leader and therefore proving its notability. Since this would be an external and independent source, the validity of that would not be questioned. I shall post that on this discussion page and on the list of sources as soon as it arises. The fact that FIS has a traffic rank of 300 000 doesn’t effect the notability since this is only proportional to the market in which it is in (This figure does not take into account the fact that the Japanese FIS is on a separate domain so the figure is actually closer to 200 000). Ferrari on the world car market has no real significance (less than 1% of the total market), however on the LUXURY car market it is much more significant. This is a similar case here, on the overall view of the World Wide Web, FIS is small, but within its market its huge.

• • Removed Tag - There is sufficiant coverage now and the statistical information is now well sourced.Spindoctor69 (talk) 20:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Written Like an Advertisement

The second issue raised is that the article appears to be written like an advertisement. This is no reason for deletion since this contradicts the spirit and philosophy of Wikipedia. If an article is not up to encyclopedic standard, then it is modified and updated until it is up to that standard. Simply deleting an article because you don’t like it or understand the sector in which it talk about is a complete contradiction of the very concept of Wikipedia and the fact that it is written like an advertisement should give people encouragement to carry on improving Wikipedia. The competitors of this website are not listed and this is open for anyone to do if they think that this would add balance to this article.

• • Removed Tag - I think I have now solved the major part of the problem by removing the talk about competitors. --Spindoctor69 (talk) 13:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC) — Spindoctor69 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Accusations of SPAM

In response to this accusation on "spamming" Wikipedia, this is again nonsense. The site has three languages: English, Spanish and Japanese as well as a large majority of the English users not having English as their first language. It is therefore equally significant to have articles for all three languages as well as a simplified English version since those are all of equal importance on the site. This also calls into question if we should be discussing this on the English Wikipedia site since each language has different administrators and log-ins.

If Wikipedians continue like this, Wikipedia risks becoming an organization similar to Académie française (French Academy) or the Real Academia Española (Spanish Academy). This is something for the people who take part in this debate to consider. --Spindoctor69 (talk) 02:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC) — Spindoctor69 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment. When adding sub-heads on AFD, please make sure to make the header a level below the main AFD subject line otherwise it messes up the indexing on the page. I've made the repair. No opinion on this AFD. 23skidoo (talk) 02:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment in reply re accusations of Spam etc - this user: Spindoctor69 (talk · contribs) is a single purpose account here and on at least two other wikipedias (Simple and Spanish) having put up this article on those projects too. Per Wikipedia:Spam: There are two types of wikispam. These are advertisements masquerading as articles and external link spamming. In my view this is an advertisement masquerading as an article. There are no reliable sources to establish notability per WP:COMPANY. I do not think deleting articles on non-notable companies puts us at risk of becoming like the Académie française - in fact we run the opposite risk if we do not have some criteria for inclusion - hence our development of the notability guideline for companies and our policy against advertising. Essentially if this company is as notable as claimed, including a market leader in its segment, that fact will be reported by reliable sources, those sources can be cited and our guideline on notability will be met. Without those sources to support the claims, I stand by my accusations of spam and advertising - the use of wikipedia to promote a non-notable company. --Matilda ^talk 23:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails the notability guidelines for companies and web content as it has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. What coverage there is is either advertising or trivial references as a collater of fish prices (example). Re the above comments - a future article in a Norwegian newspaper might qualify as a secondary source, but as it has not yet been published its content cannot be assessed. If reliable sources are expected soon perhaps userfying the article might be worthwhile until those sources are available. I agree Alexa rankings don't indicate much, and that apparent advertising can be rewritten. But these are side issues - the key point is the absence of independent sources to verify notability. Euryalus (talk) 03:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, based on my being almost undecided. Googling it produces few results, but http://www.fis.com/fis/mediakit/2007/overview-e.html shows a not insubstantial organisation, though I do appreciate that this may contain trade puffery. The putative Norwegian article will be enough to tip me into a simple keep. I do recommend that the article is "de-advertorialed" and that other reliable sources are found for it. If the consensus is to delete I recommend temporary userfication to allow more work to be done before republishing. Just losing the article seems to me to be silly. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there are no reliable sources cited to support the claims - the organisation's own web site is not sufficient. It is not a matter of other reliable sources - it is a matter of any sources.--Matilda ^talk 07:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think that "no source" is an exaggeration, the Alexa information and the information from the web directory are a start. As soon as this other article is printed, I shall post it here and add it to the sources on the article. --Spindoctor69 (talk) 12:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC) — Spindoctor69 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Comment - we have a guideline on reliable sources - the Alexa information and the information from web directory do not meet that guideline. To clarify my comment above - what I should have said is sources cited - I have inserted that word above in italics to make clear--Matilda ^talk 21:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This issue simply comes down to whether or not a suitable source, external to the company, can be found. You keep offering Alexa, Spindoctor69, but Alexa is not the sort of source we are after. Alexa just reports on the traffic statistics of any website. Nor do I necessarily agree with your claim, Matilda, that "there are no reliable sources", and I wonder why you would think that you can so categorically assert that. The organisation is known as FIS, and FIS, unfortunately, is an acronym widely used for other purposes. Google shows over 20 million hits. This makes its very difficult to filter out references for the FIS we are after. Also, the site seems to get most of its traffic from non English speaking areas. The other difficulty is that this is a specialist site, aimed at managers in the seafood industry. It is a tool that insiders know about, rather than a site that is the subject of interest in the general media. What turned me round to thinking the site is notable was examining the link for "User comments" which can be found on the left sidebar of the main page of FIS, towards the bottom. If you actually check these organisations out, to see if they exist as notable companies, together with the names of their claimed managers, then for the most part they check out. Clearly FIS could not get away with these claims if they are false. It was this fact that decided me, some time ago, that the company was indeed notable. However, this somewhat indirect evidence is not in a form that can be cited in Wikipedia. So my position is that the company is notable, but there remains the task of finding an appropriate supporting citation. You say, Spindoctor69, that sometime in the next week, an article is being printed in a Norwegian financial magazine. That may do it. --Geronimo20 (talk) 18:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in reply - as per my annotation above - what I meant to say is no reliable sources have been cited - I have clarified above. If sources exist then they should be cited and we can then assess the article against the notability guideline:

    A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject.

    As far as I can see there is nothing that supports FIS meeting that guideline - some yet to be published article is not significant coverage in secondary sources (note the plural). --Matilda ^talk 21:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • With some quite diligent searching I have found a passing mention in the New York Times - it is not a significant coverage in a secondary source though - Whenever you're curious, go to fis.com, click on Market Prices, select Tokyo-Chuo under Far East Prices, and scroll down to Bluefin [4] . All other links I found were back to the company's own web site. --Matilda ^talk 00:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC) - PS You can't follow the NYT reporter's suggestion anly lionger unless you are a signed-up member. --Matilda ^talk 00:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources in this article leads me to conclude that the article is not in compliance with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I have found sources which establish notability. I have put them on the article. There are various sites noting fis.com as the market leader or the leading news company. I think this should be enough to end this discussion and now add more information on the company citing these sources.

Spindoctor69 (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC) — Spindoctor69 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Thanks for your work on fixing the "advertising" issue - its much improved. However there remains a problem with notability - you've added additional links but all of them are either trivial mentions (eg simply lists of information providers including FIS) or advertising by FIS on other websites. None are significant mentions capable of meting the notability requirements. This problem isn't unique to FIS - a news provider can have a worldwide audience but no coverage of the provider itself. Is there anything in financial press anywhere, about FIS operations or structure (that is, actual articles on FIS by organisations not directly associated with it)? I can't find any but you might have better resources than I. As it stands there's still not much here to meet the notability guideline. Euryalus (talk) 22:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The other relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Notability (web) which requires

1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
   • This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations. except for the following:
     • Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.
     • Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores.
2. The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.
3. The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster

perhaps these criteria are more helpful --Matilda ^talk 23:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- but the organisation doesn't seem to meet any of these 3 criteria these either :-( --Matilda ^talk 21:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rjd0060 (talk) 23:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Question on 17 September User:Spindoctor69 wrote sometime in the next week, an article is being printed in a Norwegian financial magazine - has it been published yet?--Matilda ^talk 23:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep importance in the industry is demonstrated, though the sources could be better. However, even clearly notable information services are difficult to get information on. The supply information, but nobody thinks to write about them. Seems descriptive to me, not like an advertisement. DGG (talk) 00:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I looked around, and it appears that the company is used as a reference site. Here are three sites that do so.

[5] [6] [7] Some other places simply list it as a source, which, of course, doesn't say too much, but is worthy of mention. [8] [9] [10] [11] Jjamison (talk) 23:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Hi, I'm new to editing wikipedia, but from what I can see there is very little reason to delete this article. It's probably quite difficult to find other media companies who write articles about competing media companies but these sources appear to show that the site is used and widely recognised. Organisations such as NAFO are notable sources and if they are using this site then it shows that this site is worthy of an article. Redgator5 (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)— Redgator5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Further comment The company appears to meet the third criteria listed by Matilda "he content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster". Redgator5 (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC) — Redgator5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

What Wikipedia is Not i was looking around Wikipedia and found this article: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. There is a section which is called 'Wikipedia is not a Beurocracy'. I think this section fits this article well since it seems to be a specific case. There are no internet publications which have significant coverage on this site, however I think that notability has been established since it has been used as a source by some very notable organizations. What Wikipedia says in its guidelines for a case like this is that we must 'ignore the rules for the sake of improving Wikipedia'. Having this article benefits Wikipedia despite it being short of sources. Although what Spindoctor69 says about Wikipedia turning into the French Academy is a little extreme, I think he is correct and this rule was created to combat that so I think we should abide by it. Redgator5 (talk) 16:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)— Redgator5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete as per WP:SPAM. I note a considerable amount of POV pushing related to this indicating possible conflict of interest. Michellecrisp (talk) 03:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - While I note that Spindoctor69 (talk · contribs) is a new account (and one that has contributed almost exclusively on this topic), notwithstanding that he is new to wikipedia, I regard the following interactions with me as inappropriate:
  • removing referenced information I added and anotability tag with the edit summary Deleted Vandalism by User:Matilda [12]
  • requesting me to close the debate [13]
  • Instructing me that I should have ignored all rules and inferring that I had disrupted Wikipedia to make a point (presumably by nominating this article for deletion) [14] - I find this last interaction particularly inappropriate - even from a new user!

I am raising these interactions here so that the community can be aware that I have been accused of disrupting wikipedia to make a point and to state that I most vehemently refute the motivation implied. --Matilda ^talk 04:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment in response - Asking you to close the debate was a missunderstanding, I believed that you were responsable for that, but was obviously mistaken. After recieving a rude and obrupt comment (not the first) from you, I could see that you don't want to assume good faith. The Wikipedia:ignore all the rules referance was actually a suggestion that you SHOULD ignore the rules from time to time instead of blindly following them. 190.246.1.14 Spindoctor69 (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A SPAM article at best - this article does not provide notability in any of the references (I have checked through them all and they are either self-referencing or adverts). Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Indeed the Alexa comments make the article look directly like spam (please, your average porn site will have a ALEXA rating in the 10,000 or less but there not notable either). Reference to Google Hits obtained at the bottom of the page is also a dead give away. Put simply this is a fishing information service (there are several in my town alone - indeed my brother in law writes for one) what however makes this one notable? Nothing detailed at this time. Finally I note Michellecrisp's comments above and thus for the reference of the admin closing (although I am sure you will see it yourself immediately) it appears clear to me that there is at least one SPA and plenty of COI or similar editing by the main article contributor contained in this debate.--VS ^talk 05:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• comment- Alexa does not establish notability, especially if you're talking about member only sites. Sources in notable organisations establish notability and this article now has them.Spindoctor69 (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Well-referenced article about notable organisation. Spurious nomination by disruptive, single purpose account. Delete nominator. --Gene_poole (talk) 05:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have not demonstrated how it meets WP:CORP? Michellecrisp (talk) 05:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent Gene - always a joy to get your sarcastic comments - brings a certain light relief. Thanks again.--VS ^talk 05:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I get it, sarcasm! Michellecrisp (talk) 05:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Sockpuppet accounts are strictly forbidden in deletion discussions. See Wikipedia:SOCK#Voting_and_other_shows_of_support Michellecrisp (talk) 05:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional comment sockpuppet suspicion officially raised and new evidence that an editor has tried to split one keep vote to keep into two has been provided.--VS ^talk 12:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP user - I accidentaly made some comments while I was not logged in, my computer had logged me out. I have re-instated the comments under my name. I'm sorry about that and I hope we can assume good faith with this and move on. Spindoctor69 (talk) 19:21, 25 September 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. Cirt (talk) 23:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Views of Lyndon LaRouche (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Views of John Locke

View of Adam Smith

Views of Benjamin Franklin

Views of George Washington

Views of Alexander Hamilton

Views of Thomas Jefferson

Views of Abraham Lincoln

Views of Franklin D. Roosevelt

All of these are red links. (I checked "Political views of..." and Political positions of..." for these individuals, and those are also all red links.) I could go on further, but I think you get the idea. Doesn't this strike anyone else as a bit absurd? We don't have "Views of..." articles for some of the most influential philosophers and statesmen in American history, but we do for a guy who has never won any political office, has had no real effect on American government or society, and has perhaps a few thousand followers at most? This is a clear and blatant violation of our policies on undue weight.

More than that, this article has been a net detriment to Wikipedia ever since it was created. It has served as a platform for POV-pushing (on both sides), sock puppetry, and incivility. Whatever marginal encyclopedic merit it might have is far outweighed by the trouble it has caused. One article on Lyndon LaRouche is enough. *** Crotalus *** 22:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Your argument is basically WP:WAX. We don't have Views of Abraham Lincoln, but does that mean we shouldn't? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A decent article could certainly be written on the subject, but generally I would think that a political figure's views and beliefs should be covered in their biography, especially when those beliefs (and, in the case of statesmen, the actions resulting from said beliefs) are why the person is important in the first place. *** Crotalus *** 00:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There are numerous reliable sources for Views of George Washington, besides those of the other named persons. I might find them quite encyclopedic. I have often asked myself what Washington or Jefferson would have to say about the recent world conquests and adventures of the U.S. military. Edison (talk) 23:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, those might be good articles to have. My point, however, was that LaRouche is a far more marginal figure that that, and yet we have a huge page on his views consisting of undue weight and POV-pushing. *** Crotalus *** 00:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Should such content maintained on the page about the holder of the view? I.e. I would expect a page about Locke to discuss the political and philosophical views of Locke, and by the way that's where I would look for them if I were looking for them in Wikipedia. I suggest that a merger of this article with Lyndon LaRouche is the appropriate course of action. philosofool (talk) 23:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. All of our articles are "a net detriment to Wikipedia"... unless you take into account the reason Wikipedia exists in the first place. This page provides a (more or less) balanced overview of a topic with respect to which balance seems to be sadly lacking elsewhere; if people are reading it and learning from it, then it is helping to achieve Wikipedia's mission. As for your undue weight argument, you are arguing not from the premise that people are more interested in the views of Locke, Smith, Lincoln, etc than in the views of LaRouche, but from the premise that they ought to be. One might just as well argue that all our Pokemon articles should be deleted until such time as we have an article on the Philosophy of John Locke, since the undue weight in that case is surely much more absurd than the example proffered here. Hesperian 23:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem with your above argument is that almost nobody actually does read the Views of Lyndon LaRouche article. According to stats.grok.se, it only had 1,548 page views in August 2008. And keep in mind that a lot of these were probably by Wikipedians editing, or edit-warring, on the article. Bulbasaur, a relatively marginal Pokemon-related article, has 18,517 hits in that same time frame — more by an order of magnitude, and hasn't caused anywhere near the amount of trouble. Articles on the historical figures I listed above do much better; John Locke has 78,312 hits in August 2008 while Lyndon LaRouche's main article has just 22,198, many of them from patrollers and edit warriors. (Barack Obama, a contemporary political figure who people in the real world actually care about, has over 1.3 million hits, while John McCain has over 900,000. Their VPs do even better, probably because people don't know a lot about them but genuinely want to know more.) Yes, popular culture is overrepresented compared to important political and philosophical issues; but at least an argument can be made that people actually care about popular culture. Outside of Wikipedia, though, no one gives a damn about Lyndon LaRouche. Now, just because an article gets a tiny handful of page views doesn't mean that it is a bad article or should be deleted. But, traditionally, we have deleted articles when they are both marginal in terms of importance and they create a great deal of trouble on the wiki. Examples of this include Brian Peppers, Allison Stokke, Daniel Brandt, and Public Information Research, among others. *** Crotalus *** 00:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This article may well deserve to be deleted. Unfortunately, this AfD nomination fails to make any valid argument for same. The non-existence of the other named articles is not, in and of itself, an argument that this article should not exist. If the article has problems with OR and POV, fix them, but that is not a reason for deletion. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I'd prefer to see it shortened somehow and merged into Lyndon LaRouche. KJS77 Join the Revolution 00:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but remove non-neutral adjectives throughout. It does make it seem reasonable to break out this rather complex body of material. As for the analogues cited, I checked and found that for Lincoln, WP has Abraham Lincoln on slavery, and IMHO the Jefferson article could use a similar expansion--and perhaps a few others. I don't see that the extent of viewing of this article has anything to do with keeping it. And the precedent of the other articles mentioned is a very bad precedent indeed,for at least some of the 4--IMHO, defeats for NPOV. DGG (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep.
  • There are several categories covering these articles, such as Category:Political positions by person, Category:Political positions of politicians, and even Category:Political positions of mayors and leaders of cities in the United States. We have Views expressed by Michael Savage and Politics of Bill O'Reilly. So there is a precedent for have these types of articles on mid-level politicians and pundits.
  • All of these articles are subsidiary articles from their main articles, the bios. In every case they have been split off of the main articles, in accordance with WP:SUMMARY. They inherit the notability of their parent article. There are many notable individuals that don't have an article like Isaac Newton's early life and achievements, but that is not a reason to delete one.
  • In the case of this article, the subject has complicated and unusual political, economic, and philosophic beliefs. Those beliefs are actively promoted in a number of countries, and it is conceivable that people may come to Wikipedia for more information on the topic.
  • Having an article about the subject's views allows the main biography to remain limited to the more purely biographical information. The biography is itself quite long, so a merger of significant info from this article would require major editing to keep the bio at a reasonable length.
  • Many of the problems with this and other articles related to this topic can be attributed to a banned editor, Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Through a series of sockpuppet accounts going back to 2004, he has played the principal role in writing these articles and has been a consistent obstacle to their improvement. A set of socks going back a year or more have just been identified and blocked. Without their interference it may now be possible to edit down these articles and make substantial improvements.
• Finally, the topic of LaRouche's views is notable. There are hundreds of newspaper articles and dozens of magazine and a score of major book entries. Many of them devote space to discussing his views in some detail. There are 3rd-party sources devoted to particular aspects of his beliefs. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge It appears that this article is highly inflated, and deserves substantial editing down to something more manageable. There are large blocks of unnecessary quotes and duplication. I believe that once it is editted, then it should be of a size when it could be moved to Lyndon LaRouche. This article should not be deleted, since it does seem to have information on what LaRouche, who has been deemed notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjamison (talk • contribs) 23:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Comment The reason why an article like this is necessary is that there was an Arbcom decision a few years back that LaRouche media outlets couldn't be cited, even as primary sources, in articles other than those about the LaRouche organization. So this article is necessary as its the only place to write about the LaRouche political positions on a variety of topics, and it's too long to merge into the main article. Squidfryerchef (talk)

• Keep, Comment LaRouche is the most prolific anti-Semitic propagandist/ideologist of our times, and has had a significant if often under the radar influence on public opinion and the press, especially in Latin America.--Dking (talk) 23:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak, barely imperceptible Keep, and then take a buzzsaw to it Pare this dinosaur down to a size commensurate to its noteworthiness. I.e., keep only those views that have reliable sourcing indicate that they are notable outside of the parallel orbiting universes of Laroucheworld and the world of his circle of professional critics. 90% plus of the article is currently sourced to Larouche pubs. I'm aware of the argument made on the article talk page that there is some public service being performed by making these views accessible. I'm not the least bit convinced of the validity of that argument (nor its novel interpretation of the purpose of this encyclopedia). And DKing's claim about Larouche's twist on le question juif being the most "prolific" these days would not survive a walking stroll down a Teheran street or a charming morning tuning into a popular Polish radio station.. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 16:57, 24 September 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. After discounting all the SPAs and invalid votes this comes down to two keeps and three deletes. BJ^Talk 01:18, 26 September 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)).

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

This was considered a few months ago and closed as "no consensus." I think a new debate is needed. Additional sources have not emerged since then, and the ones cited do little to establish real notability, and don't really verify the information in the article. Since the two articles already linked there seems to be little or no commentary about this person from reliable sources in either Japanese or English. Chick Bowen 21:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails the general notability guideline, no reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete, unless more sources to demonstrate notability are found. One appearance on a TV show and two interviews in Japanese Weekly Playboy do not make a sufficient notability case under WP:BIO. Almost nothing in GoogleNews: possibly 1 hit (in Vietnamese) in recent news[15] and nothing before that[16]. Nsk92 (talk) 22:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, This article has far as I have read, has always been stubby due to a lackingness of reliable sources WP:RS or the inclusion of unrelated biased fantasy WP:OR. I suggest this article should receive nothing short of a STRONG DELETE has it carries little if not no point of being informative or anything that warrants further keeping as an article of wikipedia WP:NOT. Campus101 (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ten Pound Hammer said it best...and first! Ecoleetage (talk) 01:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep: I have attempted time and again to find solid facts on her and there is absolutely nothing. I tried my hardest to improve this article but there is no helping it. The original content was heavily biased and any attempts at fixing it have been met with contempt and revert edit wars in an attempt to restore it back to its original state. In short, this article is not worth the effort of keeping as it is of low quality, does not meet wikipedian standards, and just causes trouble. I agree with Campus101 about the article not adhering to the unrelated biased fantasy WP:OR rules and regulations.Yariau neko (talk) 02:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: After scouring google I have found this article, which has brightened my hopes for the success of this article. The article, if kept, will need to be heavily monitored and rewritten, but it looks like it is staring to have a bit of hope. Thus I am changing my vote from strong delete to weak keep.Yariau neko (talk) 04:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Magibon is one of the most popular people on Youtube. Her subscribers are constantly growing. She is mentioned in Newspapers around the world. Some people have tried to make it impossible to write this article. Double standards were applied on this article. It has the largest discussion page of all Youtubers, mentioned on Wikipedia. Most discussions were simply objections who came from people who made no constructive contributions but tried to to interrupt the work on this article. The article was vandalized several times. Magibon is as notable as any of the Youtubers, mentioned on Wikipedia. I have checked the other articles about Youtubers, if Magibons article is deleted, 95% of the other Youtubers could be removed from Wikipedia for the same sleazy reasons. Wikipedia is an internet encyclopedia, therefore people naturally expect to find informations about internet celebrities that everyone is talking about. If this article will be deleted, it would be a proof that Wikipedia is not neutral and fair.--Firithfenion (talk) 12:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you give some specific examples of these "newspapers around the world"? Thanks. Chick Bowen 18:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Norwegian: New Trend on Youtube another one: Danish Newsreport Here is a Youtube videoclip from a Mexican Newsreport Here is Youtube videoclip about a report from a swedish journalist from the Aftonbladet TV. Magibons channel has more subscribers than the official Youtube channel of Britney Spears. Her influence is constantly growing. Compare this to most of the other Youtubers, mentioned on Wikipedia and you will come to the conclusion that it would be a gap to leave one of the most discussed and imitated Youtubers of all time out of Wikipedia. She is definitely an internet phenomenon. --Firithfenion (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Wikipedia Japan has the article, why Wikipedia English should not. tribaL_iLLusion (talk) 12:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)— tribaL_iLLusion (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Not really a convincing reason to keep, something from the realm of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. English and Japanese Wikipedias are two independent wikis with their own separate rules and standards for inclusion. The subject may be notable according to the standards of the Japanese Wikipedia but not of English Wikipedia. Ultimately, what matters is whether or not a convincing case for passing one of the English Wikipedia's notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, can be made. Nsk92 (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Magibon is a celebrity. That's why the article must stay. She has appeared in other media than just youtube. That's a fact. —Preceding (talk) 13:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)— Tosjjo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Just stating that someone is a celebrity is not enough. It is necessary to produce verifiable references to reliable sources that convincingly demonstrate this. Nsk92 (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Above, but, being a celeb. dosn't make you notable, nor does having youtube subscriptions,--Jakezing (talk) 13:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err-r, so why exactly do you think the article deserves a "keep" then? Nsk92 (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This Wikipedia article about Magibon refers readers to sources of reliable information about Magibon which she herself endorses as factual. The links, and references in this Magibon article are verifiable by following said links. This article deserves to remain intact. Djk_dnb (talk) 12:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.137.8 (talk) Note: SineBot is correct: the preceding comment was added by 76.121.137.8 as this diff shows[17], even though the comment includes a signature of User:Djk_dnb. — 76.121.137.8 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Nsk92 (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep What we have here is a constant raid on the Wikipedia article about Magibon by members of the infamous web site, Encyclopedia Dramatica. It is clear they have an alternative agenda to do everything in their power to defame the name of this young lady, Magibon. The facts presented in this article are verifiable and yet the members of ED will not relent. Their obsession with destroying the reputation of Magibon has nothing to do with assuring the accuracy of this article and everything to do with their agenda. Wikipedeia should not give in to the bullies of ED and their attempt to distort the rules in order to accomplish removing Magibon from this online encyclopedia. She deserves the same consideration and respect that other YouTube personalities have received from Wikipedia.--Drstulu (talk) 02:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)— Drstulu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep The information and links provided in this Magibon article is verifiable. Other internet celebrities have their own article, and Wikipedia-Japan have Magibon article. Wikipedia is an internet encyclopedia, it is normal to have articles about internet phenomenon and celebrities. --Harmonic_gear (talk) 03:59, 23 September 2008 UTC}— Harmonic gear (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep Magibon is a phenomena. She successfully managed to gather many many people around her from all over the world. So, i think these people deserve to have an English reliable source of information about their Magi =). And, yes ... some of us know Magi and I'm sure these info is correct. it helped me so much as a foreigner (Egyptian) Magifan ^_^ --Ahmed_Naguib (talk) 13:33, 23 September 2008 GMT Note:Although the preceding comment has a signature of Ahmed_Naguib, the comment was in fact added by User:41.232.193.208 as this diff[18] shows. This was the only WP edit by 41.232.193.208 to date. Nsk92 (talk) 13:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per Nsk92. The Norwegian and Danish newspaper articles are barely more than a paragraph. Something more substantial would be needed. --Crusio (talk) 13:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Salon.com had an extensive article[19] about the Magibon internet meme (under the name MRirian). Salon.com is a reliable source.--Section8pidgeon (talk) 09:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, all right, but I feel it necessary to point out that that article is about the impossibility of verifying any information about the subject. Chick Bowen 00:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep, the Salon article is probably just (barely) enough to push this over the notability line. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:55, 25 September 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:CSD#G10'd by User:Bearcat. Non-admin closure. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 22:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

hoax/made up, I think based on this[20] it is making fun of some football player named David. - Icewedge (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Made up material, attacking a footballer? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as a gross violation of the WP:BLP policy and an attack on the footballer. Cunard (talk) 21:53, 21 September 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 SAT. I will let other editors take care of the actual merge, as it appears it was already done once in the article history and there is clear consensus here to do so. Cirt (talk) 23:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I was bold and merged this article into its main article SAT, asking to use talk before reverting. Another user reverted and then added a short note on the talk page why. While yes, the SAT Essay was covered in a NYT article, I do not see independent notability for the topic. The SAT Essay is simply less than 1/3 of one section of the SAT and does not have notability on its own. Not that it counts, but the only articles linking here are SAT and the See Also section of Essay. It was a news story when the section was added to the exam three years ago, but I see no reason why this short article with little room for addition and little independent notability cannot be merged with the main article. Reywas92^Talk 21:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Just because it is notable does not mean it needs its own article. Zginder 2008-09-21T21:44Z (UTC)
• Merge It's pretty meaningless outside the context of the SAT. Do the math and reading sections have their own articles? ce1984 (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with SAT per above. RockManQ (talk) 23:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per all the above Beeblebrox (talk) 01:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with SAT. Neither does ACT have separate article for Writing section. Whizsurfer (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:15, 24 September 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 Withdraw and Redirect. I think that the voter is trying to me look stupid. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 01:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kiss My Ass (Jadakiss album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

According to the only reliable source in the article, the release date and the title is unconfirmed. Schuym1 (talk) 21:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Jadakiss#Discography until there is actually something to report based on real sources, per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:BAND#Albums Beeblebrox (talk) 01:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(You could just withdraw the nom and redirect as the guidelines I cited are very clear about this sort of thing) Beeblebrox (talk) 01:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Maybe earlier in 08, we could redirect. But, he is talking about that a lot more.

--Piazzajordan2 (Talk.) 06:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Australian rules football leagues in regional Queensland. The article itself was deleted, a redirect is given for convenience if anyone goes looking for this article title. Cirt (talk) 23:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFL Central Queensland Highlands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Lack of verifiable information --Snigbrook ^(talk) 21:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 22:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Does nothing to assert notability and hardly compares to the other leagues. I changed one false note (league formed in 1983, not in the late 1960's). AFL-Cool (talk) 05:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Could not find any secondary sources using Google News All Dates. The only primary sources found are derivatives of the wikipedia article. Article does not meet WP:N and is unlikely to do so.--Takver (talk)
• Merge It looks like that this really belongs in [Australian rules football leagues in regional Queensland], where several other affiliates of [AFL Queensland] are listed (some have their own articles). It would seem that the league is notable enough for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjamison (talk • contribs) 00:14, 23 September 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. MBisanz ^talk 16:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A voice from the sky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Film is in pre-production, and there is no assertion of notability to suggest that the film would warrant a Wikipedia article even if it was finished. Conflict of interest is apparent as well: The creator, User:Chantru, shares the name of the director, writer and star. CyberGhostface (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom, as failing WP:V. The only google hits lead to Wikipedia:[21]. Nsk92 (talk) 22:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No reliable sources, not verifiable, looks like conflict of interest. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, these names only show up in facebook pages. Corvus cornix_talk 00:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• And the voice says...Delete Fails WP:MOVIE. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:54, 22 September 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. Cirt (talk) 23:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Contested prod; Article seriously fails short because of a lack of 1) asserted notability and 2) independent, reliable sources, thus failing WP:RS--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 01:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This looks like a bit of a coatrack on which to hang the history of the Ross House. If that's notable as an historic building, it should have its own article, mentioning the coffee house operation briefly. If not, then there doesn't need to be an article at all. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xy7 (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The coffee shop is non-notable, and Ross House appears to be as well. Jjamison (talk) 00:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the coffee house is not notable, and a check into the National Register of Historical Places shows no listing for Ross House in Lewiston, Maine so there does not appear to be any notability to the building in which the coffee shop is housed. -- Whpq (talk) 16:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Mallikarjuna Murugharajendra Swamiji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable bio with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources in this article leads me to conclude that the article is not in compliance with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No reliable sources to establish notability + some parts of the article seem to be written like spam. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 03:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xy7 (talk) 20:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No sources, not notable, and probably unverifiable. Tempodivalse (talk) 21:15, 21 September 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. Unlikely people will be searching for "Commercial Laser Tag Systems", and consensus to delete, so no need for a redirect. Cirt (talk) 00:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial Laser Tag Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a directory. Why not just add phone numbers and addresses too? Wholly unencyclopedic - fails WP:LIST. ukexpat (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 20:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, though dreadful to read, and lacking any structure or ability to transfer knowledge, the topic in itself is worthy an article. The solution is to rename it, remove 90% of the content, and rewrite the remaining 10%, not deletion. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Isn't "lacking...ability to transfer knowledge" the definition of unencyclopedic?!  – ukexpat (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:SYNTH. Stifle (talk) 18:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If it could be sourced, the only section potentially worth keeping is the first overview section, and that section doesn't warrant a separate article outside Lasertag. Sashaman (talk) 19:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xy7 (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Just a long list of companies and what they do. KJS77 Join the Revolution 00:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No 3rd-party sources to establish that a list of equipment manufacurers is worth compiling. A list of notable systems that have WP articles would be acceptable, but since none of the systems appear notable at the time being that would be premature. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note I went ahead and chopped the directory content, see if this looks any better, although it could certainly use more sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Without the directory, it looks like an expanded version of the "Equipment and technology" section of [Lasertag]. Move it there. Jjamison (talk) 00:23, 23 September 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. lifebaka++ 05:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article should be deleted, as the institution simply doesn't exist, neither legally nor functionally. There is only the National Assembly and the National Council, but they are separate and independent bodies. They only share the same building, which is called the Parliament. Eleassar ^{my talk} 20:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While the Slovenian constitution doesn't seem to explicitely define an entity called "parliament", the term is at the very least used informally and frequently, as attests the many links to this article or hits found on Google (for instance recent news on Google [22]). Besides that the National Assembly and the National Council are separate and "independent" strikes me as a defining feature of a bicameral parliament. From having quickly read the Slovenian constitution, I don't see a significant difference from other countries with "parliaments". That the two houses share the same building is another indication that they constitute a whole. The article can be improved instead of deleted, even if it's only to explain that there is no official entity called "parliament" in Slovenia (if that is indeed the case). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Equendil (talk • contribs) 21:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the lists of Slovenia- and Politics-related deletion discussions. —Ev (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Equendil. Having two Wikipedia articles, i.e. one for each chamber, is overkill for most parliamentary systems, as demonstrated by the stubby nature of National_Council_(Slovenia) and National_Assembly_(Slovenia). VG ☎ 00:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Aside from everything else, the building is surely a notable building, and the nominator admits that the building is called the Parliament: the United States Capitol has no mention in the Constitution, but I don't think that's a problem. If there's so much problem with a single article on the two houses (which I don't see as a problem anyway), we could turn this into an article just about the building. Nyttend (talk) 04:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, G11. Author blocked, as username suggested s/he was only here for spamming. Blueboy96 22:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emailarchitect Email Server (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:Note, no reviews found via google. Blowdart | ^talk 20:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Article could be eligible to a speedy delete because it does not assert the significance or importance of the subject (CSD A7). Beyond that, the subject doesn't appear notable, Google hits consist in a long list of download sites with the occasional description. Equendil Talk 21:49, 21 September 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. Cirt (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Surely fails any test of WP:notability. No references, a few google hits on fan sites. TrulyBlue (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to The Next Phase, and delete the redirect. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not-notable. Even the Star Trek wiki has very little on this [23]. I don't think that there is anything worth merging, but a redirect to The Next Phase might be useful. Bláthnaid ^talk 20:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, at least a mention of it should be made somewhere. The "quad" unit has a mention on Wikipedia already. Amhantar (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Beam me up, there is nothing here. dicdef & not notable. Equendil Talk 21:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Entirely non-notable, very minor fictional element. No content to merge anywhere. Redirect is unnecessary as this is a very unlikely search term. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 22:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No satisfaction of WP:N by this fictional unit of energy created in some moment by a writer for a sci-fi program. Edison (talk) 23:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Dictdef and can probably be considered neologism as well. VG ☎ 00:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't even seet he point of the redirect. it's not in the article on the episode, and I don't see that it needs to be. There is some level of detail where relegation to a fan wiki does make sense. DGG (talk) 00:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree this is only just a detail but then please explain to me why other units are allowed to be mentioned here on wikipedia... Maybe it could be added to the technology section of the Romulan article? Amhantar (talk) 10:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that other articles are equally non-notable you can propose to delete them too, or bring them here as articles for deletion. Generally Wikipedia does not accept the argument that similar stuff exists to be a valid reason for keeping a particular article. TrulyBlue (talk) 11:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:18, 24 September 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 - please note this is a second closing of this debate. I thank those that spent further time attempting to determine notability. I note for the record that whilst notability is not verified at this time it may occur relatively soon in the future. --VS ^talk 10:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sharp & Smooth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:N. Hardly an assertion of notability in the article, references only mention the name, and I find no significant coverage in reliable sources via google. Has been speedily deleted and recreated before. Amalthea^Talk 18:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with nom, 0 claim to notability mboverload@ 23:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 00:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• So please explain the difference in notability between Sharp and Smooth and 10,000 other DJ's that are listed in Wikipedia? You do a quick google search, only find a few pieces of information and that automatically means they are not notable? You obviously know nothing about house music so you are 'obviously' not the right people to judge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.133.94 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are very welcome to prove otherwise, either by finding significant coverage in reliable sources, or by showing that the duo passes any of the inclusion criteria for musicians and ensembles. I notice that you added chart positions for three songs. If the positions you list in the SP column refer to a notable national music chart then the group is indeed notable by the criteria used for this encyclopaedia. --Amalthea^Talk 16:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If I was a Sharp & Smooth expert I believe it would be a little easier, however I am one a fan of theirs and the incredibly popular DJ's and Producers whom they work with and who are most definitely notable and already exist here on Wikipedia. I will continue to research and compile as much information as possible, but they certainly deserve a spot on Wikipedia. (70.26.132.229 (talk) 05:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • If the two DJs were notable by the criteria then I'd agree. However I didn't find articles about them here or significant coverage anywhere else [24], and you can't inherit encyclopaedic notability by working with another notable person. --Amalthea^Talk 10:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not arguing that matter. What I am saying is that they are notable and with some time I will provide additional information pertaining to their notability. I have tried to reach out to the labels and various charts which they are linked to so I can get the correct and proper stats and facts. Please bare with me. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.132.229 (talk) 14:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 2007 - Nominated for a Grammy (production for Arnold G - "You Got Me Hot") Reference provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.103.111 (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No they weren't. A song they mixed was "placed on the Official Ballot for the 2008 Grammy Awards", whatever that means. --Amalthea^Talk 18:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• yes - you are correct.. Just verified the info. What it MEANS is that their track was added to the ballots as a potential nomination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.103.111 (talk) 18:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In accordance with the criteria for musicians and ensembles, #10 states the following: Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article.) Sharp & Smooth have been included in several "notable" compilations, including 1) Paul Van Dyk's "Cream IBIZA", 2) Peter Rauhofers "I Love Montreal", 3) Blended Sound 2 mixed by Chus & Ceballos, Joubin - AND MORE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.103.111 (talk) 03:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have to say, I'm no longer convinced that the duo is not notable. I cannot judge if this article is significant coverage in a reliable source, but mixes of the duo have been included in compilations of notable musicians (Paul van Dyk[25], Peter Rauhofer[26]). It's not passing WP:MUSIC#C10 with flying colors, but it might just pass it. Furthermore, there is no one other article where the information can be properly included. I suggest relisting this debate, for fresh opinions. --Amalthea^Talk 13:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Thanks for the comment. On a personal note, I believe that we have spent enough time on this subject matter, and even with fresh opinions - the fact that Sharp & Smooth are are eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia in accordance with NONE other than the policy of Wikipedia (Inclusion on a compilation album etc.), I request that this issue be closed and have the time spent on Wiki inclusions that truly are not eligible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.132.8 (talk) 13:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --VS ^talk 11:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Sources given insufficient to establish enough notability for its own article.--Boffob (talk) 16:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete recreated after AfD, dubiously notable, full of unsourced spam/vanity - why has it been relisted when should be speedied as spam whatever the notability? jimfbleak (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It was relisted per my recommendation, since the two opinions to delete were given without the notability claim of WP:MUSIC#C10 being in the open. The promotional speech can easily be fixed, but after several recreations and an assertion of notability I'd like to have notability properly determined. --Amalthea^Talk 18:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. First off it seems this should be titled Sharp & Smooth. Secondly, I would say it's a week keep (per WP:MUSIC#C10 as noted above) as mixes aren't generally featured on CDs by some of the top DJs in the world without some press being generated. Having stated that they are also newish and as they seem to be quite successful in a short amount of time I would imagine press clippings are available to meet verifiability concerns. That is, they arguably are notable but I don't know what house music publications to look for. Googling Alex-Bass Miro-Amos David-Mimram "Sharp & smooth" turns up very little presently but it's easy to believe material is out there. -- Banjeboi 15:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update. I've moved the article and AfD to correct band name per their website. -- Banjeboi 15:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Let's quote WP:MUSIC#C10: "But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article". So even this point of WP:MUSIC suggests there's not enough notability to keep as a separate article.--Boffob (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well that may be fine for a single from an album or a soloist from a group but this is their main article. -- Banjeboi 04:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• comment I've been doing some searching but having a tough time finding publications. I understand that its not quite the same as mainstream artists, and their music is certainly found everywhere, not to mention they do work with an impressive list of DJ's and producers. I agree about a "week pass. nevertheless, still a pass on my account though I would hope to see some more significant material added in the upcoming near future. (Cinquemillo (talk) 23:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

* Comment. Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Music, Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronic music and Wikipedia:WikiProject Rave. -- Banjeboi 04:37, 30 September 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. --VS ^talk 08:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable term, no external links or sources. KJS77 Join the Revolution 18:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I am in the process of making the article. Give me a chance to create it. If thats the case why hasn't the article Triad (relationship) been deleted Lord Balin (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There, now I've added external links, and references. Lord Balin (talk) 20:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It really does seem improper to nominate an article for deletion fiften minutes after its creation and argue, even in part, that there aren't any sources establishing notability. If "quad" doesn't turn out to be a common enough term, we can still merge the content into a related article. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Dicdef. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we need to find sources before keeping an article. The glossary of the "Polyamory society" really doesn't cut it, even if that site is notable, mentioning in a glossary isn't useful, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. --Rividian (talk) 20:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and work on it. Ridiculous to delete this so early. If I were not often involved in trying to keep such articles I would simply close this as premature, and I urge some other admin to simply do so. It was nominated fourteen minutes after creation!. There should be several thousand references from ordinary literature to this, its not only something that occurs in extremely obscure circles. Triad is even more common of course, The formation of such relationship has undoubtedly also been discussed in psychological literature. Balin, Please follow up my hints for sources. It is perfectly true, as KJS said, that considerably more content is necessary. DGG (talk) 21:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where are the sources? There might be thousands of sources about my cat, for all I know, but the argument that they might exist is worthless. core policy says we cannot have an article if sources aren't found... it doesn't say we can have one if people claim sources will be found one day. --Rividian (talk) 22:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Tentative Keep but merging content into polyamory or similar subjects may be preferable. (is this perhaps a sort of permutation of a love triangle?) Of significant help to the merit of this article would be the inclusion of famous literary or film portrayals, discussions of it's significance, and so forth. The reason love triangles deserve their own article is because of such things. philosofool (talk) 23:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepWell what about the article Triad (relationship), and dozens of other articles just like it in Wikipedia...small articles to be sure, but kept articles nonetheless. Shall we delete all of them as well. As a member and editor of the WikiProject for Sex and Sexuality, and as a polyamorist, I wanted to expand on the article about triads relationships and create one about quads. And yes i am trying to find more info.Lord Balin (talk) 23:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you vote on your own article, and does it count? KJS77 Join the Revolution 00:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Everyone and anyone can vote at AfD, whether or not their vote "counts" is supposed to be based on the strength of their arguments. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep I say keep the article. There are many small articles, or stubs, that have few or no references, or external links. Should we get rid of them all? And no I don't really think this should be merged with Polyamory, if it gets expanded apon that is. User:Conron us (talk) 01:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If no sources can be found when requested, then yes. It's what our core content policy says, in no uncertain terms. --Rividian (talk) 02:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cite the following articles as examples of articles without references: PolyFamilies and Threesome. Wikipedia is full of them, and we as editors should be trying to help by editing these articles.....not byt deleting brand new ones 15 minutes into there making.
    • They can't be truly improved in an encyclopedic way if references don't exist; articles exist to summarize already-existing sources. We aren't a publisher of original thought. I doubt "PolyFamilies" would survive an AFD, Threesome obviously would. But just because other unverifiable articles exist doesn't mean we have to allow infinite ones to be created. Again, I'm talking about a core policy here. --Rividian (talk) 03:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I suggest this article be merged into Polyamory, that should settle things up.Lord Balin (talk) 03:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect Agree with Lord Balin, should go in Polyamory. Sashaman (talk) 05:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sources do exist (here's Salon.com for example). It may be that the term isn't the separate topic outside of Polyamory, in which case a Merge would be possible, however, nominating an article for deletion 15 minutes after it was created seems very, very hasty. Give it time, it can always be merged. --GRuban (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Casual mentions exist but are there any sources about the term, per WP:NEO? --Rividian (talk) 01:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't have to be about the term, it can be about the relationship, and there are certainly those, for example "Four better or four worse for marriage of four" Daily Telegraph. Give it some time, we can always merge to polyamory later, without the "find it now or die" pressure. Merging doesn't require an AfD, all we need to decide here is that deletion is inappropriate. --GRuban (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It can be improved in someone's userspace until there's evidence it's not a neologism. There's no reason this has to be an article until it's proved it's more than a dictionary definition. --Rividian (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete More appropriate for a dictionary, plus I'm skeptical that this is a legitimate term rather than just slang. Also, to the author of the article: if you don't want your work to be deleted, cite it as you write it. You shouldn't make an article unless you already have sources, in which case you should cite those sources as soon as you create the article. --Mai Pen Rai (talk) 06:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If the stuffy old telegraph has an article on it, i'm sure there will be others. deletion so soon after creation is unfriendly and not in the cooperative nature of WP. Let the appropriate talk pages decide on a merge or not, and if no improvment nominate for AfD in some months.Yobmod (talk) 15:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: here the Guardian national newspaper discuss it (using the term) [27], and polyamory sites explain it too [28]. Did anyone search for cites when they delete !voted?

• • Did you not read where I said WP:NEO calls for sources about the term, rather than ones that just use it once or twice? --Rividian (talk) 17:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't the second source "about the term"? And doesn't it's use in national newspapers hint that maybe it is an established term?Yobmod (talk) 14:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • My dear God in Heaven, did I wrong you Rividian in another life? Why this great and all seething desire to delete this simple little article. Lord Balin (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I take this stance on many neologism AFDs, this is not the first and it won't be last. The solution isn't to say I'm being mean and try to make me feel guilty, it's to show the article can be fixed. --Rividian (talk) 17:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • But why work so hard on AFDs at all?. I am a Yeoman Editor, and have been on Wikipedia since November 2005, have edited almost 5,600 articles, and created more then 50. I work exclusively on editing and correction, and not on deletion. That I leave up to the administrators. Lord Balin (talk) 20:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because if an article violates policy, it must be deleted. May I ask if you are implying otherwise? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • What does this have to do with anything? Either the article can be fixed to address the policy concerns or it can't. How much time you or I spend at AFD is irrelevant. --Rividian (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• MergeI think both this article and Triad (relationship) should both be merged into Polyamory.Lord Balin (talk) 01:26, 24 September 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 - by consensus. --VS ^talk 08:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Granny Peace Brigade - NYC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable organistion. Still no assertion of notability on this third attempt at the article. References fail to supply Verifiable Notability. Don't understand why speedy was declined. TrulyBlue (talk) 18:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please read WP:CSD and you may attain some understanding of what a claim of notability is. Edison (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and I consider that the article "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". Specifically it says that the GPB is "one of many local activist groups" and does not show any notable achievements, individuals, protests or national reaction to them. Without sources and a specific claim, there's nothing in the article to show that this organisation isn't just a couple of senior ladies who managed to get themselves arrested and issued a press release. TrulyBlue (talk) 09:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable organization with little to no outside coverage. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to neutral. I did some further searching, and with the links provided below, I found that some notability exists, however I still don't believe it fully meets notability criteria. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 147 results in a Google News Archive search [29] seems to satisfy notability requirements. See the Associated Press story Apr 28, 2006 [30] from the Saint Louis Post Dispatch, a story in the Philadelphia Inquirer Jan 19, 2007 [31], one in the New Zealand Herald Mar 20, 2008 "The Granny Peace Brigade, accompanied by a few grandfathers, met at Times Square in New York to mark the fifth anniversary of the US led war in Iraq."[32], the Washington Post , Jun 28, 2006, [33]. and 143 more press references about the group. Being old and ornery does not make a group inherently non-notable. Edison (talk) 23:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable organization (badly named article, too). The mentions are not the kind of substantial coverage necessary to make a group notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Move and Redirect to Granny Peace Brigade. Oddly, that was recently deleted, but this organization has received national media attention.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 02:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as Granny Peace Brigade. The majority of the articles found by Edison's Google News search are about the Granny Peace Brigade, not just passing mentions. I can't see how they can be called "not the kind of substantial coverage necessary to make a group notable". Phil Bridger (talk) 14:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Edison and Bridger, various news sources. We66er (talk) 05:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:22, 24 September 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. Cirt (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Failed local politician, never elected to office fails WP:POLITICIAN. Military experience fails WP:BIO as I understand it. His service medals aren't significant enough to satisfy Notability requirement (i.e. Meritorious Service Medals are lower than even a purple heart). Toddst1 (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I strongly suspect that this article is an old case of conflict of interest. The creator of the article has a suspicious username and just came back to create the speedily deleted Salette latas. In any case, the subject of this article doesn't meet notability criteria, as the nominator has pointed out. Agree fully. Maedin\^talk 18:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: As per conflict of interest, of which this is clearly an example. Agree with previous voters entirely. Artifactblue (talk) 01:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I have always argued that serious candidates for U.S. Senate or Congress who get half or more of the winner's vote should be considered notable. This guy, however, finished third in the primary with only six percent, when the top two got a combined 85%. Kestenbaum (talk) 16:30, 24 September 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. Cirt (talk) 00:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

University of California, Santa Barbara Coral Tree Cafe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a one sentence article about a non-notable place at UCSB. Inknoise (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Should be a trivia item in Coral tree, if that. Borock (talk) 18:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable at all, very trivial. Tempodivalse (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to University of California, Santa Barbara with no mention in target. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 00:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Please let this not be a sign that every Starbucks or Denny's location needs a Wikipedia article. Sashaman (talk) 05:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as blatant and obvious misinformation, badly cribbed from here (CSD G3). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Looks like a hoax to me. The article claims that she was a Playmate in 1984 which would be an easy thing to verify if it were true. All the other claims seem dubious and the reference doesn't appear to exist. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Absolutely no evidence anyone surnamed "Apolo" has ever been a Playmate. Tracy Vaccaro was October 1983's playmate. That issue had a generic "redheads" pictorial, it's conceivable she was in that pictorial, but that isn't what the article is claiming. The reference to the sister being a supposed cybergirl for Playboy also doesn't hold water - you can't be a "of the month" girl in the same month you are "of the week". Also, the page creater has this single edit to his history. Smells of hoax/prank/personal attack? MadScot (talk) 18:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax. Article also says that she appeared at WrestleMania 2 in 1984, but that event occurred in 1986 (and I have no idea who Shawn Clifford is supposed to be, but he's not mentioned in the WrestleMania 2 article, either). Deor (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lies covered in lies with a light lie sauce for dipping. No Playmate exists by that name (and as MadScot pointed out, there's several other inconsistencies with the claims of this article), the Wrestlemania she allegedly appeared at took place two years later, no wrestler by the name of Shawn Clifford exists, no comedy by the name "The Brewster of New York" exists. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:05, 21 September 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. Tiptoety ^talk 06:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro Sarabia Gonzalez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Director of a Museum in Central America. The article attempts to assert notability using sources, however, the sources fail WP:N - they are not about the man himself, rather, they mention him in passing. There is also a worrying assertation made on the talk page that the article was written by his wife. The article creator has been making several dozen articles about low-ranking members of the Mormon church, nearly all of whcih have been AFDed or speedied. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the above. I believe this particular article was created to add legitimacy to sources used at Archaeology and the Book of Mormon - in reality, this person is not notable. --Descartes1979 (talk) 20:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The New York Sun article establishes notability. The references to Alejandro Sarabia Gonzalez are more than "in passing". -- Eastmain (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The New York Sun article is about the opening of a sealed cave under a mexican pyramid. Very weak claim to notability to satisfy WP:N. Equendil Talk 22:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete on basis of ref's supplied which don't seem to actually mention subject, except in passing as in charge of the dig, the excavation might be notable but there are no grounds to think he is. -Hunting dog (talk) 22:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, Equendil and Hunting dog. VG ☎ 00:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable per above comments. He's also not particularly notable within the LDS Church, where you'd think he would be, if not in the archaeological community. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Google scholar turns up three apparent hits (written by AS González, A Sarabia González & S González) but no citations. No evidence of scholarly impact sufficient to pass WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd (talk) 01:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Google scholar search for "Alejandro Sarabia" turns up only two of the three items found using "Alejandro Sarabia Gonzalez" and nothing that is in addition to that found using "Alejandro Sarabia Gonzalez". Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's important to remember how Spanish surnames work, so searching on "Alejandro Sarabia" is necessary also. One gets a little more at gscholar and gbooks with "alejandro sarabia", but still not really enough for WP:PROF; but there are 50 gnews hits for teotihuacan "alejandro sarabia" ; 74 articles in total; this may suffice, don't have the time now to scrutinize them, or the 900 google hits for that search.John Z (talk) 05:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Pete Hurd and the other comments above. --Crusio (talk) 08:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Saves the Day. Cirt (talk) 00:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bug Sessions Volume Three (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Self released album only available on tour. No claim in article of meeting WP:MUSIC; album has not charted per allmusic and no professional reviews found. Prod was contested on the grounds that albums by notable artists are notable, however WP:MUSIC only says that such albums may be notable, not that they are automatically notable. Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Saves the Day. Corvus cornix_talk 00:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Saves the Day as a plausible search term. Fails notability for lacking "significant independent coverage in reliable sources" per WP:MUSIC#Albums.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 00:33, 22 September 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. Cirt (talk) 00:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Six years ago, this chap got some Indian press coverage for being the youngest to pass some computing exams. But there's no sources showing any significance beyond those reports, and most of the remainder of this CV article is unverified. Troikoalogo (talk) 08:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Suril is quite renown in India and has received considerable media coverage in newspapers and TV News Channels. Many articles have been published about him, especially in his native state. For instance, Gujarat Samachar. One of the reasons for deletion, is cited that the news were six years ago, but last year itself, Suril cleared SAP "Technology Consultant" certification, which is of very high repute in the IT industry - Making it big at a Young Age. The certifications which Suril has achieved are considered very valuable in the IT industry, and generally attempted after graduation and work experience, which he did at quite young age. All his claims have been affirmed by the companies whose certifications he took. Hence it is a notable accomplishment. As for the remainder of the page, all the facts can be cited as local media had published reports of his felicitation functions held by the institutions, but maybe not available on the internet, but can be uploaded.

--Whizsurfer (talk) 10:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Extremely Weak Keep and Stub, may actually do the barely notable thing but, the article is way too much of a C.V. the entire article should be stubbified and written in a properly neutral tone. Each of the "certifications" don't need to be listed. Factually state who he is, what he is notable for, and reference accordingly. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've modified the article to the best of my knowledge and citability , and tried to make it 'non-CV' like and maintain neutrality. As for the listing of certifications, I believe as they are records, they should be listed with proper name and age. However, I welcome experienced Wiki editors to help improve this page and adhere to the Wikipedia rules.Whizsurfer (talk) 13:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I've changed my mind. The need for a complete overhaul on the article makes me think that it would be better to delete what currently exists and start over. AfD is not cleanup. I recommend reading the notability, verifiability, reliable sources, and Manual of Style as well as the help pages about creating articles. After that create the article in a userspace sandbox and ask a couple of admins to preview it before moving it to article space. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we don't need to completely overhaul the article, but the current form does seem to have enough information and citations. The only argument is whether we should keep the tabular form of 'certifications'.Whizsurfer (talk) 14:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no that isn't the only argument. Read the stuff I've pointed you to above and you'll begin to grasp some of the problems. His working really hard and or achieving great things, etc and the way it is presented in the article is peacock and/or weaselly and shouldn't be there. It needs grammer and tone reworking. Requires a proper references section with inline citations. I'm not going to get into detail here. The article talkpage maybe but, like I said it needs a lot of work and AfD is not cleanup. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, there is proper references section and neutral point of view. I understand that AfD is not for cleanup, but was just drawing inspiration from Bonny Hicks AfD nomination :-). I hope now there is proper usage of grammar and neutrality is maintained by mentioning things factually. Still if something seems "weaselly" in there, it would be better if that could be point that out :-). I dont think we need to start from scratch for this article. Whizsurfer (talk) 16:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, as whiz kids attempting computer online exams has become a recent trend, this article would serve as good information for who holds up records for some of the renown online exams, and being a trend-setter. Whizsurfer (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Jasynnash2. He may or may not meet WP:BIO, but this article is pretty much unsalvageable. Stifle (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I do understand, the nominated version seems to be written from a fan's point of view. I have made revisions after that, and the current form should satisfy WP:NPOV. As for notability concerns, this seems to be one of the first articles, in the context, so not sure whether WP:BIO would provide 100% reasons, whether to include/exclude such articles, but I am fully convinced that it belongs here :-) It doesn't seem to be a complete misfit here, so my efforts are to improve upon current version, as it might require minimal changes, rather than starting all over again. Whizsurfer (talk) 14:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I read a few pages under the Category:1992 births, and probably Suril Shah's notability is comparable with many of the persons under the category. --Bhadani (talk) 14:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ffm 17:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Various newspapers keep writing about him - smells like notability to me. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep references show he meets the notability guidelines. RMHED (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Those certifications aren't rocket science, but he is notable for passing them at such a young age, as evidenced by repeated coverage in the media. VG ☎ 00:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per coverage. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Save the Day. Cirt (talk) 00:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bug Sessions Volume One (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Self released album only available on tour. No claim in article of meeting WP:MUSIC; album has not charted per allmusic and no professional reviews found. Prod was contested on the grounds that albums by notable artists are notable, however WP:MUSIC only says that such albums may be notable, not that they are automatically notable. Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Saves the Day. Corvus cornix_talk 00:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Saves the Day as a plausible search term. Fails notability for lacking "significant independent coverage in reliable sources" per WP:MUSIC#Albums.

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 - by consensus. --VS ^talk 08:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tagged for speedy deletion and contested. There is a clear assertion of notability and this is not a WP:CSD#A7 candidate. Other issues should be considered. Neutral nomination. Chick Bowen 17:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per lack of reliable sources. The three sources cited in the article are from the artist's profiles in the art organizations that she has exhibited her work. These art organizations do not appear to be that notable. A Google News Archive search returns few results and a Google search only returns results from unreliable sources. The only semi-reliable article I could find about this individual is from findarticles.com in which this person is given a trivial mention at the bottom of the article. This artist completely fails WP:BIO. Cunard (talk) 17:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I would disagree and say that most of the art organizations like Cranbrook Art Museum (http://www.cranbrookart.edu/museum//), Headlands Center for the Arts (http://www.headlands.org/), and Anderson Ranch Arts Center(http://www.andersonranch.org/workshops/)are highly notable. Sulven (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Response: You're right. Those three art organizations are fairly notable but their notability isn't enough to establish the notability of this artist. If you can find a couple reliable sources to establish this artist's notability (from newspapers such as The New York Times or Washington Post), I'm willing to reconsider my vote. Cunard (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Response:I think there's enough credibility in Scultpure Space [[34]] profile that links her up to her other exhibitions and displays, among them these three sources. I can't read the wikipedia notability criteria in a way that makes this article "not worthy" of an encyclopedic article as she fulfills several of them cited above, and so is a reliable source linking the artist to the other highly regarded sources. I can't find anything in the NY Times of Washington Post, but neither do I think that is necessary as there are other sources, not as publicly known, but still so in the world of art. She is also a member of a family that actually has its own wikipedia category in which I don't think she can really be subject to exclusion from as it is of public interest, which I think is another reason why she is relevant for a wikipedia article. Sulven (talk) 20:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Response: The link you provided is not a reliable source. It is from one of the sites that she is affiliated with. Third-party sources will provide verifiability and notability for her. Furthermore, even though her family has a category, notability is not inherited. Her family members might be notable, but "the fact that she has famous relatives is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article." I've tried to find reliable sources for this artist but couldn't find any. I just don't see how she passes WP:BIO. Cunard (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Cunard. Insufficient coverage by independent reliable sources to satisfy WP:CREATIVE. No reviews of her work in the newsmedia that I could find, nothing in googlenews[35]. Nsk92 (talk) 23:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Response Too bad as they say. No one except Cunard said notability is inherited, I just find it relevant and interesting within the context of being an actual artist on your own merit, and being from a known artist family, there is a major difference which I think is a point that wasn't considered here. It's kind of a shame that administrators would narrow criteria for articles to more than what seems within the limits of them (even if they seem to have good enough reason. The article did no harm, was about an actual professional artist who made her living out of art for over two years, is relevant in her field, which is rather narrow (but no less important) and thus not picked up easily by the big media. It wasn't self-promoting or made by a friend, or by some promoter/producer/handler etc, but someone who admire the art. It seems strange in an encyclopedia of this magnitude that there wouldn't be any room for this?

Sulven (talk) 23:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't think anyone significantly disagrees with Sulven's points, but none of these points satisfy WP:CREATIVE. Sashaman (talk) 05:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:26, 24 September 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. recreated material Xy7 (talk) 23:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm not really sure what the deal is with this article. An article about the same person was deleted today as a result of a deletion discussion; shortly after that AfD began, this article was created and quickly tagged with an AfD notice linking to that AfD, though as near as I can tell, no mention of this article was ever made in that discussion. I can't tell whether this article, in its current form, is a duplicate of the deleted one, but if the person has been judged to be nonnotable, this article should probably be deleted as well. Deor (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per this log. The admin who closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart pepper deleted the redirect Stuart pepper but neglected to delete Stuart M. Pepper, which was where the article was moved to. I've tagged the article for speedy deletion. Cunard (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry; I overlooked the move or I would have used db-afd myself. Deor (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note This article was created when the original article "Stuart pepper" was renamed to "Stuart M. Pepper" in order to correctly reflect the perosn's name.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Though this person qualifies as notable through WP:Athlete, having played in a professional sports team for many years, he did not have sufficient notability as a filmmaker to convince editors at an AfD to look past his filmolgy to the letter of WP:Athlete and his sports background. I improved the article but it did not survive the original AfD. Its "ghost" may as well be deleted too. Why not? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still don't agree with that. He passes WP:ATHLETE so I really don't see why it was deleted. Schuym1 (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Barney & Friends episodes and videos. Cirt (talk) 00:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barney's Imagination Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources that show this television film's notability on the Movie Review Query Engine, the first 11 pages of a Google search, and Rotten Tomatoes. Schuym1 (talk) 16:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect to List of Barney & Friends episodes and videos. This special does not appear to have any notability whatsoever. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 17:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:NF.--MrFish^{Go Fish} 05:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:27, 24 September 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 - by consensus. --VS ^talk 08:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

African American contemporary issues (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Why does this article exist? There's no article on Asian-American contemporary issues or Hispanic American contemporary issues. Also, I think people already know what the issues are already. There's no reason for this article to exist. Fclass (talk) 16:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see any problem with an article about the things African Americans find important issues, not that it would be an easy article to write or take care of. Northwestgnome (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't meet NPOV, large number of unreferenced (and even if they were, contentious) assertions. Cannot see how this could ever be NPOV and encyclopedic. MadScot (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the articles African American, African American history, African American culture etc. are suitable places for discussing contemporary Africa American issues. In fact, these articles already discuss some of these contemporary issues, in a much neutral and balanced way IMO. That implies that I would delete this article, and not merge the content due to the NPOV issues. Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete an article about "issues" is unnecessary and a duplicate. We don't have articles on Canada issues, for example, because the article Canada, if properly written, must cover issues related to Canada. So an article just about issues is inherently a duplicate. --Rividian (talk) 22:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Careful with we don't have an article on .... Jjamison (talk) 00:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Careful with kneejerk reactions... I explained why an article on that topic would be a bad idea. Do you have any problem with my logic, or did you just detect some keywords in my comment and feel the need to make a trite link? --Rividian (talk) 17:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cindery Island. Article history deleted. It appears this is the first time there was a deletion discussion about this article, so other issues could be addressed if they crop up again after this. Cirt (talk) 00:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User continues to re-create non-notable micronation article over redirect. ninety:one 16:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - The article about the micronation is obviously not notable. Cindery should redirect to Cindery Island, the redirect should be protected, and Lamprea should be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Neelix (talk) 16:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Don't talk about the author, guys. Tell us why the article doesn't meet the guidelines. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 17:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nonnotable, unreferenced, "made-up-in-school-one-day" borderline nonsense. The author's intentions aside, which are at least questionable, this simply does not pass muster. Delete and redirect back to the island. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article does not establish notability and reads like an advertisement. VG ☎ 00:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NFT. It seems to me that several of the List of micronations could be nominated for deletion too, although that's not a reason for keeping this one (see WP:OTHERSTUFF). Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt -- These micronations are a variety of vanity: content without substance. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:33, 24 September 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. Cirt (talk) 00:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article is about a journal which is not indexed by the major scientific indexes, is essentially an outfit for self-promotion and advertising against-the-mainstream papers that have failed peer-review at other journals. While this in-and-of-itself is not a criteria for deletion, the self-promotional references are all we have going for this subject. There are absolutely zero independent, third-party sources who have commented on this journal which makes any article we would even attempt to write about this journal impossible to reliably source. Note that articles published in this journal are routinely rejected as reliable sources for nearly every other article in this encyclopedia.

See the inclusion criteria of WP:FRINGE for why this article should be deleted, which mentions as a requirement that the subject should be: "referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory." Note that there are notable fringe journals like the Journal of Scientific Exploration which satisfy this criteria and are therefore encyclopedic. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination, primarily notability concerns. Equendil Talk 22:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems to have been around for a while, with contributions by qualified authors. I see no evidence of self-promotion, and no evidence that it publishes papers that have failed peer review. The journal seems to have been mentioned in some 3rd party resources, such as [36][37][38], and the article does not appear to provide misleading positive information. --John294 (talk) 22:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First one doesn't mention the journal, second and third are conference proceedings and, as such, are not reliable sources. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we were using sources to claim Einstein had been disproved by an article in Galilean Electrodynamics, then you would be quite correct. However, we are using the sources to verify Galilean Electrodynamics' notability (unless you are suggesting that the sources are unreliable and meant to quote a different magazine?) Galilean Electrodynamics is mentioned in many 3rd party sources, not just proceedings, including (1) The American Spectator (2) Topological Foundations of Electromagnetism (3) Against the Tide, and is mentioned in other refereed journals such as (1) American Journal of Physics (2) Journal of Theoretics (3) Solitons and Fractals (3) International Journal of Nuclear Energy Science and Technology, and others. This does not show that magazine is any good, but others have found it notable to cite. --John294 (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3rd party sources: (1)Mentioned in a letter to the editor (does not establish notability since it is essentially self-promotion). (2)Single citation to an article, does not address the journal itself as a subject (3)Mentioned in a list of "alternative journals": not enough information to establish the journal itself as a subject or to source anything other than it being a fringe journal.

Journal sources: (1)Single citation to an article, does not address the journal itself as a subject, (2)Journal of Theoretics is itself a self-published, unindexed fringe journal, (3)Self-citation, (4) Denied access: not sure why.

ScienceApologist (talk) 21:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleteper nomination. No evidence it satisfies WP:N. (If the articles in the journal are off-base, mainstream scientists should be able to demonstrate the fact. Disagreeing with modern science does not automatically create notability.)Edison (talk) 23:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, Equendil and Edison. VG ☎ 00:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete almost no library holdings in WorldCat--fewer than 10. DGG (talk) 01:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' notability not sufficiently established. Just because you publish a periodical, does not mean it gets a Wikipedia entry, unless the periodical is particularly well-known, e.g. for its content, or the people who have published in it, or controversies, etc. This publication fails on all those criteria and more. --SJK (talk) 07:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:29, 24 September 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.