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. ffm 01:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maristela Tayoko[edit]

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

On pt-wiki there was a deletion discussion: pt:Wikipedia:Páginas para eliminar/Maristela Tayoko da Silva Lenior and the article was kept because the number of votes to delete was not enough. Does not seem to be notable. I couldn't find any independent reliable sources about her. There is no information about expositions or anything (even on her website!) to indicate any notability. she only sells her artwork on her website. Tosqueira (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. —Tosqueira (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete insufficent sourcing, this is about all there is outside blogs. No mention in any news media. - Icewedge (talk) 23:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No assertion of notability. Johnbod (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. —Tosqueira (talk) 04:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability not established --Dreamspy (talk) 19:08, 27 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 Withdrawn by nominator. ffm 01:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jakarta International Java Jazz Festival[edit]

Jakarta International Java Jazz Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Entirely unreferenced advertish OR/promotional piece, which exaggerates and predicts the future. I considered wikifying this to help clean it up, but the more I looked at it the more I was convinced that nothing was salvageable. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 23:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to nomination withdrawn, in light of sources provided by Phil, and the good cleanup the article has received since being listed. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 23:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete While there are lots of google hits, there are zero on GNews, which isn't a good sign. The festivals own website only has reports from the Jakarta Post as far as I can see, again not good. There's a dead link to a BBC report on the 2006 version of the festival - if that were verifiable it'd help a bit. Don't know enough about jazz to know if the performers list is inherently notable or not. MadScot (talk) 00:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete OR and not notable Annette46 (talk) 03:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment above comments might look great at delete discussions outside of the Indonesian context - however seeing this is actually listed at the Indonesian project - they show an interesting approach to notability issues. SatuSuro 05:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - easily trimmable and wikifiable and easily kept - just because it has had a lot of material added does not make it a problem. I would argue that it is not OR, and is notable - and simply because it does not fit some concepts - it can and should be cleaned up and kept - from the perspective of the Indonesia project it is both reliable and notable - its just the adding editors have not understood what constitutes a properly constructed article. SatuSuro 05:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it is salvageble and wikified, all it needs some refs and it should not offend anyone - to say it is not notable shows no understanding of the event or Jakarta - please consider this - if you dont understand - during the New Order Indonesia - Jakarta held the largest scottish highland games outside of Scotland - so the large Jazz event - is on a par with the similarly disjunctive highland games of 15 years ago - large musical events in Jakarta are - even if it is hard to imagine - large and notable. BTW for Jakarta Post - it is a reliable and V level source, GNews is not relevant, and the artist list is pointless SatuSuro 09:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this is a major music festival in Indonesia attracting acts from around the world, considerable local interest and creating traffic jams around the venue. If this is deleted, then so should Glastonbury Festival. Davidelit (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At that level of notability it ought to be possible to get some decent references, though. The Glasonbury article has numerous references to print and broadcast media covering the event. Now, I think they are all UK sources, so if this festival just has local/national coverage that's obviously fine. But when I checked the official site, as mentioned above, I only found one local newspaper covering it. If the requisite sources can be found I'd be happy to reverse my vote (that was why it was a "weak" vote in the first place) but right now there's nothing, and not for want of looking. MadScot (talk) 20:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The whole problem with the global context of xfd is the assumption of easy grab bag google hits to verify subjects and refs - sometimes quite notable subjects get deleted because of this - where they should not - sometimes english language news sources get lazy with significant events in Indonesia and dont bother to report them - all the easier for deletionists :( SatuSuro 01:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide sources in any language outside of local coverage? The problem is that local coverage will provide great detail about a 4H petting zoo any Sunday afternoon in my little town, including the names and pictures of every kid who got their face painted and all of the shapes that Dipsy the clown made with balloons. It is impossible to judge what is only covered as a typical local interest and what is truly notable, without providing sources that are independent of the event and published outside of the local area. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 16:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. Contrary to what is stated above Google News does find sources, as long as you click on "all dates" to look beyond the last month[1]. As well as coverage from the Jakarta Post these include international coverage (which is not necessary for notability but makes it more obvious) such as the Malaysia Star[2], the International Herald Tribune[3], the Jamaica Observer[4] and the New Straits Times[5], and that's without looking beyond English language coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing to keep Thank you Phil, that's precisely what I was hoping someone would do when I made my vote 'weak'. And a million times more useful than someone simply asserting that we silly English speakers don't understand Indonesia. I would have expected that the organisations own website press section would have listed these, but maybe there's some local issue that prevents them citing out-of-country sources? MadScot (talk) 22:33, 27 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 a7, no credible assertion of notability, reference is obviously fake. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Berk[edit]

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

A college student, I am not finding citation for the claim of "significant national attention". - Icewedge (talk) 23:35, 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. ffm 01:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hounds Tooth[edit]

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

No references cited to support what band has done, and even what information is in the article does not meet WP:MUSIC. Nv8200p talk 23:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 23:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• comment For what its worth, here's a couple of sources i managed to find on google: [6] and [7]. I'm not sure if those count as reliable sources or not, which is why i'm not voting either way. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • These seem like nominal coverage of a local band in the local news. The references support the fact that the band has not met any of the other criteria of WP:MUSIC. -Nv8200p talk 13:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the notability bar is not very high, and this groups has received coverage in the press. -- Whpq (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is higher then what this group has to offer. -Nv8200p talk 22:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I do not see what deleting the article would accomplish. The press kit at http://www.houndstoothblues.com/presskit/ mentions several press links. -- Mvuijlst (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, the press links are all local Milwaukee publications -Nv8200p talk 22:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um... so? Is the circulation of the publication relevant? Or the area in which it is read? No, really: I don't see what harm this article -- this stub, really -- is doing anyone. Mvuijlst (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (oh, and before I get hit with a WP:NOTDIR -- Hounds Tooth does too meet WP:MUSIC. Multiple, non-trivial published works. (don't know why I bother, really. tss.) Mvuijlst (talk) 22:11, 27 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. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A place to grow[edit]

A place to grow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources for this movie on Rotten Tomatoes, Movie Review Query Engine, a Google search, and Google news. Also, it has been tagged for notability since August. Schuym1 (talk) 23:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No reliable sources, no notable actors (no, it's not the singer Gary Morris who's in this film). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about Morris? The BFI has the film listed here and they have the Gary Morris in the film listed as 'country music singer. As far as I can tell it's not a publicly contributed database, so ought to be vaguely trustworthy? MadScot (talk) 00:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter, because notable actors don't make movies notable. Schuym1 (talk) 00:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it could indeed be the guy that sang "Wind Beneath My Wings". I hate that song, but I had forgotten that he is indeed an actor. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Needs sourcing and cleanup, but has noatable actors and notability is definitely available. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Am currently improving and sourcing this article. Give me a couple hours. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per sources. Looks marginal but may cut it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Problem with the release dates. Though IMDB shows a length of 96 minutes and a 1998 release date, all my other sources, except BFI, show a 1995 release and a 118 minute length. Which was the TV version and which was the DVD release? Any other eyes care to check? I might guess that the DVD is the longer version and that it was released after the TV airing... but Miller was showing the film as early as 1995 and maybe THAT was a longer pre-TV version... with the pre-TV and the post-TV being longer than TV. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:25, 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 speedy delete. Deleted as vandalism. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alistar daire[edit]

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

This is a copied article from Joe Francis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Francis PoinDexta1 | Talk to Me | 22:54, 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. ffm 01:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything Comes and Goes[edit]

Everything Comes and Goes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

only one source, which doesn't confirm full tracklist, full personnel, release date. Caldorwards4 (talk) 22:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:CRYSTAL. Not enough info yet. Wait until we have the full tracklist. Wikipedia isn't going to disappear anytime soon, it won't kill you to wait. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:CRYSTAL. Incomplete track listing and no cover art. Eric444 (talk) 21:22, 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. ffm 01:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russian political jokes[edit]

Russian political jokes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a jokebook, nor A place to gather funny content, and this article does not satisfy The notability guidelines. Before commenting or voting on this proposal, please see What Wikipedia is not. Fixman_{(Criticise me)No animals were harmed with this edit, but they will be if you undo it} 21:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a jokebook. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but trim. There's enough sourcing here to have an article on the topic. It just shouldn't be purely a collection of jokes. Bfigura ^(talk) 23:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Concur - keep The subject of jokes as subversive political action in a dictatorship seems a perfectly encyclopedic subject. More political science and less jokes is all that's needed. MadScot (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a major political topic. I see nothing wrong with some examples a part of the article, either. DGG (talk) 01:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A perusal of Hammer and tickle gives you a good idea of why this is an encyclopedic topic. Article needs to be cleaned up tho. Protonk (talk) 02:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep largely per Bfigura, but also DGG's notes about this being a major political topic. X MarX the Spot (talk) 08:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep perhaps even snow this. This is clearly a notable subject and AFD is not a device for determining article content. By the way, why do secret policemen go round in 3s? One to read, one to write and one to watch the two intellectuals. Boom Boom. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I found another article called Russian Jokes. I think this article should be merged with it. --Fixman_{(Praise me)No animals were harmed with this edit, but they will be if you undo it} —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

That doesn't need an AFD to engineer. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Russian humor, especially during the Soviet era, is a notable part of the culture and political landscape of those times, and has been remarked upon in several political science and history books I've read. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:09, 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. ffm 01:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine Junior Marketing Association[edit]

Philippine Junior Marketing Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Since the Philippine Marketing Association is not notable enough for Wikipedia, I don't see how this offshoot of it is. Orphaned article, and no evidence of notability given besides a list of schools that are members, which is quite marginal as proof of notability. Fails WP:CORP in my opinion. VG ☎ 21:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC) VG[reply]

• delete no assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and possible speedy. No assertion of notability Bfigura ^(talk) 23:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: the association got little influence here in the Philippines. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 03:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the Philippine Marketing Association doesn't even have an article! This one is highly problematic and reads like just another list, or a directory. What's more, it's got precious little in the way of sources. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no reliable sources writing about this organisation. Also, the article looks more like it's an organisation web page rather than an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a web host. -- Whpq (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete puffery, self promotion, no independent sources. Annette46 (talk) 03:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN. We66er (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability not established --Dreamspy (talk) 19:09, 27 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. ffm 01:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haiti Medical Missions of Memphis[edit]

Haiti Medical Missions of Memphis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Bringing this article to AfD is not a pleasure, since the organisation appears to have a noble mission. But the article fails WP:RS and it appears this organisation lacks any notability within the medical or humanitarian fields. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:26, 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, Cirt (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - sources are lacking to establish notability. The best I could come up with is this passing mention as one of many groups that got a grant from the Assisi Foundation of Memphis. -- Whpq (talk) 17:49, 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. ffm 01:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Curby[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a street game, I'm struggling to find any substantial mentions in reliable sources that would suggest this is notable. Currently it reads like a simple how-to guide and I'm not sure what sourced information could be added to change that. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 21:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a how-to. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 03:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —~ mazca ^{t | c} 21:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability not established --Dreamspy (talk) 19:10, 27 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. ffm 01:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peggy Sue and The Pirates[edit]

Peggy Sue and The Pirates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Borderline band. Prod contested. This band is mentioned in a couple of sources however they read very 'blogish'. Their website is under construction so it is hard to check tour information. They have a few songs on Itunes. The get some Ghits. Bringing it here to get consensus and to put this one to bed so we don't argue over it for years to come. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - I haven't heard this band, but the article cites non-trivial reviews in the BBC and the Guardian - i wouldn't call that "bloggish" -, so AFAIC it satisfies WP:BAND criterion 1: "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." The third review cited indeed looks bloggish. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - I'm concerned with the sources here; the BBC article looks to be a user submission of some sort (it's unsigned, and the way the page looks suggests it's not an in-house thing). The Guardian article looks okay, but the other sources not so much. Along with minimal coverage of the band, the fact they don't have an actual record out concerns me as well. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:15, 18 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, TravellingCari 02:33, 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, Cirt (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and stop the @#$(*& relisting. The sources don't cut it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please explain why The Guardian, for example, is not a good source. It is a reputable newspaper with a long and distinguished history and a large circulation. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Evidently notable as there are numerous sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Further 3 references added. Strummer25 (talk) 09:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The BBC and the Guardian are top-notch sources. The fact that the BBC article is unsigned means that it is editorial content - if it was a user submission it would be signed. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:55, 27 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 Sunnydale. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sunnydale High[edit]

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

This article was tagged that it doesn't meet notability last December. Now, almost a whole year later, it still has no references or anything that signifies notability. It was also nominated for deletion last December, but the result was to have it merged to Sunnydale, which hasn't been done. I would also like to add that not much has changed in these past ten months, as I've already stated. Lady Galaxy 21:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Almost nothing to merge. Not a major part of the Buffyverse. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the main setting for the first season. Including the details here is an appropriate place. DGG (talk) 01:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as a likely search term to Sunnydale. Note, that creating a redirect does not require a discussion at AFD, per WP:BEFORE. Not to pick on this particular nomination; but, there are far too many articles brought here needlessly. Neier (talk) 13:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Plot summary and in-universe details for a non-notable fictional location. Almost no real-world content. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Redirect to Buffy the Vampire Slayer as this fictional high school has no notability outside that world. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep as first discussion closed as keep, this nominate it until it’s deleted nonsense is for the birds.--63.3.1.1 (talk) 05:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The first AFD was 9 months ago. Can you please elaborate on why speedy keep is appropriate here? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Sunnydale. Epbr123 (talk) 12:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Sunnydale, else delete. The town itself is notable as the unique setting of a long-running TV series, but we don't need articles for each building or location within it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:26, 27 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. ffm 01:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Hensel[edit]

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

Thinly-sourced likely autobiography of a composer for whom I could find no better sources via Google. Only 87 hits for "Daniel Hensel" composer, of which 42 are unique and some of those are unrelated. None amounts to a non-trivial independent reliable source. What I found rather telling was that the article references Bernhard Lang, without a link (and it would have been red anyway); Lang gets vastly more hits and was the composer of the controversial I Hate Mozart for the Mozart festival, and whose work I was listening to on BBC Radio 3 earlier this evening. So I think this is a bit of promotion, especially since the creator has no other contributions. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an article about a non-notable composer. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 03:24, 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 speedy keep. per WP:SNOW. Something to keep even though it could stand a bit more content. Non-admin closure. (non-admin closure) treelo _radda 21:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creative visualization[edit]

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

Unnecessary derivative of Law of Attraction. It is not acknowledged as a notable concept by third-party independent sources. Only New Thought believers seem to write about this idea. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• comment -I'm predominantly a sceptic but I used to be interested in the New Age movement and this phrase/concept existed long before the Law of Attraction book or whatever-it-is. Sticky Parkin
  • I believe that that would be The Secret (2006 film), which article covers the book as well. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• (ec)Comment This idea appears to be identical to Law of Attraction, which is a more common term both in general and to describe Wattles' ideas. As another alternative to deletion, we might consider Glossary of New Thought terms; Glossary of alternative medicine attracts some cruft, but is not unmanageable. No !vote for the nonce. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) definitely not, it exists in many cultures and is decades older than that.  ::There are many Wp:RS for it.[8][9] I would say one of the most well known books on the subject is 'Creative Visualisation' by Shakti Gawain, which was written in 1978. Raymond Buckland discussed it in 1971, [10] and it was mentioned in a book on Tibetan mysticism in 1960 [11][12] Here it is used by I think Catholics in 1957, [13]and it was also proposed by some believers for use in social work. It was also discussed by Richard Bach. Whether all this means it's worth an article or just a redirect to New Age movement meditation or something, I don't know. It's also used in various forms of brief therapy [14] and it's been in WP:RS news articles 588 times [15] - back in a sec...Sticky Parkin 22:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's mentioned in the news with the spelling with an 's' another 120ish times. Here it is with the technique shown by the New York times to be in use in 1986 [16] in business, and 1987 in politics [17] . A book about it was reviewed in the Los Angeles times in 1990, discussing its use for couples sex lives . [18]. People even claim it can cure cancer, [19] apparently, which I think we should have an article just to debunk the health claims.:) It can help sportsmen, supposedly, and it's also used in education [20]. It's use for sport is mentioned in The Guardian [21]. New Scientist has said in 1990 that it's one of the new age techniques which may cause epileptic fits [22] so we could write a WP:NPOV article on it. Sticky Parkin 23:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The thing the term describes may or may not be bogus, but as a concept it pre-dates this Law of Attraction. If the page has too much of bias it just needs a bit of editing to make it WP:NPOV Tuxraider reloaded (talk) 23:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Creative visualization is a standard practice used in Sports Psychology and other fields. I've added several scholarly sources and copy edited it for neutrality.Renee (talk) 03:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see no good reason to delete this article. I am no huge fan of new age but I do not see the point in deleting an article that has potential. Albion moonlight (talk) 06:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, reluctantly. Vague, pseudo-philosophical ideas compounded of glittering generalities do not appeal to me, but this one has been around for a long, long time, and is an attempt to provide some kind of theoretical basis for Couéism and other programs for psychic self-improvement. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, reliable sources and references have been established. Message from XENU^{u, t} 17:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- though I could only just bring myself to vote lol. Sticky Parkin 18:03, 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. Stifle (talk) 08:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The World Academy of Arts, Literature, and Media[edit]

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)).

The World Academy of Arts, Literature, and Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Neither the organisation or its owner/founder has notability - search also on "World Academy of Arts, Literature and Median' as the webmaster has spelling problems (with the name of the organisation and at least one award winner). Doug Weller (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. --CreazySuit (talk) 03:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Seems to be utterly unnotable - a minimal number of Google hits and a grand total of one Google News article, which appears to be a press release [23]. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• However, Google hits are not a notability criterion (see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Google test). Sound familiar? Khoikhoi 05:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Khoi, I agree. But would you please also agree that you can't use Nationmaster (which itself uses Wikipedia as a major source), other Wikipedia articles, or information from the website itself as evidence of notability? And I'm sure that those who receive it publicise it, that's natural. But does that make it notable? What bothered me about the article was the absence of independent third party sources. There may be some notability to be found, but if it were 'very notable' I think that would have been obvious. Doug Weller (talk) 06:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Numerous notable people have put this award in their biography, for example: Azar Nafisi(author of Reading Lolita in Tehran) [24] [25] & Hassan Sattar who received an award and performed [26] at the 2nd annual awards. There are several mentions of the award at Nationmaster under Music of Iran [27] subsection. The group Nox touts this award on its wiki page. The award is cited by the children's author and illustrator Howard Lee [28] at the website Beyond Persia. This NPR article [29] mentions that the Israeli group Idan Raichel Project received Persian Golden Lioness Award for excellence. Sounds quite notable to me. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This award's notability is verified by the fact that numerous broadcasters, musicians, best-selling authors, and Hollywood actors have attended the award's ceremony in Budapest from around the world, notably celebrities such as Omid Djalili, Vanessa Redgrave, Idan Raichel Éva Marton, Shohreh Aghdashloo, Nazanin Boniadi, Maurice Béjart and Azar Nafisi. Khoikhoi 05:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability derives from coverage by third-party published sources. Where are these third-party published sources? -- ChrisO (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. per above. Beside all the celebrities that have been mentioned, the award ceremony was also attended by Hungarian dignitaries, including the mayor of Budapest. Videos and photos of the Award ceremony are available on www.waalm.com. The award has also covered by various international media outlets including BBC, Voice of America, Jewish News, The Budapest Times, SBS Radio, Kecskemeti TV, Jaam-e-Jam etc.[30], and endorsed by numerous celebrities.[31] This is without a doubt a very notable award. --CreazySuit (talk) 05:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A question for the "keep" votes: People that got this award list it on their website and such. Similarly, many people that have received awards from the American Biographical Institute list them on their CV and such (including even some government leaders). Nevertheless, there seems to exist a consensus that ABI awards are not notable. I therefore gingerly suggest that whether awardees find an award notable is perhaps not completely relevant. The persons voting keep above have diligently provided several links to people showing off their awards. Given the fact that all these people do this and that celebreties like Venessa Redgrave attended award ceremonies, it should be easy to provide a few reliable and independent sources and we can the close this AfD as a ressounding "Keep". (WAALM's own site might serve as a start to give us an indication where to search, although it is of course not an independent source here) --Crusio (talk) 08:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Our article Iranian.com points out that WAALM is an extension of the International Further Studies Institute [32] which Dorbayani also runs/owns [33] and is unaccredited in the US [34] - see it's own statement here [35] and linked to the Pinnacle Business School offering MBAs which is, like the IFSI, licensed to teach but doesn't have any real accreditation. So you get Dorbayani giving a Mayor a medal of excellence from the IFSI [36]. Good PR. Doug Weller (talk) 09:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And that is all irrelevant to the award's notability, thank you very much. Somebody asked for independent coverage and sources about the award, here are a dozens of them. [37] [38][39][40] [41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48] [49] --CreazySuit (talk) 10:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question I don't have time to look at all of them, but this one [50] although it mentions Dorbabyani and the International Foreign Studies Institute, is about awards given by the "Persian Academy Awards International", not WAALM. [51] is a German blog mentioning Madonna, no awards, WAALM, etc, why is it relevant? And this [52] also seems to be about a 'Persian Academy'. Doug Weller (talk) 13:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keeep - as per User:Khoikhoi. Tājik (talk) 11:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Both the BBC and the VOA have devoted coverage to them. They are notable.--Zereshk (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep and rename. CreazySuit has presented "dozens" of sources. Almost all of those are not independent (they are from the WAALM website, others are from blogs), but two are from the BBC and Voice of America. Although those are in Farsi (?), which I don't read, it seems to me that those articles are, indeed, about the award. These sources establish in my eyes some notability for the award, even though they are rather short. I recommend that the article be renamed after the award and rewritten accordingly, which seems notable, but the WAALM seems not to be notable. --Crusio (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Now that's an interesting idea. Particularly what seems to be a complex network of inter-related organisations (which I admit to having some concern about). Let's see what others say. Doug Weller (talk) 17:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The images of newspaper clips hosted on WAALM website are simply for verification, the print martial are independent sources on their own. --CreazySuit (talk) 08:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Possibly, but they don't all mention WAALM, right? What do you think about renaming the article after the award? Doug Weller (talk) 09:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep, per Khoikhoi--Babakexorramdin (talk) 04:42, 26 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. Lack of sources is a problem for this article. Stifle (talk) 08:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original blessing[edit]

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

A parochial concept from the New Thought movement that has not received wider consideration or third party consideration. Useful content can be merged with Matthew Fox. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, by all means merge this material with the Matthew Fox article. My argument for keeping it as it is is that it is an important topic in Christian theology, and when a person seeking information does a search, the article will be there. What is all this officious busy work in deleting articles all of a sudden? Wikipedia should cover every conceivable topic. Another point is that it is an antithetical position to Original Sin.--Drboisclair (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per WP:Notability (books), we expect to see independent third-party coverage, showing the book's importance, and evidence of the notice that has been paid to it, to justify keeping a separate article on a book. Given that the article has no sources, there may not be enough material here to be worth merging. EdJohnston (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Matthew Fox (priest). ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy merge to Matthew Fox (priest). No need for AfD when ((mergeto)) will do. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Matthew Fox (priest) - it's a term invented and used by him. So it can be a simple paragraph in the bio. Shot info (talk) 01:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge no sources, no assertion of notability. Dlabtot (talk) 03:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No independent sources. Smells like OR Annette46 (talk) 03:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Possible OR. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:56, 26 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, default to keep. The sources aren't very good quality and many are just mirrors. There's clearly no consensus to delete though, and the default outcome is keep. Stifle (talk) 08:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copper Island[edit]

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

The location name is not in use officially. I've lived in the Upper Peninsula for 28 years and never heard of that area being called anything other than the Keweenaw Peninsula or the generic Copper Country. The article contains only one reference which describes the routing of only one of the three highways in the area. A Google search shows this article as number 1 with the other mentions to a record company in Wales, an island in Russia, an island in British Columbia and an archeological site in Cyprus. In fact most of the Google hits are related to the island in BC. The only related mention is a ski race held south of the area claimed as the island on the "mainland". The only assertion of notability is the unreferenced mention of the area once being called the name in Finnish, which isn't verified/referenced. Imzadi1979 (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If you've never heard it being called "Copper Island," I'm amazed. Haven't you ever heard of the Copper Island Classic hockey game between Hancock and Calumet, the newspaper, any of it? --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 14:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Original research, no real sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. —Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Proposed deletion NO! First, let me say that this is a bad idea. It is a recognized geographic descriptor for a unique part of the U.S. Take a look at this. Michigan's Unique Islands. I think if you google ";Copper Island' Michigan" you'll find plenty of citations and links. I note also that the Clarke Historical Library page that is linked in the Keweenaw County article looks like it has some books that would likely cover this subject. Here is another source: http://www.keweenawtrails.com/events/chassell/index.htm

Unfortunately, I am in the middle of a project, but putting in some line cites, etc. should be not that difficult. Hope somebody can do something to appease the wiki-gods. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 21:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]

• • Please reference where this name is "recognized" as a geographic descriptor for the area. The state of Michigan and the USGS don't call it this. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Copper-Island I'll be back with more. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]
• http://www.keweenawtrails.com/events/chassell/ 7&6=thirteen (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]

That link is to a copy of this article, not a unique source. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• http://encyclopedia.kids.net.au/page/co/Copper_Island 7&6=thirteen (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]
• http://www.fact-archive.com/encyclopedia/Copper_Island 7&6=thirteen (talk) 21:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]
• https://www.h-net.org/announce/show.cgi?ID=153515 7&6=thirteen (talk) 21:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]
• Michigan Technical University, Kupperisian "Copper Island". Those ought to satisfy you that this is "recognized." As I indicated< I've got other fish to fry, so I can't follow the google trail indefinitely. Others may choose to, however. All I did was google the phrase "'Copper Island'Michigan", and you can do it too.7&6=thirteen (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]

(repeated edit conflicts)

Three of those links are copies of this article, not a unique source. The fourth is the previously mentioned race which is held on the "mainland" not the "island". We don't have an article Queen City of the North even though that was once used to describe Marquette, Michigan. Nothing you've presented points to the a neutral, verifiable, reliable source that this name is in fact in common usage. The lecture summary on that last link only uses it in the name. The announcement even calls the area Michigan's Copper Country. None of these links are in fact referenced in the article. The MTU link only references the once-applied Finnish name. Once again, none of this shows that the area is called that today by the locals. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a current one out of the Houghton Mining Gazette of Augus 20, 2008. http://www.mininggazette.com/page/content.detail/id/501559.html?nav=5006 7&6=thirteen (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]

[https://www.h-net.org/announce/show.cgi?ID=153515 New York Univeristy, From the Emerald Islle tto the Copper Isle.' 7&6=thirteen (talk) 21:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]

Copper Island Cross Country Ski Club. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 21:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]

Michigan Association of Recreational Vehicles. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]

History of the Finns in Americxa.

Copper Island Printing, Calumet, Michigan. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]

Reference to the Copper Island Sentinel, the local paper. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 22:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]

Finish names, Finish geneology.

• • General reserach on Copper Island, its origins, etc.7&6=thirteen (talk) 22:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]

7&6, you keep adding links which are copies of the Wikipedia article -- they're automatically generated copies from sites who like to copy/backup wikipedia. They are not useful as sources. -- dcclark (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that this article has had an important effect on other sources, which just lift the article, and then don't give it as a source (only rarely). I googled "'Copper Island News' Michigan" and when I had it show me all the sources, there were three pages (24 or 30? didn't count) (I had to tell it to show me "similar" pages to get that number) that bleated back the article, and would not be considered to be independent sources. However, putting a more positive spin on this, this article is a sourced of information for a lot of other websites. 23:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Stan

[^[1] Keewenaw Water Trail, "Circumnavigation of the Copper Island"] is a current usage by the Keewenaw Tourist & Convention Bureau, and plainly is not a quote or offshoot of the Wikipedia article. I can put together these sources into the article, I just can't do it today or tomorrow. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 23:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]

Hancock astronomy article mentions "Copper Island" 7&6=thirteen (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[http://habitant.org/houghton/fcgenealogy.htm French Canadian Geneological Research sources} concerning Hancock County, mentions "Copper Island" and also document the publication dates of one of the newspapers that were so named. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 23:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]

Island Behavioral Health in Hancock, Michigan.7&6=thirteen (talk) 00:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]

Stan -- no, there are many sites out there which duplicate Wikipedia whole cloth. The presence of the Copper Island article on them means nothing: it was on Wikipedia at the time that their bot downloaded everything here, and so it's on their site as well. -- dcclark (talk) 23:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge to Copper Country. Also try this (more appropriate) google search. Links include several businesses currently using the name as part of their business, the "Copper Island Classic" race (as mentioned in the article), a defunct newspaper, etc. It's certainly not a widespread name, but in the area it is used. It's very silly to suggest that just because the area containing Copper Island is more commonly called the Copper Country, that the name isn't valid. Similarly, it doesn't matter that the Copper Island Classic is held on the mainland -- it's a proper use of the name. The worst that should be done to the article is to merge the description into copper country, which is a superset of Copper Island. -- dcclark (talk) 21:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A WP:RS is in the article showing the origins of the name; and Google searches ([53], [54]) turn up the name used for businesses, ski clubs, and on tourism sites about the area - so there appears to be adequate material to show that the term is in regional usage. The nom not having heard it himself is an odd reverse-type WP:OR to justify an AfD. Admittedly the use isn't widespread, but it is in use within the region. I agree that, worse case a merge and redirect to copper country may be reasonable; but I feel there's enough here to justify an encyclopedic entry for this region. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment — at the time I found the article, that source wasn't there. Since this article is Copper Island and not Copper Island, Michigan I googled the article's title and found far more references to an island in British Columbia that actually carries the name on the map. I've never seen this name on a map and the only hits I found for it were similar to many of 7&6's links which are copies of Wikipedia content and not separate articles. The only business name that came up was a printing place with a d/b/a for another name. At the very least, the article needs to be renamed since it is not the only "Copper Island", and it should be merged into the Copper Country article, IMHO. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about moving it to Copper Island, Michigan? However, there is already a very clear otheruses template at the top of the article which tells you that it's about the region in Michigan. -- dcclark (talk) 22:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This may be an issue to bring up on the article talk page. I would support renaming it to Copper Island, Michigan, then move the existing disambiguation page to Copper Island. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — Copper Island is in fact the correct name according to...

⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's yet another copy of the original WP article. Just how many sites out there copy WP like this? Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Look closely at the mention in other sites. The one you point to shows at the bottom "This article ... uses material from the Wikipedia article 'Copper Island'." So, it's a circular reference - an article cannot be justified by something that uses that same article as a reference. I agree with keeping, but for other reasons given above. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, both of you are right...I didn't see the reference to WP and thought it different enough to be original. An earlier version didn't occur to me. I was wrong...sorry for that.⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're adding references and facts to this article as we speak[edit]

Rather than burden this discussion with more facts and references (I did find documentation on the second newspaper, and also of a novel that is entitled "Race to Copper Island") and that's all in the article, are will be in the next few days. I would request that you not be precipitate or o'erhasty in your decision. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]

This is NOW better sourced and linked than a lot of Wikipedia articles that aren't up for deletion. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 16:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC) Stan[reply]

I would respectfully suggest that you have made us improve the article and accomplished a great deal in that the article is niow in compliance with Wiki standards. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 16:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC) Stan[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. ffm 17:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sumon Bari[edit]

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

Also nominating the following article for deletion:

Alexandrino Kirton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

And also see the related nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akeem Dodson.

Neither player passes our notability criteria for athletes. Youth cricket - the only form these two have played - is not major cricket, and so is not performing at a professional level or the highest amateur level. No significant major coverage to establish notability otherwise. See related Cricinfo & CricketArchive links concurring they have only made youth-team appearances: [55][56][57][58] AllynJ (talk | contribs) 20:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 20:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. Long-established consensus that under-19 cricket is not sufficient to establish notability according to WP:ATHLETE (see WP:CRIN). Stephen Turner (Talk) 21:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete to both per AllynJ. Johnlp (talk) 19:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable South-East7™^Talk/_Contribs 10:22, 28 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. ffm 01:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Area 58[edit]

Area 58 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article popped up yesterday on a routine flyby of the ((blackproject)) template and its associated links. A cursory glance at the article suggested some notability, but when I get no hits from the google test I became suspicious and asked for an outside opinion from the milhist editors. It seems this article may not be a hoax, but it still has issues with reliable sources, appears to cantain a lot of Original Research, and does not really assert any notability. In lew of this I have decided to file an afd and let the chips fall where they may. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]
• Delete Seems like it's just a hoax. JonCatalán^(Talk) 20:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems like conspiracy theory stuff to me. --ScreaminEagle (talk) 21:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Hoax. Schuym1 (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete At best this is original research trying to establish a conspiracy theory. At worst its a hoax. Nick Dowling (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Original research as best. Edward321 (talk) 23:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Some of the material might should be merged into the National Reconnaissance Office or Fort Belvoir articles, but otherwise the article appears to be a bunch of hoo-ha. Cla68 (talk)
• WP:SNOW. JBsupreme (talk) 07:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the truth is out there. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:24, 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 Speedy Delete - copyvio. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of foreign leaders Joe Biden has met[edit]

List of foreign leaders Joe Biden has met (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Failed prod. How is a list of the foreign leaders that a person has met encyclopedic? DCEdwards¹⁹⁶⁶ 20:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per [Criteria #1: Patent nonsense, and #10: Only meant to attack another subject (Sarah Palin). The creator should also face sanctions. Grsz^talk 20:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Backdoor attempt to score political points. Even if I stretch my imagination to the limit and AGF and assume that wasn't the intent, this list isn't encyclopedic. --barneca (talk) 20:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Barneca; this list is really just the same list in the Washington Post story linked as the lone reference. Cliff smith ^talk 20:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ignoring accusations against the primary author, if we let this stand we'll have to create List of foreign leaders XXX has met for every statesmen, head of government, deputy head for every nation of note. Then the candidates. WP:NOT, common sense, toss it.--Tznkai (talk) 20:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with multiple good delete reasons already stated above.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not clear Biden was conscious at the time. Seriously, I agree with the reasons described above.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not encyclopedic. I must say that I think it is quite inappropriate to cast aspersions on the motives of the creator of the article and those making such comments should retract them. This user has been on Wikipedia little over a month and this is not a good example of how to treat new editors. Gamaliel (talk) 21:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Bahahahahahaha. -Gr0ff (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Sneaky ;-) --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete (G12) — Copyvio. Information cut-and-pasted from the Washington Post article as explained above, which is a copyright of The Washington Post Company. MuZemike (talk) 22:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No notability, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, all reasons listed above. However, I do not believe that action should be taken against the editor (he's ~relatively new) other than possibly a warning. - Oh man just copy and pasted via MuZemike, definitely delete. Bsimmons666 (talk) 22:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete: A copyvio. Schuym1 (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would prefer a bold admin (not me, I opined) come along and snow close this; if it's just speedied as a copyvio, it could easily be reformatted and show right back up here in a couple of days, and we'd be back where we started. Better to have a definitive decision that the article doesn't belong here, copyvio or no. --barneca (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into the Joe Biden article unless it's too long. Otherwise Keep. This discussion should not be snowball closed after only 2 hours. People need time to have their dinners.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, I think that if this is shown to be a copyvio, it should be deleted. The information however, should be cleaned up and kept.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be more than adequate to say in the Biden article that he has met X foreign leaders of Y countries over the course of Z years (and that he has been on W taxpayer-funded congressional junkets overseas, has made U speeches in the course of his career totalling T minutes).Ferrylodge (talk) 23:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per NOT, among the other reasons cited above. Bfigura ^(talk) 23:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Speedy Delete as copyright violation. Not notable, anyway. Edward321 (talk) 23:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there room for one more Delete? Everyone else said it best (and first). Though I am curious to know what Biden and Nursultan Nazarbayev talked about. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't think it's a copyvio, because facts can't be copyrighted and there's no obviously distinctive phrasing used here, but it's not encyclopedic. The Biden bio article can include the number of leaders he's met (referencing the source) and discuss significant meetings in more detail. JamesMLane t c 00:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Facts can be copyrighted. If they couldn't be, then all non-fiction books could be copied without permission. Schuym1 (talk) 00:52, 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. ffm 01:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lakewood Elementary School (Dallas, Texas)[edit]

Lakewood Elementary School (Dallas, Texas) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable elementary school. Original author contends blue-ribbon award is applicable for notability. Three schools in the district were given blue-ribbon, which further begs the question,"Then what is notable about it?" Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 20:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge as per nom. unless otherwise notability can be found (ie building has historical significance, first school in the district, or state to achieve such an award, etc.) Else, we can expect 4000 elementary schools per year being added into WP Else we can expect all 4000 such schools to be added as well. This award isn't a Nobel Prize or anything. In WNY pretty much every school in the Buffalo Public School system deserves an article, do to at one point in time or another receiving this award or one similar. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 20:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This is what is notable about the Blue Ribbon award: "It is considered the highest honor a school can achieve" (as quoted from: "CIBA cited as one of the best by Education Department, Journal Inquirer, November 16, 2006. "The Blue Ribbon award is given only to schools that reach the top 10 percent of their state's testing scores over several years or show significant gains in student achievement. It is considered the highest honor a school can achieve."" and "Viers Mill School Wins Blue Ribbon; School Scored High on Statewide Test; The Washington Post. September 29, 2005 "For their accomplishments, all three schools this month earned the status of Blue Ribbon School, the highest honor the U.S. Education Department can bestow upon a school."" WhisperToMe (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plus, you may want to look at the AFD result of Memorial Drive Elementary School - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Memorial_Drive_Elementary_School WhisperToMe (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - a Blue Ribbon school, which consensus has determined to be notable, with plenty of sources available to meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps look at this example: West Hertel Academy(Elementary) - Blue Ribbon Winner (Throw in the ref, it's there in the PDF for the Blue Ribbon List). Now the school is closed. (End Article). Delete, or hope to expand it? How can Blue Ribbon award be the only reason for notability? Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 22:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• First of all, some objective touchstone is needed to guide notability and for elementary schools in the US, through many discussions, this seems a reasonable one. However, Blue Ribbon status is not the only claim to notability; there are multiple reliable sources that meet WP:N. Unfortunately, adding them is not easy since they are mostly behind paywalls but they are there. Notability is not temporary; which is why notability does not cease on the death of the subject or the closure of the organisation. TerriersFan (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The only references provided are articles relating to it getting awarded a Blue Ribbon. This would indicate the only notability it meets is getting a Blue Ribbon. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 22:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - My thoughts on the blue ribbon award and why it meets notability requirements can be found here. --Jh12 (talk) 00:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as subject has on-topic coverage in the Dallas Morning News, the Houston Chronicle and other reliable third-party sources plus there are more sources to be mined about the school's award-winning teachers [59], a 1987 visit from Lynne Cheney [60], controversies over busing [61], and much more. - Dravecky (talk) 04:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dravecky, the one about the teacher awards has to do with the Lakewood Elementary in Euless. I haven't determined which Lakewood Lynne Cheney visited (a DMN subscriber can help!). But the last one does have to do with the Dallas school and that should be enough for notability. :) WhisperToMe (talk) 15:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems fine to me given all the awards and broad coverage. JBsupreme (talk) 07:00, 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.

Markcho world order[edit]

The result was Speedy Delete as non-notable club or group (random neighborhood wrestling group). ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Markcho world order (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Is this a joke? A hoax? Surely does not meet notability standards. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - as per nomination, and see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trailor hood wrestling federation as is a mirror page. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• neutral - restored Afd tag as it was corrupted by pages creator. Notability is questionable.PB666 ^yap 20:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - per nom. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 20:10, 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 as non-notable club or group (random neighborhood wrestling group). ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trailor hood wrestling federation[edit]

Trailor hood wrestling federation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable backyard wrestling group. Only sources are MySpace and YouTube. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - as per nomination, and see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Markcho world order as is a mirror page. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - per nom. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 20:09, 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. Stifle (talk) 09:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milo Turk[edit]

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

Unsigned musician known primarily for his song No Sex Allowed. He was on Jimmy Kimmel's "up and coming talent" segment and appeared in the first round of American Idol 7, but he doesn't appear to meet the criteria of WP:MUSIC. Additionally, other than his Myspace page and entry on CD Baby (where literally anyone can sell a CD), he has no independent references. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 19:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: An article about a non-notable singer that has no reliable sources except for the official site. Schuym1 (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Though he is unsigned, his itunes does check out, just searched it. There is even a music video to it. So that does add one to the WP:NM. Maybe to find more than that, unsure of keeping or deleting. I want to establish he isn't mainstream or indie. To me he is just another William Hung. XXalyXx (talk) 05:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Being on itunes by itself doesn't satisfy WP:MUSIC Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 05:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable singer. lacks WP:RS Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:03, 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 speedy delete. CSD:G11 Stifle (talk) 09:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parent Choice International School[edit]

Parent Choice International School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails verifiability; notability and is written like an advertisement piece. Shovon (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 21:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to Schools in Chennai per normal practice for elementary schools. TerriersFan (talk) 21:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: blatant advertising. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 03:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I would have used the argument that a school in Chennai is as notable as one in California(I used this argument in a previous AfD). But this school has opened very recently and has no asserted notability in terms of size, prominence or arcademics. It is clearly an advertisement. In my personal opinion (and experience) many of these ICSE schools are nothing but moneymaking shops where education is mereley a commodity. They use the ICSE tag to sell themselves when they do not evn have a playground. --Deepak D'Souza 05:55, 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 delete. ffm 01:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

System of Imagination[edit]

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

Contested prod. Pointless topic made up in school.  – iridescent 19:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:OR, WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOT.... -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 19:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's not notable. There are plenty of other arguments for deletion, but that one is all that I need. Merenta (talk) 19:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. At best it is poor original research but sadly, & per nom, it is probably little more than WP:MADEUP. Wikipedia can do without this sort of nonsense. nancy ^(talk) 19:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Logical and Nancy: orignial research at best. Cliff smith ^talk 20:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, though there's something winsome about a theory of the afterdeath referenced to Wes Craven's Nightmare on Elm Street. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I had to look up the word winsome in wictionary. Delete. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 12:21, 26 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. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carter Vanderbilt Cooper[edit]

Carter Vanderbilt Cooper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable brother of Anderson Cooper. Fails WP:BIO. Precious Roy (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Precious Roy (talk) 19:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for failing WP:BIO. Notability isn't inherited. Bfigura ^(talk) 23:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:Bio. Notable family or relationships does not make one notable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. If his life or death is significant in the lives of the notable people he's related to, then present the relevant material on the notable people's pages. --Atemperman (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom South-East7™^Talk/_Contribs 10:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because the subject himself fails WP:Bio. But I agree with Atemperman that if his life/death is relevant to other notable people to whom he's related, then perhaps some of the material contained in the article should be merged into those other existing articles.Austin46 (talk) 15:55, 28 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. ffm 01:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Beautiful[edit]

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

This article was speedily deleted a number of times in the past for being non-notable and POV. Recently, User:Eastmain tried to make the article decent for Wikipedia, but I still feel it's non-notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Instead of speedying it again, I have put it up for AFD so a broader consensus can be reached. CyberGhostface (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reasons, plus WP:COI.

Dan Bradimore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack for Scenario (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - added. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both: Neither article meets the criteria for notability at WP:BAND. The awards claimed in both articles fail WP:V and are not "major music competitions". --JD554 (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Okay, I'm the fool that created this mess in the first place. Last week, Soundtrack for Scenario was up for deletion, because at the time, the band was red linked. I moved Eastmain's project page to userspace and asked for the album to be kept because the band, at the time, seemed notable to me. Now I realize I've just created a big mess, and would agree that deleting everything is a good idea here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The media references pass WP:MUSIC. --Eastmain (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This band doesn't meet the conventional criteria of WP:MUSIC for being an important band: no national tours or well-known awards, and they are not issued by a major label. The only way they could qualify is if their press coverage puts them over the bar. I don't see the listed references as showing importance. There is no full-length review of the music listed there by anybody who I recognize as being a reliable independent reviewer. EdJohnston (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I believe the band does meet WP:MUSIC. They have been the subject of multiple non-trivial independently published works including Chart (magazine). They were placed in heavy rotation on MuchMusic and regularly played on CFNY-FM. Their debut video peaked at second place on Much On Demand’s Daily Top 10. They are currently on a national tour.[62] The article doubtless needs improving and better sourcing but that can be done in time. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Hello Beautiful and merge the other 2 into it. Just passes WP:BAND based on coverage already identified in the article and these: [63], [64], [65], and current national tour appears to be verifiable.--Michig (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Excellent rescue job here, and for a Canadian band at that (no small task, that). Chubbles (talk) 21:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. In need of expansion though. Tezkag72 (talk) 03:10, 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. Stifle (talk) 08:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Urban[edit]

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

An active young computer scientist but does not yet pass WP:PROF. A recent PhD (2004), modest citability record according to GoogleScholar[66] and WebOfScience. No other major achievements listed. The second prize in the SUMO reasoning prize competition is good but not sufficient for passing WP:PROF at this point. Nsk92 (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 16:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete May very well become notable in a few years, but as outlined by Nsk92 is not yet at that point. --Crusio (talk) 16:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP is not a directory of assistant professors. No mention of Urban online in Czech language sources. (Note that Josef is common Czech first name and Urban common surname.) The article for an Austrian architect could be created instead. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 12:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence that he passes WP:PROF. The citation record looks decent for his level of seniority, but far from enough to override the default presumption that junior faculty are insufficiently notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:20, 26 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. ffm 01:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ambat family[edit]

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

The article has several issues. First - notability, second - verifiability, third - COI. Shovon (talk) 16:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Hardly notable, fails WP:V and WP:OR. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with Juliancolton. abf /talk to me/ 19:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom as COI etc. --Lockley (talk) 22:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Tintin 01:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: unsolvable neutrality issues. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 03:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non notable and fails WP:V and WP:OR -- Tinu Cherian - 14:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:57, 26 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. ffm 01:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arkansas Vibe[edit]

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

Non-notable magazine. Article is written like an advertisement, and there is an obvious conflict of interest with the main contributor. CyberGhostface (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I prodded the article for the reasons above, though my prod was removed, and I still think that it is written as an advertisement, and that the magazine's notability is not clear. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this listing was not wrote to be an advertisement. Just a "about me" type article. we used many other magazine wiki's as a base for the format of the article is wrote. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_magazine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_Magazine please help me to understand the difference. besides ArkansasViBE is newer and not as established. I am more than willing to make changes to make it conform to guidelines if it currently does not. Arkansas Vibe (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Whether or not you meant it to be advertising, writing about yourself or something that you are associated with still constitutes as conflict of interest. And as you yourself stated, "ArkansasViBE is newer and not as established". That's pretty much an indication that it's not notable enough for inclusion here.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Definitely non-notable, with really unimpressive numbers cited in the article and random trivia (one of the advertisers is a car dealership? so what?) Per the above, there also appear ro be advertising / COI issues here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: non-notable. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 03:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete too new and not many sources to demonstrate Note. We66er (talk) 19:40, 26 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 per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alice in Wonderland (2010 film)[edit]

Alice in Wonderland (2010 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article for a film that "may" be released in 2010! While there are a few sources on production, I don't think its enough to meet WP:NFF, particularly when its already been "in the making" for a year, and the supposed release date pushed back. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given that it's a notable film being directed by Tim Burton and starring Johnny Depp. (If it was some no-name independent film with only a blog for it's source that would be another matter entirely) Unless it's a hoax or not going to be made.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete Yes, the talent line-up is impressive. But announcing that a film is going to be made is not the same thing as actually have a film that is in progress or has been completed. I can't support keeping the article, as per WP:NFF. Changed to Keep following the arrival of new sources that were cited below. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete, like Ecoleetage, since I don't see any verification that shooting has begun. Cliff smith ^talk 16:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Changed to keep per new sources cited below. Cliff smith ^talk 18:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No verification that shotting has begun. Schuym1 (talk) 16:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doesn't this article indicate that it's being filmed?--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it's filming. Alientraveller (talk) 17:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article gives the impression that some sort of second unit shooting just began (there is no mention of any of the stars being present or comment from Tim Burton on what's being made). Ecoleetage (talk) 17:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The director and the star began filming last Monday. It's being made. Perfectly fine under WP:FUTFILMS. Alientraveller (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep per sources above, some filming has already started or will start in October. Sources exist and the time frame is short (or already here) for filming to start. Hobit (talk) 18:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per Google News and articles [67], [68], [69], filming HAS begun. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Significant coverage by multiple secondary sources. Dekkappai (talk) 18:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:NFF. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Films in production are perfectly notable if there are sources confirming production is underway - and there are plenty. The fact it's been in production for a long time is irrelevant. Shrek was in production for so long its original lead voice actor died. James Cameron's Avatar has been in production for years, too. 23skidoo (talk) 18:19, 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. ffm 01:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swimming Pool Deck Tile Layout[edit]

Swimming Pool Deck Tile Layout (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per WP:NOTHOWTO - Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a DIY manual. nancy ^(talk) 15:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• delete That may well be the dullest article on wikipedia. I know dullness isn't a criteria for deletion, but it had to be said. Actual justification per nom. MadScot (talk) 15:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete How-to thinly disguised as an encyclopedia article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as WP:NOTHOWTO, a "how-to" style manual of instructions. --Badgernet ^Talk 15:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as something of an instruction manual (though rather lacking at that). Either way this isn't WikiHow. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete cool, en has got a not-howto rule? Not significant for an encyclopedia. abf /talk to me/ 19:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this how-to guide. Cliff smith ^talk 20:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: this how-to won't even survive WikiHow! Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 03:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Its a shame this needs to be here another 3-4 days longer. JBsupreme (talk) 07:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a diagram in a boring 1980's math book, or the DIY Network. Nate • (chatter) 07:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:SNOW. There can be no more classic case of a DIY manual within the wikisphere. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sure the article is dull, but its information and quite useful. So how to make it not a how-to page to make it more ‘’encyclopaedic’’ would be helpful. To quote "Works of encyclopedic scope aim to convey the important accumulated knowledge for their subject domain". I think this ticks the box despite the limited scope of the article. Andrewray99 (talk) 08:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC) _{(moved from AFD talk page nancy ^(talk) 08:23, 26 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. ffm 01:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kristen Aldridge[edit]

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

Tagged since June for multiple issues including WP:COI. Also has potential issues with WP:BIO, WP:WEB Tmore3 (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep At a quick glance she seems notable enough. However the article as it is is bad, as tagged. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete When the time comes, someone other than the subject of the article will create it DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep seems notable enough, but the article needs some clean up and needs sources, other than that it looks passable. User:MrMarkTaylor ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 03:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Forgot to mention a few things I noticed about the references which seemed to provide virtually no backup to most everything written. One reference is her own website another is nothing but a gallery of self published pics and two of them KARE-11 and Metromix I could find not a single mention of this person. The one article that actually had anything written about her (Minnesota Monthly) didn't seem to indicate any significance or notability she has gained in her field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmore3 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Article makes credible claims of notability for the subject. While WP:COI may be a genuine issue for an individual editor, there is no irrevocable taint for the information, which has since been updated by multiple editors. Article needs better sourcing and expansion, not deletion. Alansohn (talk) 18:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• And where exactly are these "credible claims of notability" neutrally referenced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmore3 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Minnesota Monthy shows she's notable. So its a keep per that and search 1, 2, and 3. Notability is there. Article simply needs a major overhaul. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry but one article that only goes so far as to expound on her favorite foods would not clarify a person's notability in the least WP:BIO - Basic Criteria, and neither does a series of self promotional links or her own interviews as seen in searches 1,2, and 3. WP:PRIMARY,WP:CREATIVE. If the credible secondary sources are there to support 99% of the article, go ahead and put them in. Otherwise this article's narcissistic tone and serious lack of reliable references have been given more than enough time to improve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmore3 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 26 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. The primary argument by those !voting to keep was a reference to all the previous AFDs, but consensus can change. There were other weak arguments either way, but nobody has successfully refuted Scott MacDonald's point that the list is inherently subjective and the poor referencing leads to BLP issues. I've thought about this closure for quite a while and won't be changing it; DRV is thataway if you disagree. Stifle (talk) 08:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of big-bust models and performers[edit]

List of big-bust models and performers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is committed to three things: verification neutrality and fairness to living subjects. This article fails these tests, and indeed cannot pass them.

• Who is a "big busted" model is subjective. It is culturally variable. Ultimately any list we produce will just be "what the average wikipedian who is interested in this article agrees". So it is opinion not neutral fact.

• The current criteria offered is the consensus among many independent web sites - eh? 1) That looks like original research - who says that's the consensus? verification? 2) Why are websites the standard anyway? Who says? The judgements here fail WP:V WP:NPOV and WP:OR

• The items on the list are unreferenced. Where is the evidence that any of these performers are know for their breasts?

• There is a BLP issue. We are implying that breast-size is a property that is significant to these people's careers. Evidence? Neutrality?

Basically this is a demeaning and sexist article of the worst kind of subjective internet trivia, unfit for an encyclopedia. True, that "I don't like it" isn't a reason to delete, but nor it "I like it" and I reason to keep. So we fall back on objective criteria WP:V WP:RS WP:NPOV and WP:BLP and by those policy standards this does not belong.

The last debates failed to achieve a deletion consensus, but maybe we've got a better understanding of neutrality and verifiability since then.

Scott MacDonald (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This nomination is quite condescending, especially that last quip. SashaNein (talk) 14:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Let's bury this BLP-violating hellhole on the sixth[?!?!?!] attempt. Violates WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and is all and all a very bad idea for an article. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nom puts it well: OR trivia. I give this list a double F. (Kidding -- I was actually tempted to vote weak keep...) IronDuke 15:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Although "demeaning and sexist" is no reason to delete an article, this is, in my eyes, comparable to an article titled List of important countries or List of important people. The criteria is apparently determined by 'many important sites and magazines', or words to that effect, which is open to too much interpretation. I agree 100% with the assertion that any list we produce will just be "what the average wikipedian who is interested in this article agrees". Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The inclusion criteria for this list is subjective and original research. Epbr123 (talk) 15:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also because of the same arguments raised at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_May_4#Category:MILF_Actress. Epbr123 (talk) 03:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Rename If this was renamed List of models and performers in big-bust pornography, that would reduce the original research involved. It would also reduce the BLP issues, as it would be clearer that people like Dolly Parton don't belong. Epbr123 (talk) 16:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• double-D-Delete. If the inclusion criteria were determinable, it should be a category. However, the history of the AfD's shows that the criteria haven't been determined yet, and the matter was brought up at the first AfD. That seems adequate time for the criteria to be established, to refute the statement that no such criteria can be determined. (Note also that the primary nomination reason fails, as noted by the Cavalry.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per the long string of previous, failed deletion attempts. I frankly find the nominator's tone quite uncivil and in violation of the assume good faith policy, given that he preemptively claims that this is a "demeaning and sexist" article, and that anyone who would choose to keep it hasn't "grown". Truth is, the dissemination of images of big busted women is fairly obviously referenceable by publications that the nominator might be embarrassed by. There aren't any problems here that aren't repairable by normal editing. And lists of people who qualify for their own articles do not need separate references in the list if their qualification for inclusion is verified on their own articles, either. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid you miss the point. I was trying to indicate that the fact I found it "sexist and demeaning" is beside the point. Ultimately this comes down to the fact that ANY inclusion criteria will be wholly arbitrary. So, leaving aside how I, or you, might subjectively react to the subject matter, can you address the issues I've outlined in the nomination?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 15:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure that Juggs Magazine has "wholly arbitrary" criteria for inclusion; if they did, they wouldn't be able to reach their target audience, now would they? (Not sure if they accept freelance material. If they do, they surely have published a guide to would-be contributors.) What constitutes a big-bust model may well be a cultural construction. This does not make the subject indefinable or so vague that it becomes impossible to speak coherently about. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, you can speak about it. I've no doubt a well-referenced article can be written on the subject (with attributed examples of popular views). But what you can't do neutrally is make a binary decision on whether to list someone. Some subjects are suitable for articles but not lists.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 16:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least one of the AfD's led to deletion, overturned on DRV, for no apparent reason. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of defined inclusion criteria and everything else that has been said. Intothewoods29 (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Aboutt the BLP issue, most busty porn stars are famous BECAUSE they have big breasts. Minka, for example, rose to fame as being the worlds bustiest Asian. Keep per every other AFD. The only problem is trying to decide what is considered busty (my opinion is D-cup and above, which from my personal experience is also what big bust DVDs tend to use as well). TJ Spyke 16:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The criterion will always be "in my opinion" or "a consensus of wikipedians" that's the problem.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 16:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the nominator's reasoning, with particular emphasis on the silliness of having an article with criteria from "consensus among many independent web sites", whatever on earth that means. I trust that the closing admin will ignore any and all "votes" with a reasoning consisting merely of pointing to previous AfDs--The last time this was kept by consensus was 2006, and wikipedia has changed and evolved significantly since then. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article should be busted. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If they are notable. and if their large bust is why they are notable, then there is nothing wrong with such a list. A reliable source should be included for each member to verify they are considered a "big bust model or performer" beyond the original research or opinion of the editor adding the name. If this list is deleted you might also take a look at many lists of people found at [70] which are equally or more deserving of deletion. (This is in no way a keep argument based on "other stuff exists.") Edison (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article differs from other lists of people as there is no established definition of a "big bust model or performer", and any attempt to define it would be original research. Epbr123 (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many of the lists have inclusion criteria as arbitrary, or more arbitrary than this on. How deaf is a deaf person? How obese are the "most obese" people? How bipolar is bipolar? How depressed is a "depressed" person? How "bratty" and how "famous" is a is a "famous military brat?" How "famous" and "young" to be on the list of "famous people who died young?" I am just noting that many lists have membership criteria which are not easily defined. In List of deaf people#Musicians with a hearing loss I expect that almost all rock musicians and many band musicians have "a hearing loss" due to exposure to sounds way over 100 dB for prolonged periods. How many dB of hearing loss is certified for each? Edison (talk) 20:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per a few criteria. Aside from WP:NOTAGAIN (seriously, is this going to become an annual event?) there's also the fact a previous delete was overturned at deletion review, and the fact this has survived multiple AFD attempts (whether by keep or no consensus) says something. Every individual listed here is a blue-link, and therefore additional verification that they base some of their notoriety on their bust size can reasonably be expected to be found there. And the main list is sourced. There is no BLP issue that I can see. The statement by the nom about "maybe we've grown" I'm afraid taints this nomination with WP:IDONTLIKEIT; if this is not a message the nom wants to make I'd recommend removing that wording from the nomination. 23skidoo (talk) 18:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't WP:NOTAGAIN an argument to avoid? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Epbr123 (talk) 18:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The selection criteria for this list are neither more nor less OR than any of dozens if not hundreds ofother entertainment category lists. I mean, [List of Obese Actors]? I know, otherstuffexists, yada, yada. But fundamentally, any entertainment/art category is subjective, because art and entertainment is subjective. As has been pointed out in other AfD debates - how funny does one have to be to be in a list of comedians? How Emo to be in a list of Emo bands? Each case can be settled by defining a suitable criteria from a third party source - and selecting a criteria in such a way is not OR. I can easily conceive of criteria for this list - "self described as", "marketed as", etc. We have a "list of horror films". Yet, surprisingly, it doesn't include Ishtar. Which I'd consider horrific, especially if I'd been paying for it. Long and short of it (or flat and busty of it, if you will) - subjective lists are inherently part of entertainment classification. There's nothing special about this one, except some people are being prudish about the topic I think. MadScot (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Delete due to ambiguous and arbitrary inclusion criteria. What would be the cutoff point? Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't see how such a list could ever do anything other than violate WP:OR and WP:NPOV. nancy ^(talk) 19:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and get it over with I see the usual stupid and irrelevant "what is big" discussion going on here. The big bust genre is an identifiable, sourceable, verifiable genre of entertainment. This has been discussed half a dozen times at AfDs, so it is pointless to re-hash it. The Deletionists have been around this list like dogs around a bitch in heat, and it is inevitable that one of them is going to make the score. I was inexperienced at Wikipedia when I started the section on Japan, and I know now that already well-sourced section can be sourced much better with clear statements on the genre and its history. But I have intentionally not worked on that section since I first put it up, because I know that this list is going to be deleted eventually, and it would be a wasted effort. I would like to turn it into a good article at another, more honest project, and don't want to give Wikipedia any credit for any of it. So let's cut the crap, stop the bullshit Wiki-rule quoting, which do not support this article's deletion, stop playing stupid and just delete it. And if I haven't offended or personally attacked any of my fellow Delete-voters, I apologize. Dekkappai (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, lets have less of that please. Tensions are high on important issues such as this, but keep it calm, please. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This article does no significant good or bad in my opinion. The interest with large breasted women is culturally significant (breast implants exist for a reason) and there are various folks who have become plenty wealthy on their breasts. That having been said, its to me, the same degree of minutae as we might have for list of plus size models, list of fetishes, list of award winning barbecue sauces. So, if you think those should go, so should this, and vice versa. I'm not totally convinced either way at the moment.--Tznkai (talk) 21:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Round and round it goes, where it stops, everybody knows -- it stops when the Deletionists get their way.  Xihr  21:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is really best if you give reasons that answer the arguments for deletion. Simply saying keep and attacking "deletionists" (which I'm not) isn't liable to count for much when the discussion is summed up by an admin. Your comments will be ignored. This is a discussion of the issues raised, not a vote.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already given them the last ${\displaystyle n}$ times this article has pointlessly come up for deletion. At some point you give up; Deletionists just continue trying until they eventually get their way -- and they nearly always do. What's the point?  Xihr 

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep There doesn't seem to be any controversy or confusion concerning who belongs in the list. The nominator's arguments aren't convincing. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree, there does seem to be some confusion. For example, why are Pamela Anderson and Gemma Atkinson on the list if they have never appeared in big-bust porn magazines or videos. Even most of the pornstars, such as Jenna Jameson, don't fit the supposed criteria. And Dolly Parton being in the list is a BLP nightmare. Epbr123 (talk) 23:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Then remove them. I won't complain. GlassCobra 07:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I wish someone *coughglasscobra* would write WP:BIGUNS or WP:TIGOLEBITTIES to complement WP:HOTTIE and ameliorate some of this tension. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Eh? I've not even commented, and I'm mentioned already? o_O GlassCobra 07:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A Russ Meyer-Inspired Keep The article may need editing, but it doesn't deserve erasure. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Care to address the issues raised in the nomination? This is a discussion not a vote. Unreasoned keeps (or deleted) will not sway it.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I tried to, but here goes again : subjective - response, all entertainment and arts categorization is subjective. The current criteria offered ... So we fix the criteria. that a criteria could be derived by consensus is not at doubt. Again, what's the criteria for ALL inclusion on Wp for entertainment - notability - anything except subjective? unreferenced At best an argument to remove a specific item on the list, not the list. BLP issue I think if I'm being filmed or photographed for 'Big Juggs Weekly' or whatever that's unlikely to be an issue. I suspect very few if any of the list members are offended by inclusion. Basically this is a demeaning and sexist article Ah, the heart of the matter. You don't like the topic? Tough. Wp is full of stuff I might not like, but it's not about liking it.MadScot (talk) 01:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you're attacking keep votes, Scott, I suggest you attack equally weak delete votes, as well. It seems you have no problem with Steve Dufour's completely worthless vote. After all, "This is a discussion not a vote.".. of course, unless it's a vote for 'delete'. THEN IT'S A-OK! SashaNein (talk) 03:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for neutrality concerns. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 03:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• AVN Manages It. There's an AVN awards category for "Best Specialty Release - Big Bust". AVN Awards are recognised by WP as conferring notability. If a respected inductry awards committee can work out what constitutes BUSTY I'm bloody sure we can. Please stop saying its not capable of categorisation. Arguing that its not possible is like arguing that we couldn't have a catgeory for "animation" because there's CGI in "non animated" films. The Academy Awards manages it. Same argument here. You can dispute individuals, and maybe a different category to the AVN one would be bbetter. But that's not a deletion debate. MadScot (talk) 03:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "If a respected inductry awards committee can work out what constitutes BUSTY I'm bloody sure we can" - wouldn't that be original research? What we need is a reliable source that defines a big-bust performer. Epbr123 (talk) 03:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not necessarily We have a list of Comedians and I bet there's no single list outside WP that contains all on our list. You could quite legitimately SYNTHESIZE a list criteria based on non-WP criteria. I can conceive of combining the AVN rules with some other rule. 'Self-described' would be one possibility. Provide the criteria are agreed and reasonable, multiple criteria which are related makes sense. (List of golfers winning one or more majors is technically synthesis, as each tournament has its own list of winners; in combining the four tournaments there's an element of synthesis. But provided there's general agreement on the four majors, where's the harm?) but again, deciding the correct criteria for a list isn't an AfD topic. Exactly such a list coupld be composed SOLELY of "female actress playing leading or co-=leading roles in a film eligible for the AVN Busty award". Completely non synthesized criteria. But selected and subjective of course. Just like any entertainment list would be. MadScot (talk) 04:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • But having to choose the criteria for a list ourselves, rather than acquiring the criteria from a reliable source, is what makes the article OR. I'm not convinced by your comparison with this list to other entertainment lists. To take your "List of Emo bands" as an example, there are plenty of reliable sources discussing what an Emo band is. However, partly due to the lack of reliable media coverage pornography receives, there are few sources discussing what a big-bust performer is. Epbr123 (talk) 04:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Except the AVN criteria is that the video/title/series focuses on breasts and their size. There's still a very subjective standard on who the producer puts in his video but the AVN voters are not quibbling over specific "Oh, these tits aren't big enough". They are trying to figure out which is the most strokeable title that focus on breasts size. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lack of unambiguous criteria for inclusion on the list (and any such criteria are bound to be arbitrary, not to mention demeaning towards women). Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep' per MadScott. The existence of notable awards for this type of performer/model and others provides reliable sources. There are clearly more than enough sources to keep this. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article is not demeaning and sexists, except to the extent that the subject inherently is. I would replace the definition with one that specifies something like "models and entertainers with articles in Wikipedia who are publicly promoted or frequently referred to specifically for the large bust size". We're talking about a genre, not a dimension. DGG (talk) 23:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That criteria is still too ambiguous. What counts as public promotion? How frequent is frequent? Referred to by whom? What type of model or entertainer? Whatever criteria we choose, there'll always be too much original research involved. Epbr123 (talk) 23:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment An issue that has so far been overlooked is that the article is redundant to Category:Big-bust models and performers. Epbr123 (talk) 00:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the plentyful mentioned above (esp. DGG). Response to prior comment; we all know by now that Lists and :Cats can coexist, thats why that issue has been set aside. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A list should only coexist with a category if the list provides extra information on each item. However, this list doesn't, and is therefore totally redundant. Epbr123 (talk) 12:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can find no such requirement in WP:CLN; indeed, it is stated in WP:Lists#Purposes of Lists that redundancy between categories and lists is "beneficial". Existence of a category in no way influences the acceptability of a list, or vice versa. MadScot (talk) 13:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, I admit I'm wrong. The guidelines have changed a lot since I last looked. Epbr123 (talk) 13:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Next issue. Why isn't this article being blanked for BLP reasons? Wikipedia currently has a high-profile article naming Dolly Parton, Gemma Atkinson, Maria Whittaker, etc. as pornstars, without citing any references. Epbr123 (talk) 13:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Criteria for inclusion appears arbitary. •CHILLDOUBT• 14:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Serious POV issues. What's the criteria? A certain size? The inclusion criteria is arbitrary and unknown. Additionally, it is redundant to Category:Big-bust models and performers. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What an udderly ridiculous article, a mountain of BLP hell. Please, take a pair of bazookas to it and bust it into thin airbags. Place it on the rack with the other deleted articles. The creation of this list was certainly a boob and this sort of thing has to be nipped in the bud. I shall add this to my watchlist so I can be kept abreast of the situation. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per MadScot. This is the entertainment industry. Ottre 03:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the rationale provided by DGG, pretty amazing that this has been nominated 6 or 7 times though. Wow. JBsupreme (talk) 06:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and clean-up valid concerns raised. Ensuring sources are added would also help clean this up. Dolly Parton has made statements about her breasts, their size, and the ongoing attention but agree this list should be more clear who is or is not included as the only reason Parton wouldn't be is the adult entertainer component. For the rest of us who are not into the subject it would be nice to add a bit of treatment of pre-implants and highlight some ... developments in the field and controversies. -- Banjeboi 12:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I swear I'm retiring from the project if this gets deleted.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Nooo! :O The closing admin had better take this into account, as the loss of such an outstanding editor will surely weigh heavily on his or her conscience... GlassCobra 08:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. Still waiting for List of big-peen male models and performers :) - Alison ^❤ 18:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I could not help to leave a note. You make me burst into laughter.--Caspian blue (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination Achromatic (talk) 20:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seem redundant. --Caspian blue (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not manageable, too subjective. Perhaps a category would work, but the list looks like a bad idea. Moreover the name of the list does not speak about the specific sub-genre of pornography, therefore every actor with big busts belongs here even if she acts only in Shakespeare's plays...--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are reasons to fix an article - not to delete it. -- Banjeboi 02:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, this is the sixth time we discuss it in an AfD and nobody fixed it till now. Therefore I came to conclusion that these problems are not easy to fix.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is the first I've seen f this article and from discussion it seems it's a perenial favorite amongst our readers. I can't believe we have a policy that because a problem isn't fixed in ____ time it should be deleted. -- Banjeboi 21:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, Alison, Arthur Rubin, and Juliancolton. I understand that some editors fancy the topic, but please come up with a less subjective criteria. VG ☎ 23:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like all lists, the criteria for inclusion should make sense, be clearly stated and enforced. These are WP:Problems that should be fixed. -- Banjeboi 02:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's been three years since the article's first AfD and the problems still haven't been fixed. The article will always be POV and OR. Epbr123 (talk) 11:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Articles are always being worked on. The easiest solution is to tighten the writing and work towards sourcing the list. POV concerns should be fixed. -- Banjeboi 21:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, echoing a couple others above, namely MadScot and DGG. The nom also appears to be misguided: "We are implying that breast-size is a property that is significant to these people's careers." Ah, yes, actually; these actresses are indeed famous precisely because of their large busts. While Ali's comment was funny, and certainly details the double standards of the porn industry, the solution is not to delete this article. It's also a shame that Dekkappai feels that he or she should not bother improving this article because of the constant threat of deletion. Perhaps it could be made into a decent piece if users could focus on improvement instead of removal. GlassCobra 07:55, 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 delete. ffm 01:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WebDeck[edit]

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

Article for an insufficiently notable software program. No evidence this software has been the subject of significant coverage by multiple, reliable, third-party published sources. Google News search produces 0 hits. Yahoo! News search similarly produces 0 hits. The limited search results from Google News Archive are press releases and trivial coverage.

Has been speedy deleted twice and prod deleted once, so comes here to determine consensus. Thank you. — Satori Son 14:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and salt as blatant advertising. We don't want this thing to get into Wikipedia once more. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 03:33, 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 RAF Bassingbourn. Stifle (talk) 09:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bassingbourn Barracks Golf Club[edit]

Bassingbourn Barracks Golf Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This golf course/club is not noteworthy. To be noteworthy, it should have hosted a major event, for example a European Tour event, or Open qualifier. Wikipedia should not be used as a yellow pages for golf courses.

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. —bigissue (talk) 13:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC) bigissue (talk) 13:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete for utter and abject failure to demonstrate notability in an way, shape or form whatsoever. Eddie.willers (talk) 17:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to RAF Bassingbourn, where the golf course is located.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still Delete. Adding a simple short sentence to the RAF Bassingbourn article - "RAF Bassingbourn has a golf course." - would sufficiently encapsulate the notability of the course (as it isn't mentioned there at present!). No need to merge. --bigissue (talk) 10:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• merge with Bassingbourn cum Kneesworth, the village where the golf course is, since this has civilian as well as military use. The merged text should merely be the introductory four lines: the rest should be removed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe the first two and a half sentences. --bigissue (talk) 19:36, 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 event management. Stifle (talk) 09:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Party organization (event)[edit]

Party organization (event) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No sources, none reliable found via Google search. Was tagged as such for half a year without improvement. There exist lots of unreliable and/or primary sources about groups calling themselves party organizations, but the article's content seems unverifiable. Huon (talk) 13:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: no hope of verification. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 03:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete generic term dressed up as a specificity. A much more professional article aready exists at Event management. Let's kill this essay Ohconfucius (talk) 09:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Article already exits here: Event management. Schuym1 (talk) 23:17, 28 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. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin J. Martin[edit]

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

This is a non-notable opera singer, only recently finished training, with no significant coverage. Voceditenore (talk) 15:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I am also nominating the following related page because it is a substantial duplicate of the same article and created by the same editor Alymcgee:

Benjamin Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Voceditenore (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Benjamin Martin appears to be a hijacked redirect that used to point to U.S. Congressman Benjamin F. Martin. If deletion happens, that redirect should be restored. No opinion yet about Benjamin J. Martin. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Here is a review of his performance with Lyric Opera of Melbourne [71]. Other than that nothing else is coming up. Is he also a pianist? because the only Benjamin Martin coming up with some of the other ensembles listed is a pianist. Regardless, I don't think this is enough coverage to meet notability. Nrswanson (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, with regards to the above comment by User:Nrswanson - if you can't tell from those sources that are available, then he probably doesn't have the secondary coverage required for WP:N or WP:V. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete per my nomination. I still haven't been able to find any significant coverage. He is not the same person as the pianist Benjamin Martin, who went to the Juilliard School. The review mentioned above was for a chamber production by "Lyric Opera of Melbourne" (founded 5 years ago), not one of Australia's top opera companies. More about them here.[72] Voceditenore (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Benjamin J. Martin. No evidence on notability found per WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. Restore original redirect from Benjamin Martin. No objection to deleting the article first. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, without any doubt! In the article, it says He is now an admired interpreter of bel canto and lyric tenor heroes, oh sorry, never heard of him + sounds too "marketing for a newbie"! - Jay (talk) 02:31, 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.