< September 2	September 4 >

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The result was keep, nom withdrawn. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 04:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inheritance of Hope[edit]

Inheritance of Hope is a tiny, new non-profit organization founded last year by two parents. The mother is dying of cancer and its focus is on children whose parents are dying.
According to their website, their achievements are publishing two books, holding fundraisers, and taking six families on a weekend retreat. The books are not available through any major bookseller; I presume that they are self-published. The only assertion of notability in the article is having gotten about 250 words in the local-events column of a small local tabloid-newspaper (one-ninth the circulation of The New York Post, another daily tabloid is in the same market).
I'm sure they're very nice people, and I wish them peace and joy in their endeavors. However, at this time, the organization does not appear to be meet the minimum requirements of WP:Notability (organizations and companies), so this article is at least premature. The media coverage is essentially a very short human-interest piece in a hometown newspaper. We generally require at least one major story in a regional or national newspaper or magazine. If the organization survives and thrives to the point that it meets WP:N standards, then a Wikipedia article could of course be written at that time, but at this time, it does not meet the minimum requirements. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete as nominator. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC) * Comment from article author:[reply]

Per your thoughts above, I have added additional media coverage sources (here) and on the original page. Of note, these sources include "The Ledger," a New York Times Affliate in Lakeland, Florida.

Cornwall-on-hudson.com, August 26, 2008 [1]

The Ledger, July 3, 2008 [2]

Poughkeepsie Journal, June 23, 2008

The Sentinel, New Windsor, NY, June 16, 2008

Times Herald-Record, June 10, 2008 [3]

Putnam County News and Recorder, June 4, 2008 [4]

Sounds from the Hudson, June 2008 [5]

U.S. Army Bands online, April 22, 2008 [6]

Cornwall-on-hudson.com, April 21, 2008 [7]

The Ledger, March 9, 2008 [8] —Preceding :unsigned comment added by Edmlr (talk • contribs) 13:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

- Thank you for adding sources. These are all local newspapers (and two that amount to company newsletters for one co-founder). None of these rise to the level of significant coverage by a regional or national media organization, which is the standard for Wikipedia articles on organizations. The Ledger article, for example, is a three-paragraph announcement that the founder's twin sister held a small fundraiser for the organization in her home. Organizations that have articles on Wikipedia are expected to be able to produce national or regional, or at least statewide, media coverage. A list of short articles in very small newspapers, all of which are in their (or their family member's) immediate backyard, is not enough. Can you provide any evidence of media coverage that reaches at least across all of New York, or preferably all of New England? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response from article author: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edmlr (talk • contribs) 18:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC) I read the information regarding "notability." After reading it, it seems to me that Inheritance of Hope fully meets the requirements. You assert, "We generally require at least one major story in a regional or national newspaper or magazine." I didn't read that requirement. Instead, the link you provided lists the following requirements (bolding is my own):[reply]

Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." ...smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations.

It goes on to say:

A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content.

I consider the coverage to be significant, representing multiple sources (under "See Also" in the article), and is not trivial or incidental. Trivial does not apply to articles about Inheritance of Hope based on the following:

Works carrying merely trivial coverage; such as (for example) newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories.

In addition and per your request, Inheritance of Hope was recently featured on a broadcast of Sound of Life Radio Heart 2 Heart. Their coverage is quite extensive, covering much of the Northeast (NY, NJ CT, PA, MA, and VT). Their station map can be viewed at: http://www.soundoflife.org/sol/stations.php.

Keep as per reasons listed by the author.Demetri1968 (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination.

From CORP: "Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale..." [emphasis mine]

From WP:N (note 6): "Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories [emphasis mine] are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources."

The list of sources that you initially provided were all minor news stories by local newspapers. However, I cheerfully accept the newly added assertion of a regional radio broadcast as sufficient indication of notability. It does not meet the standard requirement of national or international activities, but I think it's good enough. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:03, 6 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. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tessa West[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Nothing has changed about this actress since the last AfD for her. She fails WP:PORNBIO- no notable awards won, no notable contributions. I didn't nominate for a speedy since this article is substantially different from what I recall the last one was and seems to have been created by another editor. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 23:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC) —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 23:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nominator. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 23:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be non-notable and obviously non-verifiable. And although not a reason for deletion the state of the article is justweird (JUST WEIRD). Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (DELETE) as failing WP:PORNBIO and WP:N - article provides no evidence of either, and my extensive "research" wasn't fruitful. – Toon ^(talk) 22:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC) - Oh yeah, and salting would be a very good idea too, given the recreation following the last AfD. – Toon ^(talk) 22:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete She may not pass WP:PORNBIO now, but she has been appearing in more sites and movies as of late, and I have a strong feeling she will meet the notability requirements soon. As such, I vote against WP:SALT. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 16:32, 7 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. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Budgerigar Society of Pakistan[edit]

N.n. society. Orphan. You can infer the content from the title. The cartesian product of species and nation states fills me with dread. Cutler (talk) 23:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete unreferenced spam of non-notable society. Fails notability and verifiability policies and guidelines. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An organization in Pakistan that supposedly promotes budgerigars or "budgies", also referred to as parakeet. From what I understand, budgies can be found in Pakistan in the same place as in the U.S.-- in a pet shop. The link to the society's website will take you to ads for "Progressive Pet Insurance" and PETCO (don't miss the $10 off in-store coupon). Even if this is an operating organization, I can't see that it would ever be notable. Mandsford (talk) 12:49, 4 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. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel dellaporte[edit]

Only ghits are to a few model sites, Wikipedia, and LiveJournal. Regardless of her claims, she does not show up in IMDB as having been on "Law and Order." I do not feel she meets WP:BIO standards. Delete Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO, no evidence to suggest any notability. Basement12 (T.C) 03:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, DellaPorte is her married name. Whittemore is her maiden name as you see in the links provided at the end of the article. That is most likely why you find very little under Rachel DellaPorte.

After looking through Wikipedia, at several other models listings on here, I think than enough work has been accomplished here. If more work should be listed, then more work can be listed. Would the agencies she signed contracts with be helpful? Magazine issues numbers? Photographs? Maybe simply to be listed as a model and not as an actress would have been a smarter move. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnaMarie1966 (talk • contribs) Aug 28, 2008— AnnaMarie1966 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whoa. She's "known more [for] the fact that she is only five foot eight, then for the fact that she is an accomplished fashion model (and actress)"?! Clarityfiend (talk) 02:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the notability and verifiablity criterias WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:ENTERTAINER, and WP:V. Than there is someone's law about the naming convention as well. George or Hammer I can't remember. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:27, 4 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SJ Tucker[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)).

Fails WP:MUSIC; self-published on own minor label, no substantial independent recognition. Nandesuka (talk) 22:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It seems to me that that Tucker may be a "minor" player in the music world, but of more significant note in the pagan world. The NewWitch magazine (cited several times in her article) is a pretty significant one one in the neo-Pagan world. The most recent article mentioned was the cover article for the issue. The WP:MUSIC page lists as one qualification for notoriety: "For composers and performers outside mass media traditions: Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture." The NewWitch publications seem to fit that bill. Tucker is not a "mass media" type artist, but she is well-regarded in a notable sub-culture. Further, her collaborations with [[Catherynne M. Valente], Alexander James Adams, Gaia Consort, and Incus all add up to certain amount of notoriety. I would also note that the two folks on her Talk page who initially objected to her apparent lack of notoriety eventually changed their minds. -Kenllama/(talk) 03:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, S.J. Tucker is a fairly significant player in the pagan/festival music world. She is extremely well known on the festival circuit and in the pagan music field; perhaps the article could indeed use more references and links to illustrate this. As Kenllama notes, the sub-culture in which she is well known is significant in size, making this article significant in readership as a Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnutic (talk • contribs) 20:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC) — Mnutic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep S.J. Tucker has appeared multiple times in NewWitch magazine, which is a major Pagan and New Age publication. However, on the more mainstream front, she has positive reviews from the Memphis Commercial Appeal and the Arkansas Times, which are listed by Wikipedia itself as predominate news sources in their region. Those sources would seem to indicate a level of independent recognition even outside her religious/cultural niche. The proponent of deletion claims insufficent independent recognition and self-publishing render Ms. Tucker nonnotable. Self-publishing alone does not render her nonnotable. The article may need to be flagged for a re-write and include more independent sourcing, but deletion is inappropriate. Wikipedia's notability guideline for a topic (has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable) is met here, particularly in the case of the NewWitch articles, bolstered by the coverage in the print media of Memphis and Southeastern Arkansas. We are reminded that "Notability is distinct from "fame," "importance," or "popularity". S.J. Tucker is notable; the article should stay. --Parcequilfaut (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition, I note that this is the second time this year this article has been tagged for deletion with no real reason given. How many times are we going to go through this? What's Wikipedia's policy on articles that are tagged for deletion multiple times, the tag removed, and then tagged again? --Parcequilfaut (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC) (failed to login before, whoops.)[reply]
  - Further noting that upon another review of the entry, the Memphis Commercial Appeal article as well as newWitch, witchvox, and Cathrynne Valente references already appear as citations in the article, meaning that it will require little to no editing to meet the independent recognition criteria assuming arguendo that it does not already do so, and that the second request this year for the article to be deleted could be considered inappropriate under Wikipedia's policies about re-nomination of articles. --Parcequilfaut (talk) 06:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - references establish notability in the field. It's not just WP:MUSIC (which is a reason to keep things unequivocally, not a reason to remove things) - this is not a robust nomination - David Gerard (talk) 00:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as others have pointed out, while S.J. Tucker may not be a major label musician, she is highly known and respected in her particular niche, and as such her article should not be deleted. Scarletwoman93 (talk) 04:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - S.J. Tucker is not a major label musician, but she and her work is very important to neopagan culture. She and her work are well-known and respected for their originality, their innovation, and through her work S.J. Tucker is able to connect with everyone with whom she comes in contact. Her article should not be deleted. Libraryraven (Libraryraven) 06:40, 07 September 2008 (UTC) — Libraryraven (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - Multiple articles in newWitch, Witch's Voice, and other references show that she is a notable performer in her niche. Note further that publishing music on one's own label is not in itself criteria for deletion. Independent music and independent record labels are not new, and cutting out major labels can result in a more profits for the artist, which is why former major label artists like Barenaked Ladies and Bradley Joseph have chosen to self-publish certain projects. JenKilmer (talk) 07:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject appears sufficiently notable. The name of the article needs some discussion, as it doesn't appear to conform to Wikipedia standards. - JasonAQuest (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - SJ Tucker tours nationally and is well known. She isn't just some local-town musician who made an album; she has an extensive catalog of albums and a large fan base in cities all over the United States. She is a great example of a successful independent artist. Tfabris (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "self-published on own minor label, no substantial independent recognition." I think this statement can be easily argued. I see no wrong in being self-published on your own minor label, in fact I see it as commendable and therefore should be emphasized with her amount of success as an independent artist. I feel that last statement is false all together. I have been seeing SJ Tucker perform live for five years now starting in Memphis when I was 16. Her fan base has grown significantly over the past five years and she has toured all over the country. Not only is she self-employed but she actually makes enough money to survive on what she does. You can purchase her albums through a number of different sources, not just from her. I think that is the most amazing thing and envy her for her perseverance and success as an artist. - Foamyseabreathes (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2008 (CDT) — Foamyseabreathes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kemal Milar[edit]

Little claim of notability. No supporting references. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 22:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable per a number of policies and guidelines and non-verifiable in accordance with [{WP:V]] Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the page looks like nothing more than a way to get his name associated with a couple of 'interesting' links. It reads like some sort of advert for a medium / astrologist Stijndon (talk) 19:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CSD#A7. Being a polymath of the occult is not in itself does not constitute notability. --UberScienceNerd _{Talk Contributions} 02:33, 7 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. Was going to relist but article now has references (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incident at Victoria Falls (1991 TV film)[edit]

I could only find one reliable source that shows notability and that was a review. Schuym1 (talk) 22:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added some references to the article that show notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:35, 7 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. Renata (talk) 13:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Whittington[edit]

Harry is known only for being mistaken for a pidgeon, nothing else. Possibly merge this with the Dick Cheney hunting incident article Fossett&Elvis (talk) 22:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Notability does not expire. The incident makes Whittington notable. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 00:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with PMAnderson there. That even if Dick Cheney didn't shoot Whittington in the face, he would be notable without it. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 13:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose my problem with that is that the article doesn't appear to address his notability beyond the getting shot in the face bit. If he is notable for other things than surely they should be included in the introduction and in more detail in the article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the snow falls - You're kidding right? There was tons of media coverage that establishes his notability. Also, as per above, notabilty does not expire. RockManQ (talk) 01:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if he is notable only for One Event than per relevant policies and guidelines he should not have an article of his own and should infact be redirected to the article about the event. If on the otherhand notability is established away from the single event and appropriately referenced for verifiability than that would of course change things. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability for one incident is intended for the sort of people on whom we would have no information were they not involved in some disaster. But Whittington is the sort of official who would be marginally notable without the incident. With it, he is distinctly notable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as subject was the focus of significant news coverage from reliable sources even before the vice president shot him in the face. His fame may come from that one event but his notability had been established well before that. - Dravecky (talk) 04:54, 5 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, per WP:N. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 04:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peephole TV[edit]

Possibly non-notable TV station, article created by the gentleman who founded the station. GNEWS shows no hits, a normal Google search shows only TV listings (to be expected) and anti-Scientology sites (Oliver Schaper is apparently a Scientologist). Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete - no claim to notability. This is a subscription only iptv channel with no notable presence --T-rex 23:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*REMAIN - Channel is available in local cable systems in the U.S. and Mexico.(Cable version, Mexico D.F.). Seem to have just older press releases. Keep for maintenance and updates.174.145.128.163 (talk) 02:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC) — 174.145.128.163 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — 174.145.128.163 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I have to agree with the previous poster, channels are available in my local cable system. QuestCable Phoenix, AZ.--70.1.174.14 (talk) 05:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)— 70.1.174.14 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ^{Striken as sockpuppets Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

STAY Admin is abusing his powers and made changes to an article without any proper background information. How can an Admin that is UK based make any suggestions for a Television network in the U.S. In addition, Turkey is in Europe and the channels are avaiable via Kutus. Please keep your anti-Scientology thoughts out of your work as admin.Oschaper (talk) 06:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:AGF. I am a Scientologist and I was about to list this for deletion review myself and saw that another already started the review. I have no strong opinion or knowledge of the topic area so will not !vote here. I had previously noted that the article did not assert notability and I tagged it and had some discussion with the article creator on my talk page. --Justallofthem (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From my review, the statement by Oschaper was directed at Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry.--Whereismycardude (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I am asking Oschaper to please WP:AGF that Calvary's comments and/or edits had nothing to do with any hypothetical bias against Scientology. Which hypothetical bias I have seen no indication of. --Justallofthem (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article's subject fails a number of criteria for inclusion including but, not limited to WP:N, WP:CORP, and WP:V — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasynnash2 (talk • contribs)
Delete As above comment stated, this article is created by the owner, information doesn't meet WP:V or WP:RS for citations (There are none).Groupsisxty (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

REMAINCan not verify that the initial editor and listed key people are the same person.--Whereismycardude (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC) — Whereismycardude (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ^{- Stricken as a sock Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

The article was created by 'OSchaper', who placed 'Dr Oliver Schaper' in the 'key people' field. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree w/ nom - Article's subject matter lacks significant coverage in independent WP:RS/WP:V sources. Was not really able to find any discussion in secondary sources whatsoever. Cirt (talk) 06:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This page is just an advert. I would suggest merging it into Oliver Schaper, but his antics don't seem to have got him enough press coverage to merit an article yet. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 18:58, 7 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. PhilKnight (talk) 23:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Construction Mod[edit]

Contested PROD. Restating from the PROD, non-notable gaming mod with no verifiable, third-party sources to show forth to prove any notability. Article also seems to contain nothing but original research, so this also fails What Wikipedia is not. MuZemike (talk) 21:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. nn mod. This article doesn't even attempt to establish notability. Reso lute 21:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and non-verifiable Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-verifiable; no evidence of notability. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 21:02, 7 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. X clamation point 06:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pakhan[edit]

A dicdef of a Russian criminal slang term which has no currency in English language. Wikipedia is not dictionary. `'Míkka >t 20:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn slang, or merge and redirect to Fenya. Reso lute 21:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki if appropriate. Not a topic for an encyclopedic article and dicdefs don't belong. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly transwiki if they will accept this. RFerreira (talk) 21:26, 4 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. For detailed explanation, see talk page. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Musni[edit]

Fails WP:BIO... most search hits come from show listings. No cult following or significant press coverage. He did get second place in "Hong Kong Funniest Person Contest" but outside of a brief mention in Time 1, it isn't a notable contest. Delete Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am the article's primary author. There are many reasons to keep this article.

The article has been revised to address some of the original concerns expressed by Mr. Vernon. And despite my requests, Mr. Vernon has not worked with me to try to resolve certain of his comments (such as his belief the the Hong Kong Funniest Person Contest is not notable), although I acknowledge that Mr. Vernon has maintained a cordial dialogue with me on other points. Moreover, the views of one person does not create a consensus necessary to delete the article.
Chris has had significant roles in notable comedy performances in Hong Kong, including sharing the stage with Paul Ogata, Jami Gong and other notable comedians at The TakeOut Comedy Club Hong Kong, a notable club. Thus, the article satisfies one of the explicit criteria of WP:BIO.
Chris has a cult following, albeit within Hong Kong. I admit this point is difficult to demonstrate via published sources. But you should consider that Comedy Central's website is banned in China.^[1] Thus, comedy does not receive a lot of press attention in Asia as a general matter. Stand-up comedy in Hong Kong is an emerging art form, and Chris Musni is one of the leaders, which can be verified through the various show listings that highlight Chris' performances.
Chris has made unique contributions to the field of entertainment. He is one of of only a handful of notable comedians of partial Filipino descent. The fact that he is also leading the emergence of stand-up comedy in china is also unique.
The contest, the HK International Comedy Festival, where Chris finished third is notable. Aside from a discussion in Time, the contest has also been discussed on Punchline magazine [9] and the South China Morning Post [10]. Paul Ogata, a notable comedian, hosted the finals last year and Tom Cotter is hosting this year. The contest is also run by Jami Gong, a notable comedian. Gchuva (talk) 07:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 08:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am not convinced that this article doesn't meet WP:BIO guidelines and believe it should be retained. As his career expands this article will improve.--Mike Cline (talk) 14:46, 26 August 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) 03:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources that discusses him. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentSignificant coverage in reliable sources is the test for "presumed notability" under WP:BIO. However, you can fail that and still have notability if you have a cult following.Gchuva (talk) 23:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Yes, and that assertion of notability should be verified against reliable sources per WP:V. I didn't find any either and the person who asserts it has the burden of producing the evidence behind it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment' Under WP:BIO, for a comedian, the standards are if the person meets any of the following criteria:

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions -- Chris was a finalist in the 2007 Hong Kong Comedy Competition (a notable competition) and is currently a semi-finalist in the 2008 competition. The verification for this point can be found on the Internet and is cited in the article.
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following -- How can I prove in the absence of significant press coverage. As I said, stand-up comedy is emerging in HK and there is still considerable censorship in China generally. As such, press coverage is only starting to happen for comedians.
Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment -- Chris is leading the stand-up comedy scene in Asia. I consider this to be a very unique contribution. What other Asian stand-up comedians performing primarily in Asia do you considerable more notable than Chris Musni? He is easily among the top 10. The verification for this is, again, his place in the finals as well as all of his show listings in Asia.Gchuva (talk) 00:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - 1. Unfortunately the evidence for the Hong Kong Comedy competition comes from a self-published source. 2. That's a dilemna with Chinese press. Are there any sources that acknowledge his popularity beyond blogs and message boards? 3. Again I would like a reliable source confirming that opinion. It can't be based on personal opinion or analysis. The source doesn't even have to be in English. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        1. Based on my reading, under the relevant wikipedia policy, self-published sources are allowed to be used as sources about themselves if the material is relevant to a discussion of notability. I note that it was unclear to me whether you raised the issue of self-published sources to contest the notability of the competition or of Chris Musni. Secondly, there are discussions of the competition that are not derived from self-published sources. Could you be more specfic about the cite in the article that you think is unsatisfactory? Thanks again.Gchuva (talk) 10:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The citation that he was third place is a self-published blog written by some guy named Dean Rainey. Under WP:SPS of WP:V, "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons.". Chris Musni is a third party to Dean Rainey. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Same issue with the Tim Tayag blog. Further, how did you get "leading" out of that blog entry when Tayag only says promising? Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I concede your point here. I suppose I thought that statement had not been, and was not likely to be, challenged (which seems to be the only acceptable reason to not include a citation for each statement in your article. I cannot find anything else on the Internet to support the claim, although I note that if you were to call TakeOut Comedy (the organization that sponsored last year's competition, the club would confirm that he finished in third place.Gchuva (talk) 23:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        The Tim Tayag blog says "very promising". But ultimately, I used "leading" as I thought it was more accurate and gave a clearer indication as to why Chris is notable. But since I concede that Chris does not have significant press coverage, I thought the cite to the Tim Tayag blog would help (if not completely help) verify the statement. But the third place finish, and the fact that he has been accepted^[2] in the 2008 comedy competition explains why he should be considered "leading". You have removed the word leading, but I am going to add a statement about the 2008 comedy competition to further explain the notability.Gchuva (talk) 23:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. —Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am new to wikipedia, but I'm not new to stand-up comedy. And Chris Musni is the most devoted comedian in Hong Kong! He has done the most shows in Hong Kong comedy clubs over the last two years. He performs every weekend and comes to open mic every week with new material. He is a future big star and is currently among the leading figures in Hong Kong comedy. He's definitely notable enough for wikipedia. Wikipedia would be lucky to have him :) Stilldating (talk) 13:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Shocking that Stilldating's first ever edit to Wikipedia would just happen to be to this AfD. Delete until reliable sources are provided. Corvus cornix_talk 23:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cited sources are either trivial or unreliable. ~~His first place in the "Hong Kong Comedy Competition" does not appear to be notable per this.[11]~~ - Icewedge (talk) 23:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please try searching "HK International Comedy Festival" or "Hong Kong's Funniest Person".Gchuva (talk) 00:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Those searches get more hits.[reply]

Ah, yes, I see that it (the festival) is much more notable than I first thought; My apologies for !voting on this AfD uninformed. My overall opinion is unchanged though. - Icewedge (talk) 06:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For the record, Corvus cornix has informed me of a policy that I should not have told my friends to consider supporting this article. I was unaware that was discouraged. I thought there was only a policy of establishing multiple accounts. I do not know whether Stilldating is someone I know, but I admit to telling friends to consider supporting the article. I apologize for any inconvenience caused. Please consider this a newbie error. ThanksGchuva (talk) 00:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Don't worry, Gchuva, if you sent a notice that was a limited posting, neutral, nonpartisan, and open, then it was perfectly acceptable. See WP:CANVASS Also, Wikipedia assumes good faith especially for new users. If you didn't recruit the new editor solely for the purpose of influencing this survey, then there was nothing wrong with alerting someone who is an expert in this limitied field of Chris Musni. What you should have done is left a note here at the discussion itself that you sent out such a friendly notice. The term meatpuppet is considered derogatory and should be used only with care. Let's not bite the newcomers.--2008Olympian _chitchat^seemywork 00:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mike Cline, and that this is a difficult subject to source better given the internet limitations put on by the Chinese government.--2008Olympian _chitchat^seemywork 00:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In my opinion it passes WP:BIO.Demetri1968 (talk) 20:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Hong Kong Comedy Festival is a new, but continuing event that has significant influence across Asia. According to its website[12], there are International competitors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivekmahbubani (talk • contribs) 21:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As of the time of this comment, given the information provided in the article itself, I don't see how he is notable enough to deserve his own article. Two of the sources used are self-published blogs, and as mentioned before, they are not reliable third-party sources for biographical articles. All the other sources are about stand-up comedy in Hong Kong or the HK International Comedy Fest, and not about Chris Musni. I believe he should be mentioned and/or listed in the article for HK International Comedy Festival along with other finalists and winners, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence so far that he is notable in his own right. Assertions have been made in this discussion about how he has a cult following and a prominent figure in stand-up comedy in HK as an emerging art form. Unfortunately, without reliable sources, these assertions cannot be verified. And if he really is a notable English-language stand-up comic, I don't believe for a second that it would be that difficult to find sources to verify his notability. The expat community in HK is not that big and, assuming he really is a prominent figure, he would have been written about in magazines like BC Magazine[13], HK[14], or WestEast[15], etc etc. Plenty of English-language newspapers and magazines in HK to cater to the expat crowd. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What about the notability criteria of making a "unique contribution to a field of entertainment"? Don't all his show listings prove that Chris Musni is making a unique contribution to stand-up comedy in Hong Kong? Gchuva (talk) 00:55, 9 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. There is no deletion consensus in this discussion. (non-admin closure) NonvocalScream (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ninan Koshy[edit]

Non notable person, per WP:N, no significant contributions as well Googlean (talk) 11:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable person. JoshuaD1991 (talk) 15:28, 28 August 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) 03:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There were already enough sources in the article to show notability when this was nominated - they just weren't formatted as inline citations (I've fixed that now). There are loads more references found by Google Books and Google News that take the subject way over the notability bar. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extremely well-sourced for the size of the article. Edward321 (talk) 23:02, 4 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bossman[edit]

No real claim to fame. Albums (in the scheme of the world) have sold poorly. This group has no national, much less international, presence. There only notability at all from what I can see is their affiliation with Jermaine Dupree. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since he had a song on The Wire (TV series). Seems to meet the WP:MUSIC criteria (#10). Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is a major recording artsist signed to a major label. He is signed to Myspace Records/ Interscope. In the past he was signed to Virgin Records. He has a song placed on NBA live 2007 (Hand Clap). In short he deserves to be in Wiki. I see no reason he should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barry6575 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC) 16:31, 28 August 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) 03:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is pretty borderline but I'm going to have to err on the side of keep since there are some decent sources about this artist, but the article still needs much work as the bulk of what is presented lacks in that department. (jarbarf) (talk) 23:02, 7 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. Sources show adequate notability Kevin (talk) 10:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mayilamma[edit]

Non notable person, no significant contributions either, news reports about a single event Googlean (talk) 11:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although I do understand your concerns about the singularity of her purported notability, there seems to be quite a bit of verifiable and reliable press coverage about this person. A Google search brings up close to 600 hits, a lot of those qualifying under WP:RS. The news articles are not only from Indian sources such as [16] but there are also North American articles ([17]), Swedish ([18]), Arabic ([19]) and others. I think this is enough to prove general notability and expand the article accordingly. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (nominator) - She has become somewhat notable only through her protest against Coca-Cola, seems notable about a single event per WP:NOBJ. Therefore, there is no point of keeping an independent article at this stage. It may be redirected or state the event in Criticism of Coca-Cola or Coca-Cola. --Googlean (talk) 04:21, 29 August 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) 03:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources found by SWik78, plus others found by Google News and Google Books searches show clear notability. This isn't someone who was caught up in a news event - she led a continuing campaign. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:18, 3 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. X clamation point 06:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Side of Right[edit]

No claim of notability, can't find any reference for it anywhere superβεεcat 20:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:CRYSTAL Schuym1 (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Jclemens (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above.- -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 21:28, 4 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. Renata (talk) 13:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vaginal Jesus[edit]

I was initially hesitant as this isn't an "I don't like it" issue. Looked for reliable sources and couldn't find any to satisfy WP:N per WP:MUSIC, as only one album on Resistance Records. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only source is a booklet from the bands own Album. I've never heard of them and couldn't find a mention on any website dedicated to the genre, or source local to the band. Definetly non-notable, and with serious WP:VERIFY problems. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 22:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn band who was with some very minor labels and released nothing of note. --T-rex 23:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails both notability and verifiability criteria Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing here which warrants an article per WP:BAND guidelines. RFerreira (talk) 21:26, 4 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. (non-admin closure) Cirt (talk) 02:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tradio[edit]

Article appears to be an entry for a word to me, or a term; as per WP:NOT, wikipedia is not a dictionary. — Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 20:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to wiktionary. Dicdefs belong there Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 21:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is more than a dictionary definition and is a significant part of small-town radio. --Eastmain (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question Can you cite your source for that information? So far the article is completely unreferenced.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 05:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep despite the unreferenced nature (and other problems) of the article there are the search results here and here which lend some credence to it not being "just a dicdef" or thing made up. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found this reference. Axl (talk) 16:16, 4 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) 13:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zittel's Marina[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Zittel's Marina

Delete per WP:NOT wikipedia is not a directory Mayalld (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non notable business. I had previously attempted to have the article speedy deleted under G11 (blatant advertising). Basement12 (T.C) 20:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This may be salvageable. I'll be looking for sources; please do not close prematurely. Jclemens (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe this passes WP:NTS, and I've found and added a number of independent sources. I've also toned down the duplication of services, so it reads less like an ad. Jclemens (talk) 19:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't think local newspaper articles (from the town where the marina is) and very brief mentions in travel guides (which basically say 'you could stay here') or online directories of marinas gives the subject notability, Basement12 (T.C) 19:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) You're entitled to that opinion, but looking at the rest of WP:NTRAN, and specifically look at WP:Notability (airports)--applying the same thresholds, a significant port should be notable, and this marina is the only public boat launch that serves a large part of Thurston County, Washington. Nor am I done improving the article--I see plenty more ghits which need to be combed through for RS mentions. I agree that the article as it appeared when nominated was disproportionately commercial, and have remedied that both by cutting redundant information out and adding in historical context. Jclemens (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However the marina is not the equivalent of an airport. A port is the equivalent of an airport. A marina is the equivalent of an aircraft hangar or a car park. Basement12 (T.C) 12:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More like a general aviation airport. It's a boat launch, which is the place you switch from ground to aquatic transport, just like you switch from ground to air transport at an airport. It's not "just" a set of docks, which I agree would make it the equivalent of a garage. Jclemens (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nine references to source seven descriptive sentences from local or guidebook sources, and information about portable toilets is in the second sentence. Flowanda | Talk 08:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a business directory or a guidebook. Would be appropriate for Wikitravel, but their license isn't compatible with ours. Stifle (talk) 12:49, 7 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. As the comments mention, there isn't any reliable coverage to prove any that any of his parts are noteworthy, or significant 3rd party independent coverage at all Black Kite 18:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Neville[edit]

Bit-part actor with no third-party relible sources to indicate significance or notability - I don't believe an imdb page counts. Quite possibly a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest since the only non-anon contributor's name is the same as subject's email address. To show good faith, I feel I should announce immediately that I know Lee Neville personally. I have struggled with my decision over nominating this article for some months but feel my personal involvement doesn't prevent me from nominating this article, nor should I use it as an excuse not to do so when I feel it doesn't comply with Wikipedia policies.GDallimore (Talk) 19:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —GDallimore (Talk) 19:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the notability and/or verifiability policy/guideline by not having significant coverage in multiple reliable 3rd party sources. No way to verify that any of his roles were significant. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on fact. Information in this article is a matter of fact. Any information that hasn't been backed up by information elsewhere on the web has been corrected. Lee Neville is an actor who has a proven career as such. In regards to the comments of G Dallimore in particular and also those of Jasynnash2's - simply googling his name Lee Neville will reveal information from renowned third party institutions/directories/services which are not controlled by the actor in question. In addition, as to G Dallimore's comments regarding the IMDb- the IMDb page of actor Lee Neville was not created by Lee Neville. The IMDb itself is known throughout the world as a reputable database of actors. G Dallimore's constant monitoring of this article and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest due to knowing the individual and seeing him in a negative way is malicious and does not prove or disprove statements of represented fact in this article, and is not what Wikipedia is about. It is recommended that this article remains as it is, barring any information that needs to be cited. User:emotionboy|emotionboy]] (Talk) 18:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply let's start with notability, what importance/significance does this person have in accordance with that policy? Simply existing isn't the same as being notable. verifiability again simple existence isn't the same as verifying that he is notable and why. IMDB is not a reliable source per the reliable sources policy neither are directories/services which only prove existence and not notability. Please make yourself more familiar with the policies and guidelines and if you can find reliable 3rd party sources which cover the subject in a significant non-trivial manner include them in the article. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article has various external links that cover significant coverage. These are sources which are reputable and have rigorous guidelines. Contrary to previous statements by Jasynnash2 the IMDb is reputable. Should you have a problem with that, feel free to challenge every celebrity/actor that refers to the IMDb as an external link on Wikipedia- and good luck! An article is also worthy of note if it fulfils the Wikipedia notibility requirements. Again, the external links confirm that. It is unknown why there are constant attempts to vandalise this article but such attempts are unmerited, malicious and unacceptable. Please see guidelines to being a Wikipedia user. For now, please view the guidelines below regardfing notability. Then feel free to re-read this article and you will find it complies with Wikipedia guidelines. User:emotionboy|emotionboy]] (Talk) 18:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General notability guideline

Shortcut

WP:GNG

:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.^[3]
"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.^[4]
"Sources,"^[5] defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.^[6]
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.^[7]
"Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion. For example, it may violate what Wikipedia is not.^[8]

A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article.

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. Kevin (talk) 10:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needlz[edit]

Contested prod. The artist fails WP:MUSIC and lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable third party sources. JBsupreme (talk) 19:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep appears to have notability in his specific area with verifiability of some of it here. Although, I agree the article needs rewriting to include what precisely makes him notable (awards, etc). Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless proper sources for notability are added to the article. There are none now.--Boffob (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not finding proper sources for this biographical text even after checking the UK Google search provided above. RFerreira (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question/Comment probably just being dense but, I was under the impression that it didn't matter whether the website is .co.uk or .com that as long as "search the web" was clicked the search was not limited to the UK persay. Jasynnash2 (talk) 07:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: It does influence the order of the links shown. For example, if an article appeared both on the CNN and the BBC websites, UK Google would put the BBC link before the CNN one, and "regular" Google based in the US would do the opposite. So there's a "local source" preference. The same kind of preference occurs with languages. For example, Google.ca has both an English and a French version, and the same unconstrained search (all websites, all languages) will result in a different order of links: if Wikipedia has an article in each language, the first one to be listed will be according to the language preference.--Boffob (talk) 13:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for that clarification. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article lacks the necessary reliable coverage for a biography, and more to the point continues to lack said sources days later. (jarbarf) (talk) 22:59, 7 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. PhilKnight (talk) 23:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Lipshitz[edit]

Subject of article fails Wikipedia:Notability, as neither being a gang member, being shot, shooting someone else or being sentences to life imprisonment are criteria for notability. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete* Not notable - very small time Mynameisstanley (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)# Mynameisstanley[reply]
Delete - not notable. Possible WP:BLP1E as well --T-rex 23:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A full, neutral biography could not be written with the sources available. Cheers, CP 21:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to be fair I don't even think WP:BLP1E would apply since this person has not really accomplished or been involved in any event of particular note. (jarbarf) (talk) 23:14, 7 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 The result was delete per notability rationales. Furthermore, EricDiesel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been recreating these articles under various titles, and this is a continuation of that. It has a snowball's chance in hell of keeping with any clear consensus. seicer | talk | contribs 01:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)))[reply]

Amended rationale: Restored page histories and performed a redirect to Sarah Palin. seicer | talk | contribs 02:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Kroon[edit]

Delete not sufficiently notable for a stand-alone article per WP:ONEVENT Mayalld (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not American, so I may be slightly out of touch here, but this feels like a case of WP:NOT#NEWS. Yes, he's the pastor of Sarah Palin, but I don't understand how that makes him notable. I wouldn't be averse to a merge and redirect to Sarah Palin, as any notability he has is a direct result of his link to her, but that wouldn't be my primary choice here. Then again, I'm a Brit, so what do I know about American politics. Many thanks, Gazi moff 19:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any potential redirect should point instead to Wasilla Bible Church --T-rex 23:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —GRBerry 19:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note. There is a related AFD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wasilla Bible Church. Keeper ǀ 76 19:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEPThe delete arguments would be more convincing if someone would explain why they have not proposed the Trinity United Church of Christ or Jeremiah Wright for deletion. Trinity United got a wikipedia page on Feb. 12, 2008. When a individual is chosen to run for President at least in part because of the support she will draw from fellow evangelical Christians, her church and her pastor beocme notable.Elan26 (talk) 20:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]

Comment is there any possibility that we could actually try to work within Wikipedia policy, instead of Elan26 policy. Notability isn't transferable, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a REALLY bad keep argument Mayalld (talk) 20:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) Note - With respect, I'd like to point you in the direction of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Essentially, just because a similar article exists doesn't create an argument for keeping the one being discussed. It's also used to avoid precedent being formed - each article is discussed and weighed on its own merits against the various content policies, rather than against other articles or deletion discussions. Hope this makes sense. Gazi moff 20:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So AfD Trinity United Church of Christ and I'll support it, assuming that absent the presidential campaign nonsense it has no encyclopedic value. I generally don't start AfD's, and no editor is obligated to do so, so my or anyone else's failure to do so is not an appropriate basis for impeaching the credibility of my vote. Jclemens (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep for now The Jeremiah Wright situation isn't simply an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS comparison in that it does demonstrate a useful matter: this sort of individual can easily become notable enough due to the surrounding controversy. Kroon arguably meets notability as is, and so it is completely reasonable to keep the article now given that he seems to be increasing in the national spotlight. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not sufficiently notable on his own, WP:BLP1E. Kelly ^hi! 21:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was the admin that felt this met the criteria for an A7 deletion, and speedy deleted it. I don't see any improvements to the article or article sourcing, and so of course, still say delete. Per everything that Wikipedia is not. Keeper ǀ 76 21:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP1E. He's a random pastor at a random church that just happens to have a famous congregant. There is no independent notability. Reso lute 21:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The entire first section falls under WP:COATRACK, and the subject of the article fails general notability concerns (WP:BLP1E and/or WP:NOTINHERITED, depending on how you look at it)... - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I took out the WP:COATRACK, but someone will undoubtedly try to reinsert it. If you take out the Palin attacks, there's nothing encyclopedic left in the article. Jclemens (talk) 22:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I went through and wikified all of the references. Other then the ones regarding his daughter's illness, everything was from either a blog or other unreliable source. I will have to agree that this is an attempt to WP:COATRACK controversy onto Sarah Palin's VP candidacy. --Farix (Talk) 22:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - ignore the Palin issue, and we have the long time pastor of a very influential church in the region. This should meet our notability threshold even if just barely. --T-rex 23:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources that show this church to be "influential" beyond Palin's attendance? I haven't found any yet...Keeper ǀ 76 23:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't about the church, but the pastor. While the church may be notable, that notability is not inherited by the pastor. --Farix (Talk) 23:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A church's notability is inherited by its pastor. What do you think has made the church notable in the first place? --T-rex 01:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomberg, Newsweek, and Time Magazine were making it more notable, and has nothing to do with the pastor (yet the church is up for afd too). Synergy 01:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"A church's notability is inherited by its pastor" Really? Where does it say that in any policy or guideline? Jclemens (talk) 01:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This is ludicrous. Maybe the church is influential in Wasilla. There are less than 9,000 people in Wasilla. Notablility isn't transferable, coatrack, etc etc. I'm feeling like a broken record. L'Aquatique[approves|this|message] 23:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Sarah Palin is entitled to her faith, but it doesn't confer notability on the pastor who leads the church she attends. Almost a candidate for CSD except notability is asserted - but since it is not established - delete is the right answer. Frank | talk 23:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent notability. rootology (C)(T) 00:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pileon delete (which means this is per everyone but stray keeps). Synergy 01:03, 4 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. - without prejudice to a merge later. Kevin (talk) 10:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kobe Bryant accomplishments and records[edit]

Articles such as these were already discussed and deleted per WP:IINFO#IINFO. Career achievements of Dwyane Wade and a page just as this one were already deleted, see discussion here-> Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Kobe Bryant. Zodiiak (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to Kobe Bryant per previous precedent and basic common sense. No good reason for this article to stand alone. Enigma ^message 18:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Zodiiak (talk) 04:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a good page for anyone who just wants to focus on finding info of his achievements without going through the main article, it will get clogged if this info is added. Dwyane Wade doesn't nearly have enough awards as Kobe so the page itself is in good readable shape. Im guessing your going to do the same with the LeBron James page as well? Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 05:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually think all these types of pages should be removed and merged into the article. There's no need to have every single little statistic about a player as a wikipedia article. Just doesn't make sense from a historical or factual perspective. And in reality, Kobe only has a few NBA records. Wilt, for example, would make for a stronger argument. Zodiiak (talk) 04:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & rename: Several athletes have similar pages (see Category:Career achievements of sportspeople). Bryant is definatly notable enough to have his own. --Ted87 (talk) 23:32, 5 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. (non-admin closure) Cirt (talk) 02:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skin Hunters[edit]

The newspaper sources both, in Polish and English inform that the formal investigation is on-going (example). Real names are protected by the courts. Online references as well as this rather sensationalist article use initials only. In his final court statement one of the convicted said he’s innocent. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Until the issue is settled by the Polish legal system, we don't need to have this mostly tentative information cast in stone. Note: all four convictions are being appealed in the Supreme Court of Poland.[20] Poeticbent talk 17:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a case that has been reported internationally, check the link to the BBC. It quite obviously is notable. That some investigating is ongoing is neither here nor there: BLP has not been violated. On the other hand, the people's convictions were upheld when they appealed. What is the problem and what WP rule has been broken? Please specify which. Also note that there are two interwikis for the article - so this is a notable case. Malick78 (talk) 17:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mention crystal ball, yet the article predicts nothing. It just documents past events (the convictions) and says that police are investigating other people. That is a present situation, nothing regarding the future is predicted. Malick78 (talk) 19:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, your article link above is 3 months old (written on June 2nd 2008) - do you have something more up-to-date to substantiate your complaint? Secondly, they have been convicted in a fair trial - so that must be reported. The fact that they are appealing, doesn't mean we have predicted the future. Where do you get that from? We have said they have been convicted. Past tense. Hence, there really is no problem. Malick78 (talk) 05:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to newspaper Wiadomsci, the defendants have not ruled out appealing the verdict ("Obrońcy nie wykluczyli wniesienia kasacji do Sądu Najwyższego."). Written on July 30th, 2008. Hence, they still haven't appealed. Malick78 (talk) 05:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article however states that they have started their sentences and no appeal is ongoing ("Do sądu nie wpłynęły wnioski skazanych lekarzy, którzy odpowiadali w procesie z wolnej stopy, o odroczenie wykonalności kar". Written July 30th. I'm finding it pretty hard to find a current article confirming that an appeal is ongoing. Could you please? Malick78 (talk) 05:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No reason given as to why we should delete. Seems to be a well sourced notable event. A stated above even if an appeal is ongoing (which seems unlikely) stating what's happened to date is not a WP:CRYSTAL violation as it's documenting what has happened not guessing about what may happen. Dpmuk (talk) 12:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article is definitely not crystal ball, at 'in the news' we have articles on currently unfolding events such as Hurricane Hanna (2008), let alone events that took place seven years ago, and convictions that took place a year and a half ago. The subject is covered by verifiable secondary sources, and satisfies notability requirements. And wikipedia is explicitly not 'set in stone', but reports on the current situation. If the convictions are overturned, then this can be added without difficulty. If this were an article about the appeals of those convicted, your claim of crystal ball would be valid, in that this would be an unconfirmed event in the future. But this article reports on a case that has taken place in the past, with aspects of the case ongoing. Benea (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - just so my view is nice and clear:) Malick78 (talk) 17:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hold back your horses. Our article presents all subsequent statements as facts, even though all convictions are being appealed in the Supreme Court of Poland.[21] That's crystal-balling by any stretch of the imagination. Similarly, possible comparison with a hurricane or any other natural disaster would have been a misnomer considering its purely legal status. The Wikipedia article is written like a newspaper article, which is against policy. The article is unstable and unless the editor who created it makes an extra effort to correct its tone, there's no need to have it around. One more thing, please read thoroughly what you quote in your defence, instead of bolding statements (as if we couldn't see). The quoted article says in Polish: "Wyrok nie jest prawomocny. Prokuratura nie wyklucza apelacji." (The sentence is not legally conclusive. Prosecution does not exclude appellations.)[22] --Poeticbent talk 18:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Horses rapidly receding into the distance: the people in question are in prison. That's quite conclusive. Your article is 3 months old, so could well be out of date... But what the hell, even if there is/were an appeal - so what? Add that to the article! Edit! Don't delete the whole article using fallacious 'crystal ball' arguments which have nothing to do with anything. WP can comment on developing situations - and no predicting the future is necessary. Malick78 (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poeticbent, have you actually read WP:CRYSTAL? If the article were about a future event then your argument might be valid. If the article were about the appeal process, it might be valid. But you've chosen a criteria that simply does not apply. At most this is a content dispute about whether to refer to those convicted of actually being guilty of the crime. They have been convicted, this can be reported. They may be appealing, this can be reported too. But however things develop, even if they have their convictions quashed, it does not alter the notability of the article. And now you're trying to claim that the tone of the article, and its instability are reasons for deletion. They are not. Benea (talk) 21:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe newspaper reports will also be reporting on it as if it's fact. The fact that they've been found guilty of committing the murders means we are perfectally justified in assuming that it's a fact that they've committed them - although not a legal professional I believe this is the case legally and IMO is certainly the case morally. But even that's a moot point in a deletion discussion as that's no reason to delete the article, just change it. The case is now so notable that even if they are later found incocent it would still easily meet our notability guidelines so would still be kept. Was writing this at the same time as Benea hence the similarity's in comment are accidental. Dpmuk (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since Poeticbent has failed to cite any valid reasons listed in Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion, can we just end this? (And hey, WP:CRYSTAL isn't listed) Malick78 (talk) 10:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for deletion[edit]

For further information please see WP:DEL#REASON

Articles which breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons
Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia

--Poeticbent talk 16:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, vaguely quoting policies does not provide sufficient reasoning. How do these policies apply to the article? In what way is it violating them? This especially applies to your second 'reason' - how is this not suitable for an encyclopaedia? Your first reason, that this may be a breach of WP:BLP is the only possible justification for a deletion that I can see, so I'll examine that a bit more closely. I'm assuming your argument is: Since the convicted claim to be innocent, then we cannot assert that they are guilty. This is not necessarily an issue at all, the actual policy page says that if there are multiple reliable third party sources available, wikipedia can document them. For an example it gives A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but the New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source. And it expands If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article. Since the facts in the article are well cited and sourced to multiple reliable secondary sources, I see no BLP violations here. So far you've tried WP:Crystal ball, the article's instability, tone issues, BLP violations and the vague argument that its just not suitable for some reason, in descending order. Do you want to go for WP:Notability next? Benea (talk) 17:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate if you refrained from wp:baiting me. My reasons for this nomination are pretty much one and the same, no matter how you divide them. The article states in its opening line: "The "Skin Hunters"[1] ("Łowcy skór" in Polish) is the media nickname for 4 hospital casualty workers from the Polish city of Łódź, who murdered at least 5 patients..." I repeat, these are statements of facts and yet, the convicted claim to be innocent. If you don't know how to implement the wp:npov guideline, than don't write at all. I'm not in any way obliged to fix anything. By the same token, WP:AFD is still the most appropriate venue to express my concerns. --Poeticbent talk 18:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's absurd. So if anyone is convicted of a crime, WP cannot write about it if they 'claim' to be innocent? A fair trial, that took 5 years to prepare, said they were guilty... and one 'claim' of innocence outweighs that? Secondly, FYI, putting an NPOV tag on the article would have been the "most appropriate" thing to do - not taking it to AFD. That is just a waste of people's time. We could be improving other articles... but here we are, arguing with you. Malick78 (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator, you are obliged to give your reasons for thinking why this article should be deleted. If it is for a violation of WP:BLP please state this, and explain why the article violates this policy, and we can consider them objectively. But don't string out a list of policies that do not apply, and of objections that are not criteria for deletion. You have continually failed to explain your reasons, and have vaguely quoted policies that you do not appear to have read. The fact that you went straight to afd over what is essentially a dispute over terminology is proof that this nomination was ill-conceived. Please I beg you - what policy does this article violate and why? Benea (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I beg you User:Benea to first, please ease up on the passive aggressive language and stop accusing me of not reading policies I quote. There are not as many of them as you claim I strung out. The very first principle of wp:live is wp: neutral point of view meaning: an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions. The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. That's not a dispute over terminology. And please, try to assume good faith in your personal assessments of my motives. --Poeticbent talk 20:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum. I’ve seen it so many times, editors claiming that with the little work the article is salvageable; voting on that premise, and than doing nothing to improve it. Meanwhile, the author of the article is increasingly combative,[23] which is not a good prospect for an improvement. --Poeticbent talk 15:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but why AFD instead of an NPOV tag? It was the wrong way to tackle the problem you perceived to exist. Malick78 (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Poeticbent - it would appear that your reading of these policies is very different from ours. I respect your right to intpret these policies differently but as I'm sure you're aware WIkipedia works on consensus sio I suggest you stop trying to change our minds with arguements that, by common consesus, don't stand up - I will happily listen to a new arguement if previous cosensus holds that it's a valid arguement. I'm not going to comment on this discussion any more except if, what IMO is, a valid arguement for deletion is given (seems unlikely IMO) as the result of this discussion is, IMO, obviously going to be keep and I've spent enough time on it. Dpmuk (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No valid reason to delete has been presented. Crystal does not apply to documenting past events. Any "newspaper tone" can be cleaned up without AfD. BLP is not violated as we have reliable sources -- court convictions. Renata (talk) 01:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per excellent points by Dpmuk: "The fact that they've been found guilty of committing the murders means we are perfectlly justified in assuming that it's a fact that they've committed them". If they do succeed in appealing or look as though they might succeed, we can reword things. Until then I see no reason not to assume the convictions are valid unless anyone produces a source suggesting they're controversial or disputed. (I came here from the debate at Template talk:Did you know). Olaf Davis | Talk 08:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poetic, please read this from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_discuss_an_AfD: "The argument "non-neutral point of view" (violates WP:NPOV) is often used, but often such articles can be salvaged, so this is not a very strong reason for deletion either." Let's eliminate the NPOV line of discussion shall we? Malick78 (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to all. This debate isn't even closed, and yet the author is already edit warring and removing warnings suggested by himself instead of this AfD nomination, without a sign of any second thought. Isn't that inflammatory? --Poeticbent talk 18:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you to provide reasons for your tags (such as the one about it being like a "magazine" article) and you instead talked about other (IMHO tangential) issues. Thus I removed them. Furthermore, some of your tags specifically said "see the talk page for details". Yet on the talk page, you gave no details. And didn't when asked. The tags were therefore anti-productive, and being used, it would seem, just to spoil the look of the article. In a rather inflammatory way. Ironic eh... Malick78 (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:56, 7 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. Consensus is clear; No need to continue. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Treasure 3[edit]

Future film with no reliable documentation is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 16:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As original PROD-er. Article fails WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL. TN‑X-Man 16:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no cast, not even in pre-production. Violates WP:Crystal. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is premature. Fails WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL. Bring it back in 24 months if the project moves beyond speculation. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per User:MichaelQSchmidt. Whilst it is inevitable that a third film will be released, is way too soon to create an article. ~ NossB (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Premature, no reliable sources used, IMDb doesn't count. I don't think a third film is inevitable, but let's wait till there's an official announcement before making an article on such a production. 23skidoo (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It isn't even in pre-production for crying out loud. This is a WP:CRYSTAL poster child. JBsupreme (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete crystalballery. JuJube (talk) 01:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this one-sentence speculation (ec). Gtstricky, Schmidt, 23skidoo, and JBsupreme said it all. We've got a snowball here. Cliff smith ^talk 01:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Shui language. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shuǐshū[edit]

No non-wikipedia google hits. -- Mark Chovain 05:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I assume then you're nominating it for being non-notable? Try Googling without the non-standard letters. For example [24]. Seems legitimate.--Crossmr (talk) 06:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree, it is a real script. However, at this time it really is just a dictionary definition. I suggest we merge to Shui language, an appropriate article with plenty of room, and let it grow. If it reaches an appreciable size, we can break it out separately later. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:13, 26 August 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) 03:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Shui as per Xynmax - seems like a good solution, and as he said, can be broken out later. Buckshot06(prof) 10:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Shui language. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:46, 8 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. Non-notable; remainder closed per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HHN Records seicer | talk | contribs 18:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Bayou tsunami Ep[edit]

EP for band which itself has no article nor any apparent notability Editor437 (talk) 05:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 10:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 16:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ep has been added to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HHN Records

Deletealbum of non notable artist. fails WP:MUSIC. see above afd for artist. Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, failing WP:MUSIC#Albums. No coverage of its own, and artist is not notable per AfD. --Amalthea^Talk 16:33, 8 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 The Godz (NYC band). Mr.Z-man 00:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Thornton[edit]

No assertion of individual notability beyond being in a notable band. Notability is not contagious. -- Mark Chovain 05:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 11:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 11:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 16:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Godz (NYC band) as per WP:MUSIC. Nouse4aname (talk) 17:40, 3 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. Mr.Z-man 03:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CHIJ Our Lady Queen of Peace[edit]

Unremarkable school - very little context -- no citations, categories Editor437 (talk) 03:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 16:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article contains no indication why this school would be notable. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Cheers, CP 21:45, 7 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. — Scientizzle 16:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Galapagos Effect[edit]

Article combines two really separate topics -- each may be notable on their own, but not together -- 1) The insular nature of the Galapagos Islands; 2) The insular nature of Japan's cell phone market, dubbed "The Galapagos Effect" ---- An article with this title would have to primarily be about (1) --- while (2) is less an example than an allusion Editor437 (talk) 04:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So delete the non-notable one instead of AfD'ing the whole, perhaps? Jclemens (talk) 04:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My reading of the article is that the term "Galapogos Effect" is being used to identify that the Japanese Cellphoen market is isolated list the Galapogos Islands allowing it to evolve differently from other cell phone markets due to isolation. A search through google news shows only the one article used as a reference. The term "Galapogos Effect" also appears to be used in economics, and also separately in biology when searching through Google Book and Google Scholar. However, the usage there does not match the content of this article. I say delete as a neologism. If the other senses of the phrase are notable, an article can be created for them, but the material from this article is not the basis for any such new article. -- Whpq (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 15:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a neologism. Google shows it was used in one newspaper (sited in article) and in one blog. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:01, 3 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. Mr.Z-man 03:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Ohrid 172N crash[edit]

This article was proded after talk at WP:AIRCRASH unanimously concluded that the accident does not meet notability guidlines. It was deprodded on the basis of reliable sources being present, but the user in question admitted that he wasn't wholly convinced himself that the article should be kept, just that it shouldn't be deleted in that manner. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. This is a general aviation accident. They happen all the time. No evidence that the crash will have a lasting effect. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:AIRCRASH. Mjroots (talk) 15:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable one of many general aviation accidents that does not meet aircraft accident guidlines for inclusion. MilborneOne (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not at all notable, though of course tragic. GA accidents in Cessnas happen frequently, and there is nothing that makes this one notable. Fails project guidelines. Yes, there are reliable refs, but they at best indicate that this is a news item, and is not long-term encyclopedic. AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:AIRCRASH (and wow I can't believe there is really a WP:AIRCRASH). JBsupreme (talk) 23:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I had considered suggesting transwiki to Wikinews - however, I recalled that the licensing details of Wikinews vs. Wikipedia preclude the transwiki option. Is there a template available that would state that the desired outcome would be to compose a Wikinews article without invoking the concept of transwiki? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't know that there is, but I doubt that this even rises to the level of Wikinews, as it is now days old. If you watch the NTSB briefs, there's a fatal GA accident every few days, and it's rare that they merit news mention outside of the local area. AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Akradecki is right. I'm very active on Wikinews, and familiar with the workings there. While local interest only stories are permitted, the crash itself is too old to qualify for news. For the record, however, Wikinews does have a requested articles page that should suffice for such requests. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources strongly indicate notability. Is this one of those "insufficient number of fatalities" things? Let's evaluate notability by looking at the sources. Everyking (talk) 05:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Everyking can you please elaborate on why you feel this is notable beyond a typical aviation accident? It is unfortunate, yes, but this is really fodder for a local daily newspaper not an encyclopedia. Even one that isn't limited by the constraints of paper. JBsupreme (talk) 07:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Look at the sources—that is emphatically not "local" press coverage. In any case, I support including anything if there's substantial press coverage to demonstrate notability. Arguments like "this happens every day" and "only a few people died" are meaningless to me. Everyking (talk) 07:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment The deeper question here is whether a WikiProject notability guideline can take precedence over the general notability guideline. However, I don't think here is the place to debate this weighty issue, though it is relevant. Consensus (Consensus ≠ Unanimity) here is that the WikiProject notability guideline is applicable. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - It is not taking precedence, simply being cited. Which guidlines an individual chooses to cite are up to him/her. It would be different if we were talking policy... Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 10:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as air plane crashes are verifiable and notable not just for news purpose but for those who research the topic. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not news. Stifle (talk) 21:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Citing news articles does not makes us news. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed it does not. Your point? Stifle (talk) 12:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - La Grand, the point is that there's a difference between a major event that rises to encyclopedic level and a minor event, with little more significance than an automobile crash, which is reported for the moment in the news media, but has little or no lasting significance. We don't report auto accidents because they're common place. So, unfortunately, are Cessna crashes. It would be helpful if you would explain why you think that this particular Cessna crash is an event that rises to an encyclopedic level. AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Because so long as it is verfiable and editors and readers believe it belongs here, the paperless encyclopedia should keep it. If anyone doesn't like the article, they can worry about and work on articles they do look and want to edit. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. No objection to redirecting to a mention in the airport's article. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:03, 7 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. Non-notable athlete seicer | talk | contribs 18:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Macdonald-Anderson[edit]

Biography where the only claim of notability is unsourced - Google brings back nothing relevant either ratarsed (talk) 14:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ATHLETE as a gymnast, nothing else in the article seems notable. Basement12 (T.C) 15:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article claims he was a national champion, which I'd have taken as passing WP:ATHLETE - had it not said that, I'd have WP:PORD'd this; had it been sourced, I'd have not nomiated this... -- ratarsed (talk) 15:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It says "amateur" champion which in a sport where (I think) professionals exist normally means a failure of WP:ATHLETE. - Basement12 (T.C) 15:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know of any professional competitive gymnasts though? (at least not in the UK). I'd be happier if the claim were sourced though -- ratarsed (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that, often, it isn't an issue, a large proportion tend to be U18, but (though I can't currently find a source) I think any successful gymnasts, like most top Olympic competitors, would be proffesional, even if their income is through government or sponsor funding. Basement12 (T.C) 11:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You'd be surprised how many are listed as "student" as their occupation by FIG (which has biographical details on most international gymnasts); As a side note, if a gymnast has a FIG profile, then that's generally a sign of probably notablility, and I'm unable to find one for Scott (That said, thee were competitors at the Olympics who are yet to have their profile put on the FIG site) -- ratarsed (talk) 11:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unable to find any sources. Fails WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 15:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can not find anything on Scottish gymnastics (online) from that far back at all. It could be likely that he was notable back then I am just uncertain how we could find sources to support it. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 15:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing notability requirements. Nuttah (talk) 17:18, 8 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. With merge suggestions. I encourage discussion of mergers on the talk page or boldy executing one. (non-admin closure) NonvocalScream (talk) 00:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RExcel[edit]

Contested prod. Article is about a software add-in, only sources found are coding documents. TN‑X-Man 14:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search for sources finds nothing that could legitimately fulfill WP:N. Debate 木 15:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources found. If sourced, the add-in is almost certainly notable. Stifle (talk) 15:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with R where it would be germane enough. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added links to the sources and references and hope that this is now sufficient. I followed the role model of te R Commander entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.57.15 (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as article quality is ordinary. WikiScrubber (talk) 06:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Insufficient material for an article. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 21:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Compare with the R Commander entry, which has less information and is an entry on its own. The people behind the R main entry will quite probably object merging this entry.

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. X clamation point 06:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate Cat Radio[edit]

AfDs for this article:

No assertion of notability, no sources, created by the subject, but IMO not quite spammy enough to speedy as spam. A previous version of this has already been deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pirate Cat Radio, but this is a total rewrite (original text on request if anyone really feels the urge), so G4 doesn't apply. – iride scent 01:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Credible sources have been added.

Comment - some third party sources have been added but the article needs to be wikified, I feel the article should have been given a chance to be expanded by adding tags, I see no history of that.--S_RX 01:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can you please elaborate? What do you mean by wikified and adding tags? Any examples would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piratecatradio (talk • contribs) 01:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wikification has happened! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piratecatradio (talk • contribs)

Delete. Created by user:Piratecatradio is enough for me. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Instead of making an arbitrary deletion comment, such as the above, read the third party news articles and give feedback in regards to what has to change on the page to keep it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piratecatradio (talk • contribs) 16:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:VANITY is in play. Secondly, this is a micro station. Third, it is an article about pseudonyms, and therefore it doesn't represent verifiable facts. Can someone go look up "Monkey" in the phone book? Can someone verify that it's his bedroom, and not his big sister's? Third party reviews are well and good, but without verification, and with this being a vanity article, we have too many deletion guideline violations. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Who is Monkey: http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/05.14.98/slices-9819.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.4.182.130 (talk) 18:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and totally rewrite. The current article is a mess of unreferenced claims and some original research borders on being soapboxy due to it's POV but the topic appears to be notable. There is coverage over a 10 year period in the LA Times, San Francisco Chronicle, San Jose Mercury News, as well as some smaller weekly publications in LA and the Bay Area. Being an unlicensed station, this article doesn't enjoy the automatic notability that those with an FCC license get, but it's received enough attention that sufficient references are available to make this article both notable and verifiable after some work.--Rtphokie (talk) 11:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and re-write to be more encyclopedic. References to reliable third-party sources prove notability but this article needs clean-up, not deletion. - Dravecky (talk) 08:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Utgard Loki. I would also like to add that I've lived in Los Angeles for fifteen years and have never heard of this particular radio station. Google turns up nothing but MySpace pages and their official website... Lady Galaxy 18:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Google news turns up nothing recent but if you click on "all dates" in a Google news search you'll find a number of articles from the bay area NBC affiliate, The San Jose Mercury News, The San Francisco Chronicle, Los Angeles Times. The article needs to be rewritten with these references in mind.--Rtphokie (talk) 17:48, 3 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, a Deletion review of the previous close concluded that further discussion is warranted here.Tikiwont (talk) 14:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak and reluctant delete~~ Keep ~~without prejudice.~~ Notwithstanding the need for rewrite and verification, it seems to be in the nature of such ventures that if they begin to approach the threshold of notability, especially non-local notability, they get stepped on. ~~It has a mention in Pirate radio in North America, and it is hard to justify anything more.~~ ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed my mind. I am not going to object to the substantiality of the coverage. ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The article has a significant number of significant sources (which focus solely on this topic) that more than meet any reasonable reading of WP:N. I'm really unclear what policy-based reason people have for deletion. Hobit (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rewritten I feel the current article demonstrates notability fair enough. RFerreira (talk) 21:27, 4 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. Mr.Z-man 03:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WTPRN[edit]

Non-notable; promotional Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 26,000 Google hits link to lots of independent coverage. Also, the article notes several blue-linked hosts. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There are a lot of blog references, but no clear reliable source. I found this article from The Boston Globe that mentions the Radio Network in passing. Technically, the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline. However given the large number of blog references, I am inclined to ignore the rule in the interest of improving Wikipedia. Axl (talk) 20:40, 29 August 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) 03:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. Article fails to establish notability of the subject and appears promotional in nature. The combination is fatal. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article doesn't demonstrate the notability of the subject.--Rtphokie (talk) 18:07, 3 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. Renata (talk) 13:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Royal waltz[edit]

Contested prod. Article is about a non-notable story/webseries (article isn't clear). No references provided, appears to be an amateur production. TN‑X-Man 14:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A quick search yielded no sources to prove any notability. Basement12 (T.C) 15:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable fiction. Rnb (talk) 15:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Homemade fiction of some sort. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing worth of note here. --Crusio (talk) 13:06, 6 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, previously deleted per afd & copy vio. Ѕandahl ♥ 22:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manpon[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Lots of ghits, but none in the first half dozen pages use the term in this way. The original source in the article went to a wiki mirror; the current source does not appear to be much more reliable. Prod contested by IP user with no comment. Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and precedent from previous AfDs. GlassCobra 13:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GlassCobra. Basement12 (T.C) 15:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD G4 - recreation of deleted material, as the evidence of this page indicates it is exactly the same content. (It was flagged as a copyvio of that page at WP:SCV) – Toon ^(talk) 21:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch. The deletion discussion was here -- I missed it because of the final "s".

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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 23:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Duke University a cappella groups[edit]

Delete per WP:NOT and WP:NOTE: Though someone has obviously but a good deal of effort into this article, Wikipedia is not a random collection of college clubs. Also, this organization has not demonstrated how it has externally-verifiable notability per WP:NOTE. None of the sources are strong secondary sources, which means they cannot establish notability. I'm sure WP:V is satisfied; if sources were brought to bear which were independent of the establishment, and a thorough purging (by fire, of course) of the article were to be had, then this would be a keep, but as it is, the article does not meet the requirements for inclusion. DukeCleaner (talk) 13:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)— DukeCleaner (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not Duke University's website. Stifle (talk) 15:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Eklipse (talk) 16:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the nominator is an anon IP whose only edits have been AfDs. Edit history and user name suggest a single-purpose account.--Rtphokie (talk) 17:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notwithstanding apparent single-mindedness of nominator, this is the right call. Wikipedia is not a directory for campus activities. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete echoing Ningauble. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Use your real account and don't hide behind a sock. SashaNein (talk) 18:39, 5 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 (non-admin closure), Closed as a verifiable, notable service. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 02:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duke Union Community Television[edit]

Delete per WP:NOT and WP:NOTE: Though someone has obviously but a good deal of effort into this article, Wikipedia is not a random collection of college clubs. Also, this organization has not demonstrated how it has externally-verifiable notability per WP:NOTE. None of the sources are secondary sources, which means they cannot establish notability. I'm sure WP:V is satisfied; if sources were brought to bear which were independent of the establishment, and a thorough purging (by fire, of course) of the article were to be had (ie, to not use all those citations to Duke), then this would be a keep, but as it is, the article does not meet the requirements for inclusion. DukeCleaner (talk) 13:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)— DukeCleaner (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment nominator is an anon IP whose only edits have been AfDs. Edit history and user name suggest a single-purpose account.--Rtphokie (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article contains plausible claims of the notability of the subject. I would reconsider if it were seriously alleged that they are unverifiable. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the notability claims. – Zedla (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:N. Also, nom's only contributions have been to nominate Duke University related articles for deletion (I suspect something pointy's afoot) Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 20:24, 3 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 (non-admin closure), closed per WP:SNOW. An award winning newspaper, notable and worth holding on to. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 02:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Chronicle (Duke University)[edit]

Delete per WP:NOT and WP:NOTE: Though someone has obviously but a good deal of effort into this article, Wikipedia is not a random collection of college clubs. Also, this organization has not demonstrated how it has externally-verifiable notability per WP:NOTE. None of the sources are secondary sources, which means they cannot establish notability. I'm sure WP:V is satisfied; if sources were brought to bear which were independent of the establishment, and a thorough purging (by fire, of course) of the article were to be had (ie, to not use all those citations to Duke), then this would be a keep, but as it is, the article does not meet the requirements for inclusion. DukeCleaner (talk) 13:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)— DukeCleaner (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of reliable sources and significant opportunity for improvement, per WP:ATD. Also per WP:Point, given SPA nom. 16:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep The primary student newspaper from a well known university is definitely notable. Additionally. the nominator is an anon IP whose only edits have been AfDs. Edit history and user name suggest a single-purpose account.--Rtphokie (talk) 17:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article contains plausible claims of the notability of the subject. I would reconsider if it were seriously alleged that they are unverifiable. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep certainly notable for those familiar with Duke University and its environs. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nom's only contributions have been to nominate Duke University related articles for deletion (I suspect something pointy's afoot) Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 20:24, 3 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. PhilKnight (talk) 23:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hoof 'n' Horn[edit]

Delete per WP:NOT and WP:NOTE: Though someone has obviously but a good deal of effort into this article, Wikipedia is not a random collection of college clubs. Also, this organization has not demonstrated how it has externally-verifiable notability per WP:NOTE. None of the sources are secondary sources, which means they cannot establish notability. I'm sure WP:V is satisfied; if sources were brought to bear which were independent of the establishment, and a thorough purging (by fire, of course) of the article were to be had (ie, to not use all those citations to Duke), then this would be a keep, but as it is, the article does not meet the requirements for inclusion. DukeCleaner (talk) 13:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)— DukeCleaner (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete No indication that this group is WP:N outside of the small confines of Duke theatre. Movingboxes (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nominator is an anon IP whose only edits have been AfDs. Edit history and user name suggest a single-purpose account.--Rtphokie (talk) 16:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notwithstanding apparent single-mindedness of nominator, this is the right call. Wikipedia is not a directory for campus activities. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, again per Ningauble. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:02, 3 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. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WXDU[edit]

Delete per WP:NOT and WP:NOTE: Though someone has obviously but a good deal of effort into this article, Wikipedia is not a random collection of college clubs. Also, this organization has not demonstrated how it has externally-verifiable notability per WP:NOTE. None of the sources are secondary sources, which means they cannot establish notability. I'm sure WP:V is satisfied; if sources were brought to bear which were independent of the establishment, and a thorough purging (by fire, of course) of the article were to be had (ie, to not use all those citations to Duke), then this would be a keep, but as it is, the article does not meet the requirements for inclusion. DukeCleaner (talk) 13:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The station appears to be FCC licensed, and if I'm not mistaken, licensed radio stations are generally notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nominator is a newly registered user whose only edits have been AfDs. Edit history and user name suggest a single-purpose account. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note In fact the IP editor 152.16.179.58 made this AfD and four others, all related to Duke and these are the only five edits by this IP editor - Dravecky (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Licensed broadcast radio stations are presumed notable and this one has been on the air for almost 60 years. It is marked for a substantial cleanup, its problems are not fatal. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as this is a licensed broadcast radio station serving a large population and geographic area and, sa such, is presumed notable. This article needs cleanup but that's not an issue for AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 14:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Dravecky and Gene93k.--Winger84 (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Dravecky, Gene93k and Winger84 --Rtphokie (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Satisfies notability requirements for radio stations, including audience base and longevity; everything else is a content issue, not for AFD. The weather's starting to look a bit WP:SNOW-y. 23skidoo (talk) 18:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per established broadcast consensus. Article clearly needs work, but is not egregious content demanding a complete do-over. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:18, 3 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. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 00:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tunney's Pasture Station (OC Transpo)[edit]

Just an article about a bus stop. Per the common outcomes, bus stops are not notable. Stifle (talk) 13:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is a little deceiving to call it just "a bus stop". It is a physical station on the Ottawa Rapid Transit transitway and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Transportation specifically notes that this line is notable and that articles on stations are "questionable". DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Most of the stations on the Transitway are rather more than mere "bus stops": they are major pieces of infrastructure that make stations on several rail systems look puny. Tunney's Pasture is one of the largest Transitway stations, so this should definitely stay. --RFBailey (talk) 01:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per common outcomes' specific mention of Ottawa's Transitway system. Tunney's also functions as a notable bus transfer hub, comparable to subway or LRT stations. Dl2000 (talk) 01:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Tunney's transit station is not "just a bus stop". Although it's not indicated in the article, the station is a major destination and departure zone for serveral thousand commuting public servants who work in the Tunney's Pasture government campus. Second, the station also serves as hub for other OC Transpo bus routes that do not travel on the transitway, including a few busses from the Gatineau (Quebec) bus company the Société de transport de l'Outaouais. Rather than delete it, I suggest someone improve the quality of the article.Demetri1968 (talk) 01:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Ottawa Transit system is mentioned as a specific example on the common outcomes link above of transit stations which are valid for articles. Additionally, if this is deleted, the other 20-30 related articles about the other major transit stops on the system would also have to be nominated and deleted.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 03:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per comments above. The nominator appears to have misconstrued common outcomes, as it provides that articles on hubs in major cities can be kept. I note that this same editor also proposed the deletion of Kent Station (OC Station) on the basis of the same "just a bus stop" rationale just under three years ago (consensus was to keep)-- it would appear that circumstances and consensus have not changed since then. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, Kent "station" is just a bus stop; Tunney's Pasture certainly isn't. So if Kent can stay, then this definitely should. --RFBailey (talk) 14:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too sure that there is that much of a difference between the two of them -- the fact that Tunney's Pasture has more infrastructure than Kent is more a factor of the Transitway being below-grade in that location than anything else. It's irrelevant, however, because both are transit hubs in a major city, and thus are both likely to kept as articles as per common outcomes. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The precedent spelled out at WP:OUTCOMES is actually for dedicated bus rapid transit lines such as the Transitway to be treated as more notable than conventional bus routes along regular streets, because they serve a function more akin to that of a commuter rail or subway line. And the reality is that while we do regularly delete plain old "shelter and pole on the side of the road" bus stations, we do tend to keep stations on major dedicated transit lines. The precedent as written is actually kind of fuzzy and ambiguous — the line about individual stations being questionable is basically in conflict with the line about certain hubs in major cities. Although this could certainly use a few stronger sources (media coverage of the fire, perhaps?), I'm going to go with the keep side here — but I'm also going to post to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes to request a revised version of the precedent. Bearcat (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. BJ^Talk 00:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Informed Consent (website)[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)).

Non-notable website. Barely asserts significance and there is nothing to confirm it. Most of the content is not sourced, with the only ref being to an article in the Midlands Fetish Scene dating from May 2005. Not the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, no well-known awards claimed, no independent distribution - therefore fails WP:WEB. WJBscribe (talk) 13:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Although the article needs cleanup (which I'll do when I have the time) this isn't a "two guys in a shed" operation but probably the leading website on BDSM and related issues in the UK, and is cited as such by multiple reliable sources, from The Dubliner to the Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, and was a nominee in this year's New Statesman New Media Awards. – iride scent 15:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Let's see what – iride scent comes up with. WikiScrubber (talk) 05:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. There are a lot of people who research sexuality on the internet, and Wikipedia is one of the first ports of call for information. Having a link to another information-offering site (rather than one of the vast number of dating sites) is a real help, and an invaluable resource. - CrystalEyesCry (talk) 11:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I agree with CrystalEyesCry. - Am i noddy? (talk) 13:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)am i noddy?— Am i noddy? (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Strong Keep. This is the main site for the BDSM community in Britain. It is of vital importance for researchers and other people seeking information. I feel that the only reason it finds itself on here is one of moral disapproval, which is dangerous ground for something which purports to be an encyclopaedia. Certainly, if this site no longer has an entry here, then it will compromise the usefulness of the Wikipedia, and word will soon get about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prunesquallor on ic (talk • contribs) 14:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC) — Prunesquallor on ic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete The informed consent webiste is not particularly notable in any way. It is not primarily an information resource, it is a collection of blogs, profiles and forums. There are far bigger sites of similar make up, with a far greater international basis of members and contributors. It is rarely, if ever reffered to in media outside the web, and it seems most of its references on the web come from its own members. It claims 126k profiles, but not even 5% seem to be regular visitors (visiting once per day, even if not to contribute), let alone contributors to the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skepticalcynic (talk • contribs) 15:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC) — Skepticalcynic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Strong Keep - As has been said, this is the main site for the BDSM community in Britain.

As it happens, three days ago, I posted on IC "But what it (IC) seems to have over and above all the other sites is that it is a major thread in the fabric of the UK's Bdsm/Fetish Scene: every Fair, Market, Event, Party, Group and Club is represented, promoted, discussed, deconstructed and critiqued here."

IC might rarely be referred to in the Media, as a preceding contributor has alleged, but it is often quoted without the courtesy of a credit!—Preceding unsigned comment added by The Dominant Vicar (talk • contribs) 17:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC) — The Dominant Vicar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any reliable sources. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Type "BDSM" into Google and IC comes up as the second entry behind Wiki itself. Surely a site with that level of conectiveness, to register that high in a google search, deserves a mention? Although one could argue that a site that is that well known hardly needs an entry in wikipedia. Donsayers (talk) 22:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)— Donsayers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. It does fail the guidelines set by Wikipedia. Just because its an allegedly well known site does not mean that it has to be in here. There are no credible sources to link to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloudbusta (talk • contribs) 22:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC) — Cloudbusta (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. It simply doesn't match Wiki criteria Demondriver (talk) 08:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC) — Demondriver (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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 G7 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyday Records[edit]

Doesn't seem notable. Seemingly created by a single-purpose account with a COI. Ian¹³ /t 12:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Creator blanked the page, and it was tagged for speedy; I've restored, as it's listed here. Nyttend (talk) 12:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have done the same to the Jade Adams for consistency. Ian¹³ /t 13:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone explain why we are debating the deletion of an article that the author wanted speedily deleted by blanking? WWGB (talk) 13:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per ((db-blanked)). Article's major contributor requested deletion. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both articles have been deleted: the author fulfilled WP:CSD#G7 requirements by blanking them, after which they were tagged ((db-g7)) by more experienced editors. — Athaenara ✉ 00:04, 4 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. Notability rationale seicer | talk | contribs 18:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Lambert[edit]

Prod contested by author. Independent author/artist whose references are all self-generated, internal publications of her graduate school, or event listings that only mention subject's name. Fails notability requirements at WP:CREATIVE. justinfr (talk/contribs) 11:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Basement12 (T.C) 15:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:Notability. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editors: I am new to wikipedia, and apologize if the previous article was too flamboyant. Please let me know what I can do to improve the article so that it is more appropriate. I will gladly add more citations, or make changes as requested.

As a sidenote: I would draw your attention to the other "famous" residents of North Hollywood. Stephen Christian, while his band is notable, has posted a lengthy, self-promoting (and rather poorly written)excerpt from his self-published novel. Bria Myles, while quite beautiful, is famous mainly for dancing scantily clad.

Who is truly notable, here? We are hollywood north.

Lambert is a struggling, independent writer who is trying to find her way. She has a thirteen-year exhibition and performance career, and a contract with Future Fiction London for her first novel. Many, many pages, have gone into this, years of starvation, institutionalization, and striving with her craft.

Is there perhaps a way to modify this article so that it is more acceptable? Thank you for your consideration. Deedwhite (talk) 22:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't the article per se but the notability of the subject. In order to have an article she must meet the guidelines in WP:CREATIVE. WP is a place to describe people who are already notable, not a place to build notability. Lastly, you're right about the Christian article. I removed that section from the article. justinfr (talk/contribs) 01:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources to establish notabiliy. The references provided are event listings and whatnot and don't establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:51, 8 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. ..and a redirect A Message to X&Y created Black Kite 18:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Message (song)[edit]

Unreferenced and with zero notability, as it is just a track from X&Y and not much else. Outrune (talk) 11:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a keep/redirect as per WP:SONGS: "A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; permanent stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." justinfr (talk/contribs) 13:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to X&Y. Though I doubt anyone will look for "A Message (song)". Basement12 (T.C) 15:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:05, 3 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. PhilKnight (talk) 23:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicktoons: Final Fury[edit]

Article about a future video game, release more than a year away. No source and I can find no confirmation. A similar article by this author Pokemon123man (talk · contribs) had the PROD removed, so it may save time to bring this to AfD. Probable hoax, anyway fails WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 11:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Likely hoax, given the creator's history. Reason #39,142 why I think hoaxes should fall under G3. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:CRYSTAL. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — nothing comes up in a Google search, so the article has to be complete and utter WP:BOLLOCKS. MuZemike (talk) 01:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From the looks of it this is just made up / hoax fodder. (jarbarf) (talk) 23:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge. Non-admin closure. Ottre (talk) 10:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Mark Coptic Orthodox Church (Canberra)[edit]

This says it is the first Coptic Orthodox Church in Canberra, but I don't think that this in itself makes it notable. It is is still just a relatively moden suburban church. Grahame (talk) 10:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 10:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the claim is enough to prevent speedy deletion, but it's not enough to prove its notability — and the lack of sources only exacerbates the problem. Nyttend (talk) 12:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and tag for notability, per Wikipedia:Notability (Buildings, structures, and landmarks)#Places of worship. VerticalDrop (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - problem is it hasn't received coverage from multiple, independent reliable sources from outside its local area. There do not appear to be sources other than it exists - multiple sources attest to this but no other claim to notability other than who opened ... - hence my suggstion below to merge. --Matilda ^talk 00:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Coptic Orthodox Church in Australia --Matilda ^talk 00:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have merged the text into the article on the Church, I suggest redirection and moving on. Article can then be recreated if more content including sources that attest to notability come to light or an editor provides.--Matilda ^talk 01:16, 5 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. PhilKnight (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suman Chakraborty[edit]

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (academics). The subject has written nothing of note, and the only books have been self-published - he declares here that he is the "executive editor" of Roman Books the publisher of his two books. He doesn't even appear to have an academic post. SilkTork *^YES! 10:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: But it probably meets Wikipedia:Notability. Notable, since most of the sources in 'See Also' section confirms the claims made in the article. Most of them are secondary sources, for example the newspaper review and the conference programme. He may be the executive editor of the publication that publishes his own books, but the books seem to be major publications. It is also unclear whether he himself is the owner of the publication. This is what I found from my search from the review page of an indepedent New Delhi bookseller. User:Hi_Shakespeare 18:27, 3 September 2008 (IST)
Hi_shakespeare has a total of 3 edits. Two to another article's AFD that is by the same author, which is believed to be a SOCK. I suspect this is a sock as well.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Professor who is no more notable than any other marginally published professor.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable. I had previously suggested this article should be deleted in the deletion debate for his book. - Basement12 (T.C) 15:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ecclesiastes 1:2. --Crusio (talk) 09:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Brother Crusio. Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC
Clarification from wikiusernew: Since I created this article, I believe it is my responsibility to clarify a few details.

(i) First of all, I would like to thank the wikipedia administrators for their time. If the article is not according to the wikipedia standard, it should be deleted. But I think there are few other things which need to be taken into consideration before deletion. (ii) Many administrators are concerned thinking that I am a sock of Hi_Shakespeare or Kumkum_creative. We know each other and are good frineds. We are all new to wikipedia and the article on Suman Chakraborty was my debut article. We three know Mr. Chakraborty very well as he is known to a number of Indian students like us. After I had created the article on Suman Chakraborty kumkum also created an article on his book. (iii) Many administrators are concerned about the notability of Mr. Chakraborty. I would just like to add few points. In India the majority of the people including academics (especially people of arts and humanities) are not computer literate. There are a few number of libraries which have online catalogues. In this situation if a person tries to search the notability of a person located in India in thw web, I believe it won't be a proper method to understand the notability. Simultaneously there are also language and spelling probelems. For example Suman Chakraborty can also be spelled as Sumon Chakravorty or Suman Chakroborty or Suman Chakraborti. Mr. Chakraborty has a number of articles in Bengali magazines and newspapers, but none of them have an online database, so that they could be linked to the Wikipedia article to prove the notability. (iv) It is true that Mr. Chakaraborty has self-published his two books. Since we know him well, we also know that they are one of the leading printers of Kolkata and have a well-known business network. Mr. Chakraborty looks after it personally. Who will go to find a publisher if one owns a printing and publishing network? (iv) Finally, I believe it is the responsibility of any encyclopedia to turn the world into a global village. Internet has made it possible to fetch information from different parts of the world in a single click. An article can easily be removed from Wikipedia for non-notability, but simultaneously the world is not known about that article, because wikipedia administrators have failed to gather proper information due to India's low-level internet users. (v) Thanks again for your time. You are welcome to delete my article on Suman Chakraborty or Suman Mukherjee, who is also known to me. Deleting an article in Wikipedia does make no difference. Without these articles on one hand, Wikipedia won't become less popular, and on the other hand these people will also not become less-notable in the cultural world of West Bengal. 5 September 11:16am (IST)

Will respond on Wiki's talk page.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am somewhat sympathetic to the cultural bias considerations put forward by User:Wikiusernew. That being said, one still needs some verifiable (rather than hypothetical) evidence of notability for passing WP:PROF. Such evidence is not available or at least it has not been presented here. The two books mentioned in the article are not yet listed in WorldCat, presumably because they are very new, and correspondingly no evidence that these books are widely carried by academic libraries. I could not find any reviews of them in academic journals either. There is no other substantial evidence of the subject's research having made significant impact in the field, as required by WP:PROF. As pointed out above by others, almost nothing in GoogleBooks and GoogleScholar. I looked in Scopus and JSTOR and could not find anything relevant there. Note, however, that there is a physicist/engineer with the same name. If there are some sources that cite his work that are not fished out by these searches, it is necessary for the keep proponents to find and present them. As things stand, does not pass WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks clarification, verifiability (appropriate, external sources), etc. Is this notable? It seems like no/lacking substantial evidence has bene carried out by academic libraries. Prowikipedians (talk) 08:22, 7 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. PhilKnight (talk) 23:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby McGraw[edit]

Pure hoax. This character has been invented as part of a promotion by an Irish insurance company. Note this edit by an anon who has edited this article. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as pure vandalism. Google turns up nothing[25]. justinfr (talk/contribs) 11:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a marketing campaign - http://www.singinsure.ie/terms
Delete per nom. Basement12 (T.C) 15:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 19:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 01:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a hoax, disruptive vandalism, and the inevitable snowball outcome. (jarbarf) (talk) 23:18, 7 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. PhilKnight (talk) 23:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Kull[edit]

Self-promotion by a non-notable novelist. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:CREATIVE. WP isn't here to promote her self-published, online books. justinfr (talk/contribs) 13:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I haven't been able to find any evidence that this person is a notable writer. Rnb (talk) 15:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject fails notability guidelines. Basement12 (T.C) 15:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete No notability, and reads like an advert. What a horrible page. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 01:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There isn't any evidence of anything about this person, other than the self promotion. (jarbarf) (talk) 23:21, 7 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. X clamation point 01:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Csutoros[edit]

This article on an artist presents no evidence that she is notable. Grahame (talk) 09:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 09:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely unreferenced with notability not demonstrated. However, if some work was done on the article that demonstrates to the reader why the artist is notable, and included reliable online references to back it up, I'd be willing to change my stance.--Lester 21:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 06:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This page on her website, if details were confirmed, improves the notability case, but not enough imo. Johnbod (talk) 13:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep I found several references to recent exhibitions and residencies. I also found essays on her work. I'll try to add them to the article today when I have time. Jenafalt (talk) 08:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The residencies, book covers and solo exhibitions listed on her website show that she is a working artist, but not necessarily a notable one. Some press reviews would help.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 13:17, 6 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. ff m 21:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Elson[edit]

This article presents no real evidence of the subject's notability. Grahame (talk) 08:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 08:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 08:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from neutral party. Whilst a search of this subject does bring up notability, the article itself is a terribly written stub that sheds absolutely no light on the subject. ~ NossB (talk) 09:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article may be badly written, but Wikipedia guidelines do not present that as a reason that can be used to delete an article. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced, notability not established. WWGB (talk) 11:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In a bad way and no sources to establish notability from, a quick g-search, shows he seems to have been the WMC World Muay Thai champion, but i'm not sure of the notaility of the title without further checks. --Nate 14 81 11:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep seems to be notable per Wikipedia:ATHLETE#Athletes (professional athlete) [26], [27], [28], [29] though the article is in bad shape. JJL (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Ghits suggest that Elson does meet WP:ATHLETE (barely). The article is poor, as has been stated before, but that is a fact that does not mean the article should be deleted. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 20:10, 8 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 the sources listed on the article's talk page. They need to be integrated into the article (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Z-Ro[edit]

Contested prod. This artist may be notable, but I'm just not seeing the coverage from multiple non-trivial publications, thus this article fails WP:MUSIC and basic verifiability. JBsupreme (talk) 06:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The artist in question has been involved in some Troy Rodriguez hoaxes, such as Three Rappers of Years. Just something to bear in mind. Nerdluck34 (talk) 10:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Though I think it was Troy trying to take advantage of Z-Ro's notoriety. justinfr (talk/contribs) 13:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I found a few mentions: Houston Chronicle, The Village Voice, NYT. I'll post these on the article's talk for later addition into the article. justinfr (talk/contribs) 13:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The hoaxes cited by Nerdluck34 are unsettling, but as shown by Justinfr there are clearly enough sources out there. (jarbarf) (talk) 23:18, 7 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. Notability rationale; advert seicer | talk | contribs 18:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Livecare Support[edit]

Non-notable and still a little ad-like (was deleted before for being too ad-like N_efarious O_pus 06:36, 3 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, BJ^Talk 00:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam unless someone can produce a referenced encyclopaedia article on the subject. Nuttah (talk) 17:29, 8 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. Mr.Z-man 03:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spatia3[edit]

An experimental design project written up by its creator. Is it notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I cannot find any media coverage, or any coverage at all, besides the website and the article. — Byeitical (talk · contribs) 07:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:27, 5 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. PhilKnight (talk) 23:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suman Mukherjee[edit]

Not notable mime artist. If the article is deleted, then the link on Mime Artist needs to be removed as well. ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The notability of the person is proved by the reviews published in the newspapers. Quite an well-known mime artist of India. Please read the reviews (secondary sources) before deletation. --- User:wikiusernew] —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC) — wikiusernew (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Based upon the sources I could find, Suman Mukherjee isn't even considered highly notable within the community surrounding Mime. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 10:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. There are almost as many web hits for Suman as there are for me, and I'm clearly not notable enough for an article. I know that webhits isn't always reliable, but I don't see how Suman meets the expectations for BIO.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC) (PS for closing admin: There appear to be several suspected Socks editing articles related to India and !voting in other AFDS right now.)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Basement12 (T.C) 15:21, 3 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. PhilKnight (talk) 23:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Anvil Group[edit]

A previous article about this company was deleted as blatant spam. This is less spammy but probably written by someone from the company. Are they notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They seem to have deliberately avoided the spotlight, I found a few mentions in some decent sources, but not much that's really about this organization. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Mariano(t/c) 07:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another non-notable technology consulting business. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:02, 3 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. PhilKnight (talk) 23:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna sawa[edit]

Does not appear to have any basis in reality, there was never a nurse by this name. Miquonranger03 (talk) 05:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems to be a hoax. — Byeitical (talk · contribs) 05:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if it isn't a hoax subject is non notable. Basement12 (T.C) 15:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:Notability. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:49, 3 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. Mr.Z-man 03:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

107th Avenue (Metrorail station)[edit]

Non notable future rail station. Fails WP:RS and WP:CRYSTAL. Delete until it becomes notable, if it becomes notable. (if it's built) Undead Warrior (talk) 05:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Eight years in the future? Definitely fails Crystal. -- Donald Albury 19:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Articles on future stations are WP:CRYSTAL at least until the project is funded and the construction contract agreed. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now calling at CRYSTAL, NON-NOTABLE CENTRAL, and DELETIONVILLE With the only source on the article not clearly showing this station, and a vague date displaying only the year, I can see no reason why this article should remain. doktorb _words^deeds 17:21, 7 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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 15:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Order (Silent Hill)[edit]

There are no reliable third-party references to support this article, and thus the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Article only uses primary sources. Exploring for sources only reveals unreliable self-published sources, or trivial mentions of the subject that cannot allow us to verify anything substantive in the article's contents. Randomran (talk) 04:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Randomran (talk) 04:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability shown. RobJ1981 (talk) 11:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally in-game description and information that was synthesized with a dash of original research. No reliable third-party sources could also be found to back-up any content for this subject. Jappalang (talk) 00:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MuZemike (talk) 05:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Where are the WP:V-satisfying sources? MuZemike (talk) 05:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If it cannot be verified through a reliable publication then we cannot have an article. JBsupreme (talk) 06:55, 3 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) 10:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EivaaGames[edit]

Article has been tagged since June 2008 with notability concerns. The only references on the article are a corporate directory entry, the company's own website and what appears to be a press release or similar. I've had an extensive look and managed to find several blogs, forum posts and so on talking about the company but not a single reliable source that could be used to verify the content or show that the company is notable. Many thanks. Gazi moff 11:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Semi-Finalists of ECD Systems Indie Game Showcase 2007.Indie Game Showcase - Semi Finalists. By itself, questionable. Should be more out there. Turlo Lomon (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would make the game that made the semi-finals, Confronter: The Tower of Time, notable and not necessarily the parent company. When looking at it from mroe of a WP:CORP angle, there's only a fleeting reference to the company itself. Hope this helps, Gazi moff 18:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Thus my neutral comment. I think it should be added to the article if it passes AfD but by itself I don't think confers notability. Unfortunately, I can't review game related sites while at work - but you would thik there is more out there then this. Turlo Lomon (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MuZemike (talk) 05:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've gone through the ghits (146 results) - nothing useful for WP:N. Marasmusine (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn WikiScrubber (talk) 07:21, 5 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 reliable secondary sources is fatal. No prejudice against redirect and will userify on request for a prospective merge. — Coren ^(talk) 02:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Odessa (Wild Arms 2)[edit]

There are no reliable third-party references to support this article, and thus the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. No sources in the article whatsoever. Google has a few hits, but they are either unreliable self-published sources, or trivial mentions of the subject that cannot allow us to verify the article's massive contents. Randomran (talk) 04:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment from nominator: I still don't see *any* sources for this article -- not in this article or elsewhere. But I think a merge to the List of Wild Arms 2 characters would be a reasonable compromise until further sources are found, perhaps supporting a split at a later time. Randomran (talk) 03:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Randomran (talk) 04:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Wild Arms 2 characters, which has a ((mergefrom)) tag on it from January. Nifboy (talk) 11:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world). --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please prove this article is notable and verifiable, instead of citing WP:JUSTAPOLICY. Randomran (talk) 23:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - We need to be convinced that it should be deleted. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You need to actually offer an argument for keeping, instead of WP:JUSTAPOLICY. This is supposed to be a discussion. Explain how this article meets its sourcing requirements in WP:GNG and WP:V. Randomran (talk) 03:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - While I see no actual argument for deleting, sources searches as this suggest it should be kept. That far more editors have volunteered their time over two years to edit this article than have argued to delete here, further suggest that the larger community believes it is consistent with what Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Le Grand, while I can appreciate and sometimes agree with your view of working hard to keep content on Wikipedia, the article in it's present state does not comply with Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. The article is written in an in-universe perspective with no real-world content and uses no references.
        The listing of google results does not provide much content from reliable sources either. After looking through the first four pages of results, most link to website user reviews, product listings, and pages for other uses of "odessa". That does not paint a picture of ample sources being available on this specific topic.
        I would also like to point out that a number of editors in favor of something does not equate to a consensus. Given that the number of editors span a time period of two years, it doesn't make much sense to compare it to an AfD that has been open for a week.
        Regardless of all that, I agree that the article can be salvaged to an extent—but the lack of sources makes me think not that much, maybe C-class at best. Which is why I'm in favor of redirecting it to List of Wild Arms 2 characters. But if it does not improved after time, there is no reason to keep it on Wikipedia. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
        Wikipedia does not have a deadline and I would not oppose a redirect without deletion as a compromise for the time being. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PROVEIT. MuZemike (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No need to prove that an apple is apple. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry Le Grand, but this is not a case of proving an apple is apple. This is a case of proving if this topic with no listed references at all is notable. Unsourced content can easily be construed as original research and though verifiable, the content is written in an in-universe perspective with no real-world content. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
      - Those are reasons to revise, not delete. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from article creator I'm probably just going to merge it to the character list regardless. I can pretty easily just copy/paste all the important info without losing anything and I can replace the pictures with a superior group shot from the artbook. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge seems the best solution to these, except for the most notable games. However, there is no need to verify the content of an articl about iction of non-self-published sources, if there are self published ones are reliable. But that too needs to be specified. DGG (talk) 23:13, 1 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, MuZemike (talk) 05:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless verifiable, third-party sources can be found to satisty WP:GNG for every object. Remember, Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. MuZemike (talk) 05:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Deletion sounds like the appropriate response, but I think redirecting it to List of Wild Arms 2 characters is a reasonable compromise. However, should the article pop up again in a similar format—with no references and too many non-free images—then deletion sounds like the best course. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - Unsourced by independent references (WP:V), no assertion of notability has been made (WP:N), fails our writing about fiction guidelines (WP:WAF) with respect to out-of-universe context. Marasmusine (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article does not indicate any real-world significance of this fictional element. It also appears to be original research based on primary source material. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't cite reliable, independent sources, as required by WP:GNG. Protonk (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So, are all five of you the same person using different accounts or is it just a coincidence that I sense the same air of robotic, thoughtless personalities from those replies? Someone just end this so I can merge the article without being nagged at by template messages on my talk page. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please read WP:CIVIL. MuZemike (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sigh. We all happen to have the relatively widely held opinion that articles need to have at least "some" secondary sourcing. It isn't thoughtless, but it is a little robotic. After the 400th time you say it, you still...have to say it. Articles will continue to be created that are outside the community's desired goals and we will continue to have these discussions. Protonk (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I never objected to the article's deletion, it just really irks me that when something's been said so many times by so many other people already in the exact same manner, they could at least have the decency to change their wording and/or offer an actual, constructive opinion on the subject in question instead of slapping it with a copy/pasted comment from a dozen other unrelated discussions. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 01:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It isn't copied and pasted. The article doesn't cite a single source. We require that it cite several. there aren't too many different ways to show that, and after the 50th time of saying it, you run out of interest in changing it just to be clever. If the situation were different from most other times, what I write would be different. If something is repeated AfD to AfD without regard for how it actually relates to the discussion at hand, that is copy/pasted. In this case, these people are chiming in so that we don't somehow mistake the discussion here as "no consensus". And as for the "constructive opinion", what constructive opinion would you have me offer about this article? Protonk (talk) 01:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The general constuctive opinion I had in mind was "Subject does not require its own article, cull and merge relevant character information to the main game article or character list article." It's pretty basic, but still better than "Delete this per WP:blahblahblah." - Norse Am Legend (talk) 02:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        How is it "better"? Protonk (talk) 02:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I didn't see anyone commit WP:JUSTAPOLICY or WP:VAGUEWAVE here, except for the obvious. MuZemike (talk) 04:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plot summary and in-universe detail with no real-world information. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject indicates that this topic is non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JNN is never a valid reason for deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Technically it is if there is a lack of reliable independent sources. Just to clarify, I'm still in favor of a selective merge and redirect. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  - Doctorfluffy did not invoke WP:JNN. He was verbose, as that essay suggests one should be. Marasmusine (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You can sum that edit up as essentially arguing the subjective "not notable," when it is obviously notable to those who created, worked on, and read the article, i.e. people who leave in the real world. Given the RfC over notability that shows a total lack of consensus when it comes to fictional notability and spinoff articles, it seems questionable. A simple Google search suggests that it can be verified as well in reviews of the game, which means coverage in independent sources. Now what is and is not "significant" is something that is again subjective as argued as demonstrated by the lack of consensus in the RfC on notability an other similar discussions. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - You can sum that edit as "not notable", but that would ignore the reasoning listed for that statement.
        And while notability is subjective to an extent, Wikipedia is concerned with the notability demonstrated by the existence of reliable and independent sources making note of topic. Unfortunately, our perception of notability as editors and readers is not part of the equation at WP:N.
        I would also like to point out that the number of google results is misleading as most link to website user reviews, product listings, and pages for other uses of "odessa". (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
        Feh, Wikipedia's concept of "it may be relevant to the interests of many people and is an important sub-topic of a major subject, but it's not actually notable enough to be read on our nonscholarly internet quick reference site unless an irrelevant fanboy writer on IGN says something about it" notability is pretty asinine. It's somewhat pointless to discuss that here though anyway since this is really a MoS-related deletion and not a notablity one, seeing as the core information's notable enough to be kept but it's pointless to have its own article(this article was actually made more than a year before the main character list IIRC). Someone end this already. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 01:18, 5 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. There seems to be adequate sources, though the article could still use improvement I don't think this is a case for deletion. henrik•talk 19:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

San Jose Golddiggers[edit]

Non notable sports team. Possible hoax. Fails WP:RS. NO sources given at all. Google and google news turn up nothing on this.

Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 04:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~LOL~~ I mean keep. [30] The New York Times saw fit to provide coverage on the team. I'm seeing lots of other news links as well via Google. This begs the question... what Google are you using..? :) JBsupreme (talk) 06:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please adhere to the civility standards.Undead Warrior (talk) 12:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Get a grip. Nary an uncivil word has been written. Next time Google harder if you're going to claim you really searched on Google, okay buddy? If you can't handle reasonable discourse I suggest you walk away now, while you still have a chance. :;-) JBsupreme (talk) 06:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to realize that sarcasm is being uncivil. Your above post is uncivil. The post you just did was uncivil. Keep personal sarcastic comments to yourself. It is not needed on wikipedia. AfD is not the place for comments like yours. Undead Warrior (talk) 09:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HOLD ON !!! This is a legitimate wikipedia article. The San Jose Golddiggers WERE a real professional women's volleyball team in Major League Volleyball from 1987-1989.I have included a legitimate reference source for the team, the 1989 San Jose Golddiggers Team Media Guide. There is no reason to delete this article, as I have given a legitimate reference source. The league was televised by ESPN, so it MUST have existed. I have VHS game tapes of televised matches, programs, volleyballs and literally hundreds of game action pictures from all three Golddiggers seasons. If I need to further corroborate this information I can do so easily. Just because Google doesn't pull up any info isn't a surprise,try using the following links that Google obviously missed :

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/San_Jose_Golddiggers" --Bill swanson (talk) 07:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citing another wiki page is not a reliable source. Neither is a geocities page. The google searches come up with thousands of returns, but that is because the term Golddigger is a widely used term to phrase something that is not related to sports. Undead Warrior (talk) 12:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick point The NY times article doesn't even talk about the Golddiggers. It talks about the New York team that beat them. The article still fails WP:RS. Undead Warrior (talk) 13:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. I can understand nominator's skepticism about whether a women's sports team would be called the "golddiggers", but that was indeed their name. I recall the team, and MLV, from the 1980s, and the team did get coverage, as the cites by Swanson demonstrate. Mandsford (talk) 13:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See also Sports Illustrated, May 25, 1987 article entitled "Women's volleyball goes for the (pro) Gold" Mandsford (talk) 13:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sources added to page I have added links to websites, whether Geocities or not, including Sports Illustrated, the New York Times, major universities, etc. While I admit Geocities sites are not considered as legitimate, come on, we aren't all imagining the team.

Reference material on a league that played from 1987-1989 is hard to come by on a search engine like Google. The internet was almost non-existent back then, so adding the information is dependent on average people like me. The job hasn't been done very well, but there is a preponderance of proof, whether or not Undead warrior wants to accept it. The San Jose Mercury-News web archive has over 100 individual articles on the team, so obviously they were of some importance in the local sports scene. I think I've given significant proof, but I'm willing to add more. Please stop the deletion of this article, which I might add, I didn't start. One person seems to be having difficulty accepting my resources, but I am trying to add more, as time allows. One persons seemingly narrow view isn't reason to delete something on wikipedia. --Bill swanson (talk) 03:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this a warning. Stop making those subtle attacks against me in your statements. AfD is not the place for it, nor is Wikipedia. Also, just because the internet was new or did not exist during an event, does not mean that the internet has no information over that event. Look at Pearl Harbor. It was before the internet, but many sources contain information over it today. You can also site things that are not on the internet. From now on, leave your attack comments to yourself. Also, this is not a guarenteed deletion. AFD is a process. If the overall consensus is to keep, then the article is kept. Please read WP:AFD. Undead Warrior (talk) 06:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While we're handing out free advice, please don't WP:BITE the newcomers. Its pretty obvious, to me at least, that Bill swanson is a new user who is acting completely in good faith while being understandable frustrated by typical Wikipedia processes. What's your excuse? JBsupreme (talk) 06:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is no case of biting. Any user, newcomer or not, cannot make attacks in statements. If he's frustrated, he should say so, not take it to attacking other users. That is common sense, not just a wikipedia rule. He has a thing on his talk page that points to the "rules" of wikipedia, so don't say he wasn't outside of this. I know he's new, but that is no excuse to attacking other users in AfD, or personal talk pages. Undead Warrior (talk) 12:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, lighten up! You started the disagreement, Undead warrior, All I did was add to an article. No disrespect intended, but you've not been the nicest person about this either. I just responded in kind. It wasn't my intention to annoy anyone. I may not use this service as regularly as many others, but I understand the rules. Let's just agree to disagree and call it a day.--Bill swanson (talk) 00:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not a disagreement. It's not a personal statement to another editor. It is a way of letting the community decide whether or not an article is worthy or not. Undead Warrior (talk) 02:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification In reference to my comment about a disagreement, I was referring to the info I was offering as proof of the teams legitimacy. I wasn't referring to the AfD directly, just the reliability of the sources, sorry for any confusion with that comment. --Bill swanson (talk) 04:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One of the good things that came from the nomination is that sources were added to the article. Awhile back, another editor expressed an opinion that I thought was interesting, which is that AfD can be a "no lose" prospect-- a nominated article that can be improved is improved, and one that cannot be improved is an article with no merit is removed. Kudos to both Undead Warrior and to Bill Swanson in calling attention to and fixing the lack-of-sources problem. Mandsford (talk) 22:25, 6 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 as article has been sourced and expanded. ZimZalaBim ^talk 12:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly fraud[edit]

WP:DICDEF, unsourced for nearly 2 years. ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I've cleaned up the article, adding references and expanding it beyond a dicdef. --T B C ♣§♠ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 05:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Nice one, TBC. — Byeitical (talk · contribs) 05:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: reason for nomination redundant. Soaringgoldeneagle (talk) 08:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
how is it "redundant"? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 12:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Given the sudden clean up, this AfD should probably be pulled, and i'm sure the original nominator would be happy to withdraw, especially conisdering all his problems have now been replaced with good sources. Perhaps next time he should reach for the unreferenced or fact templates. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 10:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
it has been tagged as unsourced since October 2006, so why would I add another one? If no one found sources in over 2 years, considering an AfD is reasonable. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 12:20, 3 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. X clamation point 22:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of bands named after other performers' songs[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of bands named after other performers' songs

Trivial intersection here, no sources. So an act named themselves after another act's song, big deal. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nom. This should be a category, not an article. – Jerry^teps 03:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This shouldn't be anything, really. Delete it with fire. JuJube (talk) 04:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adding sources is easy as I have just demonstrated. Big deal and similar dismissive sentiments are quite inadequate as a reason to delete. The category argument is also inadmissable per WP:CLS: Developers of these redundant systems should not compete against each other in a destructive manner, such as by nominating the work of their competitors to be deleted because they overlap. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep pending sourcing. Viable article as it demonstrates the influence performers and their works have on other performers and their works, but this needs a lot of sourcing. I'm voting based upon the viability of the topic, plus to some degree the execution, but this needs some pretty extensive work. 23skidoo (talk) 18:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indiscriminate and far from useful. There is nothing notable about a band naming oneself after another bands song, and creating a list of them serves no purpose. I am a big believer in not having lists which can surely never be complete or balanced even within the criteria they set themselves and this is a classic example. Each case would also require a source, as there are untold cases of urban myth surrounding the assumption that a band is named after a song and each and every band would therefore need to be verified. In the same way, the list would then be limited to cases of "bands names after other artist’s songs as stated by the band in a situation that makes it easily verifiable." The author clearly realises this and has added an “Incorrect associations" section which needs to be removed as its entire premise is on quoting myth. The only useful act keeping this article would lead up to is setting more precedent for other lists of spurious data to be compared between articles, where the information is far better off on the bands page in cases where appropriate and sourced. Also note, if this somehow ends as a keep, it needs renaming to artists, not performers'. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 23:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination a slightly longer phrasing of "who cares". List with clear limiting criteria that can support a standalone article... the secondary sections of the list are a bit more troubling in that regard (I can see this getting unwieldy if not monitored), but deletion isn't the answer. Townlake (talk) 04:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and then delete A lot of the content here duplicates that at List of band name etymologies. Move anything sourced that the other article lacks, and then delete this one. Black Kite 21:46, 7 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. Mr.Z-man 20:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Center of India Tower[edit]

This is a vaporware building that never went beyond initial sketches, and all the sources are blog speculations. This does not deserve an entry in Wikipedia By78 (talk) 02:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Coulda, woulda, shoulda. The building was not built and references point to what might have been. Article is mostly speculation. TN‑X-Man 13:15, 3 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. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google Chrome[edit]

This article has no WP:RS and won't have any, most of the sources are WP:SPS by Google which violates WP Policy. Remember WP:NOT#JOURNALISM and WP:NOTADVERTISING. The article does not establish WP:NOTE and contains WP:OR Patcat88 (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to keep it. Wikipedia has articles on Firefox, Internet Explorer, and lesser know programs. Keep. 72.220.173.236 (talk) 02:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Duh, people are looking for information on this --Perwfl (talk) 02:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP http://news.google.com/news?q=google+chrome+browser gives a lot of reliable sources. WashPost, SanFran Chronicle, AP, etc. --Rajah (talk) 02:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP as there is not much info out there about it and the first place people look is wikipedia. it also seems that any new info on wikipedia is delited as soon as it is saved (that,s just not fair) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pivorod (talk • contribs) 02:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Uhh, aren't major Google products inherently notable now? ViperSnake151 02:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When Nightly Business Report covers a new browser, I think there's probably enough notability. Maxa megalon 2000 02:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP as I have seen forum posts pointing to this entry when people asked for details. And there are lots of independent reviews (Walt Mossberg for example)

Keep. There was a WSJ article on Chrome. Close this silly page. exeunt (talk) 02:15, 3 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 Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel McCormack[edit]

Asserts notability but likely hoax. No google hits and no IMDB entry Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Nonsense. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - per Criteria for Speedy Deletion, G1, complete and utter nonsense. RockManQ (talk) 01:59, 3 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 Redirected to Saint Catherine Labouré and closing this discussion as moot. I have to admit that I did a double take when seeing this up for deletion. The article was a very slight stub about a St. Louis elementary school. It seems that redirecting this to the page about the saint is the Obvious Right Thing. If a fuller article about the school should be made, it should be made under a disambiguating title. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St. Catherine Laboure[edit]

This is an unnotable elementary school. Tavix (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tavix (talk) 01:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. RockManQ (talk) 02:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the topic is deemed unnotable, we should convert the page into a redirect for Catherine Labouré. Zagalejo^^^ 02:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the article title were actually about the school, I would have suggested a redirect to St._Louis,_Missouri#Private_education, but since the title is so vague, a redirect to the saint page seems more appropriate. Corvus cornix_talk 04:25, 3 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. Mr.Z-man 20:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Digi Time Capsule[edit]

This article is a recreation digital time capsule, except used for advertising a company. Leonard^(Bloom) 01:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete basically an ad; no evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 01:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per JJL. RockManQ (talk) 02:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per the above. – Jerry^teps 04:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:CSD Soaringgoldeneagle (talk) 08:48, 3 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. Doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN, as stated. Black Kite 21:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Baldassara[edit]

prod contested Vague claims to notability. But none of the particulars appear verifiable. Looks like a COI puff piece created by a single purpose account, with no other real contributors also no independent sources Oo7565 (talk) 01:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Minor politician, does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. TN‑X-Man 13:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with X-Man. Buki ben Yogli (talk) 21:23, 7 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 A7 by Jennavecia, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Into the Mouths of Lions[edit]

Non-notable album by non-notable band Ocean Is Theory that has been salted and speedily deleted three times. Cunard (talk) 00:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A non-notable album by a non-notable band. Schuym1 (talk) 01:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't assert notability. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 01:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G6 Non-controversial deletion criterion here. Band is red linked and salted, so I can't see any possible reason to keep their album. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The author placed the following comment on the AfD talk page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i say keep it, it's a vary well known CD around the web. (Redviking09 (talk) 02:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Northwestern University residences#Public Affairs Residential College. Black Kite 21:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Public Affairs Residential College[edit]

Delete per same rationale as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lehigh University Counseling and Psychological Services. StaticGull Talk 16:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Little or no information on the topic, non-notable, and per above mention to other AFD. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!} 16:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 00:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to List of Northwestern University residences#Public Affairs Residential College as I have now done. No need to come here. TerriersFan (talk) 01:00, 3 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. Mr.Z-man 20:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mardon[edit]

The individual appears to be mentioned only in Pseudo-Jasher, an 18th century forgery. --Eliyak T·C 19:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I seem to have confused Sefer haYashar (midrash) and Book of Jasher (Pseudo-Jasher) despite my best efforts. This individual is in fact mentioned in a genuine Jewish tradition. Still, Sefer Hayashar should not be considered on a par with the Bible (in terms of notability of persons mentioned therein), and he is only mentioned in four verses at that. --Eliyak T·C 14:13, 4 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, Malinaccier (talk) 00:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 15:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete If the article cannot be expand more than what is currently stated I see no reason in having this article. Jon513 (talk) 17:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only if it/he is provably a forgery. IZAK (talk) 09:37, 4 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. Black Kite 21:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spellsong Cycle[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Schuym1 (talk) 00:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. RockManQ (talk) 01:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand or merge, but don't be a jerk - because arbitrarily declaring something to be not notable is the best deletion rationale, amirite? Let's see, a series of books written by a bestselling author- must be non-notable, eh? I would have accepted it if you had just merged it back into the author' article, as there's plainly not much text there, but nominating it for deletion instead implies that you're just getting your kicks off of deleting articles. --PresN (talk) 03:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please remember to be civil. Corvus cornix_talk 04:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That makes the author notable, not the series. Schuym1 (talk) 11:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination I am not finding any reliable sources independent of the subject either. JBsupreme (talk) 06:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand along the lines of The Saga of Recluce. If no expansion possible, merge back into author article. Murray Langton (talk) 12:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Clearly this series is notable, here are just a few of the reliable sources found on the EBSCO database via my local library:
- Green, Roland. "Shadowsinger (Book)." Booklist 98, no. 9/10 (January 2002): 825., Abstract: Reviews the book 'Shadowsinger,' by L.E. Modesitt.
- "SHADOWSINGER (Book)." Kirkus Reviews 70, no. 1 (January 2002): 22., Abstract: Reviews the book 'Shadowsinger,' by L.E. Modesitt, Jr.
- Cassada, Jackie. "Shadowsinger (Book)." Library Journal 127, no. 3 (February 15, 2002): 182., Abstract: Reviews the book 'Shadowsinger,' by L.E. Modesitt Jr.
- Zaleski, Jeff, and Peter Canon. "SHADOWSINGER (Book)." Publishers Weekly 249, no. 4 (January 28, 2002): 275., Abstract: Reviews the book 'Shadowsinger: A Spellsong Cycle Novel,' by L.E. Modesitt Jr.
- Cassada, Jackie. "The Shadow Sorceress (Book Review)." Library Journal 126, no. 11 (June 15, 2001): 106., Abstract: Reviews the book 'The Shadow Sorceress,' by L.E. Modesitt, Jr.
- Zaleski, Jeff, and Peter Canon. "THE SHADOW SORCERESS (Book review)." Publishers Weekly 248, no. 22 (May 28, 2001): 56., Abstract: Reviews the book `The Shadow Sorceress,' by L.E. Modesitt Jr.
- Green, Roland. "Adult Books: FICTION." Booklist 97, no. 17 (May 2001): 1672., Abstract: Reviews the book `The Shadow Sorceress,' by L.E. Modesitt.
- Green, Roland. "Adult Books: Fiction." Booklist 96, no. 8 (December 15, 1999): 761., Abstract: Reviews the book `Darksong Rising,' by L.E. Modesitt.
- Cassada, Jackie. "Book Reviews: Fiction." Library Journal 125, no. 1 (January 2000): 168., Abstract: Reviews the book 'Darksong Rising,' by L.E. Modesitt Jr.

And there are more, even just a look at gnews hits could convince you the series is notable: [35], [36],[37],[38]. If someone was familiar with the novels I am certain that they could easily create articles on each book in the series using the sources available. --Captain-tucker (talk) 13:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would withdraw because of the sources found, but I can't because there is two delete votes. I hate that rule. Schuym1 (talk) 21:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Notable series by a notable author (worldwide distribition, too), and each of the books is notable enough to warrant separate articles. 23skidoo (talk) 18:08, 3 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. Clearly enough secondary coverage to keep this. Black Kite 00:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cuil[edit]

violates WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:RECENTISM. the only notable thing cuil has done, to date, is release a press release making wild claims that were parroted on news sites and that then turned out not to be true. cuil had their 15 minutes of fame. if they somehow manage to become relevant, then yeah, they deserve a wikipedia article, but that has yet to happen Misterdiscreet (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, they're still getting coverage (and a canny scolding) by reliable sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You have to be kidding. Cuil was all over the news, so there's copious reliable sources. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe you should actually, oh, I dunno, read WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:RECENTISM. There are also copious reliable sources on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Patterson but that didn't help her stay around. To quote from the policy you've clearly not bothered to read, "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own.". Misterdiscreet (talk) 12:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:Company: An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The article's cited references speak louder than. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NOT#NEWS: Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own.. The WP:Company quote you provide uses the word generally as in there are conditions in which that quote doesn't apply. Situations like this - situations where that WP:Company quote would be in conflict with WP:NOT#NEWS Misterdiscreet (talk) 14:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep many reliable sources, bona fide search engine. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 13:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tons of reliable sources, involvement of serious techie heavyweights -- and a major flop (so far). Absolutely keep this article. Barpoint (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Techie heavyweights like Anna Patterson and Tom Costello, both of whom had their wikipedia articles deleted? Misterdiscreet (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Had I seen the AfD for Patterson I would have asked for a keep. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep- This is in every sense of the word, WP:NOTABLE. Perhaps it's fame and hype is short lived, but it still operates, and it's sources are enough to ascertain notability. PerfectProposal 01:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Cuil is nothing but a media side-show. It is by far the worst website ever. There are NO favourable reviews of Cuil. In all probability, people visit Cuil only through Wikipedia. That would make Wikipedia a Cuil advertisement vehicle, which is against our policies. As noted in a recent Washington Post article (Is Cuil Killing the Internet?), Cuil has become the Internet's public enemy #1. Its notoriety keeps growing - why? - maybe partly because of the visibility given by sites like Wikipedia.Khichdi2008 (talk) 03:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The reasons you cite for deleting it (strongly worded articles and emotions) are actually reasons to Keep this article, and the claim that we're sending it all its traffic is ludicrous. WikiScrubber (talk) 05:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Why is the claim ludicrous? Let me explain; try to understand. People are NOT visiting Cuil for web-search. Since Cuil has now become a mockery, ridiculed and chastised by newspapers, magazines and even Wikipedia, people are going to Cuil for some "schaden-freude" fun, thinking: "What new snafu has this site now created?". For instance, Wikipedia says that porno was displayed beside Search results. So people are saying, let me check out the porno images next to a search for "nuclear scientist". My claim that sites like Wikipedia are sending it traffic for all the wrong reasons is legitimate. "Strong emotions" are definitely a reason to keep the article. Unanimous hatred and detestation is not. Next time you use smart-aleck words like "ludicrous", better explain yourself. As remarked elsewhere, it is a certainty that Cuil will not be deleted - I very well know that. I am just providing a counterpoint to the same monotonous "keep" argument that all you conformists are submitting. Khichdi2008 (talk) 17:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Your original claim (see above) was: "In all probability, people visit Cuil only through Wikipedia." That is indeed ludicrous; there have been literally hundreds of news articles about Cuil. Your greatly modified claim is that "sites like Wikipedia are sending it traffic for all the wrong reasons," which is both debatable and irrelevant. Barpoint (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: OK, touche. I modified what I said earlier. Anyway, that's what I meant. To whit, instead of visiting Cuil to search for info, people go there to look for more snafus and joke material. And, that is what making the site notable in the first place. Anyway, this is WP:SNOW without a doubt. I was just presenting a contrasting point of view. Let the website stay. Let the Wikipedia article stay. After all, we all need laughing material and slapstick humour from time to time, and Cuil promises to keep us entertained for as long as it lasts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khichdi2008 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as it is absolutely notable (if also notorious), and WP:SNOW btw. WikiScrubber (talk) 05:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SNOW may be a reason to close early but it's not a reason to vote keep. Read Argumentum ad populum if you don't understand why Misterdiscreet (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could someone please close this WP:SNOW? There is no way this discussion will end with a delete. I'd close it myself but I commented with a "keep" above. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Cuil is a business, plain and simple. If it is an active global corporation, then it needs to have a Wikipedia page. Plain and simple. Whether or not Cuil is a well-run or particularly outstanding company is irrelevant to having a page (Enron and WorldCom should have their pages removed if the company's business practices are criteria on keeping a Wikipedia page or not).137.28.221.211 (talk) 13:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever you say, WP:MEATPUPPET Misterdiscreet (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep" it exists so it has an article. this simple. this is an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.57.93 (talk) 14:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "it exists so it has an article"? so you think everything should have an article, regardless of notability, verifiability, or any of the other basic tenants upon which wikipedia espouses? Misterdiscreet (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I visited the Wikipedia Cuil page (just now) to find out more about Cuil. Imagine that. I was hoping that the page would give an unbiased view of what Cuil is, what it isn't, and some factual criticisms of the engine, which, after all, is one of the things Wikipedia is all about. I was shocked to learn that this page was a candidate for deletion. Hence, my vote. Dr Smith (talk) 21:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If Wikipedia is not news, then do you propose transwikiing this to Wikinews, The free news source you can write!? Of course not. It has recieved recent coverage about it killing the internet, had caused some concerns about the pictures. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 23:30, 6 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.