Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 August 26: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:20, 26 August 2008

< August 25	August 27 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anderson Biro

Company does not appear to be remarkable in any way - all google hits are either press release type material or pages created by the company. ThaddeusB (talk) 20:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I now see that this a actually a recreation of deleted material, so I requested a speedy deletion under those grounds--ThaddeusB (talk) 20:24, 26 August 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 16:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Peters

Second nomination for deletion. No reliable sources to verify notability according to WP:PORNBIO. Awards not well known. Score and Voluptuous Magazine "awards" are not covered in independent reliable sources similar to "Playboy Playmate" or "Penthouse Pet". Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources to verify she meets WP:PORNBIO. JoshuaD1991 (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's notable as a big-bust model and has won a few awards, meets (barely) WP:PORNBIO--2008Olympian _chitchat^seemywork 04:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent reliable secondary sources proves her notability. Tosqueira (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tosqueira. Stifle (talk) 13:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable. No evidence of non-trivial coverage by reliable, third-party published sources. — Satori Son 14:52, 2 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. Although the synopsis has been re-written during the course of this discussion, (to no longer be a copyvio), it still does not assert notability, and fails reasonable attempts to establish notability in reliable sources. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted! The Hundred Mile an Hour Dog

The article is badly written, contains little information and appears to mostly just be a word-for-word ???copy of the book in question. It Is Me Here (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find any reliable sources that show it's notable. Also, it appears to be a copyvio. Schuym1 (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Id just like to point your attention towards the talk page were the articles creator has posted a comment. Salavat (talk) 11:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pare down and merge to the author's page. He's written dozens of children's books, all of which are now redlinked. They don't all need Wikipedia articles and this page is a bad precedent. - Richfife (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no reference to this book's real-world influence, and there are no citations. Best to just leave this as an item on a list. SunDragon34 (talk) 23:37, 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 Delete. Stifle (talk) 13:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saliwahan Sikarwar

I'm really not sure what this page is about. It just seems to ba ramblings about two villages in india which have nothing to do with the subject matter. This might be CSD-able as patent nonsense, but I'm bringing this here in the case that someone can de-crap-ify this article and make it understandable. --I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 19:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I just ran a couple of Google searches and kept coming back to this article. Obvious problems with WP:RS and WP:V. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not sure what Saliwahan Sikarwar is (a person?) but the village of Bhagwanpur seems to exist[1][2][3]. I suggest moving the article to the title Bhagwanpur, Bihar as a start and bringing it to the attention of Wikiproject India. It is tagged for improvement. There is already an article on Chainpur, India so the text about this place in the article could be removed. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tagged for WP India. I've seen several times in the past that articles about some of the less urban areas of India start out like this, with more emphasis on historical or legendary events that occurred at the location. I do understand that it can look like random statements to those of us who don't have prior knowledge of the tradition from which they arise. Once tagged they tend to be brought into normal standards. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The "Sikarwar" article shows that Saliwahan Sikarwar was a ruler of the district. I have added this. However I couldn't find any reliable sources. I have added a request for comments at WikiProject India. Axl (talk) 07:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Bhagwanpur: Saliwahan Sikarwar does not seem to be notable enough for a separate article, anyway he is mentioned in Sikarwar page. Also information on Chainpur should be removed. Its a different place. It seems that the guy who started this article simply by copying from here did not understand what he was doing. --GDibyendu (talk) 08:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or split -clearly this information should not be in the same article The Bald One ^{White cat} 12:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Edit and Keep : It has a place in Category-Villages_in_Bihar Villages_in_Bihar. Manoj nav (talk) 21:07, 29 August 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) 13:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red Star Belgrade 2008/2009 transfers

A list of transfers for a single club for a single season, which I believe fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 19:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC) пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 19:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 19:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If this was part of Red Star Belgrade season 2008-09 then it could stay, but a separate article for one club's transfers in one season is not necessary. – Pee Jay 19:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Create and Merge into a season article. matt91486 (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 12:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Quentin X talk 23:02, 27 August 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 23:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Jonas

Non-notable musician. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete I don't see any real claims of notability here. Brianyoumans (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming the non notable band goes also, Delete. If by some miracle the band survives Redirect as this article offers no notability beyond the band. Nuttah (talk) 16:22, 31 August 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apathy (Swe)

Non-notable band. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any real claims of notability here. It is possible that they meet WP:MUSIC, but you can't tell it from this article, and I'm not going to try to sort out online info for a Swedish band, especially since there is apparently another Swedish band with the same name (according to the Encyclopedia Metallicum or whatever they call it.) Brianyoumans (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone comes up with some evidence of notability. Nuttah (talk) 16:21, 31 August 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Tha Hood

Non-notable album. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, absolutly no sources. RockManQ (talk) 01:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparent hoax; does not show up on Billboard or Allmusic. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 17:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable artist fr33kman (talk) 15:57, 31 August 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faye Rampton

Doesn't appear to meet WP:PORNBIO. JoshuaD1991 (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I had wp:prod'd this with exactly the same rationale, but this was removed by an anonymous user with no rationale given. -- ratarsed (talk) 19:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No independent reliable secondary sources to verify notability of SportxxxBabes appearances to consider whether they are mainstream. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All reasons presented above. Tosqueira (talk) 07:17, 27 August 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. Not quite enough meat in the keep comments to make this a clear consensus to keep, but there's certainly no consensus to delete.--Kubigula (talk) 04:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Connors (porn star)

Potentially non-notable porn actress, and the article lacks sources. JoshuaD1991 (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Add Deep Throat to the Gong Show to being Thora Birch's mom and I think you've got notability, even if not not porn star notability alone. But of course, it all needs sourcing. David in DC (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough reliable secondary sources to verify notability for own article. Most coverage is due to articles about her daughter. Notability is not conferred by association. Brief mention in Thora Birch and Deep Throat article (maybe gong show too) is adequate. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just because a stub has no current references doesn't mean it should be deleted. Notability due to association with iconic events is obvious. The parenting is a secondary item worth mention but not the reason for notability. 2005 (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very notable within her genre and outside it as well. Independently notable beyond Thora Birch but still an association worth noting (and it's been widely noted in those esteemed "third party sources" too). 23skidoo (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:PORNBIO. Lacks of reliable secondary sources. Tosqueira (talk) 07:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs some work, but I believe her to be notable due to the particular film she is in and the fact she has a mainstream movie actress daughter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobbomock (talk • contribs) 20:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just wanted to elaborate on my delete vote in that there's not much biographical information from reliable sources about Mrs. Connors beyond she's married to Jack, they were in Deep Throat, and they produced Thora but I guess I can live with that stub. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --THFFF (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caution - the nominator says in his personal page he is 16 year old. I am curious about the legality to engage a discussion about porn with a 16 year old in come countries. Hektor (talk) 05:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored for minors. --THFFF (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She may not be as famous as she once was, but she is still a part of porn history! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.179.234.202 (talk) 20:51, 1 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, sufficient WP:RS/WP:V sources significantly discussing article's subject exist.. Cirt (talk) 23:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We Are Beautiful, We Are Doomed

Non-notable unreleased album. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP It will be released soon. It is notable.Cm619 (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, think the "non-notable" statement of the nominator is harsh, the band are definitely known. Album is also out in near future and information is confirmed so this is not a case of WP:CRYSTAL. Esteffect (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — both above statements are nothing but WP:ITSNOTABLE claims. Without verifiable, third-party sources (Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth.), it's crystalballing. MuZemike (talk) 03:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself references articles stating that the album will be released. Cm619 (talk) 16:36, 27 August 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 23:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cornerstone Dub

Non-notable band. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a fair distance from meeting notability requirements. Nuttah (talk) 17:44, 30 August 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 16:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dub The Mood

Non-notable album by non-notable band. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Wikipedia:MUSIC#Albums, ...if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Since the band itself has an article about itself, it is therefore notable falls under the quote. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 23:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the band has had its article deleted. Stifle (talk) 13:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Stifle. No objection if the band later becomes notable, but for now - this doesn't meet our criteria for inclusion. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:09, 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) 19:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donut bumper

Unsourced with no assertion of notability. Pretty much a dictdef. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 18:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable dictdef. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable. see comment on removal of CSD tag by author and further contribution [4] Please also see [5]. Very amusing. ChiragPatnaik (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:DICDEF, or merge with Rubber baby buggy bumper. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn dicdef. Agrees with User:ChiragPatnaik, it was indeed amusing. thousands of edits? really? - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 08:46, 31 August 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 23:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hatching Pete

Needs substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Only trivial coverage found. Might come out in 2009... Contested prod. Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF --Ebyabe (talk) 14:32, 31 August 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) 13:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Craig

This article was deleted as an expired WP:PROD a week or so back but have been recreated in identical form. It is about a musician who does not appear to have any notability outside The Cunninghams and there is a lack of reliable sources. The extensive laundry list of "credits" looks impressive at first glance until you realise that his connection with them is as an A&R man. nancy ^(talk) 18:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (I put the prod on) WP:AUTO of guitar player who shows no notability outside The Cunninghams. The article lacks reliable sources, and is mostly a reproduction of The Cunninghams article (also created by the same person) which is largely copied from their myspace page. Duffbeerforme (talk) 01:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. The real story here is the work of 'The Diaries of Mixerman'. What you are reading here is the biography of an anonymous author. Mixerman is very notable in the music/online fiction community - there is probably not much else known about his work to elaborate on this. --a user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.1.37 (talk) 13:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As per OTRS, Eric Craig is not Mixerman. DS (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:08, 2 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, both under notability and advertising (A7 and G11, so basically speedy). Xavexgoem (talk) 07:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shamwow!

Prod removed. Notability not established, no secondary, reliable sources. D.M.N. (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability asserted, plenty of weaseling and original research. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Call now, and you'll get your very own personal article on Wikipedia as a bonus! Hurry, this offer ends in 5 days when the article is deleted! Totally fails WP:N -- no independent coverage. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 18:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has no notability or organization. The slogan does not deserve it's own section. Claims of success and failure need additional independent sources. The Team Fortress 2 information is highly irrelevant and unsourced. Hazardous Matt 18:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Spamwow! - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Should be labeled as Stub, not spam at all. I have no ties to Shamwow! Inc., I'm only 13. --Degenerate-Y (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Degenerate-Y[reply]

*Hold On- I'm going to try to fix this one up. There should be some sources out there somewhere... I think I might be able to find something to ascertain its notability. PerfectProposal 23:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]

I dunno. That's the best I can do, given the lack of resources on the subject. It's not exactly a high-profile product, but it's notability may warrant keeping an article on it. We'll see how this plays out. PerfectProposal 00:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC) See below...[reply]

So unless anyone has any major objections, I'm removing the proposed deletion on the page 10:25Eastern US/9:25Central US —Preceding unsigned comment added by Degenerate-Y (talk • contribs) 02:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and I think that Degenerate Y may be a puppet of ChuckCoke (they both sign with a signature then copy their name and both are claiming to have created this article, I offer this for comparison). Darrenhusted (talk) 08:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also see this CheckUser which was declined. D.M.N. (talk) 08:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have put together a sock puppet case. But otherwise pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This one's odd. Degenerate-Y seems desperate to salvage this article, even going as far as thanking me for saving "his" page [6] In light of the Checkuser suspicions, perhaps we should Delete, until an article can be written free of a potential conflict of interest.Perfect Proposal 13:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was at ChuckCoke's house making it with him, so i guess it's not FULLY my page.--Degenerate-Y (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obvious spam page. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't care who wrote it or about any COI (real or not). If a subject is notable, it gets an article, COI or not. However, there is insufficient notability for this product. The currect sources are: 1) the company's website (moot), 3 blogs (not reliable, so also moot) and one reliable source that's about whether it works, with little actual info on the product. From reliable, independent sources, we simply do not have enough to establish notability. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know everyone says it's spam, and I'm sorry if it seems like it. I'm only 13, I have no ties to Shamwow! Inc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Degenerate-Y (talk • contribs) 20:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We're using "spam" as short hand for "reads like an ad" not "written as an ad". We're not concerened with what your intentions are/were, only what the article is like. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should Delete the page, if it can be only trimmed to the current revision. Lack of reliable resources found on the web hurt chances of keeping it.--Degenerate-Y (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hey Degenerate no sweat. This article may not have worked out but that doesnt mean you cant try again.. My advice write an article on a topic you think has importance, but write it on your User page. Then ask around at the WP:Village Pump for advice from people. Remember though the article must have importance to lots of people. Here on wikipedia you need to prove the importance by finding newspaper articles about the topic. benjicharlton (talk) 07:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Your First Article. PerfectProposal 13:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is not a business directory. We are interested in products by their generic type but we don't need an article about every brand name unless the brand is independently notable. This does not seem to be. The only thing standing between it and speedy deletion is the Chicago Tribune reference. Unfortunately that is much less impressive when you actually read it. In fact, it it shows no sign of true journalistic investigation, just space filler. The other three refs are not RS. A quick Google was not encouraging. Google News suggests that the advert is of greater notability (a little) than the product itself (none). --DanielRigal (talk) 00:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Stifle (talk) 13:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC) more of a no consensus, on reflection, but the default is to keep. Stifle (talk) 18:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swiftfuel

AfDs for this article:

Article fails both WP:Crystal and WP:NOTE. FAA has published no information on this topic, including no information on claimed testing. No building permits have been issued nor applied for the supposed pilot plant. While the company has applied for a patent, the patent has not yet been granted, and patents do not grant notability, much less patent applications. No 3rd party source has established performance or notability beyond the press buzz. If the pilot plant building permit is granted, the article can be recreated. Until then, this is nothing more than vaporware. Original closer of AfD noted that the arguments in favor of keeping were heavily loaded with large numbers of WP:ILIKEIT !votes with inferior arguments. HatlessAtless (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, the supposed "2500 sq foot pilot plant" is microscopic as far as industrial facilities of that type go. How they plan to store, process and manage all of the chemicals, organic materials, fermenters, and related stuff in such a tiny space is highly suspicious. Locating the pilot plant at an airport seems to indicate that they intend to market the fuel product there, but with the size of the plant, this seems unlikely or at best a marketing stunt. HatlessAtless (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When something potentially dubious is highly notable, having an encyclopedic entry like this about claims and problems is better than nothing, although it may be prone to disputatiousness.. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the initial press buzz, patent applications, nor the grandiose statements about a pilot plant and big plans are sufficient to establish notability at all. Not only is this not "highly notable" as you state, this is not notable at all. After the initial press buzz in June, not a single significant 3rd party mention of the fuel appears on google separate from re-reports of the initial buzz. It is well established that initial press buzz does not establish notability. More importantly, having a wikipedia article lends legitimacy to the product which does not exist yet in a meaningful way. HatlessAtless (talk) 18:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point about ephemeral notoriety vs. notability. Frankly, I don't like the article, but consider it a borderline case because Cringely gets noticed. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cringly does get noticed, but if you read his article on energy issues (since the article isn't about swiftfuel) he only mentions the stuff and refrains from making any claim about whether or not this is any good. To me that's an important consideration, because even though PBS and Cringly are considered a reliable source, mere mention in a reliable source (even though its a pretty big mention) when the article is on another topic (energy independence) this is not something I would put down as establishing real notability. HatlessAtless (talk) 20:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak delete. What to do when the reliable sources are wrong? Who knows. In the end I lean towards delete because there seems to basically be ONE source -- the Cringely one. However, keeping would not be a disaster, as long as the article makes clear that there's really nothing beyond the name. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 19:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The article has sources, although primarily it's Cringely as noted. The thing is, the article that the sources would let us write is not encyclopedic. There really isn't anything to say other than "this product might be made, and if so, it might be a big deal". So, we have the fairly rare situation in which the sources that provide the article's notability don't really confirm verifiability of its claims. If you strip the article down to what is verifiable, there's not much left. No prejudice to another article when new sources appear. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The fact remains the AFD was closed with a keep decision only 2 months ago, making it too soon for an AFD renomination. I agree there are issues that need to be addressed with the article, but time needs to be given for such improvements to be made. I've no objection if the article is renominated in another few months if improvments have not been made. 23skidoo (talk) 01:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two months is hardly "too soon" for a renomination, especially considering the weaknesses in the keep decision and the fact that no new information on the topic has materialized in the last two months to substantiate either notability or, really, verifiability. HatlessAtless (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a side not, the article has undergone massive revision between the original AFD closure and now (with myself adopting the article as an active editor, among others). Currently the article contains all information on the topic, and is not likely to be improved further without new information coming to light. I have no objection to the article being recreated once sufficient information comes to light such that the article meets wikipedia inclusion criteria. Check the page history and look at the changes between the old afd version and the current one to see what improvements have been made. HatlessAtless (talk) 21:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
- Does not violate WP:NOTE ~~Topic is notable~~, as evidenced by buzz in Aviation news. Article should be improved to show relevance to the 100LL problem -- if Swiftfuel fails, some planes will be unable to fly as there will be no fuel for them when 100LL is banned in 2010. --SV Resolution(Talk) 03:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Does not violate WP:Crystal. Local newspaper reporter verifies that product's owners have met with local government officials and airport board in public meetings (July 24), and are on the agenda for a future meeting (August 28).
- Claim that "2500 sq foot pilot plant is microscopic as far as industrial facilities of that type go" is not supported by evidence, and do not support statment that the company's claimed product development plans are a "suspicious" "marketing stunt".
- Finally, for those tired of alternative energy failures, scams, and hoaxes, the article can show whether the company can ~~meat~~ meet its stated short-term product development goals, with 6-month and 1-year horizons. If the product fails or is exposed as a scam or hoax, the topic, still notable, can be merged into a new article on alternative energy failures, hoaxes, and scams. --SV Resolution(Talk) 18:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - First, there is no "100LL problem" as such, and Swiftfuel is not a major player in any case, for three reasons. First, the FAA/EPA can extend the waiver at any time. Second, alternative high-octane fuel options are available commercially that do not contain lead, such as E98. Granted that they have a lower energy density than 100LL, but this means that swiftfuel is not our "only hope" for a 100LL replacement. Third, swift enterprises is not in a position to have any kind of supply chain in place for the expiring waiver in a year and a half.

- - Second, the initial press buzz establishes temporary notoriety, not lasting notability, see WP:NTEMP. The press buzz has established a certain level of visibility. However, should this fall through or fail to get off the ground, no one will remember this years from now, hence the invocation of WP:CRYSTAL.

- - Third, what we have verified is that a meeting is scheduled for Aug 28. Just as being able to verify that a meeting is going to take place does not satisfy the dual requirement of both notability and certainty per WP:FUTURE. First, mere mention in a single reliable source as part of press buzz (Cringely) is not sufficient to establish notability. Even given that, with no building permit applied for, no patent granted, only applied for, this is still to speculative.

- - Fourth, Claims that a 2500 sq foot pilot plant is unsupported by evidence: http://www.seco.cpa.state.tx.us/re_ethanol_plants.htm is just one of many sources that allows one to look at similar industrial processes and approximate yield per square foot. At typical biorefinery sites, 3-10 gallons per square foot per year is typical. This means that the pilot plant could produce a maximum of 25000 gallons of 100LL per year. To give one an idea of how tiny this plant is, 2500 square feet can be visualized as a square 50 feet on a side. That is only the size of a moderate chemistry lab classrom! Claiming that my assertion is not supported by evidence, particularly without providing counterevidence, only obscures the underlying reality of my statement regarding the size of the plant.

- - Finally, in terms of its short term development goals, per WP:NOR this topic will be sufficient for inclusion in wikipedia when it has met those goals, and reliable sources have reported on it. This is the very definition of WP:NFT, where swiftfuel is something made up in a lab one day.

HatlessAtless (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts on the 5 points from User:HatlessAtlas above:

100LL is a problem for small aircraft owners. GA news organizations call this "one of the biggest problems facing GA". This makes it notable. Small aircraft owners are concerned about the waiver expiring, about makers getting out of the 100LL business, and about how the price goes up faster than that of other fuels. E98 is not a suitable alternative for higher-compression engines because of knocking problems, and unsuitable for many older planes because they cannot use ethanol fuels.
Article does not violate WP:Crystal -- article cites a newspaper article stating that, not only is there an airport meeting, but that Swift Enterprise's pilot plant proposal is on the agenda -- almost certain. Article does not "speculate on what might become well known in the future."
See above
What is the size of a typical pilot plant?
As for WP:NOR and WP:NFT, there is no evidence that the editors of the article are presenting original research or "ideas which they or their friends have come up with, such as a new ball game invented in the park, a new word or phrase invented in the playground, a new language, or a new drinking game invented at a particularly memorable party." Other reliable sources HAVE written about this new invention. The editors of the article feel this is notable, and are documenting the information available from these sources.

Finally, as for the potential that interest in this topic may well prove to be ephemeral -- should Pet Rock be deleted, or should it be improved? --SV Resolution(Talk) 20:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1 Which GA news organizations? What is your citation for your quote?

2 That misses my point. The speculative event is whether the pilot plant will be built, not whether there are meetings to talk about it. There are meeting to talk about corporate projects and building projects every day across the country. A large number of such projects never get off the ground. The meetings are verified and almost certain. However, they do not lend any kind of certainty to the plant being built. The pilot plant is still future speculation until a building permit is issued officially. When that happens, we have near certainty (even though the second requisite part, notability, is still an open question). Hence future speculation.

3 see above

4 There is no "typical" size for a pilot plant, but the whole purpose of a pilot plant is one that is large enough to grant useful experience to the company in a production-scale environment. Looking at the patent for swiftfuel, there are at least 6 different chemical constituents in their fuel blend for 100LL. If we look at the articles for each of those compounds/compound families, we can see that each one has a separate method of synthesis. Depending on what level of integration this plant will have that is a lot of piping, storage and control tanks, and will be quite a feat of chemical engineering to complete. Piping, heaters, storage tanks, etc, require a lot of space, not to mention fermenters and distillers, separators, blending units, etc. I would guess that a plant of this type would expect to be at least 25000 - 100000 square feet minimum, just based on the synthesis information in wikipedia for the component parts of their 100LL fuel alone.

5 The editors are presenting an idea (myself included, since I am a significant contributor to the article) that someone came up with one day. It has not been published in an academic journal of any reputation, much less a reliable one. It has not been recognized as a unique invention by any government. It has not been endorsed by a single media organization as a proven success. It has received mention on a slow news day of some new thing that might have potential, or might not. I both contribute to the article because all articles should be encyclopedic and complete, while at the same time I consider this to be non-notable. I stand as a counterexample to your statement.

6 your comparison with the pet rock is inapt. The idea of a pet rock has become one cited in numerous sources, and has become something of a joke for 'get rich quick' schemes that don't really contribute to society. The differences between swiftfuel and pet rocks are striking. First and foremost, pet rocks were successful, and they made their inventor rich. Note the past tense. Second, pet rocks have enough information about them to move beyond permastub status. Things such as imitators, economic trends and impact, notable owners, and popular culture references could all be used to expand the article. The current swiftfuel article, however, does not have the possibility of being significantly expanded or improved because the information necessary to do that does not exist. See WP:SCRABBLE for why the potential impact argument for swiftfuel is invalid. HatlessAtless (talk) 20:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1 Please see cited references in Swiftfuel. Aeromarkt is an online GA news magazine. Airport Business covers the GA beat. AOPA online, the magazine of the AOPA, offers a position piece on avgas replacements.

2-6 Your discussion of how Swiftfuel is different from pet rock has helped me to understand your point of view on the notability of the topic. If I may paraphrase -- the pet rock may have been a flash in the pan, but Swiftfuel has never even flashed. You have a point.

I agree that the Swiftfuel article cannot currently be expanded much since there is currently not much more information available. The article, as a standalone, might be premature, and the information might be best placed somewhere else. I do think that, when people come looking for information on Swiftfuel (what it is, whether it is available, who cares about Swiftfuel and why), they should be able to find this information at Wikipedia. WP:PRESERVE says preserve this information. The information is notable.

I don't support deleting this article. I might support merging sections of Swiftfuel into appropriate existing or new articles. The "100LL problem" story of environmental concerns, unleaded alternatives, improper operating temperatures, excessive valve wear, fuel system corrosion, aviation "incidents" and the development of various avgas alternatives is itself Wikipedia-worthy. If the Swiftfuel information gets moved out into other appropriate articles, the article would then be empty. --SV Resolution(Talk) 14:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I agree with you that we don't need to remove all of the information on swiftfuel from wikipedia, but we agree on the fundamental point that there really isn't enough information to make a good article. Your paraphrase is right on the mark. I would have no particular objection to mentioning swiftfuel being mentioned in any of several articles or lists (including 100LL, or lists of developmental biofuels, etc). HatlessAtless (talk) 17:50, 1 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 23:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cassidy (album)

Disputed prod. Unconfirmed future album. Only reference is a blog. nancy ^(talk) 17:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL: no release date, no track list, verifiability problem as duly noted by nom. Cliff smith ^talk 01:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC#Albums—unreleased albums are NN without "significant independent coverage in reliable sources". —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 17:52, 27 August 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 I withdraw, given the presence of another source from Country Standard Time. I'm still not sure if Kathie Baillie really meets notability outside of Baillie & the Boys, but there seems to be just enough to say about this album. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Love's Funny That Way

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Love's Funny That Way

Non-notable album. Only source is an Allmusic review, which is the only source I could find anywhere that even mentioned this album. Also note that Kathie Baillie is a redirect to Baillie & the Boys, so technically the performer doesn't even have her own page, which especially makes this dubious. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence supporting retention

This album has been reviewed, mentioned, or is available for purchase at, among other web locations:

Country Standard Time

Amazon

Country Music Television

Backspace (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.
Delete, does not appear to have the level of sales necessary for notability. Stifle (talk) 13:51, 2 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, --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 01:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Performer from a notable act, independent mainstream news coverage, full track listing, sufficiently notable album on balance. Townlake (talk) 03:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep Album by notable artist, ~~but I don't know if that makes it notable. I'll have to leave this to everyone else.~~ And someone really should create an article on her. ~~Would that make it notable?~~ Spec ial K 14:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After looking closely, it looks like it passes. Spec ial K 14:12, 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Rudolf

Article is about a musician that does not meet notability as there are no reliable sources about him. Sourcing is a huge concern as the creator of the article has created a series of hoax pages (example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mi Final Feliz). And in particular for this article, the claim to fame is a single sitting at #37 on the Hot 100 for the week ending Aug 30, 2008. The Hot 100 singles chart however shows the position occupied by "It's Not My Time" by Three Doors Down and not "Let It Rock" by Kevin Rudolf. Whpq (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - wait until his solo album comes out, we'll see how it does, and restore it if need be. --Lord ₪Sunday 17:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Likely hoax, given the totally bogus chart position. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 20:33, 26 August 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) 17:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IRestorer

Nomination: Non-notable software product. Spamish, as it references only a download site. I scanned 100 top Google hits, finding only download sites, forums, blogs, and the ubiquitous Wikipedia. None of the blogs appear to reference reliable sources.
History: Previously deleted six times (under two names). Current incarnation was an admin repost with PROD after a SPEEDY delete deemed too hasty. PRODs were removed from current and previous incarnations without explanation. Ningauble (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Notability of a freeware product can be hard to find even when it exists, or I could have missed the obvious. Discussion here may turn up something the SPA working on the article has not included. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No Google Code references. No news references. Per nom, no real independent Google hits. Could be speedied as spam. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 18:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~as G4~~ as commercial. Jclemens (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- G4 doesn't apply, this hasn't been to AFD before. --UsaSatsui (talk) 23:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G11 — That's the criterion the above user meant, and also what I believe should happen as this is spam. MuZemike (talk) 03:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, unsourced; maybe not quite promotional enough for a G11 (but close). --Orange Mike | Talk 13:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in its current form I don't think it's a G11 at all. It is, however, not notable - zero WP:RS hits that I found. Given the frequent recreation suggest allowing AfD to run its course. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. I am not deleting Time (rapper), as it seems to have improved, but anyone can feel free to renominate it. Stifle (talk) 13:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Laboratory Productions

What we have here appears to be a walled garden of articles on rappers from Denver, all of whom are backed up by little to no supporting references to indicate their notability in the grand scheme of things. All are created by Timespitkicker (talk · contribs). The record label/collective Dirty Laboratory gets a whopping 165 Google hits and is backed up by minimal references; the associated artists get similarly unimpressive results in hunting around, and are supported by some minor references in rap/hiphop publications of questionable notability. Most of them also have several blogs linked as references. I don't see these artists or their label meeting WP:MUSIC at present. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 16:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following:

Delete - Can't find a reason to keep it. --Lord ₪Sunday 17:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, Dirty Laboratory Productions and all of it's artists comply with the wiki:music. All of the artists have consistent play on Clear Channel radio and are on the CMJ charts, they have also toured with big name acts such as Atmosphere, Aesop Rock and the Flobots. With artists up such as Cage (rapper) and many other indie hip hop acts I dont see why they shouldn't be included.

timespitkickerTuesday]] 15:03, 26 August 2008

Can you provide references so that we can verify the above information? I couldn't find a thing that wasn't from blogs or local papers. Are they being played nationally by Clear Channel? The articles suggest they're just getting local play. Has Dirty Laboratory been written up in a substantial manner by anyone outside of Denver? (additional: searching the CMJ site for any of the above doesn't help - i get nothing, again, so direct pointers to chart appearances would be useful.) Tony Fox (arf!) 21:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should also point out that it's very likely that timespitkicker has a conflict of interest in this discussion; one of the artists in question goes by the name "Time.". Tony Fox (arf!) 21:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, there are actually a lot of references that aren't from local newspapers. There are reviews and interviews from Chicago, New York, Australia, Switzerland and France. I understand they are not the biggest collective but they are on the map and effecting indie hip hop. On the note of my username I am a big fan of their music, which is why I am taking the time to add them to this Wikipedia. My username may look fishy but anyone can create a username and I created one after my favorite rapper Time. I am currently working on more references and information on Dirty Laboratory Productions. I am sure the longer Dirty Laboratory Productions is up more people will come along and add more info I see it is all ready getting hits. Let me know what else I can provide to satisfy the needs of Wikipedia. timespitkickerTuesday]] 22:10, 26 August 2008

We need to see these references you speak of. Provide us links, please, because they're hiding really well in Google. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, the references were added to Dirty Laboratory Productions wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timespitkicker (talk • contribs) 06:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the supposed sources are either unreliable or trivial passing mentions. Sorry, but this is just MySpacery, the band clearly does not meet our inclusion and sourcing policies. Likely WP:COI from the few single-purpose editors involved does not inspire confidence. Sorry, guys, but this is not the place to spread the word. Guy (Help!) 08:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You moderators are pompous and ignorant. There are plenty of less significant acts on this database and if you wish to enforce your rules let's please make them straight across the board. Other groups that have toured with Dirty Laboratory Productions such as Shape Shifters (band), Daddy Kev and Astronautalis have little or no sources beyond myspacery especially international sources, therefore I did a damn well job. PEACE BE WITH YOU, YOU ARE FORGIVEN FOR YOUR TREACHERY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timespitkicker (talk • contribs) 20:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, I think. Please read our no personal attacks policy, before continuing on. Look. A lot of times, articles slip through that shouldn't be included under our guidelines; at least one of the three you point out is unsourced nad should be deleted, and I'll be investigating that more thoroughly shortly. Your bands here just don't meet the guidelines, in the opinions of the editors who have commented thus far. This discussion goes for another few days before another administrator decides how to handle the request. If you have sources that can be considered reliable under the guidelines I've pointed out above, then please point them out and they'll be considered. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd like to draw attention to the new article Time (rapper), which looks to be a reworked (with better sourcing) version of the deleted Time (hip hop artist). Not voicing an opinion on the merits of the article, just making sure people see it. 71.204.176.201 (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd ask the closing admin to consider this article as part of the AFD closure, then. It's created by a new editor, I note, and while there's some interviews included, I still don't see the needed notability for this artist. I'm done from here out, leave it for others to consider. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:55, 28 August 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Girvan

Non-notable local sport anchor. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 16:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — completely nn, no references, no EV. Sorry. --Lord ₪Sunday 17:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unreferenced, non-notable. Calor (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has previously had a speedy declined and a prod removed. I still find the subject to be non notable. --Stormbay (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not referenced, no proof of notability. -Brougham96 (talk) 17:31, 26 August 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. WJBscribe (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Morris Poole Examination Suite

As it stands this is unverifiable. No sources in the article and I can find nothing on google. Nothing to suggest that it meets notability standards. Beloved Freak 16:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if 100% true, it's not notable in the least. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Nn, no references, short and stubby. Good articles should grab the reader's attention, and with this one, I don't want to learn more. This could have been prodded, FYI the nominator. --Lord ₪Sunday 17:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a) I prefer AFD to prod because if the article is deleted it can then be speedied under G4 if and when it's recreated.

b) It was prodded once and prod notice was removed. So, to AFD.--Beloved Freak 17:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's actually pretty hard to come up with a policy-based reason for rejecting this article, since we don't have a WP:Notability (big rooms) guideline (at least, I hope that link doesn't turn out to be a blue one). All I can say is that there would have to be a whole lot of reliable sources attesting to the notability of a room before I would advocate its inclusion, and I don't see them for this one. Redirection to Hundred of Hoo School is a possibility, but I doubt this title merits even that. Deor (talk) 22:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hundred of Hoo School -- Whpq (talk) 18:33, 27 August 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. WJBscribe (talk) 22:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ay up

A contested prod, the article fails WP:V and author states in the talk page, which has since been blanked (diff), that the definition of the word described in the article isn't true therefore in violation of WP:HOAX —— RyanLupin • (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — As violation of WP:HOAX, no references, nn (even if it was true), and completely no EV. --Lord ₪Sunday 17:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's not a hoax, people do really say that, but seems more like a candidate for Wiktionary than here.--Beloved Freak 17:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. (Why do we even have a Category:Vocabulary and usage stubs?) ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with Eh oop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) created by the same Single-purpose account ... Happy Editing! — 72.75.76.238 (talk · contribs) _{18:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete this dictionary definition. Cliff smith ^talk 01:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to Wiktionary... Delete per WP:HOAX, after seeing this... - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what the original author claims, it is a real phrase/saying. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] I still think it should be deleted but not as a hoax. --Beloved Freak 17:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its not in the dictionary. BountyHunter2008 (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it you deletionist fools! Its true as well, or have some of you yanks realized? --Deadlyfish (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge It is obviously not a hoax and the opinions of the editors who suggest this should be discounted as they cannot have read the article which contains a reference to the BBC - a source of the highest quality. The article might be merged to East Midlands English or some similar article on northern dialects but the phrase is so archetypal that it might stand by itself. Note that there is some confusion over the spelling for this. Charles Dickens used the form Eh'oop, while Eric Partridge has Ey oop. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True. I rest my case --Deadlyfish (talk) 16:18, 28 August 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) 13:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hilda Lamas

Fails inclusion criteria at WP:MUSIC. Has no significant coverage that I can find, but she was nominated twice for awards by the Tejano Music Industry Awards, which don't count as major music awards though.
Is at the moment a copyright violation and a blatant advertising. The author, a new Wikipedian, asserted to be this Mindy Marroquin (automatic conflict of interest).
It could be speedily deleted for those issues, but I want to discuss the notability of the topic, not the article in its current form, since she might pass Wikipedia:MUSIC#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles criterion 5. Amalthea^Talk 16:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No, i don't think she would pass that if the nom. couldn't find any references for the article. Completely nn, article is not written correctly (slightly less relevant), but anyway, subject has no "claim to fame." --Lord ₪Sunday 17:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - will probably be notable at some point, but not yet. Début CD (album?) set for release in late 2008 so doesn't meet criterion 5 of WP:MUSIC. I can't see any significant coverage in reliable sources either, and doesn't seem to be mentioned on AllMusic. I would say delete, allowing for recreation after début release, if there is significant coverage then.--Beloved Freak 17:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete nothing to discuss with a blatant G12 violation; also even if rewritten, still speedy under A7 - unremarkable person/band. Nothing notable about the person at all to warrant an attempt to salvage the article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I did a search for Hilda Lamas and I am showing some newspaper articles about her. I do not believe that this is advertising, but I did call the Tejano Music Awards office to confirm that she had indeed been nominated for the awards. The conclusion, is that she has been nominated and lost out only to a Latin Grammy Award Winner, Kacy Zavala. She is signed with a legit record company that has spawned hits not to mention they did have Freddy Fender on the label at the time of death. I wish there was a 6 month probation period to really research this young lady...here are a few sites to search for her...www.haciendarecords.com, www.haciendaradio.com, www.caller.com...got these sites from a search engine...Nathan(Thanwilliams (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thanwilliams (talk • contribs)

If you have reliable newspaper articles that cover her in detail (and not just mention her appearances), please add them to the article. The Tejano Music Awards can't be considered a major music award, and none of her hits have charted or placed in rotation by a major national radio network. In short, I don't think that she passes any of the criteria in WP:MUSIC, which is at the moment the notability guideline. --Amalthea^Talk 20:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An option for you (Thanwilliams) would be to copy the article to your userspace, making a subpage of your user page, and work on it there. Then, if and when Hilda Lamas becomes notable enough for an article (possibly after her album is released), you can move it back to the main article space. You don't need a 6 month probation period because there's no deadline for creating articles. If it's deleted now, there is no reason it cannot be recreated in the future if notability guidelines are met.--Beloved Freak 20:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per belovedfreak. In addition, I don't consider Tejano Music Award to be a major award . Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:14, 2 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. No objections to the redirect, which I'll handle momentarily. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mad as a hatter

Delete - Non notable, only about 10 or so relevant hits on Google, one of which was us, others were the bands official myspace. No mention of them in reliable sources such as newspapers, magazines etc. The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 16:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mad hatter#"Mad as a Hatter". The band is non-notable, but the term itself is notable. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, then redirect per Explodicle. Stifle (talk) 13:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per User:Explodicle. Bearian (talk) 00:13, 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 all as they pass WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 23:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Max Grün

Delete - fails WP:Athlete as never having played in a fully professional league. Contested Prod. This is a multiple nomination also for Alexander Benede, Marco Höferth, Marco Stier, and Stefan Rieß. TerriersFan (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - they have all played in the 3. Liga, which is a fully professional national league. [14]. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 3rd Liga is fully pro. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 3rd Liga is fully pro. Kingjeff (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of non-trivial reliable independent sources. The guideline for inclusion of sports people is only a guideline showing the kinds of people who will attract the kind of coverage which allows us to have a policy-compliant article. No WP:BLP complies with policy unless it is rigorously sourced from non-trivial reliable independent sources. Simply playing a few games in a low league is not an exemption to the fundamental policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, which require that we can verify not only the content but its neutrality and significance. Wikipedia is not a directory of footballers, after all. Consider merging those of no obvious independent significance into a list of minor / reserve players for the club, or maybe start a Wikia where sourcing is less of a problem. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - seems well sourced to me Nfitz (talk) 05:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plays on fully pro league. Easily verifiable. Nfitz (talk) 05:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to meet WP:ATHLETE guidelines. Giant Snowman 12:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has played in fully pro league Quentin X (talk) 23:07, 28 August 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth Album (Rihanna album)

This is a beat, uh, you can't touch. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Crystal ball (doesn't even have a title yet). RJFJR (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. Lugnuts (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL: no title, no track list, no release date. Cliff smith ^talk 18:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC#Albums—unreleased albums are nn without "significant independent coverage in reliable sources". A fansite and a blog don't cut it. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 17:54, 27 August 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) 13:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UK Amateur Storm Forecasts

Delete - no indication of notability for this organization. Google search for "UK Amateur Storm Forecasts" brings up 7 results (including Wikipedia article). Another search for UKASF storm is about 240. Mentions of the organization appear to be in various discussion forums or blogs. ... discospinster _talk 15:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What would be required in the article for it to be eligible? The organisation itself is relatively new, therefore has not made headlines as such, but is well known among many weather enthusiasts, especially, as you mentioned, in forums and blogs. I have included as much detail as possible on the organisation's history and the services it offers, but am concerned what else is necessary for it not to be deleted? Many thanks in advance. UKASF ^talk 18:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet the requirements for notability, nor any possibility of obtaining reliable third party sources to meet this requirement for inclusion. This is aside from the obvious conflict of interest concerns as well as the consequences of ignoring that guideline. --tgheretford (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been looking at the links you have provided, and found the following: "If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable." If you would prefer, I can find links to other sites that either mention UKASF or use their services as evidence? I'm a little confused with the 'Conflict of Interest concerns', I was wondering if that could be explained? Thanks in advance. UKASF ^talk 08:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears you have a conflict of interest because of your username, UKASF and the title of the article, UK Amateur Storm Forecasts. Jons63 (talk) 08:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right i see, thanks for replying. UKASF ^talk 08:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, "If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable." That is talking about articles that reliable 3rd party sources are available just not provided in the article currently. From the policy on verifiability: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." There are no 3rd party reliable sources available to add to this article, so Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Jons63 (talk) 09:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying again. All of the following websites, which I have found by searching the internet, use at least 1 of the services provided by UKASF:

http://www.scotweather.co.uk/ (widget)
http://www.weatherconnect.co.uk/ (widget)
http://www.severe-weather.co.uk/ (widget)
http://stormchaseplymouth.bravehost.com/ (widget and banner)
http://www.midlandsweather.org.uk/lightning.php (widget)
http://www.southweather.co.uk/convectivemapgraph.htm (widget)
http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?showtopic=48864&view=findpost&p=1308917 (forecast copied)
http://www.midlandsweather.org.uk/uk-weather-chat/10162-convective-outlook-9th-10th-may-2008-a.html#post1064582 (forecast copied)

Does this not show how many people recognise the organisation and how noticable it might be? Thankyou for your time. UKASF ^talk 20:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - not massively notable, but perhaps worthy of inclusion.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. —MacRusgail (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DElete - a NN organisation, trying to mimic what the professionals at the Met Office are able to do much better. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask where your evidence for that statement lies? I should inform you that one of the UKASF forecasters does in fact have a BSc in Meteorology, and another is a member of the Royal Meteorological Society (RMetS). UKASF have also had one or two private emails commenting on their accuracy, and as one specifically mentioned, how poorly the Met Office had forecasted a particular storm. The storm in question occured during the night of Wednesday 6th August which affected a large swathe of the southeast and East Anglia, completely un-mentioned nor predicted by the Met Office. It should also be noted that UKASF do not use Met Office forecasts when issuing their own forecasts, and use different techniques. They also specialise in thunderstorms alone, not all aspects of UK weather as the Met Office does. Another link: http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?showtopic=49084&view=findpost&p=1318161 to a very recent post (last 20minutes) of one of the UKASF forecasts being used. UKASF ^talk 22:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable and non-verifiable Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not massively notable in reliable 3rd party sources, it seems due to the organisation's "early stages", but still notable nonetheless, and still worthy of inclusion Dollsworth (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted under WP:CSD#G7 because the original author removed all content from the page. GRBerry 17:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ethical Advantage

Delete - this article is entirely original research, as mentioned in the introduction. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 14:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Contested speedy and contested prod actually, with me as the prodder. The article describes itself as "Theory of the combination of Business Ethics and Competitive Advantage first submitted in a research disseration by a postgraduate business student at the University of Sunderland, United Kingdom in 2008". That is clearly original research, which is not suitable for publication. The author may wish to contribute instead to Business ethics and its various sub-articles - and to the extent their thesis will be based on non-novel interpretations of prior publications in the field they can do so. GRBerry 15:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The creator of the article says it is his first effort. It appears to be original research, and Wikipedia is not a site for publication of such. Edison2 (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete by Orangemike (G12 - copyright violation) Nonadmin close. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Billy denmead

Geogre's law, no notable accomplishments. StaticGull Talk 14:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only link in the article is to www.powerhouserock.net and it's a dead link. He does crop up a few times mentioned in blog type sites covering the Orlando, FL music scene. Also at CDBaby (self-publishing music site). --Quartermaster (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if assertions are not attributed to reliable sources, notwithstanding the correlation. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly hoax. The article claims he formed a band called Dorian Grey with Jani Lane, yet Jani Lane's in-depth Wikipedia article makes no mention of the band or Denmead. Esteffect (talk) 18:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a hoax - I removed the spam. In fact, it's a copyvio I'll tag it. --Evb-wiki (talk) 19:05, 26 August 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia N79

Non-notable commercial product. No references provided to substantiate notability; no claim of notability given. Article is blatant advertising--just a copy of a spec sheet. Listing for afd after prod template removed without comment or improvement. Mikeblas (talk) 14:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nokia announces an addition to Nseries Multimedia Phones and an article pops up. Wikipedia is not a mirror site for the Nokia website, nor is it a catalog of every technogadget offered for sale. Fails WP:N due to lack of substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Nokia is a notable company in the celphone business, so I have no objection to an article which lists their models with tabulated features, since collectively they have been covered enough to establish notability for the line. Edison2 (talk) 15:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Blatant advertising, copy/paste from another website. The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 16:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE or cite multiple independent, reliable sources. Yes, any mass market product is "notable" in a sense, but Wikipedia is not the place to indiscriminately post product announcements. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:24, 26 August 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. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 02:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mfumu’eto

Unnotable magazine (I think). Article more about the creator than anything about the publication. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —triwbe (talk) 14:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs more citations, but reads more like a good capture of an ephemeral publication and/or person. Doesn't seem to be self-marketing. Some searching indicates that the publication and the creator may have the same name. MIT's African Arts journal covers him as part of an overview of African comic book artists. Massimo Repetti. African Wave: Specificity and Cosmopolitanism in African Comics. African Arts Summer 2007, Vol. 40, No. 2, Pages 16-35. Posted Online May 30, 2007. (doi:10.1162/afar.2007.40.2.16) Recommend keeping for improvement. --Quartermaster (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it would need a citation to need more. :P Right now, its mostly a copy/paste of http://www.chimurengalibrary.co.za/periodicals.php?id=13 with parts of the bio stuff removed. It needs, however, to be about one or the other. It was created about the magazine, which doesn't appear notable. The man, Mfumu'eto may be notable, but the article isn't really about him, though his bio comprises more of the article the actual magazine info. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article says the creator of the comics ran off a few copies which criticized the local powers and distributed them in the marketplace. The same could be said of any school or business where wits and critics used comics or cartoons to criticize the administration. There is no inherent notability for comic books. Fails WP:N due to lack of multiple reliable and independent sources with substantial coverage. My present computer is not up to the task of opening the citation listed above, so someone has to answer the question of whether it has more than passing reference to this comic. Edison2 (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep !! Agree the article needs improvement, but it'll never be improved if it's deleted :) Greenman (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That is not a valid keep argument, since it would also be true for the worst and least notable article ever written. Edison2 (talk) 04:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Chimurenga Library is not just a list of random articles. They archive historical African magazines, amongst other things. From their mission statement: Chimurenga Library is an online archiving project that profiles independent pan African paper periodicals from around the world. It focuses on cultural and literary magazines, both living and extinct, which have been influential platforms for dissent and which have broadened the scope for print publishing on art, new writing and ideas in and about Africa. They list 27 periodicals, hardly comprehensive, so a comment such as "Article just one of many copied from the Chimurengal Library articles" isn't helpful, or a reason to delete. They are being funded by contributers to the Wikipedia:WikiAfrica project in an attempt to improve the dire state of African literary content on Wikipedia. Finding no references in Google from an armchair is not a good way to assert notability - references will be print-based, and much harder to come by. I ask those making flip judgements of notability to bear this in mind, and to give the process time to unfold, rather than drain energy in deletion requests. Consider Wikipedia:Notability/Arguments#Notability_cannot_be_measured_for_some_historical_and_international_topics. The user making the contributions is not an experienced Wikipedian, so does not always know the right way to deal with things, and is not actively participating in the deletion discussions. Greenman (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lack of sophistication on the part of an article's creator is not a countervailing argument against failure to satisfy notability requirements, and a Wiki-effort is not a reliable source, however lofty its aims. Edison2 (talk) 04:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and make it about the artist. Google scholar and one or two things on Google Books don't show much notability (included in a major exhibition, but not as the main focus, etc.), but quite enough to convince me. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless cleaned up with proper evidence of notability. Stifle (talk) 13:57, 2 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. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 02:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Savacou

Unnotable magazine. One of many copied from http://www.chimurengalibrary.co.za/ library with no actual sources. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. —triwbe (talk) 14:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. http://www.chimurengalibrary.co.za/ is sufficiently selective and competent that having an article there is a sign of notability. --Eastmain (talk) 14:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but considering the format and writing quality of their articles, I'd have to disagree on the competent article. Some of these magazine articles are more biography than anything else. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand I do not think this article is promotional nor trivial and refs may be hard to find. But remember Wikipedia is not a mirror . --triwbe (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence the subject satisfies notability. There is no inherent notability for apparently self-published comics. Are there multiple sources which are reliable, independent, and substantial (more than passing reference or directory listings)? Edison2 (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For what they are worth, this version of the article has a lengthy list of 'references' which may be helpful; I haven't tried to find or look at any.John Z (talk) 16:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Chimurenga Library is not just a list of random articles. They archive historical African magazines, amongst other things. From their mission statement: Chimurenga Library is an online archiving project that profiles independent pan African paper periodicals from around the world. It focuses on cultural and literary magazines, both living and extinct, which have been influential platforms for dissent and which have broadened the scope for print publishing on art, new writing and ideas in and about Africa. They list 27 periodicals, hardly comprehensive, so a comment such as "Article just one of many copied from the Chimurengal Library articles" isn't helpful, or a reason to delete. They are being funded by contributers to the Wikipedia:WikiAfrica project in an attempt to improve the dire state of African literary content on Wikipedia. Finding no references in Google from an armchair is not a good way to assert notability - references will be print-based, and much harder to come by. I ask those making flip judgements of notability to bear this in mind, and to give the process time to unfold, rather than drain energy in deletion requests. Consider Wikipedia:Notability/Arguments#Notability_cannot_be_measured_for_some_historical_and_international_topics. The user making the contributions is not an experienced Wikipedian, so does not always know the right way to deal with things, and is not actively participating in the deletion discussions. Greenman (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Chimurenga Library is probably an RS, so the article already has one solid source then. Twentieth-century Caribbean Literature By Alison Donnell see also p.18 and 38 has a reasonable amount on the mag. 366 gscholar hits for it, including Breiner, Laurence. "How to Behave on Paper: the Savacou Debate." Journal of West Indian Literature. 6.1, 1993, p1-10, which seems to be about the magazine. It is also among the numerous refs at chimurenga library and the earlier version of the article, which are also probable evidence of notability. 702 gbooks hits many of course bibliographic, but some seem appropriate for the article.John Z (talk) 00:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per mutliple independent mentions, & involvement of someone of the stature of Edward Kamau Brathwaite is also an indication of notability.--Bsnowball (talk) 09:49, 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 no consensus. There are some issues on both sides that are valid but despite having been re-listed, there is no consensus to delete this article. TravellingCari 04:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civil Lines (magazine)

Unnotable magazine. Article just one of many copied from the Chimurengal Library articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —triwbe (talk) 14:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. http://www.chimurengalibrary.co.za/ is sufficiently selective and competent that having an article there is a sign of notability. Chimurengal Library is a reliable source. --Eastmain (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand I do not think this article is promotional nor trivial and refs may be hard to find. But remember Wikipedia is not a mirror . --triwbe (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see discussion at the Wikipedia:Notability or precedent in AFD outcomes that something having an article in "Chimurengal Library" automatically makes it notable enough to have the inherent right to an article in Wikipedia. I do not see multiple reliable and independent sources with substantial coverage of Civil Lines (magazine). The argument presented by Triwbe that Wikipedia is not a mirror actually supports deleting the article rather than keeping it. Edison2 (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I removed a speedy tag from this as it asserts notability, but even allowing for systemic bias I can't find usable independent sources for it, so sadly it needs to go. Guy (Help!) 19:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Chimurenga Library is not just a list of random articles. They archive historical African magazines, amongst other things. From their mission statement: Chimurenga Library is an online archiving project that profiles independent pan African paper periodicals from around the world. It focuses on cultural and literary magazines, both living and extinct, which have been influential platforms for dissent and which have broadened the scope for print publishing on art, new writing and ideas in and about Africa. They list 27 periodicals, hardly comprehensive, so a comment such as "Article just one of many copied from the Chimurengal Library articles" isn't helpful, or a reason to delete. They are being funded by contributers to the Wikipedia:WikiAfrica project in an attempt to improve the dire state of African literary content on Wikipedia. Finding no references in Google from an armchair is not a good way to assert notability - references will be print-based, and much harder to come by. I ask those making flip judgements of notability to bear this in mind, and to give the process time to unfold, rather than drain energy in deletion requests. Consider Wikipedia:Notability/Arguments#Notability_cannot_be_measured_for_some_historical_and_international_topics. The user making the contributions is not an experienced Wikipedian, so does not always know the right way to deal with things, and is not actively participating in the deletion discussions. Greenman (talk) 20:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Guy. Stifle (talk) 13:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep multiple independent mentions [15], [16] and publishes well known writers such as Amit Chaudhuri, Amitava Kumar etc. [17] adds up to definite definite notability.--Bsnowball (talk) 18:32, 2 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, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —--Bsnowball (talk) 08:05, 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. Stifle (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grouply

Despite controversies on mailing lists and blogs, Grouply does not appear to be notable. Another editor and myself have both done some searching and nothing turns up from reliable sources (eg Wired magazine has nothing on it). Even Grouply's supporters don't seem to have been able to find anything. Doug Weller (talk) 13:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CORP. You know an article is in trouble when almost every "source" is actually just the subject's own blog. I also note an Alexa rank of #49,735th, which is really weak especially for social networking (for comparison's sake, Myspace is ranked 7). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Thryduulf (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Contrary to above assertions there are several important citations including TechCrunch, which with startups is more relevant than Wired. Whilst the Alexa stats are not high, it does show more Grouply has doubled its traffic in the last month. Andyswarbs (talk) 00:30, 01 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I see you've added two more blogs. I'm not sure they qualify as RS anywhere, certainly not evidence of notability. What makes TechChrunch more important than Wired? I note that you are the article's creator (and have every right to comment here, but the fact seems relevant) Doug Weller (talk) 08:19, 1 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.

Grouply seems to be invading Yahoo! groups, and there is a big argument if this is trojan spam or something with which Yahoo! is partnering, as its e-mails claim.--01:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

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 23:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Architect of Murder

Unreleased book (Dec 30. 2008 per all sources) where there's no evidence of notability or really any notice at all. No objection to re-creation once book has been released and passes WP:BK. TravellingCari 13:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Crystal ball and unreferenced. RJFJR (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: unreleased book, can be recreated once released if it passes WP:BK. Cliff smith ^talk 17:17, 26 August 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 he fails WP:ATHLETE (the amateur sport part of the criteria does not apply to football because it is not an amateur sport). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 23:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iago Falqué

Contested WP:PROD, a 18-year old youth footballer who only played for Barcelona B during his career. As Barcelona B played Tercera Division last season, and is now playing Segunda Division B, and considering both divisions are not fully professional, the subject fails WP:ATHLETE. Angelo (talk) 12:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Angelo (talk) 12:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If he ever gets a first team game, recreate. GauchoDude (talk) 05:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 12:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability at WP:ATHLETE. --Jimbo^[online] 13:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. Recreate if and when he plays first team game Quentin X (talk) 20:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ATHLETE. Sunderland06 (talk) 18:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Falque was a member of the European championship U-17 finalist Spain team in 2007; he scored in the championship as well. UEFA mentions him in their review of the tournament. Beyond that, he is a professional player (yes, in Spain's Segunda B), but a professional nonetheless. Should Gai Assulin be deleted for these same reasons? WP:ATHLETE is extremely open-ended on this score, I think, and does not apply to Falque, in my opinion because he has excelled in an international tournament. Isaiah (talk) 19:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Differently than Falqué, Assulin played for the Israeli national team (not a youth team, but the senior team, and this of course makes him notable). And as stated in several other AFD cases, youth caps do not establish consensus. --Angelo (talk) 21:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough about Assulin--I suppose its a moot point that Assulin had a page before he had an international cap--but when WP:ATHLETE says "the highest level of amateur sports," I read that as allowing for internationally recognized U-17, U-19, etc championships. Perhaps I am in the minority in this view, but that's how I see it and I'm sticking to it. Also, Barca B/Atletic is, as far as I know, as fully professional as is allowed under Spanish law (that is, if you're over 18, you must have a full professional contract). As Spain differs widely in its approach to league levels from other country (notably England) I think it a mistake to apply the same concept of amateurism and professionalism across the board. Perhaps this is not the proper forum for discussing such a thing, though. Isaiah (talk) 22:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my. The amateur issue was discussed plenty of times before, it actually refers to non-professional sports (and football is not an amateur sport) such as, for instance, fencing, taekwondo and beach volley (just mentioned the first ones I've got into my mind). That part just does not apply to football. In addition, WP:ATHLETE talks about fully professional leagues, i.e., leagues where all clubs sign all their first team players in a full-time basis (and Segunda B is not a fully professional league). --Angelo (talk) 22:30, 30 August 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, no reliable sources presented.-Wafulz (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vox Vespertinus

Musician seemingly not meeting any aspects of WP:MUSIC. Closest appears to be a former band having been played on a number of US and EU radio stations. No sources. Declined prod. tomasz. 12:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen this artist perform numerous times and in several states of the USA. She is a fantastic talent with lots of fans and I am surprised to see any objection to a Wikipedia entry! j.s.

__________________________________________________

MUSICIAN DOES MEET ASPECTS OF WP:MUSIC!!!

Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such, and that common sense exceptions always apply.

YES. see additions related to PREVIOUS BANDMATES AND COLLABORATORS--see new edits in article

Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

YES--EXPERIMENTAL MUSIC SCENE in SEATTLE:

Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury or Grammis award.

YES. SEE NEW EDITS RELATED TO WORLD MEDITATION ENSEMBLE

Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.

YES: on c89.5 fm FROM THE c89.5 web site: C89.5 FM has been broadcasting for over 30 years. Owned by the Seattle Schools and operated by students of Nathan Hale High School, C89.5 is the largest and most influential educational radio station in the country. C89.5 is in the top six of those reported in Billboard Magazine's national dance charts for radio stations nationwide. Our 50 student DJs and technicians reach 110,000 listeners weekly. That's approximately a quarter as many as Seattle's top FM station, and as many as some Seattle AM commercial stations.

Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network.

YES: on KEXP SEATTLE (associated with Paul Allen) on the show SONARCHY with EQlateral. SONARCHY has been an institution in the experimental music scene in the US and beyond for many years. _______________________________________________

sources? just google her and you come up with tons of pages...there are several artists on wikipedia that do not cite sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Renafortune (talk • contribs) 07:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of citations from reliable sources which are required by the verifiability policy. It is for those seeking for a page to be included to provide the sources; a vague wave at a google search does not satisfy verifiability requirements. Stifle (talk) 14:07, 2 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) 13:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian the Lion on YouTube

Delete and merge salvageable content of Christian the Lion on YouTube with Christian the lion. Single-purpose account created this article and has been pushing vehemently at Christian the lion for inflation of importance of the YouTube viral video. Potential vanity article (a YouTube username is first article link). Article was already listed for speedy but was removed [18].Yeago (talk) 12:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as strictly promotional per Speedy Criteria G11. The page "...exclusively promote(s) some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." The external links to Youtube users are telling in this regard, as is the mention of the followup video by the original creator. I note also that the user who first created this article is User:Christianthelion, who may have a conflict of interest. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 12:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this article because the video has been discussed on TV around the world which I feel warrants acknowledgement. There is no conflict of interest and the video certainly needs no promotion from me. I think pushing vehemently for inflation of importance of the YouTube viral video is unjustified. The worldwide interest in Christian the Lion is a direct result of this video. Without it, headlines such as sensation and phenomenon by various global publications would not have existed. The story of the lion was around for nearly 40 years without anyone taking a blind bit of notice....until this video was posted. For this reason I feel its inclusion on Wiki is justified. It's certainly not a potential vanity article - I included the user name merely as a matter of fact; Yeago makes it sound like a crusade! By the way, the user name was bit of fun, nothing more. If you feel revisions are necessary then so be it, but I feel the effect of the video has been so well reported and widespread that it should be a stand-alone article.

Delete: Mention in the article Christian the lion is more than enough. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 18:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Christian the lion. --Conti|✉ 18:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect no one's gonna look for this. DCEdwards1966's suggestion is the best way to go. JuJube (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge If Christian already has an article, I don't see why this merits a seperate one. It could easily be merged.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can an admin just speedy this?Yeago (talk) 21:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Patience Yeago please. This may be your biggest concern but other people are busy. 90.201.182.141 (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Cirt (talk) 03:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Briar Rose (band)

Seemingly non-notable group per WP:MUSIC. Multiple albums on Roaar Records, but this appears to be a minor and probably itself nn indie label. ~~No sources~~. Declined prod per talk page. tomasz. 12:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have provided you with quite a few references in print and online media. It is FAR from uncommon for a band or artist to be listed on an indie label as many major artists have established their own label in response to the ingnorance if the majors. If you had read the page for Roaar Records you would have seen that it was established with one act as it's starting point...much like that Apple Records did with that Beatles band (no i'm not comparing them,). It seem to be that because you do not know the band you assume that others in other countries do not or you just don't like the band. The references and links have been corrected and references to the band are made by people that Wikipediea has ALL OVER THE PLACE for other artists. Again they are working with a Grammy nominated producer of Rock N Roll Hall Of Fame Bands, you cant get there by not having done REAL musician work. I ask you not to remove the band.

Linda Marie (TinkerBoop)(TinkerBoop (talk))

Note: i added the user's "keep" !vote at the start of the above paragraph based on its contents. The rest of the text was transferred from the talk page. tomasz. 13:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, now that references to multiple independent reliable non-trivial sources have been added. Needs some work though. 96T (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sorry, when i wrote "no sources" in my nomination i forgot about the ones in the "References" section (although i don't particularly believe they're enough). To clarify: the article is actually exactly the same as when i nominated it. have stricken the inaccurate "no sources" from my nomination. tomasz. 14:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm aware of this band and would protest the deletion based on the criteria given. This band has released albums that have sold in Europe and internationally. They are active, recording a new album with a well known producer and have a UK street team for European promotion.

The criteria given for possible deletion seems biased toward major label bands. Arguably this could be a credible criteria in the past, but in this internet era many bands publish on their own or small labels and their music is available internationally via Itunes or via download from other outlets. This makes it hard to guage sales or interest in many bands that have large followings.

It's in the public interest for Wikipedia to provide information on bands on smaller labels. This can help the public find information that is reliable for the bands that interest them. I'm a fan of many goth metal bands in Europe that have multiple albums on Itunes and many of them have no Wikipedia reference. I've been very happy when I did see a Wikipedia page for many of them and learned more about the band. I hope this criteria isn't applied to all of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wellsoul2 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

now copied in full from the band's discussion page. Sorry I did not get the whoel entry the first time. TinkerBoop (TinkerBoop (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Keep. I was not going to comment here but I have been asked to look at this situation and comment. That is my only reason for being here right now. With the "no sources" now addressed and stricken it leaves only the following reason as "appears to be a minor and probably itself nn indie label.". I would suggest then, if that is the argument that it holds no validity in the modern recording and distribution of music. There are hunderds of artists, especially in the "Hip-Hop" field that have NO label at all and sell volumes of recorded material from basement mix tape labels that they create in their living rooms or basements. To an extent, there are indie labels that offer nothing but downloadable product that goes well under a great many radars. That is the entire basis of an indie label. To hold ANY artist from any genre as suspect because the label they are on does not appear to be big enough, supports the idea of a bias in favor of the major labels and is clearly an unfair agenda. In going into the history of the article I find outside of correction notices to the author and CONSTRUCTIVE edits that it is one person that truely objects to the entry. The crime here that the author seems to have made is that they were being custodial in updating the page with factual, correct and non-promotional info. Is that not part of the goal of Wikipedia?? I have extensively checked Wikipedia and found a great many acts of all genres that have NO "Legit" product released and yet they are here, unhampered. Releasing product on "labels" that they make up on their own and I doubt pay taxes on. That's indie too. A stand against the system. In closing there is no such thing as "a minor and probably itself nn indie label". Indie is indie regardless if they sell a limited edition of 100 45rpm recordings of a band or a limited 5000 copies of a CD (pretty standard in this genre). That is what indie is. Thank you. (Randy Blake II (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

The only reason left after the sources isn't just the small part you quoted, but a failure to meet any part of Wikipedia's music notability guidelines. There are indeed hundreds of artists in the positions you mention, but they don't have articles here without meeting at least one point of those twelve; there is such a thing as "a minor and probably itself nn indie label" by those guidelines. We're not here to make value judgments about the nature of modern music distribution but simply to see if they meet those criteria. tomasz. 20:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT In looking at the criteria list you mention and I believe you authored or were part of its creation, I can say point blank that there are hundreds of bands on Wikipedia that indeed have not met those Orwellian "Animal Farm" criteria where Briar Rose has met some of them. Obviously you did not see that as you previously did not see that there are indeed VALID, major references afforded to the band. From the criteria list I cite items #1, #2, #4, #7 & #11 if it is to include European radio as the band's PRIMARY fan base is in Europe where they were in rotation in Germany at one time and are currently in rotation on the Canadian radio CISM-FM.

FROM WIKIPEDIA: "CISM-FM (Communication Information Sur la Montagne) is the official radio station of Université de Montréal. It is student-run on a volunteer basis and can be heard in Montreal, Canada, and its outlying regions, or by internet users around the world through live-streaming technology. A great variety of shows are broadcast daily in the French language.

As early as 1970, Université de Montréal students developed the idea of a French college radio station. In 1980, a requested feasibility study gave place to recommendations for a potential radio broadcasting school. At noon on October 7, 1985, CISM broadcast its first radio show over the university's campus. In July 1990, CISM gained its FM broadcast permit from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). Then, on March 14, 1991, CISM's broadcasting antenna was boosted to 10 000 watts. With a broadcasting radius of 70 km, CISM is now the world's largest French-language college radio station." Knowing people in Quebec I can assure you this IS NATIONAL CANADIAN RADIO.

There are bigger acts in wikipedia with NO references at all on the page yet they remain. I have added everything i have at the moment, I don't have it all and I have done my best to adhere to the structure of Wikipedia. Outside of more info that you yourself ackowledged but would like more, I see no real reason why this band should be removed other then what appears to be a genre bias.

Linda Marie (TinkerBoop (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Note In Tomasz's response to me he mentions the following: "There are indeed hundreds of artists in the positions you mention, but they don't have articles here without meeting at least one point of those twelve'", meaning the criteria list. If by his words a band must have one of the critera then I would say that of the 5 criteria TinkerBoop has mentioned I can tell you that without argument that the band FULLY meets with criteria #4 reprinted here: "Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country." I would cite the references that TinkerBoop has mentioned in the reference section of the page that Tomasz has stated he "forgot about".:

"Briar Rose Anxious To Return To Europe" - Interview with Randy Blake II & Marcus Lorde by Kathleen Durand of The Herald News, February 28, 1992. A newspaper published in Fall River, Massachusetts. Located in the paper's "Friday" magazine on the cover & page 6.

"Swansea's Briar Rose To Perform At Venus" - Interview with Randy Blake II by Debra Ryan of The Spectator, March 25, 1992, pg.23. A newspaper published in Somerset, Massachusetts.

BOTH articles deal with details of the UK tour and future plans to record and return.

I also would like it to be known here, under the advice of legal council, who I have asked to become a member of Wikipedia to monitor this situation as it borders of claims against the band's accoplishments and credibility, that I am the owner of all tour documentation including schedules, dates, media (print and television)FOR the UK tour. I also hold audio telephone recordings with former and then Kerrang! Editor Geoff Barton inviting the band to the offices for drinks while they are in the UK. I also hold television footage from Rhode Island CBS affiliate WLNE-TV Interviewing the band and a performace from them as result of the UK tour. I also hold radio brodcasts from Rhode Island station WQRI located on the campus of Roger Williams College announcing the tour, the Elektra records developement deal and a 1 hour interview with the full band broadcast on ther return from the UK. That is just for a start.

It is also odd the Tomasz has not seen in the article for the career section on the page that clearly states: "A tour of the U.K. was planned but was postponed as DeMello, Tylla & Simonin left the band to pursue other musical interests. Blake II & Lorde followed through with the tour using hired musicians.".

It seems a little strange that if you were going to slate something for deletion that you would have actually READ the page as it appears that it was not read, leading one to suspect bias. There is no reason based on what Tomasz is offering up here that the band is not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Tinkerboop certainly has done her research and suprised me as to what she has included here. There seems to be something else going on here as other members of Wikipedia have seen this page that I believe has been up for roughly two weeks and offered constructive advice on how to make the page acceptable to Wikipedia and had no problem with its inclusion. The research presented in the page is accurate and varifiable. It does seem that there is something else afoot here. The band has met many of the criteria and certainly #4 of the criteria list is met, documented, and varifiable. I hope this is of help. I will check in. (Randy Blake II (talk) 12:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Keep, references provided. They are not very well formatted, and the article could use some work, but deletion is not the answer here. The subject has been covered in numerous reliable sources, and so can be considered notable. J Milburn (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. (Change detailed below.) First, it's a non-notable indie label as mentioned and apparently confirmed above - no help there. Do the References really establish WP:MUSIC notability??? Let's take them one by one, shall we (as of [19] this diff)

Providence Journal article: By apparent admission in the References, an interview dealing with the harm of heavy metal to kids. NOT about the band. (Not sufficient for WP:MUSIC Criteria 1.)

Kerrang: By the reference, reads like a passing note about the band by its' reference. (i.e. trivial.) If it's pages long - heck even more than a paragraph - cite the pages. - More than willing to be wrong about that.

Herald News: Yep. From the references seems like it's got something to do with an international tour.

Spectator Article: Yep. Assuming that it's not a trivial single paragraph blurb.

Ultimate Hard Rock guide: Coverage of what? A band listing, or something in depth?

Tsangarides' Profile: Personal profile mentions do not reliable sources make.

SCENE Journal: Interesting that a lot of these are described as Randy Blake II interview. Conflicts of Interest aside, are there hard sources about the band that aren't just interviews with band members?

So for seven references, you have two, maybe three, maybe more that are maybe non-trivial. I'm willing to be wrong about that. I'd be more than willing to be overturned, pending actually wikifying those sources and greater integration to prove notability. But there are many in this discussion who should familiarize themselves with Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (OTOH, in the article as it is, I'd expect a renomination in the intermediate future if left as is.) LaughingVulcan 03:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE I have gone back to correct, taking Vulcan's advice, and try to shed more light on the reference entry. I wanted to respond on the mention of Mr. Blake in the interviews. If you are a journalist going to interview someone from a band...why would you not want to talk to a founding or indeed, the only surviving ORIGINAL member??? If you want to do a story on Motorhead, you would want to interview Lemmy as he is the founder and only original member left. If you want a story on KISS, you want to talk to Gene Simmons or Paul Stanley as the hold the history and future plans (if any) on the band not anyone else. As Mr. Blake IS the founder and sole surviving ORIGINAL member...why would you not want the info on the band in any aspect from him if you were a journalist??? I think that makes sense, oui??

On the Providence Journal,I have corrected that after re-reading the article. On Kerrang!, I just need to dig out the issue and add the page number. It is a half page review. Herald News is OK I see. Spectator is half page interview with three members of the band, my bad. Ultimate Rock Guide is waaaaayyy out of print and but I know members of the band Starz (band) who HAVE the book and I have seen the entry first hand. The SCENE Journal I think I have explained that above and it IS about the band returning to recording and touring. On the Chris Tsangarides quote, is there a way to list it as I think it is important as he is highly notable and I have seen qoutes on other pages but I am not sure on how to list it.

I guess that is really what I am saying to you all. I'm trying to do this right and I'll GLADLY take all I can get. I'm not trying to ruffle anyone, I'm just trying to be a good Wiki :) Thank You. Linda Marie (TinkerBoop (talk) 12:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

NOTE ON MY OWN NOTE I have updated and tried to correct the issues presented to me on the Briar Rose page and added the info to the Roaar Records page on a release featuring artists with pages on Wikipedia that I previously did not know about. I can only add info if I know the info is there to add. Really trying here to get it right :) (TinkerBoop (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Reply First, changed my opinion as detailed below. I will converse more on Tinkerboop 's Talk.

Keep for time being (change opinion.) Looking at my own reference above.... references could be Wikified and incorporated into article. I'm willing to give benefit of the doubt that the major reliable sources listed are solid and can be referred to in article. Hate to see a potentially verifiable article with notable sources disappear after 5 days b/c didn't have enough time to Wikify it properly. LaughingVulcan 23:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Edit to add to Closer if end consensus is delete (seems doubtful,) I would recommmend a move Userfy to User:TinkerBoop/sandbox/Briar Rose (band). I would be willing to do so myself if requested. Thank you! LaughingVulcan 23:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note I'm 100% open to any and all help on saving and correcting the page. (TinkerBoop (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment. Sourcing is key, if there are online reliable sources they would help other editors verify info. Some of the current sources may be online already or someone (like the record company or even the band) may have reprinted the articles somewhere. Banjeboi 19:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR FIXING THE PAGE!! I know I could not have gotten it right. I hope it helps to save the page. I will learn more about Wiki and hope to do better. Again THANK YOU!!!! (TinkerBoop (talk) 03:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Keep. I have little doubt that more sources will be found but already we have enough to demonstrate notability. Banjeboi 14:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:N and WP:V. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE I CORRECTLY (finally!!) added a new reference and cited it!! THANK YOU to everyone for your help in trying to save the page!! Please let it stay. :) Linda Marie. (TinkerBoop (talk) 22:44, 1 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 merged to Emirates Airline. --Reinoutr (talk) 08:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emirates Airline Services

Aside from being advertorial in nature, the subject lacks multiple, non-trivial, independent sources which would afford the subject notability in an encyclopaedic context, thereby it also fails WP:V. Additionally, if one refers to the current version of the article, the first reference doesn't even mention Emirates, and has been lifted from another article for anothr airline. Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 12:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 12:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The company is part of the same group as the the well-known airline, Emirates Airline. --Eastmain (talk) 13:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It needs to be noted that Emirates Airlines Services is not a company, but the article is mere advertising for Emirates inflight features. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 15:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Emirates Airline#Services. It is undesirable to spam Wikipedia with article extolling everything about Emirates Airlines with separate articles about their inflight services, their wonderful Emirates Airline Cabins, their Emirates Airlines blankets and pillows , their Emirates Airlines inflight movies , their Emirates Airlines peanuts, etc, etc. Edison2 (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. --Bduke (talk) 01:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what little is notable and then delete. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Not sufficient notability to justify its own article' Mjroots (talk) 08:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all above. Stifle (talk) 12:43, 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 merged to Emirates Airline. --Reinoutr (talk) 08:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emirates Airline Cabins

Apart from being advertorial in nature, the subject lacks multiple, non-trivial sources which would give this subject notability in an encyclopaedic context, thereby it fails WP:V. Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 12:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of notability and lack of sources. There's nothing especially notable about Emirates cabins versus those of other major airlines, and none of them get significant press coverage etc. -- Mithent (talk) 13:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Emirates Airline#Cabin. Fails notability. It is undesirable to spam Wikipedia with article extolling everything about Emirates Airlines with separate articles about their inflight services, their wonderful Emirates Airlines blankets and pillows , their Emirates Airlines inflight movies , their Emirates Airlines peanuts, etc, etc. Edison2 (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. --Bduke (talk) 01:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what little is notable and then delete. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It'll have to be redirected, rather than deleted. See WP:MAD. Stifle (talk) 12:43, 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 23:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryanair Flight 9336

Contested prod. Fails WP:NOT#NEWS: in the wake of the obvisouly article-worthy Spanair incident, at least one newspaper has posted newsstories about recent minor incidents in airplanes[20], including about this Ryanair flight. However, this is the kind of incident that gets attention for one day and is then largely forgotten, as indicated by WP:NOT#NEWS. Fram (talk) 11:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable and not that rare an event, nothing particularly special about this occurrence. MilborneOne (talk) 11:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless it's proven the flight was destabilised by a massive blast of hot air from Michael O'Leary's mouth, a non-notable incident. tomasz. 12:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, unless it becomes a bigger story - there are disputed accounts of the oxygen masks not working properly, and the cause is currently unknown. If it uncovers a 737-800 fault, for example, and gets more press, it would be more notable. -- Mithent (talk) 13:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As it stands, there isn't enough coverage on the flight. There also isn't really sufficient evidence that has been revealed to make it notable. NSR77 ^T_C 14:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't appear to be a notable incident, and the article includes no sources, thus failing WP:V. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry, can't see how this incident is at all notable and it just seems like just another minor thing on board an aircraft. I doubt it even deserves recognition in Ryanair's Incidents section. NcSchu_(Talk) 18:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Currently fails WP:AV project incident guidelines. Nimbus (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N since it has no sources at all. A Google search comes up empty (except the WP article itself) and gives no reason to expect sources will be found. Not notable as an accident/incident/event by the recommendations under discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Aviation_accident_task_force. Ikluft (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll point out a news article and reiterate my recommendation for delete. It doesn't matter that this is current news. Nor does it matter how many people were hospitalized since they were apparently all minor, earaches due to cabin depressurization. The news as reported so far is enough to tell us this does not fit the WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force guidelines under discussion. With the loss of cabin pressure, the captain followed proper well-known procedure to descend and make a precautionary landing. This may turn out to be correctly termed an "incident" and not an "accident" as long as no damage is considered significant and no injuries are beyond minor. It's way too premature to create an article for this. Try again in a few years if there turns out to be any significant finding resulting from it. Ikluft (talk) 05:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I will quickly bring this up to standards per WP:V. This is an actual incident that has made the news hence per WP:NOTABILITY this article should stand. It also falls under WP:AV guidlines as a notable person was involved in the accident and 26 people were hospitalized. -Marcusmax (talk) 00:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, only saw this on the news a few hours ago - it happened today. Keep as per WP:DEMOLISH. Maybe we can revisit in a month? Ludraman (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Project guidelines and essays don't trump policy. I don't see why an accident is more deserving of an article if a somewhat notable person was on the plane. If a notable person dies in the crash, like John Denver or so, then things change. But to keep the article because one passenger in a minor flight accident has a Wikipedia article runs foul of of our "notability is not inherited" guideline. As for demolish: we should only have articles once it has been established that this has notability beyond the news event, which is doubtful in this case. Fram (talk) 04:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The house is built, it's just a particularly unexceptional house. tomasz. 15:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable under Wilipedia's notability rules - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This incident occurred in the last 24hours, reported widely on media channels. More material will emerge as investigations continue. 18:36, 27 August 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.131.23.243 (talk)
- Comment. You seem very certain that it will emerge. It's at least equally plausible nothing new will emerge. Regardless, crystal balls aren't our preserve. tomasz. 16:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. WP:NOBJ: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability. WP:NTEMP: articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No loss of life, no serious injury, no explosive decompression, no structural failure. Simply not notable. 87.74.2.211 (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A minor incident with some exceptionally high profile customer complaints. No evidence of lasting impact. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely non-notable, hundreds of similar depressurisation events would need to be included on Wikipedia if this identical incident were to be added, including one I have been personally been involved in which attracted no media interest whatsoever. SempreVolando (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Common occurrences lack notability. There are guidelines from all of the aviation projects on what is notable and this clearly is not. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this is one of those times when we say WP:NOT#NEWS, I think it might be better if it was on WikiNews instead. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 18:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 12:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Camilla de Castro

Hasn't won any notable awards, has not started any new trends or done any groundbreaking work, and the only Tv media she appeared in was an obscure show, and not mainstream, and thefore fails to meet WP:PORNBIO criteria. JoshuaD1991 (talk) 23:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 23:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She was a very notable Brazilian porn actress and her death was mentioned in various papers. Callelinea (talk) 04:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:PORNBIO. No sources to show she was "mentioned in various papers." and even if there was she, this doesn't automatically mean she's notable, there are lots of people who kill themselves and are mentioned in newspapers, who do not have Wikipedia articles. Xeron220 (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources apparent. Epbr123 (talk) 22:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a stub (on sources). She was noteworthy in her genre, and country. Baga34 (talk) 01:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing notable here. Even if her death was notable WP:BLP1E applies --T-rex 19:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only sources appear to be blogs and obits. Without better sourcing, there is no evidence that the subject meets any notability guideline.--Kubigula (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, Eastmain (talk) 11:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, failing WP:PORNBIO. There's a lot of noise on filesharing sites and blogs, but I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources about her. News about her death isn't enough, and I can't see that she was noteworthy enough in her genre & country to warrant an encyclopaedic entry. --Amalthea^Talk 11:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, She is famous. Although it seems most editors are bigots.--Amalthea^Talk 11:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.96.169.141 (talk) [reply]

Keep. Although some people may not have liked who she was, what she represented, or even what she did in the porn arena, she was the most repected Transsexual of her generation, and a notable TV personality in her native Brazil. I just don't quite understand the desire to "Delete" this person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heathendude (talk • contribs) 12:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Why delete? She was quite well known.

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 A1 by TexasAndroid, "Not enough context to identify subject" (non-admin closure) -- Mithent (talk) 13:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indian microfinance

Fatal!ty ^(T☠LK) 11:04, 26 August 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Football players transferred for over £10,000,000

This list is totally incomplete and possibly never will be, having received no constructive edits since the tail end of 2007. Furthermore, the fee of £10,000,000 is completely arbitrary, as no reason for that fee being chosen has been given, and it does not take exchange rates between the Pound sterling and various European currencies into account. Furthermore, the restriction that at least one English club must be involved in each transfer listed is not compliant with the title of the article. – Pee Jay 10:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. – Pee Jay 10:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 10:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alexf⁴² 10:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Jimbo^[online] 12:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Number 57. --Angelo (talk) 12:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally arbitrary WP:IINFO, nuke it. tomasz. 12:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Info already exists at Transfer (football)#Highest transfer fees. However the arbitrary cut-off point does not class it for deletion otherwise half the football FLs would also have to be listed. Peanut4 (talk) 13:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it does restrict the pool only to those players transferred over a certain amount, so the list is discriminate in that sense. Maybe lowering that number and using Euros would help. MuZemike (talk) 03:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the additional requirement that at least one English club must be involved in the deal? There must be tons of players transferred for over £10M where English clubs were not involved, so why the artificial Anglocentric constraint.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nom. BountyHunter2008 (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (Quentin X (talk) 23:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neville Ollerenshaw

Contested speedy. A nice and potentially interesting life, but no claim to notability or indication that any exists Nuttah (talk) 10:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - being a headmaster is not enough to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. ... discospinster _talk 15:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage by independent reliable sources and no indications of notability given in the article. Fails WP:BIO and does not qualify for WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Nsk92. Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources. BountyHunter2008 (talk) 16:18, 27 August 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

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 [21] and the South China Morning Post [22]. 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.[23]~~ - 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[24], 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[25], HK[26], or WestEast[27], 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. WJBscribe (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Domenico Pellegrini Giampietro

Does not appear to be notable, please check. Thanks, Ain lina (box)? 08:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you, by any chance, read the article before nominating it? He was the Finance Minister of Italy. bogdan (talk) 10:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable in oh-so-many ways. ... discospinster _talk 15:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable in too many ways. I've added a couple of references to the article that confirm that he was finance minister of the Italian Social Republic, flying through WP:POLITICIAN. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:33, 31 August 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 lacking stand-alone notability. Merge was considered, but the main article for the associated subject already covers this subject in adequate detail. I am willing to userfy this article for anybody who wants to merge some of the content, however. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Celebrity... Get Me out of Here! Now

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/I'm a Celebrity... Get Me out of Here! Now

Support programme for a notable program. However the programme in the article is not notable itself and fails WP:RS (by having none at all). -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 08:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough to justify own article, and already covered in main article subsection, otherwise I'd say merge. Paulbrock (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nationally broadcast series on a major network and we're not talking about a 10-minute featurette; according to the infobox this is a full one-hour show. The fact it's a "support series" is irrelevant. See Doctor Who Confidential for an example of a similar series (and I do not recognize WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS as a valid counterargument here). 23skidoo (talk) 12:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but DWC, plus Torchwood Declassified and Heroes Unmasked, are documentaries about drama series, and therefore sit less well in the article of the program they accompany. IACGMOHN is more akin to Big Brother's Little Brother or Big Brother's Big Mouth both of which are lumped together in List of Big Brother (UK) shows, spun out of the main Big Brother (UK) article, when it became too large. Paulbrock (talk) 14:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Paulbrock. Stifle (talk) 12:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a section of the main program's article. It doesn't have enough of an existence outside of that. - Richfife (talk) 19:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article's content is virtually identical to that of the main article subsection, so there's no point in having its own article. Delete this and wait to recreate the article until the subject has more information of note than is plausible to have in the current subsection. SunDragon34 (talk) 23:17, 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. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Pioneer and Historical Society of Muskingum County

Does not appear unfortunately to be meeting our notability standards for inclusion at this time. rootology (T) 13:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prod Delete why not just prod it? Verbal chat 13:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep small historical centers such as this can be valuable stubs, similar to Cloud County Historical Museum.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:28, 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) 08:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It shouldn't be prodded because of the above comment, naturally. However, in order for this to get much of an outcome, someone other than the nominator should address why it does or does not meet deletion policy. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 08:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~I meant why not prod instead of bringing an AfD in the first place. This article does not meet notability criteria, currently. Verbal chat 08:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
Prod is usually, as far as I understand it, for deletion that nobody is opposed to. That is all I mean; we digress. Please direct further discussion of WP:PROD to my talkpage. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 09:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 10:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 10:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Small historic centers such as this can be valuable stubs, but this one doesn't appear to be potentially such; therefore, it appears to lack notability. Nyttend (talk) 13:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG, although a redirect to Muskingum County, Ohio might not be out of the question. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think this would really be a very plausible redirect. Nyttend (talk) 18:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it operates the Stone Academy Museum and has been covered in a number of reliable sources in addition to those cited within the article. Granted I'm biased, it's museum-ish and I think they should all be included. I think it needs some clean-up and also clarification of its boundaries v. that of the Zanesville Historical Society but that's not something deletion would address. TravellingCari 18:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. —TravellingCari 18:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added a number of refs which had substantial coverage of the society from newspapers accessible via subscription at Newspaperarchive.com. There are numerous book references via Google Book search which are not viewable online, but which suggest [28] that additional material can be found to expand the article. Local historical societies which have historical document collection, art collections, a long documented history of their own activities, and which maintain buildings of literary importance such as the Stone Academy was to Elizabeth Robins are by no means "inherently nonnotable." Edison2 (talk) 18:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The page has now changed considerably, especially by incorporating new sources for notability
Keep Notability does not appear to be in question. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I no longer hold a view. Verbal chat 20:05, 26 August 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. Waggers (talk) 09:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Plumm

Delete. Honestly, I'm on the fence about this. It's supposedly owned by a dozen celebrities, but what makes this more notable then the hundreds of other clubs owned by celebs and muscians? I checked WP:CORP under Non-commercial organizations and didn't see anything that would make this place meet those guidelines. Endless Dan 14:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's been the in-depth subject of reliable sources like USA Today [29] ~~and the International Herald Tribune [30]~~, easily passing the core criteria of WP:NOTABILITY. The Non-commercial organizations section of WP:CORP doesn't seem to apply to this business and besides, it passes the core criteria of WP:CORP. ~~It doesn't seem to exist anymore and perhaps info on its closing can be added.~~ --Oakshade (talk) 02:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Also is the subject of New York Magazine [31] and gets significant mention in the International Herald Tribune [32]. --Oakshade (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject of the IHT piece? You have to be joking: it is merely mentioned, not the subject. The same is true of the USA today piece; while USA TODAY is definitely a reliable source, that particular piece does not come anywhere close to the level of "significant coverage" that WP:N requires. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the USA Today article entitled The Plumm is the new place in NYC is not significant coverage about The Plumm? WP:N states very clearly:

"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.

"Trivial" means "passing mention" or a "directory listing". Claiming that the USA Today article is a "passing mention" or "directory listing" is contradictory to reality. --Oakshade (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I now see this has received significant coverage from the New York Times. [33]--Oakshade (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the unsourced sentence, and what's left? Yes, the sources say that the club exists, and that some club owner owns it, and that a fight broke out: sounds like a directory (which is all the sources support), not a great (or even good) encyclopedia article. Here's a question: will the club get any coverage when it closes? If the answer is no, methinks its non-notable.

I also note that the writer of the usatoday piece wrote a total of four pices in her illustrious career at the paper (see here), and that the piece never appeared in print. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I restored most of what you deleted because it IS referenced. The owners and it being a popular New York City club amongst celebrities is additional information to "the club exists." Crystral Ball speculation as to what coverage the club will receive if and when it closes is completely irrelevant to the secondary coverage by reliable sources it has already received. I've never seen a Wikipedia user attack a reliable source like USA Today because they feel the reporter didn't write enough articles for the source. Even if there were no reporters listed, USA Today is still a very reliable source. By the way, reporter Kathy Ehrich Dowd wrote at least 13 stories for USA Today. Care to retract your WP:BLP violation attack on the journalist or shall I remove it from your post myself? --Oakshade (talk) 04:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The google search repeats the same article multiple times (note how many start with "Can't afford to hit every music festival . . .") I trust USA today's count of their own stories, and I don't see how counting stories is an "attack" (or how WP:BLP applies). And I never claimed it was not reliable, only that it did not provide coverage "in detail" in this particular case (nor does the "listings" section of New York magazine). UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point. That reporter could've wrote one story in her career and that doesn't change the fact USA Today is a reliable source. It has nothing to do with anything. And sorry, but a multi-paragraph article covering the establishment is in detail doesn't mean it's not in detail just because a Wikipedia user says so. A listing is just that, a single appearance on a list, not an in-depth story. This is in addition to the New York Times and New York Magazine non-listing stories on this establishment. --Oakshade (talk) 22:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I just noticed that New York Times reporter Melena Ryzik, who wrote the in-depth New York Times piece on The Plumm, has reported hundreds of pieces for the New York Times alone.[34] Based on your bizarre "reporter needs to have written more than 4 pieces at one newspaper for that newspaper to be reliable" criteria, the New York Times piece is extremely reliable and significant coverage of this establishment. --Oakshade (talk) 22:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you consistently mis-state my position? I NEVER said ANY of the sources were unreliable. Fortunately, reliablity is not the only thing that the guideline requires. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:22, 25 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) 08:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to have enough significant coverage, from reliable sources, to establish notability. Silverfish (talk) 22:22, 26 August 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. TexasAndroid (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas de Fleury and Francis Crawford of Lymond - Family Tree

Contested prod. Deprodder considered my prod reason a suggestion to merge the contents, which it wasn't. To repeat: this fictional timeline is a form of excessive detail, a plot part that is not needed to understand either of the book series it is about. A short sentence in both articles ("This series and the other are connected by the characters of X in book A and Y in book B, which are aunt and niece" or something similar) would be more than sufficient. The actual family tree, with all dates, names, relationships, ... has no relevance to this connection of the two series, which is the only part worth mentioning here. IF you prefer abbreviations to support a nomination: this page fails WP:NOTE and WP:NOT#PLOT. Fram (talk) 14:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't read the books and thus don't know in how the family tree is important / really not important at all (I read the nom). This seems to imply a general interest in such a table (WP:Notability, I love genealogy tables myself), but it also says "Please note that this Family Tree is the personal interpretation of Nancy Wright and others in the absence of an authorized version from Dorothy Dunnett and her publishers. [...] While I have endeavored to make it accurate it may contain errors." This sounds like WP:Original research, and we shouldn't have that on wikipedia. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:22, 21 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) 08:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article is comprised entirely of in-universe information. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no real evidence of notability, no references outside of that "universe", and only one cite possible. Bearian (talk) 00:15, 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 as a page "that serves no purpose but to disparage its subject or some other entity" per CSD G10. This should not preclude the creation of a neutral and referenced article on this topic. WJBscribe (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT rights in Tennessee

Non-notable and unreferenced; material is either a duplicate of the main article for the U.S. or unverified claims (e.g. "The current situation is better than in Alabama, Mississippi, or Arkansas, but worse than in Georgia or North Carolina.") —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 10:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 10:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, weakly. No, the article isn't very good as it stands. But not notable? I can't see how. Moreover, each US state differs strongly from the others in its laws and domestic policies; there's at least potential for valid articles about all 50 of them. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - it's a notable subject for sure, but with no references it can come off somewhat as an attack page. There needs to be some statistics and write-ups added before it's "live". ... discospinster _talk 15:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's a notable topic, but the current article is POV-laden original research. I don't see anything here that is worthy of being salvaged. Delete with a link to this debate, so that a future contributor who has sourced content to contribute will not be discouraged from creating an article. --Orlady (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the above. Cant be bothered to type it all out again. BountyHunter2008 (talk) 16:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have to say that I agree with Smerdis of Tlön. However, The article is notable, but it is unreferenced as well. I do agree on what Orlady said about a future contributor having sourced content to contribute and they won't be discouraged from creating the article in the future. --Grrrlriot (♠ ♣ ♦ ♥ †) 18:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rewrite completely. Also think about making similar articles for other U.S. states. Template Master (talk) 03:15, 28 August 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, some information merged or already had been merged. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Te Kowai Weather Station

I don't think that Wikipedia is an indiscrimate collection of weather statistics, although there is a place for these in town articles. Grahame (talk) 08:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also nominating:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 08:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the tables into the articles on the towns and then delete per nom. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested by Nick Dowling. We didn't have an article on Te Kowai itself, so I have created a quick and dirty stub for this purpose and done a quick merge of the weather station information into it. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - user:Lankiveil has already done the merging, so there is no longer any useful information to keep in the weather station article.--Lester 20:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced and not notable. Bidgee (talk) 12:02, 28 August 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.-Wafulz (talk) 18:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cedar Pocket Reservoir

Contested prod. Normally I would not bring up geographical locations for deletion as there seems to be a general notion that places have "inherent" notability - but it is not merely notability that is the problem here. Put simply, there are no reliable sources that this place actually exists. First of all, the given "reference" is to a fishing database of dubious reliability. Secondly, the coordinates given by said "reference" are nowhere near (and virtually inaccessible) from I-15 as stated in the article. Third, there is a "Cedar Pond" at the coordinates given, but it is an intermittent pond less than fifty feet across, and hardly a "popular fishing spot" as stated in the article. So, assuming that this pond really is the intended subject of the article, the information in the article is 100% made up and unsourced - and even then, it has no shred of notability. Shereth 15:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per WP:V. USGS GNIS says that the lake is there (U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Cedar Pocket Reservoir). USGS cites Arizona maps and it took some digging to find the USGS entry. ~~The Yahoo! satellite image shows an apparent lake there.~~ The Google image is too far out. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link to the map? All I get on those coordinates is a dried-up pond. Still doesn't address the concern that this place (in the USGS link provided) is clearly not the place described in the article. Shereth 17:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

correction: The Yahoo! Map referred from USGS appears not to match the coordinates. Anyway, USGS says the reservoir is at (36.2930358, -113.4438268) and Cedar Pond (U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Cedar Pond) is nearby at (36.2966470, -113.4421603). I can't see much from the satellite images. Not much else found except a passing environmental mention. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 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) 07:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the GNIS database is never purged of placenames "except in cases of obvious duplication". This reservoir could have been drained in the 1890s for all we know. All the sources pull their data from GNIS, even this herbarium accession. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 08:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per this source ([35]) it appears that the pond and the resevoir are two distinct bodies of watter. Any assumption placed on the pond would probably be incorrect in relation to the resevoir. These two places certainly exist. --147.70.176.108 (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source to verify this? More to the point, the link offered is to a user-created and editable database that even has a disclaimer at the top regarding "mistakenly entered" lakes that "shouldn't be here". Shereth 21:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That source is computer generated seed article in an attempt to build a wiki. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 09:59, 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 per WP:SNOW. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 00:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mew2King

Unnotable video game player, sadly it does have an assertion of notability so it cant be speedied but there are no sources to back up the claim and I am not sure how notable being good a Super smash bros' makes you. A Google search for his name and his alias[36] brings up only a very few hits, none of which are reliable. According to http://super-smash-bros.wikia.com/wiki/Mew2King the competitions he has participated in are Smash Panel Power Rankings and the North Atlantic Regional Power Rankings neither of which has an article so both are probably unnotable. - Icewedge (talk) 06:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per AfDs on more notable video game tournament winners that have been deleted. JuJube (talk) 11:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 11:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:N and is one big unverifiable claim. MrKIA11 (talk) 11:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability horribly. Do we even have articles on competitive SSB play in the first place? --erachima talk 11:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Speedy) Delete. Honestly, I would have speedied this, as saying you're the world's best video game player is right up there with those cutest/smartest schoolkid articles that always get deleted within milliseconds of creation. But whether speedily or not, definitely delete: not notable, fails WP:BIO, etc etc etc Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though a claim of being the world's best video game player is a claim of notability that trumps the Speedy Deletion criteria. And, you know what, if there was significant coverage of that championship, with reliable sources and everything, I might be inclined to keep - but that's not the case here. No objection to a properly sourced article about this individual, particularly if they end up being notable - we already have some professional video gamers, such as Ola Moum, Fatal1ty, and Billy Mitchell (gamer), so an article of this type isn't out of the realm of possibility - but there just isn't enough here. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW and WP:OR. Better articles than this have already been deleted. MuZemike (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note — Mew2King has his own account at Wikia and has edited his own article (see Wikia article history). While that conflict of interest does not equate to a problem here or even there, it may be something to lookout for. MuZemike (talk) 19:06, 27 August 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 as the article was dramatically improved since nomination (diff: [37]) and all delete votes were cast before that improvement. --Reinoutr (talk) 10:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Antichrist (film)

Delete per WP:CBALL -- according to IMDB, shooting has not even begun Editor437 (talk) 06:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 10:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF. According to semi-reliable/unreliable sources, this film is lining up its cast as of August 2008. The article is near-copyvio of the IMDb entry anyway. No loss for creating a proper article when the film is shot. • Gene93k (talk) 10:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF: the article, almost the same as its IMDB entry as Gene duly noted, even says that it's in pre-production. Enough said. Cliff smith ^talk 17:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although THIS Google search finds 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, et al., not saying much more than IMDB, THIS search finds 1, 2, 3, 4, and others, all indicating that production begins at the end of August... likely before this AfD runs its course... so I think it easily passes Crystal as well as verification in multiple reliable sources. A few days patience should make WP:NF a no-brainer. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:NFF, films should not get articles before principal photography starts. Too many things can happen to delay or derail a project. WP:CRYSTAL until the cameras roll. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now based upon Schmidt's research, with no prejudice to renomination at a later date should it become evident that production did not occur. 23skidoo (talk) 13:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- update: William Defoe has signed,Cast has trained and are going to go to the shoot location near Cologne, Pre-sales have already been concluded by TrustNordisk with around 25 territories, Lars von Trier ready to shoot, French report that filming in imminent. This is getting a lot of international coverage. Worth keeping here for a bit if only per WP:GNG. With cast on location, I expect to find an article about the filming very soon. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Update Did cleanup and wikification, added infobox and production/distribution informations. Catagorized. Found a few more supportive sources. Added them. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As expanded, the sources provided satisfy the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 00:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Update Added to Infobox per additional sources & external links. More every day. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep My personal threshold for future films is: "If everyone involved put their hands up and walked away from the project right now, would the film still warrant an article on the basis of what has happened so far?" In this case, I think yes, but just barely. - Richfife (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now with the improvements to the article (particularly the references) it no longer falls under WP:CRYSTAL. Since the film has begun preproduction, along with the film being reliably associated with numerous notable people I feel it satisfies the notability criteria to remain for now. If the film ends up in development hell then it may warrant deletion. --147.70.176.108 (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I Agree. If Von Trier finds some way to screw up distribution presales and and 11 million investment, the article would deserve to go. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually that would likely may a new wave of notability. Banjeboi 00:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - And lawsuits, no doubt (chuckle). Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per excellent work in adding sources and cleaning up. Banjeboi 00:12, 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. Mr.Z-man 23:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Young

Appears to fail WP:ENTERTAINER. Ironho lds 06:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ironholds and there doesn't seem to be significant coverage of him in reliable sources. Just that he pays a role on a soap opera. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:16, 31 August 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

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 [38]. 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. BJ^Talk 08:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

European Training Network for Animation

Loose network of European animation educators, lacking any independent coverage. -- Mark Chovain 05:43, 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. Fails WP:RS, WP:N, WP:V and WP:ORG. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, plus WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:IINFO. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reliable sources are easy to find. Richard Pinch (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per WP:BURDEN, it is for those seeking to include content to provide sources, not for those seeking to remove it to show there aren't any. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment true but equally at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions we find In the Wiki model, an article which may currently be poorly written, poorly formatted, lack sufficient sources, or not be a comprehensive overview of the subject, can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws. That such an article is lacking in certain areas is a relatively minor problem, and such articles can still be of benefit to Wikipedia. In other words, the remedy for such an article is cleanup, not deletion. In any case I have added several references to the article to support my assertion that they were easy to find. Richard Pinch (talk) 15:56, 12 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.

New Great Game

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) - Nomination withdrawn. Chenzw Talk 11:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

~~Delete~~. Withdraw nomination (see below). Non-notable neologism; there are only a couple people actually using this phrase and one of them (Rashid) appears to use it practically in passing. Most of the article is a synthesis of different ideas (many undocumented) that are loosely connected together by original research, and much of which doesn't even mention "the new great game." In fact, the body of the article mentions the phrase only once, and not as a quote but as an unsourced assertion that there are three phases to the new great game. This reads like a summary of someone's doctoral dissertation, not as an encyclopedia article. csloat (talk) 05:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC) csloat (talk) 05:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is there no other article about great power politics in Central Asia in the present day? I agree that this article is problematic, starting with the use of a neologism for the title. But I wonder if it could be merged, rewritten, renamed rather than deleted outright? <eleland/talkedits> 17:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see why the relevant material couldn't be added to such an article right away without an official merge vote. It's no different from adding anything else to an article, methinks; in this case, there wouldn't be a lot to add - a paragraph on this theory would be plenty. I don't know what article to add it to though but maybe someone who worked on this article will have a suggestion... csloat (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, I think this has to be 'deleted. It seems that WP's coverage is deficient in this area, but I don't see how that would be improved by an article like this, which is explicitly slanted starting with the title, and does seem to stitch together unrelated sources to make its point. <eleland/talkedits> 04:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Commodore Sloat that this article is an original synthesis of views. Moreover, I feel that there is a reasonable risk that the sources being included in the synthesis are themselves not necessarily notable, reliable, or balanced. If material on this topic needs to be included, it should be included in existing international relations pages, rather than having a separate, unverifiable abstraction defined for it. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a catchphrase that, from what I can tell, is used by one author (Lutz Kleveman) and has been copied to a minor degree by a few other journalists. Other than the one book, there is nothing to substantiate the assertion that there really is an "Great Game" and even Kleveman's book uses the phrase more as a rhetorical device than as a historical concept. (The Rashid usage also seems to me to be a passing rhetorical device, not a definition of a core concept.) The synthesis here is just that, a prohibited synthesis that does not belong in the encyclopedia. Note: This page was given the benefit of doubt in the last deletion discussion. The core problems identified during the last deletion discussion remain unresolved a year later. This is a strong indicator to me that they can not be resolved and weighs heavily in my opinion that the benefit of doubt is no longer appropriate. Rossami (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep New Great Game is a clearly notable subject. If the nominating editor has a problem with the article he/she should consider editing it to fix the problem instead of using AfD.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: in this case, AfD is the most appropriate fix. csloat (talk) 08:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete (if not deleted, merge a severely restrained summary into Rashid's article; Kleverman credits him with the term.) Any statement which is not attributed to Rashid or Kleverman as part of their theory should be removed. We have other articles (surely?) on the diplomatic relations of Central Asia, and we don't need one with a central thesis to push. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Csloat is trying to repeat the same arguments used against the New Cold War, but this falls flat because not only is this topic clearly defined by numerous reliable sources, it's even dated. Here's a nice little series of sources showing exactly how legitimate this subject is and how much it is clearly not a subject of non-notable original research: [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49]--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What the last article cited (from the NYTimes, in case DA finds some more stray kittens) actually says is: This resulting rivalry in Central Asia, Kipling's Great Game, continued as a shadowy duel even after the Bolsheviks took over the czarist empire. This is not germane. Please stop using raw google as though it were research. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You apparently didn't read the article. It was referring to the modern era following the collapse of the Soviet Union and clearly referring to it as the New Great Game. It's completely relevant and shows the term was used, defined, and dated as early as 1996. Several more recent articles: [50] [51] [52]--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - If this were the article on Foreign affairs of Central Asia, which we badly need, that would be on point; even the comparison to Kim might be. But since the term doesn't occur anywhere in the text of the Times article (and so is neither defined nor dated), this is irrelevant cruft. The possibility of a new Great Game, at some point, has been discussed since Kipling was alive, in passing references like this (see Hopkirk's book on Central Asia, for example); none of that makes an article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The title is referring to the new Great Game and it was clearly talking about that new Great Game when it was mentioning all this other stuff. What the sources indicate is csloat's argument about it being non-notable and used by hardly any authors is complete nonsense because it's been used several times. These are not passing references either, most of the articles mention it several times and are written entirely about the subject. I don't see how you can just dismiss this. Did reliable sourcing, verifiability, and notability suddenly become secondary considerations for an article?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of those new ones doesn't load. The others both say new "Great Game", which is not the same thing; indeed, if New Great Game already had a recognized meaning, they would use it. (One of them refers to the sides as the US and Europe, with Russia on the sidelines.) I regret that you appear to be insensitive to the difference, but you are unlikely to convince the rest of us that you are engaged in more than Googling. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep valid political generalization. The material there can be supported. it is individually--it now needs to be supported as part of the broader concept. I don't want to quibble over the title, though I think this probably the best one. DGG (talk) 06:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, all this article needs is a name change so people can find it. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 07:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and keep, and then work on improving. File an RFC for a new name? Verbal chat 08:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to a specific and NPOV title, perhaps Petroleum politics in central Asia. Article name is too general/ambiguous. See also Petroleum politics#Pipeline diplomacy in Central Asia. Then convert New Great Game to a DAB page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OR and novel syn lead to a very misleading article. --Procutus (talk) 10:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now let's slow down a little before we start deleting established articles with 40 or so sources. As far as I can see 90% of deletion advocates simply can't stand the name New Great Game which can be easily solved by renaming or merging not deletion. Hobartimus (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Renaming and throwing the POV out of it would be one way to go. I don't expect it to work, however, and if the closer decides on it and it fails, we will be back here. But I would settle, in the interests of comity, for userifying this selective diatribe and quarrying Foreign relations in Central Asia out of it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, sourced and very interesting subject. Once again, this article is about real phenomenon, not about a combination of words ("neologism", etc.).Biophys (talk) 15:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, see changes I was bold and made a major change to the article. As can be seen, the term is used as a title in at least five books, and it returns a lot of hits on internet searches, so we do need an article of some kind. I think a simple stub (as it is now), giving people a basic idea of what the term usually refers to, is adequate. If warranted, the removed material can be retrieved and moved, as others were saying, to more appropriate articles (such as Geopolitics in Central Asia, Petroleum politics in Central Asia, and/or Foreign relations in Central Asia). How does that sound? Otebig (talk) 06:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars, as it has notability to a real-world audience. The term The New Great Game is used as a title in at least five books, and the article can be further improved. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See WP:SYN. I have no objections to merging but this title names a non-notable concept and sourcing it to five books that don't even reference each other is a clear violation. csloat (talk) 03:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, there's vast room for improvement. But that's a call for authors, not a basis for deletion. Ultimately I agree with Otebig. We could use articles on politics and diplomacy in Central Asia. I found this page via Google search and imagine others would, too. Chenx064 (talk) 14:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If people keep putting articles up for deletion like this there won't be anything but user pages in a month. CSloat, maybe you need a break, but please consider improvement over annihilation. Whiskey in the Jar (talk) 15:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See WP:CIV and WP:AGF. csloat (talk) 03:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Counter Comment: See WP:DR, especially the part on negotiations, which was not adhered to on New Cold War. Practice what you preach. Whiskey in the Jar (talk) 07:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what are you referring to? There was plenty of discussion on New Cold War; there was even further discussion upon deletion review. In this case, what is there to discuss other than the implications of WP:SYN? csloat (talk) 23:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rename and cleanup. First, move this article to a less melodramatic name. That will get rid of the Neologism problem and lessen the undue weight given to certain opinions. Second, change the redirect to a permastub such as Otebig did here [53]. Third, cleanup the moved article to get rid of original research. As OR goes, it is pretty good, which suggests to me that at least some things that can be properly sourced. If this program, or something similar, ultimately fails, then it can be validly reproposed for deletion under the theory that it will never conform to policy. If there is a proper article into which to merge the salvagable material, then that can also be done. Robert A.West (Talk) 06:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the difference. First, you seem to acknowledge this is OR; all OR is prohibited on Wikipedia; there is no exception for OR that is "pretty good." Second, if we do your suggestions -- rename the article, get rid of OR, and "clean up," there is nothing left but a footnote to an article about state relations in central Asia -- which can be added to such an article whether or not this one is deleted. The AfD allows the merits of this article to be discussed; I think those calling for merge or rename are really supporting the basis for deletion. csloat (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick search with google turns up plenty of sources, plus of course the article itself. Looks good. Mathmo ^Talk 09:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm going to try to (hopefully) clear up a few things. It seems there were two original arguments for getting rid of this article. The first was that the term "New Great Game" is a "Non-notable neologism", and the second was that "This reads like a summary of someone's doctoral dissertation, not as an encyclopedia article".

First, about the term itself: as a student of Central Asian studies, I'll vouch for the fact that "the New Great Game" is a common term in the literature. Also, Rashid did not come up with the term, he's just quite fond of (over)using it. The term has been around for some time since the fall of the USSR. I've seen it used in academic articles from the early/mid 1990s. Additionally, well-sourced material can be found illustrating both the term's uses, and criticism of the term. So, the first concern, that "New Great Game" is a "Non-notable neologism" used by only one or two authors, is decidedly incorrect.

However, the second issue (that the article is mostly SYN and OR) is quite valid. Nearly all of this article was written by a now dis-active user called KazakhPol who was very interested in the politics of the region, especially power politics and the War on Terror. Unfortunately, instead of making this "New Great Game" article about the uses and history of the term "New Great Game", the first writers, including KazakhPol, had the article about the "game" itself - that is, about power politics in Central Asia. It is that "game" material which is SYN and OR.

So, the point is, the 1) regional politics and the 2) term for a method of conceptualizing those politics are two separate subjects, warranting two different articles. The material about the politics itself, which is the OR and SYN that in part caused this AfD, should be removed (and what little can be salvaged should be moved, as others have said, to a more appropriately-named article). That does not, NOT, mean this page should be renamed, merged, or deleted, because the term "New Great Game" is worthy and notable enough to have its own article, one distinct from the article's current contents. Otebig (talk) 00:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikipedia editor's "voucher" as a "student" really doesn't carry a lot of weight; if the term is common "in the literature," it should be easy to actually cite the literature establishing a consistent pattern of usage to refer to a particular phenomenon. That has not been done for this article; what we have instead is an illegitimate synthesis of various uses of a phrase. Rather than "vouching" that you've seen the term used in academic articles, please cite the articles and preferably show where they talk about the phrase as a specific identifiable concept that forms part of an academic conversation (as one could easily do for a term like "cold war" or "Finlandization," for example). If you are correct about what you say, it should be easy to prove it, rather than simply saying "trust me," which is what you appear to be doing here. While I applaud your bold move of deleting the OR and leaving a stub in its place, during AfD isn't the right time to do that (as I have been warned myself), and it still doesn't seem to answer the problem of this particular neologism's notability as a concept (even with five books with that phrase in their title, there is no evidence in the amended article that the term is used the same way or even talked about as a consistent object of academic study). A phrase used as a marketing gimmick doesn't count, I think. csloat (talk) 03:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, not even a little AFG here. Okay then, here you go...

“

When five independent states emerged in the Central Asian region, in the immediate aftermath of the disintegration of the Soviet Union, what also emerged, more or less simultaneously, was a focus on certain geopolitical concepts and constructs that had become defunct in the immediate past. One such concept that became popular was that of the “new great game,” to define the competition for influence, power, hegemony and profits that would now be played out over the “Heartland.” It was emphasized that while the original “Great Game” had been about territorial control, the new game was primarily about control over the resources of the Heartland and only secondarily about the strategic geopolitical position of the region. This became an integral part of a vast literature and coincided with a revival of interest in and use of geopolitics as a tool for politico-security analysis.

”

— Sengupta, Anita (2005), "9/11 and the Heartland Debate in Central Asia", Central Asia and the Caucasus, 4 (34): 37–45

“

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 one theme that has become fundamental part of the analysis of the politico-military and economic situations of the Caucasus and Central Asia has been the question of a New Great Game within, though not limited to, these regions. Though the idea will be explored later in greater depth, the concept of a New Great Game has been used as shorthand for competition in influence, power, hegemony and profits, often referring to the oil and gas industries and reserves in Central Asia and the Caucasus. It is not limited to these aspects, however, with references being made to religious, cultural and military competition in areas as far apart as Turkey and China, Iran and India, Georgia and Siberia with actors at state, multinational, transnational, local and regional levels. As ‘the romance of Caspian oil struck Western media, industry and government’ this concept of a ‘New Great Game’ became such an integral part of reporting on the region, whether implicitly or explicitly in academic journals, news bulletins, economic analysis or government reports that its use has gained a world-wide following, which has not decreased since the events of 11 September 2001 and the subsequent US-led intervention in Afghanistan.

The growing use of this concept has coincided with — or perhaps been caused by — a revival of the interest in and use of geopolitics as a tool for politicosecurity analysis. The linking of these two ideas has, in some cases, been explicit and the New Great Game concept can be used to illustrate the contemporary use of geopolitics in this region.

This paper therefore proposes to undertake a study of the New Great Game concept...

”

— Edwards, Matthew (March 2003), "The New Great Game and the new great gamers: disciples of Kipling and Mackinder", Central Asian Survey, 22 (1): 83–103

There are also articles by S. Frederick Starr and the late John Erickson, among others, about the "game". Can we now wrap this up and start writing a good article? Otebig (talk) 04:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF has nothing at all to do with this; WP:V and WP:NOR is all that is relevant. You have offered clear and compelling evidence from reliable sources specifically speaking to this concept. It's too bad that it took this late into an AfD to finally produce a single such citation; I hope you will take a lead role in rewriting this article with material like this rather than the original research that has been there. csloat (talk) 06:39, 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. John254 01:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meet the Browns (TV sreies)

TV show in development - does not even seem to have a network let alone a schedule Editor437 (talk) 05:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I've added the network it will air on with a reference, but we definitely need more information before this can become a full article. For now, maybe put a bit about it within the main article on Meet the Browns. If this is kept, "series" needs a spelling correction. Nate • (chatter) 05:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The show has been announced as airing on a national network. That establishes notability. 23skidoo (talk) 05:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep; The show has been announced with a January 2009 start date on TBS; notability established on those grounds. --Mhking (talk) 01:57, 29 August 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.

909 (Disambiguation)

The result was Keep. No convincing argument made for deletion.. TexasAndroid (talk) 16:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

909 already directs to Roland TR-909 Editor437 (talk) 05:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a dab page and not an article so the nomination makes no sense. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:02, 31 August 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

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 ~~delete~~ relist (link) List of Beach Boys songs by singer, keep List of The Beach Boys songs.-Wafulz (talk) 18:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Beach Boys songs by singer

Very redundant lists, both. The latter is only of interest to Beach Boys fans, and not only are both lists overlong, they're terrribly undersourced. I see these as redundant to the pages on the individual songs and albums. Given these lists' lengths and the fact that I've seen other deleted lists before, I see no reason to keep this. This is just trivia for the most part, especially the list of who sang what.

I withdraw half of this nomination. The List of The Beach Boys songs is apparently fine, but I still feel that List of Beach Boys songs by singer is trivial and possibly unverifiable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 05:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the former, but delete the latter — there has to be references for the songs of The Beach Boys; it seems that it's up to someone to find them. With the possible exception of individual songs by Brian Wilson, it doesn't make sense to sort by singer, as people wouldn't necessarily know who sang what. MuZemike (talk) 05:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge; specifically, keep List of The Beach Boys songs and delete List of Beach Boys songs by singer, merging any information from the latter into the former. Reformat the result as a sortable list, like List of The Beatles songs, and then anyone can view the songs by singer by sorting on that column. TJRC (talk) 06:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, lists are a perfectly suitable way of navigating articles and can contain much more information that for example categories (like these). Sourcing is not necessary IMO, as long as the individual articles contain the proper sources. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Individual entries in a lists do not need separate sourcing if there is an obvious context to the title and lead-in and they have WP articles themselves. These are exactly the type of lists that make WP a really cool place to research information. Redunancy is not and never should be a reason for deletion.--Mike Cline (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 10:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 10:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I endorse the deletion of the list by singer, still. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TPH, just to clarify, does that mean you no longer support the deletion of List of The Beach Boys songs as you proposed? TJRC (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I consider a merge might be more appropriate as suggested above in analogy to the Beatles song list. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As the nominator has withdrawn one of the two articles originally nominated, I believe this discussion should be closed at this point and a fresh AFD launched for the article in question, just to avoid potential confusion. 23skidoo (talk) 13:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List of The Beach Boys songs, but delete List of Beach Boys songs by singer. The former is fine but the latter is too much of a BLP issue without good verification. Also, there's no need to close this discussion and start another, there's enough relevant discussion here that the reviewing admin should be able to determine consensus. --147.70.176.108 (talk) 21:02, 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 redirect to The Godz (NYC band). Mr.Z-man 00:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Thornton

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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Halifax Health Medical Center

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —benjicharlton (talk) 00:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should actually be tagged WP:CSD#A7 but let it be debated for a bit before delation if neccessary. The article contains no discernable historical information concerning the hospital. I did a fast edit to remove all the phone numbers posted!. see article history. There a no references for the quality of the medicine performed. The creator sites no notable references which can be used to gauge the hospitals notability. If the entry appeared like (example: Jackson Memorial Hospital) It might be tolerable, but I question even that articles encyclopaedic value. The information presented is repeatitive and easily found in other wikipedia references.

Sections such as

===== VitalStim =====

VitalStim Therapy is a breakthrough program that helps activate key muscles in patients who suffer with difficulty swallowing. This non-invasive, painless treatment uses neuromuscular electrical stimulation to improve strength and control of the muscles used for swallowing. Electrodes specially designed for placement on the surface of the neck stimulate these muscles, helping people relearn how to swallow. It can give hope to those who are socially isolated and in despair over their inability to eat.

Are examples of advertising without any decent peer reviewed references.

Much of the content presented here would be better suited to a commercial webpage detailing the services of the hospital and contact details - I dont dispute that having this information on the internet is valuable just not as part of an encyclopaedia.... benjicharlton (talk) 05:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 11:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 11:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Unencyclopedic writing is not a valid basis for CSD#A7. This hospital clearly asserts notability as the region's Level II trauma center. Copyvio (G12) cannot be ruled out here. However, assessing the hospital's quality of care violates WP:NOTGUIDE. WP:Notability is based by 3rd-party WP:RS interest available to describe the subject's basic nature from a WP:NPOV. A search of Google Books suggests that RS coverage is out there to allow that, even if we have to stubify the article and start over. • Gene93k (talk) 11:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No I agree the basis for WP:CSD#A7 is assertion of the possibility of meeting notability criteria, and as Gene93k states the hospital asserts itself as a Level 2 Trauma centre - which I assume can be confirmed somewhere (not being US based I would not know where to look). If this is confirmed and wikipedians have agreed that being a level 2 trauma centre covers notability fair enough, however given that the article, bar the first sentence stating the history of the centre, has major problems . Which in my opinion would leave barely enough for even a stub.

I also conducted a quick google search. My opinion was that of those articles that appeared to be only 1 that was from an independently verifiable source - which outlined the fact the hospital was broadcasting surgery on the internet...which I might add was a press release from the Hospital press room - unless this hospital was one of the first in the world to do so I dont think this is Notable - the remainder appeared to be exactly what this article is in the main ie Loosely worded advertising.

The google books search appeared to list a couple of guides that referenced Halifax and health centres, not specifically this centre though...these guides seemed to be directories ...nothing that would equate to notability under WP:CORP My point about referencing quality of service - I did not mean to suggest this was missing I was commenting that the article as it stands breaches WP:NOTGUIDE - buy this I mean the extensive procedures listed are simply there as a guide to the proceedures the centre is capable of performing and how to contact the centre and have the procedure.

I have major concerns as well with the Author after looking at the username, articles created and edited, I have to believe must have WP:Conflict of interest and thus WP:NPOV

As it stands I unless the Level 2 trauma thing reaches notability and even if it does the article has be reduced to a couple of sentences (obviously more discussion for the talk page - but I figure the lead in and history would stay) so that being said I still throw my chips into the

:weak delete benjicharlton (talk) 12:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After reading WP:CORP again I dont believe that being a level II Acute Trauma Centre denotes automatic notability. I agree that as such a trauma centre it is probably the hospital has had enough coverage in verifiable media to meet WP:N but I cant find any such articles other than directories of hospitals etc ..which is not enough to meet the criteria.benjicharlton (talk) 05:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak, weak keep - Wow, 40~~Mbytes~~Kbytes of indiscriminate detail from a single-purpose account! Not sure if pruning this down to what is notable wouldn't be tantamount to deletion. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Oops. Correct units of measure. What's a few orders of magnitude between freinds? ~ Ningauble (talk) 02:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as an aside I have started a discussion on what consitutes notability for hospitals on Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)#Notability of Hospitals if any one is at all interested in the overall issue. Really this is one of many hospitals that might fall under the same problem.benjicharlton (talk) 05:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. The article as written is promotional in nature with a large list of services offered. Furthermore, there appears to be copyright issues as well as there is text that has been taken from the hospital web site. If the hospital is notable, the artile would need a complete rewrite. In other words, there's nothing to salvage. -- Whpq (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Individual notability not asserted above other general hospitals offering general services (you can get rhinoplasty and lymphoma treatment in most general hospitals) and other level 2 trauma centers. I believe there is a more general discussion going on somewhere about the notability of hospitals. There are no definite criteria about the notability of hospitals yet. JFW | T@lk 06:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as written. Clearly this place merits an article. However the current one is spam any way you cut it. Better to start over. So no objection to replacing this with a proper article. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change that to Speedy delete as multiple copy vios from this site. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:49, 31 August 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 List of video game console emulators, and nominator withdrew after article was redirected. Non-admin closure. Jamie^☆S93 22:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gnuboy

Contested prod on the grounds that apparently the links at the bottom of the page satisfy notability (links to its home page, links on the wayback machine to its home page, a project page on an open source repository, etc) Absolutely nothing which satisfies the criteria laid out in WP:NOTE which calls for significant coverage in reliable third party sources (which is not forums and blogs). Unless any can be demonstrated this doesn't belong here. Crossmr (talk) 04:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAW - Nomination withdrawn since article is redirected to a list.--Crossmr (talk) 12:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I apologize for generating a conflict of interest as I originally did. - Gilgamesh (talk) 13:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No worries. Everybody makes mistakes its our ability to learn from them that makes a good editor.--Crossmr (talk) 14:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — this looks a lot like many of the video game articles out there. In addition, this borders on WP:ADVERT. MuZemike (talk) 05:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - gnuboy is actually the most widely ported Game Boy Classic emulator, having been widely ported especially to PDAs, cell phones and game console homebrew platforms as Free Software, and is included for Debian and listed at the Free Software Foundation software directory and at Zophar's Domain (including an entire section for gnuboy saved state archives).[54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63] However, since I was both one of the programmers and originally wrote the article (I've been active on Wikipedia in general for years), I did initially dispute the article's neutrality for its tone (after I myself had originally written it), and it's been cleaned up somewhat, but tone is still an issue. The article ought to be cleaned up by an editor other than myself. I vote that it is notable, but if it is not notable enough to stand as its own article, then maybe merge with other articles listing relevant emulation software...or something like that. But gnuboy had far-reaching influences in Game Boy emulation until the arrival of VisualBoyAdvance, and still has far-reaching influences for its many ports to platforms VBA is not conveniently ported too. If emulators like ZSNES can have their own articles, then I believe gnuboy deserves its own article too. But it certainly needs cleaning, for sure. - Gilgamesh (talk) 13:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of emulators#Nintendo systems. Also examine Category:Game Boy emulators. I am also too close to this topic. I am willing to help, but I want to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. - Gilgamesh (talk) 06:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I just added a ton of relevant third party links to the external links section...some of them are probably more appropriately references than external links. I was just incredibly alarmed that this article was actually nominated for deletion. I thought I'd done enough work even before this, so I scrambled to gather more relevant links, endeavouring not to collect links from forums or blogs. - Gilgamesh (talk) 13:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of those meet the criteria laid out in WP:NOTE. None of them are significant coverage by reliable third party sources. There are thousands of packages included in debian, and very few of them are truly notable. Its inclusion on sites and lists which lists thousands of other software does nothing to establish its notability. To establish its notability it either has to have won a notable award or be covered significantly by reliable sources. That kind of coverage would include a news article (maybe in wired?), a review or something, in a reliable source (not a forum, blog, etc) that would cover the subject exclusively or almost exclusively (name drops, a passing sentence or two doesn't quite cut it). You might also want to read WP:COI as you're obviously very close to the subject. The deletion nomination isn't anything personal. Some things just aren't appropriate for wikipedia.--Crossmr (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did once recall a review on a website dedicated to Linux gaming, but I don't remember the URL and the website may be gone by now. Either way, I couldn't find it in Google. Perhaps I am too close to this topic. I honestly never intended to create a conflict of interest, to advertise or to self-promote—in fact I only thought of that after the fact, which is why I distributed the NPOV of the article shortly after I wrote it (how often do editors dispute the NPOV of their own edits?). I was newer to Wikipedia back then (a couple years then as opposed to the approximately half decade I've been here now), and gnuboy was certainly notable to me. That said, I'm changing my vote. If gnuboy is relegated to a list of programs on most websites, then it might as well be relegated to a list of software items on other pages of Wikipedia. - Gilgamesh (talk) 06:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the article to a redirect. - Gilgamesh (talk) 12:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Cirt (talk) 04:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unite For Sight

I've declined a speedy on this one but I'm not sure it really warrants an article and a quick web-skim doesn't seem to show much if anything to expand it from. Procedural nom so I abstain. – iride scent 17:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article and abstain too. --Bensin (talk) 17:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even though you created the article, you are free to register your opinion here. If you have any info that would help other editors decide to keep/delete the article, this would be the place to list it (along with listing it in the article as well!). TN‑X-Man 17:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pass on voting as a courtesy to the nominator who abstained, but since I created it I think everyone already knows my opinion. I always think it's sad when articles 5 minutes old is speedily deleted instead of improved. Unite For Sight is an organization that has helped more than 600,000 people and generates over 28,000 hits on Google. That merits an article. --Bensin (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The sources are indeed thin on this organization. Still, it has been noted in passing by a few newspapers although 2 of the sources that are in the article at present are college student publications. What's really going on here is that the wunderkind founder of the organization has won many awards, which then get picked up in articles, which in turn will make a passing mention of the organization. Most of the reliable sources that addressed the organization were of that type, or a human-interest type piece on a local volunteer with the group. I think that the combination of those just barely let's us get to notability under WP:CORP. Once there, there are a ton of primary source type materials that can flesh out the article. Take a look at the group's media page. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done}

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) 04:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the group seems to have received some coverage in RS[64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] and has also received a Brick Award, I am not really sure how prestigious that is but it does have a Wikipedia article and so cannot be entirely minor. - Icewedge (talk) 05:03, 26 August 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anthology (Burzum album)

Bootleg compilation, no notability asserted Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:05, 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) 04:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no way this is notable (unless, of course, someone can show that it has received independent coverage in multiple reliable sources). --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 04:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pretty much establishes itself as non-notable with the word "bootleg". tomasz. 14:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bootlegs fail WP:MUSIC#Albums without "significant independent coverage in reliable sources", which is certainly the case here. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 17:44, 27 August 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.

When Women Rule the World

The result was Keep. TexasAndroid (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Failed PROD. Very little context, only one good Reliable source, dated from a year and a half ago. Maybe the British version could be kept if it is produced, but FOX doesn't seem to be doing anything soon. Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 18:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of television series canceled before airing an episode. Apparently, Fox had officially announced this series as part of its schedule[70], but then, after delaying it once, gave its scheduled time slot to another program instead[71]. That makes it a perfect fit for that list; what little information is in this article could easily go there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smeazel (talk • contribs) 20:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- D'oh, whoops, forgot to sign my comment. Sorry. Thanks, SineBot! --Smeazel (talk) 21:37, 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) 04:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm relisting this AfD because as the series is apparently not actually cancelled, it'd be madness to merge its article into a list of series cancelled before airing an episode. What about WP:NFF? --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 04:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not sure what the nominator considers a reliable source, but all 3 sources given are perfectly notable and reliable (if this is a case of website bias, then the Variety source alone establishes notability). NFF doesn't apply as this is a TV series, not a film. 23skidoo (talk) 13:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that the UK version does actually begin airing on Channel 4 next week (4 September). If that makes any difference. -Q4 (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article is properly sourced, appears to meet notability, and describes both a failed US series and an active UK series set to debut in two days. - Dravecky (talk) 05:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 05:25, 2 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

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 23:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Challis (founder)

Delete for non-notability. Although this person's life has been covered by a few newspaper articles, I would argue that the coverage isn't nearly enough to overcome temporary notability. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 04:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with Arbiteroftruth Theresa Knott | The otter sank 12:55, 27 August 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 - consensus seems to be "keep" after relistings. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Kato Hammond

He's a guy with a website. He and his site are mentioned in a few places, but that doesn't make either notable, per se. Also, a lot of edits were made by User:Thekato813, and Hammond's nickname is "Kato" - that user uploaded the image of Hammond and tagged it under GFDL-self, so there could be some conflict of interest. AW (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:54, 22 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) 04:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - He's been quoted in multiple articles about the washington go-go scene and I am going to presume notability under the general criteria of WP:BIO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because of the mentions in mainly the Washington Post. Conflict of interest might be true, but does not seem to be an issue as the article is written fairly neutral in point of view. --Reinoutr (talk) 10:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to coverage in reliable third-party sources. Meets WP:N. Article seems more or less neutral, so no pressing COI concerns as far as I can tell. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:02, 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 Redirected to List of Tom and Jerry Tales episodes by User:Fram yesterday, without debate being closed. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which Witch!

Non-notable TV episode Editor437 (talk) 03:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified the episode page. Please revert your decision if necessary or help me to make a much more sensible page.Daxterooney5 (talk) 05:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing notable here and barring some major controversy about witches on children's television programs featuring washed-up icons, there never will be. JuJube (talk) 11:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Washed-up icons", indeed. Heretic! Delete article as nn anyway. tomasz. 13:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have remodified the episode summary. Think again before you delete it. Daxterooney5 (talk) 14:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Merge and redirect) if someone wants to start a summary-based List of Episodes, otherwise Delete as completely nonnotable. (Someone should review Category:Tom and Jerry Tales episodes, because there seems to be a major lack of notability there.) – sgeureka ^t•c 17:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, those all need to be deleted, too. :/ JuJube (talk) 19:57, 26 August 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

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. And recognize the good faith attempt by the author; I am willing to userfy the article for further offline development for potential inclusion in the future. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Angel

AfDs for this article:

Porn actress does not appear to fulfill WP:PORNBIO -- XBIZ not listed under categories for major porn awards Editor437 (talk) 03:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe it should be noted that people find Alison Angel "worthy of notice" and "interesting" as laid out in the notability guidelines. Most importantly, these guidelines clearly state "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception" and "This notability guideline for biographies is not policy". Multiple blogs, forums, and social networking sites show that she has a fan base. This, when coupled with popular reviews, shows some level of notability.

I also believe it should be taken into account that since XBIZ is already worthy of having an entry it could potentially be added to the list of acceptable sources for awards in the adult industry. I certainly think it is on par with some of the other sites listed as acceptable.

From looking at the discussion for the first and second attempts at an entry, this third version is completely different. Both discussion pages had requests to keep, modify, or weak delete. This is the third attempt for this page which I hope shows some interest amongst the community. I want to assure you that I had a valid reason to create the entry. I am not associated with the FTV site in anyway nor was I involved in the other attempted entries. My roommate is a big fan of Alison Angel and I am a fan of Wikipedia. I was so surprised that there was not an entry that I finally created a log in. I hope the entry meets the minimum standard and would be happy to see someone expand it if possible. Cptnono (talk) 03:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete XBiz Awards are not well known and do not have independent coverage in reliable sources similar to AVN Awards. Second that amsterdam convention description as source doesn't seem reliable. I wonder if it's a mirror of a prior deleted wiki article on her. Second, outing her identity with such a source violates WP:BLP. I am challenging it and removing it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Xbiz award is second tier, not really enough to save the article. Bigger issue is that it's completely unreferenced other than the award. The only return she has under "Alison" or "Allison" Angel on either XBIZ or AVN is appearing on the nomination list for the XBIZ awards. 0 gnews hits, and I'm not seeing anything that looks like an independent reliable source on the first few pages of google returns. Coupled with this having been deleted previously, and I'm not seeing any reason for it to be kept. Fails WP:BIO, WP:V, and probably several other requirements. Horrorshowj (talk) 01:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well if the general consensus is to scrap the only thing I can request is that it receives an unbiased review if sources turn up over the next year to justify a fourth attempt. To clarify, her identity wasn't "outed" by me. If you spend more than 2 minutes searching Google it will come up at sites such as myyearbook.com and this wasn't a mirror of anything. Cptnono (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Alison Angel is well known in the industry. She has been awarded several positive reviews by independent critics not affiliated with FTV. For example from www.thebstporn.com and the www.rabbitsreviews.com she was given several ratings on her films that were well rated. More information regarding her professional history is well documented elsewhere and can be found with little effort thereby reflecting that she is an actress who is well established. Subsequently the existence of the page should be allowed by her tenure in industry. Additionally, since the page was not created as a marketing ploy but rather by a fan, deletion of the page should not be so quickly considered. Time should be allotted so that the page may grow and mature to reflect the addition of more sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.168.219 (talk) 05:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per above. --Qwerty1234 (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage or notable awards. Epbr123 (talk) 12:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just found a site with about a dozen independant reviews from other porn websites. They range from 82%-92%. Will something like this improve the entry? 08-18-08 Planet Climax 8.3 of 10 08-08-08 Adult Site Surfer 89 of 100 11-15-07 Porn Inspector 4.3 of 5 07-05-07 Elite Porn Reviews 8.9 of 10 06-01-07 Quality Amateur Paysites 89 of 100 03-27-07 TheTongue.net 89 of 100 12-11-06 Porn Billy 87.3 of 100 10-31-06 3X Explorer 84 of 100 08-14-06 What Porn Site 86.7 of 100 06-28-06 Pam's Reviews 9.2 of 10 06-09-06 Lil' Babes 8.2 of 10 01-17-06 Gottabeporn 85 of 100 Cptnono (talk) 05:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC) I also came across a review at hoes.com (less than 2nd tier site) which gives an exceptional review. It states Overall Rank: 89 of 4142 and Niche Rank: 1 of 37. I would like to add this to the entry but do not want to link to explicit material or come across like an advertisement. Any suggestions on how to work this into the entry in a way that meets standards would be appreciated. Cptnono (talk) 06:08, 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 (default keep). But note that keeping in this format under this title is probably not a good idea, for the otherwise valid concerns expressed here. However these concerns are editorial, and can be addressed by bold editors without the need for AfD. As for false dilemma posed in the final comment on this discussion, there are other alternatives, such as a section called "Smaller earthquakes afterward" or whatnot. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2008 Iwate earthquake aftershocks

Per a comment on the article's talk page:

A quake occurring afterward around the focus of the major quake is not always the aftershock. Another quake can occur by a different cause and a different mechanism, which is not to be counted as an aftershock. The USGS sources for this article show data on the quakes which occurred afterward; but there is no verification that those were scientifically indentified as the aftershocks of the 2008 Iwate earthquake.

PROD was contested with the comment: If you don't like calling them "aftershocks," why not find another title for the article. Or merge as suggested.

Finding another title is problematic due to the fact that a "List of earthquakes in Honshū, Japan (June 13 – June 18, 2008)" (the only other possibly valid title) would violate the provision that Wikipedia is not a directory of narrow topics. The list is coherent only if these are called "aftershocks". Merging is also problematic: if we can't legitimately call the listed earthquakes "aftershocks" of the 2008 Iwate earthquake, then there is no reason for these earthquakes to be mentioned in the main article.

A request for clarification and/or verification was made on the talk page 10 weeks ago and WikiProject Earthquakes was notified four weeks ago. The former request went unanswered and the latter received a response noting that the USGS links are broken. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 03:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A list of earthquakes occurring after and around the focus of a major earthquake is worth keeping even if the earthquakes are not aftershocks. Fg2 (talk) 02:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? If the earthquakes had caused substantial additional damage/casualties or received independent coverage, I could understand, but that is not the case here. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2008 Iwate earthquake. Bvlax2005 (talk) 03:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no evidence given in the article that these earthquakes are in any way related to the 2008 Iwate-Miyagi Nairiku earthquake. Merging shouldn't occur until that is proven, and probably shouldn't occur even then: according to the main article, over 400 tremors were recorded near Honshū in the seven days after the June 14 earthquake. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is no need for geologic proof that they are related. Rather, they are very closely related in the public mind because they occurred so soon after a lethal earthquake. They should be included in Wikipedia not for (or not only for) geologic information, but for their effect on society. If the problem is geological naming (i.e. there is no evidence to call them "aftershocks") the simple solution is to remove the word "aftershocks." And please note that palpable earthquakes occurring shortly after a deadly quake receive nationwide coverage in Japan, independent of Wikipedia. So in answer to the concern you expressed above, they did receive independent coverage. Fg2 (talk) 03:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - What "effect on society"? Tremors after a major earthquake are commonplace, especially in a geologically-active place such as Japan. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Agreed: They are commonplace, as is media coverage. People (society) pay close attention to palpable earthquakes. News programs interview people. Wikipedia takes media coverage as a clue that a topic merits an article. Fg2 (talk) 06:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability. Moreover, once we stop calling these "aftershocks", this list becomes a perfect example of an indiscriminate directory of information.
        I agree with you that media coverage of tremors after the June 14 quake should be noted in the article 2008 Iwate-Miyagi Nairiku earthquake; however, there is a difference between discussing the topic of "tremors after the June 14" in a section of the article and displaying an arbitrarily-selected list of about 20-30 tremors that occurred during an arbitrarily-chosen period of time.
        Minor traffic incidents receive media coverage and news programs interview people about them, but you wouldn't see a "List of traffic incidents in Honshū from June 13 – June 18, 2008". –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 14:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per reasoning given above. This should probably have been done as a merge discussion rather than a delete discussion, especially given the response mentioned by the nominator. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot see how this can be merged. The USGS link is broken, and thus the article is unsourced. In a list, this cannot be tolerated. --I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 21:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge major examples with the original article; the aftershocks are not notable on their own and as noted above if they aren't all connected to the original quake, then those chaff should be removed. In response to Editorofthewiki, the fact a link is no longer working is an invalid argument to make regarding sourcing since the nature of the Internet is that link rot is a fact of life. Therefore if the link worked at the time the article was created, then it's valid, at least until Wikipedia policy is changed to ban the use of online sources. 23skidoo (talk) 13:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. WikiScrubber (talk) 08:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The USGS reports are primary sources, and allow the article to pass WP:V, but it fails WP:PSTS, a policy, outright. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 09:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It passes the policy outright. Here is a direct quote from the policy: "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia... ." The USGS is, of course, a reliable source. The statement continues, "... , but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." There are two further conditions. If there is any problem with them, it can be solved by editing. There is no violation of this policy in this article. Fg2 (talk) 10:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually WP:PSTS notes: "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." The claim that the earthquakes mentioned in this list are aftershocks is just such an "interpretive claim". –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - And can be solved by editing. No need for deletion. Fg2 (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Earthquakes are just (slow) weather in the semisolid part of the planet. We don't have articles on weather events, even if they get reported on more than these aftershocks. Major storms and major earthquakes get articles. Synthesis should not. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - "Solved by editing"? How? The only way to "solve by editing" is either to rename the article to "List of earthquakes in Honshū, Japan (June 13 – June 18, 2008)", which would go against the principle that Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed, or to merge to 2008 Iwate-Miyagi Nairiku earthquake, which would make sense only if we had sources to confirm that these tremors were actually related to the main quake. As it stands, this is just an arbitrarily-selected list of about 20-30 tremors that occurred during an arbitrarily-chosen period of time in the vicinity of the epicentre of the main quake. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:25, 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 Gone per SNOW and Common Sense. TravellingCari 13:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zimmermanism

Neologism used as a coat rack to give a non-notable, probably autobiographical, explanation of why one person refused to give a blood sample. Companion article to Gregory Zimmerman by the same author and deleted by this unambiguous AfD. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:COATRACK. Its an article about one person and his own personal beliefs. Bvlax2005 (talk) 03:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vanicruft. Jclemens (talk) 04:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:CSD#G4, recreation of previously deleted material with a different name. I'm categorizing this AfD as "biography" (it was uncategorized) because I don't see a substantial difference between the material in this article and the material in the deleted article about Zimmerman. The arrangement is a little different but the crackpottery is the same. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy, blatant hoax (and can be snow). --N Shar (talk · contribs) 05:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the worst kind of vanity. JuJube (talk) 11:20, 26 August 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. Neıl ☄ 11:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Tramel

Orphaned article on a criminal of marginal notability; he is not really a public figure so the article cannot expand beyond a simple description of his crimes into a proper biography. Most of the news stories regarding Tramel, save a CNN piece, are mostly local media. [72] east718 // talk // email // 01:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Passes WP:RS with flying colours (the "local media" are major publications -- Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Oakland Tribune, Sacramento Bee). Passes WP:BIO and WP:V. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a police blotter. Gamaliel (talk) 02:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems notable enough, per sources included ... not many convicted murderers become ordained priests.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep (I created the article.) Neither the proposal nor the one vote of support cites any Wikipedia policies or guidelines. The pertinent guidelines is WP:BIO, where I think three points are relevant:
- The top principle of WP:BIO is: 'The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded.' I believe that the topic is interesting because it is extraordinary for a convicted criminal to be ordained to the priesthood. My opinion doesn't count, though, what counts is the opinion of the numerous news editors who have shown their agreement by running articles and opinion pieces about this man. The Interview with James Tramel by Paula Zahn on CNN is just one prominent example.
- The basic criterion of WP:BIO is "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." No one has disputed that James Tramel meets this criterion. The allusion to "local media" in the proposal would be irrelevant even if it were accurate (and the story got covered as far away as Turkey ); nothing in WP:BIO or WP:RS excludes local media from consideration. Since the article meets the "nutshell summary" of the guidelines, the burden is on those who wish to show that this article should be an exception to that rule.
- Gamaliel's gibe about "police blotter" may be taken to be an allusion to one exception, which is WP:ONEVENT. This part of the guidelines excludes articles about people who are covered in a single news event. If Tramel were notable only for the single murder conviction that exception might apply. But that is not the case. The extensive news coverage about him over the past three years^[3] is because of the uniqueness of his situation of being ordained a priest while in prison, the controversy over his parole (first denied, then granted), and the results of his subsequent work as a clergyman, and the additional attention this has focused on the earlier controversy. Mrhsj (talk) 04:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An unusual story that is notable enough and well sourced.--agr (talk) 05:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Articles that are unlikely to be expanded beyond stub status, likely to remain orphaned, and that cover subjects notable only because of single event news coverage (or, for that matter, only for being on minor league athletic teams and similar cases) don't need encyclopedia articles here. Not the worst thing in the world to keep, and if it turns out that the article could be expanded or linked from other relevant articles, let me know and I may reconsider my position. Croctotheface (talk) 05:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While there are unquestionably more notable topics, the subject is written about in multiple secondary RS for multiple events, so it passes the bar in my eyes. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That argument would apply to all sorts of people and events written up in a handful of press articles. There are probably a bunch of local charity dinners that got coverage in a few reliable newspapers. Such topics, despite fulfilling WP:N, should not receive coverage in this encyclopedia. Croctotheface (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a local charity dinner was held more than once and had extra-local coverage of more than one instance of the dinner, or coverage extraneous to the dinner itself, I would say they should certainly receive coverage in an encyclopedia. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, there's no lower bound for you? Literally everything that is covered by multiple sources should have an encyclopedia article? I mean, I tried to think of a more trivial example, but I have a hard time. We're talking about a subject on which an encyclopedia would have basically nothing of value to say that could ever inform anyone. All that happened was that a bunch of people paid money and ate dinner, and the profits went to charity. That really should have an article here for all time? Croctotheface (talk) 06:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there's a lower bound for me, squarely sitting atop our policies on notability and verifiability. Things that don't receive multiple pieces of independent coverage don't belong here (RS, N, V). Things that are only notable for a single event don't go here (NOT#NEWS). Pretty much anything else is fine in my book. So, yeah, I guess, "everything that is covered in multiple reliable sources should have an encyclopedia article" is pretty much it in a nutshell. That's kind of the point. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 17:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His story is notable enough and well-sourced enough. Redddogg (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD reopened and relisted as a result of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 August 20.

The AfD was closed early with this comment:
- The result was rapidly deleted. We don't really do orphaned BLPs like this on random news stories with no wider connection to anything else, not when it's pretty much a one-event negative bio. Moreschi (talk) 11:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please add further comments below this notice. Chick Bowen 02:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If his only claim to notability was his crime followed by conversion, I would buy a one-event delete. However he has resurfaced with allegations, marking a second event, even if the notoriety was somewhat inherited from the first. At this point, he is no longer a single-event pony, even though what we have to say about him is admittedly of limited scope. RayAYang (talk) 06:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; passes notability with some space to spare. Certainly verifiable. As for BLP1E, murder is a pretty strong one event; it got Lee Harvey Oswald, Jack Ruby and John Hinkley, Jr. (attempted, no less) articles for one event. This article seems to cover the major events of his life, which is what BLP1E was designed to avoid.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reasonably past a ONEEVENT status, and there seems to be plenty of press coverage. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BLP1E Sceptre ^(talk) 15:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not a "one event" candidate for BLP based deletion. If it were just about the youthful thrillkilling, then BLP1E might apply. (But seeLeopold and Loeb). This is not a simple article about a murder, because it was followed by the ordination as an Episcopal priest while in prison for murder, and the eventualk release, which CNN noted as of sufficient interest to cover [73]. Then this was followed by the removal from serving at a church because of alleged sexual misconduct, which is a third point of possible notability, and fourth his supposed redemption in prison was a factor in a movement to amend the California laws regarding life imprisonment of children, Senate Bill 999 [74] . Edison2 (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think BLP1E applies here when his notoriety is based on a series of events. He murdered, he became a priest in prison (which seems quite notable), he got paroled, then he abused his position by getting freaky with a parishioner. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:06, 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 per WP:V, WP:N, WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:SOAP, and WP:COI. Sorry, but this person is just not "notable". Bearian (talk) 00:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Blair

While this person may be notable, at least one article on Ryan Blair was already speedy deleted on Aug-24 due to A3. In addition, the user who created this article, User:Shannon Constantine Logan, is - according to her own blog - a "freelance copywriter and communications specialist." I suspect this is a work-for-hire; not sure if this technically violates WP:AUTOBIO but it certainly violates the spirit. Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find verification in reliable sources. Companies run by subject have moderate WWW visibility but I can't find reliable sources covering them either, so I suspect some clever SEO -- and this article is obviously a part of that. Article reads like advertisement. Likely conflict of interest as noted by nominator. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 05:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For info, the version I deleted as a copyvio of this had this message under the {{hangon}} from the author: "I work for Pathconnect. My boss is Ryan Blair. I'm one of the tech guys at the company and I was emailed this paragraph by his assistant and ask to post on wikipedia. What do I need to do for this not to get deleted?" If true, then suspicions of a work-for-hire may not be far from the mark. Bencherlite ^Talk 08:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan is my mentor and boss. If I were trying to create a clever SEO piece, I would have at least concealed my identity, don't you think? My user email has Visalus at the end of it. I'd (personally) like to see Ryan on Wikipedia so the people he's reached out to through his speeches and appearances can easily find out more about him. Is this in conflict with the spirit of Wikipedia? Shannon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shannon Constantine Logan (talk • contribs) 17:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Conflict of interest. Writing an article about someone you personally know well is rarely a good idea. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unverified by reliable sources. Conflicts of interest do not help. --Evb-wiki (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the entry is problematic for its source, then I guess there is nothing I can do. Content, I could change. But that doesn't seem to be the issue here. I apologize if I've wasted anyone's time; it didn't occur to me that it would be incorrect to write about someone I admire, but also happen to know. Anyway, at some point in the future, someone unrelated to him will probably write an entry. After all, he's in the public eye, and as you said-- notable. So I'm sure it will work out in the end. Thanks for your time, ShannonShannon Constantine Logan (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon, you may not mean it like that, but it sounds like a not-so-veiled threat to have an "anonymous" user (you or someone else in the employ of Mr. Blair) create the page. That may not be a wise course of action. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I apologize if I wasted anyone's time for writing the entry. And I'm sorry that you deal with such nasty people on a daily basis that you actually think I was threatening you, when I was trying to say that it's fine if you delete it because maybe one of his fans someday will write one on him. Not a fan that I know, but someone that attended a seminar or who looked him up after reading his blog. A stranger. I feel like you're trying to pick a fight with me when I've already waved my white flag. Shannon Constantine Logan (talk) 20:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article probably fails 4 and 5 of WP:SOAP. Google News mentions Blair briefly but in conjunction with Vidalus being bought out which may also be WP:BLP1E. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:18, 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. This might be a useful link for future reference. Neıl ☄ 11:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Dynamix

This article about a DJ says he he is notable because he is on an industry list of DJs and has been doing it for 15 years. I don't believe that a car mecahnic who was recognised by his industry for the quality of his work would be notable merely for his work, nor do I think a DJ would be. Unless there are reliable third part sources testifying to his notability I think this should be deleted. Grahame (talk) 02:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - According the Hobart Mercury With sales approaching two million units, no Australian DJ has sold more compilations than Dynamix, whose 2006 Ministry of Sound The Annual mix became the country's highest-selling compilation. - appears at the top of the game. I think I can see over 200 newspaper entries (from around Australia and as far away as LA) that at least mention him - quite a few with significant commentary. I do find lines like "26 mix CDs under his belt" lead to amusing visuals though - Peripitus (Talk) 02:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - do you have a link for that? -- Mark Chovain 03:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article consists entirely of unsourced information. It was created 2 years ago, and was tagged "no references or citations" 1 year ago, but still there are no references or in-line citations. The creator of the article made 2 further edits but has been inactive ever since, so there is little likelihood he or she will return to add references or citations. If Mark Dynamix is notable in accordance with WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC it is the responsibility of the article's creator, or some other sponsors of the article, to demonstrate that notability in the article using verifiable sources. This has not happened in 2 years. Unverified information can be deleted from WP so there is another ground for this entire article to be deleted. Dolphin51 (talk) 03:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of sources NOW, even for a year, is not a valid reason for deletion...if it were I could easily delete ten thousand articles today..it is a reason to search for and add those sources. This debate is not whether the article is in a poor state (it is) but whether the subject is suitable for an encyclopaedic article. Anyone, including yourself, could do a news/web search and add good references - Peripitus (Talk) 03:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lack of refs in the article, and the existence of clean-up tags are bad reasons for deletion. "Unverified information" need not be removed (except contentious claims in BLPs); it's "Unverifiable information" that should be removed. That said, I'm not sure reliable sources exist for this one, so I question the verifiability. -- Mark Chovain 03:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: Regarding those "ten thousand articles" that 'Peripitus' mentions could be deleted, you can actually challenge and delete unreferenced information, even from non-bios. If the only information in an article is lifted from unreliable sources, I think that would be grounds for deletion, as there is then no content worthy of retaining. Deleted articles can be resurrected at a later date if someone wants to do the hard work and add some reliable / sourced information.--Lester 03:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a long standing tradition here that lack of sources in the article (a reason for adding them) is very different from lack of sources available to be in the article (a reason for deleting). Checkout Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF#Nobody.27s_working_on_it. What I mean by 10,000 is that there are easily this many articles here, older than this one, with no references at all and tagged as such - Peripitus (Talk) 04:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I'm not seeing any reliable sources here. I'm seeing blog posts containing the quote, but certainly nothing reliable. Will change my !vote if anyone can find reliable sources. -- Mark Chovain 03:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look now - Peripitus (Talk) 05:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I'd be happier with online-accessible refs (to aid verifiability), but I reckon this is enough to get it over the line. -- Mark Chovain 05:22, 26 August 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. No prejudice against a version of this article that contains sourcing and an assertion of notability in future. www.bfsa.net would be a good place to start. Neıl ☄ 10:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Arabian Badminton Federation

I did a Google search and a News Search, both turned up few results, and most of which were relatively irrelevant to the topic. (They were about other Badminton Federations and such) Marlith (Talk) 02:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions.
Comment. I would usually expect a national sports federation to be notable, but I am puzzled about the lack of sources. Is any information available in Arabic? --Eastmain (talk) 02:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 03:56, 26 August 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. Wizardman 23:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forest Heights Community School

Non-notable school Editor437 (talk) 01:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the notability guidelines of WP:SCHOOL, no coverage in reliable secondary sources Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} 01:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly non-notable. Ce1984 (talk) 02:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ to South Shore Regional School Board (where the school is listed) per the usual practice for such schools. Deor (talk) 02:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stupidly, I didn't notice that this is a high school. Changing my opinion to keep per Paulmcdonald below. If the article is kept, the entry in South Shore Regional School Board should be linked to it. Deor (talk) 03:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Generally we end up keeping all high schools. No reason to think differently on this one.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though it needs wikifying, as per WP:SCHOOLS, "senior secondary schools are considered notable." justinfr (talk) 03:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete i do agree it is notable as a high school, however there are no reliable sources in the current version of the article, which can also lead to verifiability concerns. NewYork483 (talk) 14:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant high school. I am in the process of cleaning it up; adding cats and website for verifiability. TerriersFan (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article makes claims of notability, and needs expansion not deletion. Alansohn (talk) 05:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's a high school. It's verifable. Why bring these to AfD when there are lots of precedents? Nfitz (talk) 05:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I realize that I'm a novice at Wikipedia and have probably not written the article correctly. There are websites that can be linked to verify the reliability of the information. I'm a teacher at the school by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helloooonewman (talk • contribs) 21:16, 28 August 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 under WP:CSD#G3. GRBerry 03:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Dolberman

Delete as hoax. No ghits at all. Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3 ("blatant and obvious misinformation"). Just a copy of the lead of Thomas Edison with the name changed and a stupid sentence added at the end. I'd tag it accordingly myself, but I see that the nom has already done so, then reverted himself before an admin could respond to the tag. Deor (talk) 02:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: As hoaxly as hoaxes get. Calor (talk) 02:49, 26 August 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 X Factor (UK). Neıl ☄ 10:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xtra factor

Seems to be a non-notable "behind-the-scenes" TV show -- Not sure if all TV is notable (as with film), but if any TV is not notable, this seems to be it Editor437 (talk) 01:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also - Xtra Factor (capital F) has already been deletedEditor437 (talk) 02:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough content to justify separate article, and everything has just been cut-and-pasted from the main article subsection,broken refs and all. If not, then I'd still say merge. Paulbrock (talk) 17:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The X Factor (UK). There is nothing useful here not covered in the main article and this does not meet notability guidelines on its own. It is a reasonable search term however so would be useful as a redirect.--Beloved Freak 09:54, 27 August 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. Info on song remains in the history if Swyer still wishes to merge it. Neıl ☄ 10:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doghouse (song)

Nothing to suggest that there are or were reliable third-party sources. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 01:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete merge info into the album's page at The Beacon Street Collection (which I'll soon be working on) and then delete the single's page. There just isn't enough information out there as the single wasn't mainstream. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 19:35, 1 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 23:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Squeal

Nothing to suggest that there are or were reliable third-party sources. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 01:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The song is already listed as a single on The Beacon Street Collection and if the song itself is deemed notable (a long shot) then an article on it specifically, rather than the "album" should be created. Ce1984 (talk) 02:12, 26 August 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. Neıl ☄ 10:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nique Woodhouse

Non-notable stand-up comedian. Ghits are primarily blogs or YouTube. The rest appear to be newspaper ads for his show. I don't see any coverage of him as an individual. Doesn't meet WP:ENTERTAINER. Delete Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Appears to be a gigging comedian with some recognition. However, until a wide venue or corporate interest attests secondarily to notability, we can't do it for him or her. Additionally, and as an aside, the article is written in a way that hardly makes sense. Utgard Loki (talk) 18:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete: He has some recognition but wide venue/corporate interest is limited internationally. Chortle.co.uk is the largest and most comprehensive comedy site in the UK and included in the new draft is a short piece by chortle on article subject. Agreed, the article is not well written though. Needs improvement Zoolio2008 23:20, 26 August 2008.

Comment Note that Zoolio2008 created the article, and this is the only article he has created or edited (outside of the AfD.) --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that Zoolio2008 is a new user, having joined 2 days ago - and following this articles entry into AfD he's not had an opportunity to edit other pages. Zoolio2008 08:11, 28 August 2008.

Delete Article is a mess and it's hard to tell exactly what is being claimed, but subject doesn't meet WP:BIO. Movingboxes (talk) 07:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Which part of the BIO section does the subject not meet: Entertainers Actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities:

   * Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following

Also, if no one else is able to I am very willing to clean up the messy article but may need assistance with finding a suitable template, if there is a free bio template on Wikipedia, would someone be kind enough to let me know please. Thanks. Zoolio2008 09:11, 28 August 2008]]

Delete Having done a few days search online I cannot find enough information to validate a bio page.Zoolio2008 10:11, 28 August 2008]]

Delete I couldn't find any reliable sources to confirm her notability. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:58, 2 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. WJBscribe (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Society for Trenchless Technology

Procedural nomination: PROD, dePROD, rePROD cycle. Most recent PROD application argued for deletion with the statement: Although Trenchless technology is worth an article, the Indian Society does not appear to have reliable sources testifying to its importance. If that technology is actually used in India, there should be coverage both in the regular press and the trade press which talk about it. If there is no coverage, surely we don't need an article. WP is not for advertising or promotion. EdJohnston (talk) 21:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC) User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Clearly spam and not notable.--Grahame (talk) 01:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as Spam. --LordSunday (₪Scribe₪) (♦) 01:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My apology for overlooking the previous PROD, which was on 13 August. (I should have opened an AfD instead of prodding a second time on 21 August). I continue to support the version of my remarks quoted above by User:Ceyockey. (His procedural nom does not count as a !vote in the AfD, so this is my vote here). The Indian Society should receive its own press coverage to be included in Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 01:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepSorry guys but it is True in India we too have trenchless technologyDaxterooney5 (talk) 06:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment: I'm sorry to point out that "truth", "notability" and "verifiability" are three completely different concepts. "Truth" does not a topic representation here guarantee, while "verifiabilty" opens the door to inclusion and "notability" allows the article to walk through that open door. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly spam, copied directly from their own website (see [75] this) and wouldn't pass WP:ORG even if rewritten. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:15, 26 August 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, if not speedy than snow.. TravellingCari 13:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Computer "Meltdown" Virus

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Computer "Meltdown" Virus

Original research about a hypothetical "virus". Scjessey (talk) 00:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: See here: [76]. No such thing (or original reserach). Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Possible hoax? No refs, fails WP:OR, completely not notable and unencylopaedic. --LordSunday (₪Scribe₪) (♦) 01:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Per nom & above. Definitely original research, not valid refs. — Navy Blue 02:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:HOAX and WP:CRYSTALBALL Bvlax2005 (talk) 03:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and WP:HOAX. This is not original research; it's the FCC/Infinite Loop variant of the Goodtimes virus hoax.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 03:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither the novel Digital Fortress nor "various sources" who "have chosen to remain anonymous" are acceptable sources, in any way, shape, or form. Zetawoof_(ζ) 07:33, 26 August 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. Neıl ☄ 10:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Domination_(rapper)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Domination (rapper)

Non-Notable, possibly self promotion. No reliable third party sources for article. All Sources appear to be other Wikipedia articles or artists own MySpace page. Subwayatrain (talk) 00:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -No references, needs POV touch up. --LordSunday (₪Scribe₪) (♦) 01:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:BAND. Article does not convey notability. Bvlax2005 (talk) 03:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Beloved Freak 09:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ to Silverback Guerillaz, his group. He doesn't appear to have any notability independent of the group. --Beloved Freak 09:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing to merge to now.--Beloved Freak 20:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note, perhaps it is wise to consider all of the following articles together, as they are highly related. --Reinoutr (talk) 12:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- God Giveth, God Taketh Away -- on AfD
- Silverback Guerillaz -- tagged for CSD
- Domination (rapper) -- on AfD
Delete - fails WP:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles on all counts, as far as I can tell. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 12:51, 27 August 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. Neıl ☄ 10:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pangaea (band)

Article subject fails WP:BAND. The page is just another nn advert on Wikipedia. Libs (talk) 00:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - contested prod, completely nn, no EV. --LordSunday (₪Scribe₪) (♦) 01:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:BAND. Does not convey notability. Bvlax2005 (talk) 03:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure yet - one of the problems about this article is the fact that it mentions significant coverage, but in non-English-language sources. This makes it harder to verify, and hard to know how reliable those sources are. I'd say they just about meet criterion #5 for musicians and ensembles in WP:BAND. The have one album released on Sony, and two on Musea, ([77]) although I have no idea how "important" Musea is. There seem to be plenty of reviews of the albums around, but I couldn't find any from reliable sources.--Beloved Freak 09:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Beloved Freak 09:37, 27 August 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. John254 01:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ardrey Kell High School

Not notable enough. One line article. Jrothwell ^{(? | !)} 00:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 01:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not all schools can have articles, or the encyclopedia would have 4.5 million articles. ;) --LordSunday (₪Scribe₪) (♦) 01:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 02:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's nothing wrong with stub articles. Most high schools are notable, and the article has a newspaper story as a reference. --Eastmain (talk) 02:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Generally high schools are regarded as notable. We normally end up keeping articles about high schools, and just saying "We'd have too many" articles is not a reason to delete. If something is notable, then that's it. There's no "upper limit" to notability count.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. I can appreciate Lord Sunday's concerns, and want to point out that most schools are not entitled to their own article as a matter of practice. Thus, primary schools (elementary, middle or junior high, etc), business schools or private business "colleges", internet programs, etc. are generally not notable. Primary schools generally get redirected to a mention in an article about the school district rather than their own page. On the other hand, high schools are notable. There are many justifications that can be made; a high school provides the earliest level of certification (i.e., the diploma) for the majority of the persons in its community, and it's a center of the community's activities. Mandsford (talk) 13:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not because the current state deserves it, which is a matter for clean-up, but rather because WP:SCHOOLS and a long established precedent says high schools are kept while elementary and middle schools are often merged to district pages. Bringing schools to AfD is not a productive endeavor. TravellingCari 13:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Speedy delete A1/A3. There is no article there. Who gives afig if it's a high school or not? All "schoolwatch" folks should be discounted, because they're debated a perfect article. The actual article is a line, a fact, and not an article at all. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So Fix It lack of content is not a deletion issue, it is an editing issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The hell it isn't! Why don't you fix it, instead of arguing that the perfect article will emerge some day and actually not violate our speedy deletion criteria? Instead of arguing that the simple, vandalistic habit of putting "school" in the title ensures that there can never be a deletion, why don't you actually make it fit out guidelines? Instead of being dogmatic that no school-titled article may be deleted, no matter what it looks like (or even if it's a hoax), why not investigate, write, and make it proper? Wouldn't that be a better use of your time than assuring the rest of us who can read both the deletion guidelines and the article that, even though this doesn't qualify as an article, it must never be harmed, because, choirs of angels sing "schoooooooooooooooooooolwatch?" Utgard Loki (talk) 18:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please remain civil. The article does not meet any speedy deletion criteria. For example, it meets A1 (there is context, "..." is a school in Charlotte, North Carolina); A3 (there is meaningful content, location, opening date, name of principal) and it meets A7, as schools are not covered by that criterion. No-one said that all school articles have to kept, you are putting words in people's mouths; and certainly no-one has suggested keeping hoaxes! And how is putting "School" in the title "vandalistic"? The article does meet our guidelines and policies. Verifiability and notability have been proven. Certainly, more information could be added, but much of the coverage must be paid for to access it. I, and Paul I'm sure, have read deletion policy and found that the article is not worthy for deletion under the criteria stated. EJF (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to EJF. Yes, I've read and studied the deletion critera, etc. Wouldn't hurt to read it once again. And thanks, EJF for addressing the points above. I'd like to take a few of the points from the post above and address them, if I may:
- Lack of content is/is not a deletion issue WP:STUB Y'know, some of the best articles in all of Wikipedia started as stubs much smaller than the one we are discussing here. Jerry Kill comes to mind, but there are a multitude of others. If articles were deleted just for being short or stubs or "lacking in content" then this encyclopedia would be much smaller indeed! However, because it is a wiki then multiple editors can collaborate together to produce an even better final product.
- Why don't you fix it? Well, I suppose I could, but I don't necessarily think that there is anything wrong with it. I'm not enthusiastic about this particular article as a personal project and trust that others will be--likely those who are members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools or Wikipedia:WikiProject North Carolina or Wikipedia:WikiProject Charlotte teams. I tend to focus more of my efforts on WP:CFB. That's one thing cool about Wikipedia, we can participate and collaborate together in many ways and at many levels. But if you think that it is so terrible, then be WP:BOLD and edit away!
- Schools cannot be deleted Well, what I said was: "Generally high schools are regarded as notable. We normally end up keeping articles about high schools..." which is true. That's become a kind of "pocket consensus" (if there is such a thing) and I was merely expressing my opinion and exposure to history on the subject from my time in Wikipedia. You're most certainly allowd to disagree (and, to be fair, you may be right!) -- but I'm not saying that just because the word "school" is in the article title that it must be kept.
- Even if it is a hoax... Question: is this article a hoax? No one has made that accusation. If it is, then of course it should be deleted. Are you making that accusation, or simply trying to inflate your argumentation?
- the article that ... doesn't qualify as an article... of course it does! Read WP:STUB please. Articles can be short. Even in traditional printed encyclopedias, topics can be simply one sentence.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of sources available, almost all hidden behind subscription/fees, was only able to add a couple of facts. The school is clearly verifiable and notable. EJF (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Above and beyond the broad consensus on inherent notability of high schools, this article provides reliable and verifiable sources to support notability, with more available to be added. Alansohn (talk) 04:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we've long since established that high schools are generally notable. If everyone here had spent their time improving the article, rather than discussing this, the article would be much better by now. Nfitz (talk) 05:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per numerous arguments above that high schools are generally considered notable, and there is significant coverage in reliable sources.--Beloved Freak 08:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meeting WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article is referenced from reliable third-party sources thus meeting notability and verifiability, plus high schools are generally presumed notable. - Dravecky (talk)

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Basile

Procedural nomination after PROD, de-PROD, re-PROD cycle. Original PROD nominator stated "not notable, lacks in-text citations, does not meet Wikipedia's quality standards" User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete*

Not notable; owned nightclubs, possible loose connections to criminals.

Just 1 book listed, no inline citations or page #,s

Mynameisstanley (talk) 01:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Mynameisstanley[reply]

How references are cited is a cleanup issue. As for sources, that single book is not all there is according to Google. BTW the name is "Philip Basile." I don't know if he is a BIO1E yet, but he certainly got press attention. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no apparent notability to speak of. Stifle (talk) 14:15, 18 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, « Diligent Terrier [talk] 00:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nn, no EV. Needs references. --LordSunday (₪Scribe₪) (♦) 01:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Really a minor figure in mobland. I would suggest a merge and redirect, too. He plays a small part in the Henry Hill saga, so probably not worth much space here. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:47, 26 August 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. Keeper ǀ 76 20:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kiyoshi Kawakubo

Unnotable voice actor that fails WP:BIO. Almost all roles listed are minor roles, and no sources are given to back up any of these claims, just ELs. The whole thing may just be a copy of the JA article which is also completely unsourced. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am still working on it.Kitty53 (talk) 02:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you were still working on it, why did you move it from user space to article space? In doing so, you were making a claim that it was ready to be launched and notability was established. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made a mistake! Okay?!Kitty53 (talk) 02:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I change my vote to Redirect to 81 Produce, then.Kitty53 (talk) 03:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think it fails WP:BIO since it meets the first criteria for WP:ENTERTAINER.--Nohansen (talk) 03:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess that counts.Kitty53 (talk) 03:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are any of his roles actual notable and do the series those roles qualify as "notable"? And, again, where are the sources to back up all the roles listed? Between ANN and the 81 profile, only part of the roles are covered. The rest have no sources at all. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I pretty much think so. You're making me want to change my vote back to Redirect to 81 Produce.Kitty53 (talk) 03:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I change my vote back to keep.Kitty53 (talk) 03:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are some parts in the JA article that I try to translate, but it always comes out mistranslated, so if I added it as it came out, it would be all wrong.Kitty53 (talk) 03:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What, we're deleting totally random articles on real people now? I say keep this since its deletion wouldn't actually contribute anything to the project's credibility, weight issues, manual of style or any of that. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 04:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, we delete articles on real people all the time. Not every person in the world is notable for inclusion, and we aren't here to be a replica of IMDB, ANN, or any other voice actor directory listin, which is all this is or is likely to ever be. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His voice credits are notable. Asher196 (talk) 04:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, given the current state of the article, there is nothing which denotes sufficient notability for retention Annette46 (talk) 04:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable per WP:N and WP:RS. ukexpat (talk) 04:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I change my vote back to Redirect to 81 Produce. I feel like I have no choice.Kitty53 (talk) 04:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And thus another potential fine new editor is railroaded by deletionists. Wikipedia will be MUCH better now, I'm sure. Take heart, Kitty53. SOME of us appreciate your dilegence and work. 208.245.87.2 (talk) 18:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 17:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Voiced one of the main characters (Marco's father) in 3000 Leagues in Search of Mother and one of the two antagonists in Bubblegum Crisis. He is also the voice of Grospoliner.--Nohansen (talk) 19:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no sources discussing these folks (relating to all the voice actor AfDs at the moment), they shouldn't have articles. It doesn't matter whether (we) anime fans think they are notable or important because of the roles they have played in some series, few of which are even considered that relevant/notable in the English speaking world because outside of Japan, anime is still a niche market. In reality, most don't even get that much coverage in Japan because voice actors are like TV actors in bit roles, with only a few exceptional ones out there who achieve claim and fame enough to be widely covered in various sources. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO is not limited to "the English speaking world". These actors are either notable or they aren't. And, as far as the first criteria for an WP:ENTERTAINER is concerned, they are because the roles they've played are significant.--Nohansen (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While several listed roles are minor, he has had major roles in major series as mentioned by Nohansen. Edward321 (talk) 01:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The same as Edward321. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nohansen. I note that WP:ENTERTAINER #1 doesn't require that the roles be covered, only that they be significant within the production and that the production be notable. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These AfD's seem to be related as by the same nom about similar actors and created by the same editor - I linked to them at the top for other editor's ease but nom has now deleted them twice so am adding here: Banjeboi 03:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CitectSCADA

Non-notable software, reads like an ad. Closedmouth (talk) 08:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

Comment - Could you possibly be more precise as to why this topic is not notable? If the article reads like an advertisement, then it should be revised, not deleted. A quick search at Google News for news related to this software with the term "CitectSCADA" returns four results in the past month:

A search for all dates with the same term returns 145 results. A search using the term "Citect SCADA" returns twice as many results for the past month in addition to all dates. I will not comment as to whether this article should be kept or deleted as my knowledge the field of industrial computing is inadequate, but all the sources found suggests that this software is of importance in industrial computing. Rilak (talk) 09:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for my poor quality research, but the article does not make a single claim of notability or cite a single reference. It mostly consists of marketing speak describing why the software is so good, and not a word on why it is notable. If it is to be kept, it needs to be completely rewritten. --Closedmouth (talk) 09:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge the fact that the article is poorly written with many problems and that it requires improvement. I may perform some basic improvements (spelling, grammar, tone, references) if the article kept. After doing some more research, it appears that CitectSCADA has a significant market share in Australia and South East Asia, if not the world as it has been acquired ("$80m offer for Citect", Australian IT, 19 October 2005) by Schneider Electric, a large global company. Considering the sources provided, I think that all the articles nominated for deletion to be ~~kept~~. Rilak (talk) 10:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow...I'm a bit shocked that such a prominent company has such an atrocious and neglected article. --Closedmouth (talk) 10:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep seems notable enough, even if the articles read like changelogs. Better idea would be to tag them for appropriate fixes. MediaMob (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong ~~delete~~ merge all; as a person with extensive knowledge of these software products specifically, I endeavored to edit the articles and remove the puffery/ advertish, non-encyclopedic and change-log/ user-guide type material. I was left with nothing to save except categories and a single sentence listing-only style entry. I then pondered whether it would be possible to create an article about these software products that would contain encyclopedic information that would demonstrate notability and could be sourced to independent secondary sources. I determined that it was not possible. I suggest instead that these products and a brief description of them could be included in the relevant section of the current company's article (Schneider Electric), and redirects made to that article from these. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 13:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that while I believe I've fixed the structure, I'm out of my depth with the changelog content but think it could be useful to someone who knows better. WikiScrubber (talk) 08:23, 2 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, « Diligent Terrier [talk] 00:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Per Jerry. --LordSunday (₪Scribe₪) (♦) 01:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ - Per Jerry. The only reason why I suggested the article should be kept was because I had not assessed whether the article could be improved (apart from the basic spelling, grammar, etc). I obviously assumed that it was possible to improve the article, but it turns out that it cannot be improved. Rilak (talk) 13:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - as per Jerry's comment. I think a merge would be better than trying to rewrite the entire thing, since there's really nothing too much to salvage through the endless bad writing. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 08:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citect article repaired, CitectSCADA and Cicode content now completely redundant
Please add new comments below this notice. WikiScrubber (talk) 08:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect CitectSCADA and Cicode to Citect as this content would be completely out of context in Schneider Electric (especially as they continue to operate under the Citect branding) and is sufficiently notable on its own. WikiScrubber (talk) 07:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WikiScrubber has a point. Schneider Electric still maintains, I think, Citect as a subsidiary. If the articles for CitectSCADA and Cicode cannot be kept, it may be better if they are mentioned in Citect and not in Schneider Electric. I prefer to await more comments before changing my previous merge.

That sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I never associated Citect with Schneider Electric anyway, until another editor mentioned it above. It is a very distinct operating entity. I guess merging Citect-related articles with Schneider would be like merging an article about the Uniform design history for the Red Sox to John W. Henry. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 14:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Citect per WikiScrubber. Rilak (talk) 15:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Citect as per WikiScrubber. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United States election night television coverage

Weak delete (nominator) Nothing but a big old table, I think WP:NOT#INFO applies here, but if someone can convince me otherwise, I'll gladly withdraw. « Diligent Terrier [talk] 00:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Topic is of no significance that I know of. And most of the sources are YouTube videos, which (a) aren't allowed as WP:RS and (b) are probably just snippets of coverage that may not indicate all the hosts/anchors who were involved. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: PROD nomination was contested this past February. « Diligent Terrier [talk] 00:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as United States election night television coverage is notable but there's no evidence that this particular aspect of it is significant. JJL (talk) 00:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this a notable topic? I mean, millions of people watch, it's occasionally been the subject of controversy. Just to pluck a random example, Moore's famous film Fahrenheit 9/11 devotes like the first 5 minutes to this specific topic. Admittedly the current article looks quite like something that runs afoul of WP:NOT. --Rividian (talk) 00:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Election night coverage is important, but that's not what this article is. It's simply an unexplained table of anchors, hosts, and/or commentators (even that's not clear). The controversy about election night coverage has typically revolved around projections, and those are done by the networks' poll analysts and producers, not on-camera personalities. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - This is getting crazy. Now TV coverage needs its own article? I mean, come on, seriously. Even if it is an election. --LordSunday (₪Scribe₪) (♦) 01:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Assuming weore dealing with the upcoming 2008 US Presidential Election, then Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. MuZemike (talk) 05:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you even look at the article? It deals with elections from 1980 onward. --Rividian (talk) 14:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is almost interesting enough to keep, except "It's interesting" is not a reason to keep... it's nothing more than a list of reliable sources for election night. Hmmm... now, if there were articles written about the impact that the coverage had, then the coverage would be notable. Methinks...--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Each US presidential election since 1932 has been covered by TV stations, as shown by Google News search, which discloses substantial discussion of the coverage in each of those elections at least from 1948 on. It is preferable to have one listing, which could be expanded with additional information, than to have separate articles on each election night.(edited)Edison2 (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not for news or indiscriminate collections of information. Stifle (talk) 10:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What importance does this article has? Basically, Nothing. Everyone knows that the main evening news anchor with the Sunday morning news anchor covers the election. Lehoiberri (talk) 16:00, 27 August 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 - the suggestion to take this to Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines for verification is a good one. As this is a "no consensus" close, then if the Wikiproject cannot find verification then a further AFD would be appropriate. Neıl ☄ 10:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capitol Medical Center Colleges

Procedural nom - removed PROD. Unsourced article, didn't assert notability, but may well be notable. I have no opinion. Black Kite 00:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete, article is a spammy non-notable. β^_command 00:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- From talk:Capitol Medical Center Colleges: "This article is about a school and so ineligible for speedy deletion. 68.43.197.22 (talk) 02:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)" (I thought you already knew this) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition it is not spam.--Xp54321^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 00:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nothing really bad with the article. It just needs some citations. --mboverload @ 00:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ran google search, the institution checks out. It's a legitimate college that offers a ~~bachelors~~ program in nursing and it has already produced a significant number of graduates. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable and legitimate. « Diligent Terrier [talk] 00:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is it possible to independently verify that the school is accredited to grant B.Sc. in Nursing degrees, as its website says? I did find a story regarding the school at the Phillipine military government website:[78] Nsk92 (talk) 00:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually that was a mistake on my part, I'm not sure of the specific accreditation this school awards graduates. I found numerous credible and independent mentions of the school, though most of them are not useful as sources (example). ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I say we put in {{underconstruction}} and see how it fares. --LordSunday (₪Scribe₪) (♦) 01:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SCHOOL Bstone (talk) 07:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Keep per X", while a perfectly legitimate view, is often seen as 'bad form' at AFD - so I can only assume that when "X" isn't even policy it's very bad form. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 10:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per complete lack of sources since the article's creation 3 years ago. I looked for sources but couldn't find any. I get this feeling they are probably out there somewhere, perhaps not in English. Keeping the article is essentially following LordSunday's suggestion... but the article has been around for such a long time without improvement already that I don't think it's worth trying. Mango juice^talk 12:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another local phenomenon, local service center, with a local shadow. Without attestations to its service, profile, or importance, we're left with a hospital. I'm sure it's fine, but the name is overly populated, unsearchable, and says about as much as the article attached to it. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The one source that should have been helpful, the college's own website, returns "Not found" errors on every page except for the link to the CMC Hospital; when trying to link to information about the nursing school from the hospital's website, it returns to the college's one with the "Not found" errors. While it is possible this nursing school exists, none of the organisations with which it is purportedly associated have articles, raising the question of notability. No objection to re-creation if properly sourced to reliable references and if notability is clearly established. Risker (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the URL you are going too. there is an HTML error that causes the Error you encountered. Manual correction of the error will get you to the correct locations. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 22:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - although still a stub, it is verifiable. Passes WP:School as far as I can tell. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 22:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And passing a failed notability policy helps it how exactly? ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 22:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Passing a failed guidline is better than nothing. I would be safe in saying that there is at least a few that tend to agree with the general ideas behind it. Besides, it gives others a baseline to understand my !vote. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines know about the AFD and Relist. They can probably dig up verification if there is any. - Richfife (talk) 00:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The AFD has to run and then taken to WP:DRV for a relisting to take place. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 01:37, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mythopoetic Leadership

Proposed for deletion by User:Skysmith with the comment "Local course", deleted by me. The author, User:Tel2048, contacted me to inform that this is untrue. I have undeleted the article and placed it under AfD as a routine process. No opinion from me. JIP | Talk 05:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A grand total of 97 GHits including Wikipedia and mirrors. At best a non notable neologism, at worst self promotion. Nuttah (talk) 10:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional article for a non-notable neologism, a management fad wannabe. Mythopoetic Leadership is a leadership model currently being taught in university MBA programs that describes how to consciously create the culture of an organization. It is based on the works of Joseph Campbell and Carl Jung. I wonder if there's money in inventing and promoting a "leadership model" based on haruspicy. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nuttah. If this had gained any traction at all, we'd have plenty of reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Purely a local course, individual instance, and thus advertising. More Iron Johnism. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:39, 26 August 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. Neıl ☄ 10:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Am Rich

At best, this should be in App Store. At worst, it should be deleted on the basis that it's no more notable than Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Bonds 714th home run. It's received it's five minutes of fame and in a year, no one's going to care. Misterdiscreet (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If it were the first app or the first scam "art" (e.g. Cookie Monster (virus)), there might be a case, but this is filed under "who'd a thunk it" news. Wikipedia is not News of the Weird or Fark. Utgard Loki (talk) 18:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: very well covered by both technology and conventional press: [79] --Ciao 90 (talk) 11:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : User:Anthony_cargile voted Keep in the article talk page: [80] --Ciao 90 (talk) 11:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me move that over here. ViperSnake151 13:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it, or at the very worst merge it with the app store article. This is an ongoing issue, and future developments may cause the article to be merged with criticisms of apple, because of apple's deletion of the app which violated no rules of the app store, and for not paying Heinrick. If you don't keep the article, at least merge it somewhere, because this IS something a lot of websites have reported on, making it high-profile news amongst nerds and developers like myself, and since the app is now a rarity, its future worth (granted its authenticity can be proven via embedded assembly metadata or whatnot) may be enough as so to keep this article around.

Like I said, this is an ongoing issue currently, and deleting it before a major development could be unnecessary work for everyone.

In short: I vote to keep it, or at least compromise and merge it with an appropriate article. Anthony cargile (talk) 02:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Ongoing issue? Can you back that up without violating WP:NOR? And as for this being "high-profile news"... see WP:NOT#NEWS and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. As I said in my opening comments, no one's going to care about I Am Rich even a year. But hey - maybe you think we should have kept Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Bonds 714th home run or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zach Feinstein? Misterdiscreet (talk) 17:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it at least for now. I would like to see an expansion to this article that reports whether this app was advertised properly so that buyers would know what they were getting into. If it was advertised properly, then perhaps we should create a new article called "fluffware" (I am coining that word), into which this article can be merged. I can see more of this type of costly and relatively useless software being sold by developers taking their cue from this app. Of course, if it was not advertised properly, i.e., the buyer expected to get a lot more than they really got, then this is plain fraud and should then perhaps be deleted on the basis of being just a period news piece. --Jstreutker (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, I forgot to add that this article was very useful to me. Somebody told me the story about it today, but didn't indicate it was a recent event. So I went to Wikipedia and typed in the phrase "I am Rich" and immediately got the information I was interested in. --Jstreutker (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you're proposing WP:INTERESTING and WP:USEFUL be violated? Well, here's another proposal - your vote should be ignored per WP:JUSTAVOTE Misterdiscreet (talk) 19:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has enough third-party citations in reliable sources. It doesn't matter if most people forget about it next year or not. --Itub (talk) 10:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do a Google search for Barry Bonds 714th home run. 47,800 hits on websites like espn.go.com, foxnews.com, msnbc.com, cbsnews.com, sfgate.com, etc. Plenty of third party reliable sources. But it got deleted all the same because of WP:NEWS and WP:IINFO. Third party citations, alone, are insufficient if they are of a transitory nature. And yes - despite your claims to the contrary, it does, per the policies I have just cited, "matter if most people forget about it next year or not". But I suppose the "Itup is always right" policy trumps even those? Misterdiscreet (talk) 12:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for Barry Bonds because I don't give a damn about baseball, but I suppose that a merge was reasonable in that case. However, I do care for internet phenomena and I think this is a notable one and that merging it into the article about the store where it was sold is not a good solution. Note that I said that it doesn't matter if most people forget about it. I'm sure not everyone will forget about it. Why do you have to link essentially twice to the same policy? "Not news" is just a bullet point of "IINFO". --Itub (talk) 12:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that "Not news" is just a bullet point of "IINFO" is like saying that even linking to "IINFO" is just a bullet point of WP:N. Also, check out Iraq War. The "Contractors dead" section of the information box has three citations. How is my citing two articles on wikipedia policy any different than that article providing three citations?

That said, I do detect a hint of WP:RECENTISM on your part, and maybe even some WP:ILIKEIT Misterdiscreet (talk) 14:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that you were linking to the same section of the policy page twice, perhaps pretending that they are different to make it look like there are "twice as many policies" behind your argument. But that's just a guess. WP:N is a completely different page, so it has nothing to do with my point. I also see you also like linking to essays... I think you should know that the strength of an argument is not proportional to the number of links to WP: pages it contains. But anyway, I'll bite. Yes, this is recent news. Perhaps in some cases it can be too much, but recentism in general is not wrong in my opinion when it leads to new articles; it is only wrong when it leads to unbalanced articles on topics with non-recent histories. As an analogy, devoting half of the article on China to the Olympic games would be an example of "bad recentism", while having more articles on the athletes participating in the 2008 olympics than in the 1900 olympics is "good recentism" that results from the easier accessibility of information about the recent athletes. After all, Wikipedia is not paper. As for WP:AADD, it has some useful advice in parts, but it is also a great collection of strawman examples that are very often misapplied. This is going to be my last reply here. I'll just a kind suggestion: you don't need to fight with every "voter" who disagrees with your nomination. Just let everyone speak, and then the consensus will emerge in the end. Trust me, I won't mind if the consensus doesn't go my way and the article is deleted. I have other things to worry about. --Itub (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Meh. The Barry Bonds' 714th home run analogy doesn't quite work because that article very neatly merges into existing articles. This one relates to a number of other topics (The App Store, online scams, iPhone, Apple, etc.) without falling completely within them. It's about the right length (maybe a touch too long). - Richfife (talk) 23:58, 2 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 recreate as a redirect to Cuil - Peripitus (Talk) 22:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Patterson

Even if Cuil were notable (a big assumption), is it's founder? Misterdiscreet (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Too new, too small, and no biography to support an article, much less a need for one. Utgard Loki (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cuil; nothing worthwhile to merge. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 23:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Notability is related exclusively to the Cuil launch and all the coverage of her for now is very short-term and only in relation to the Cuil launch. Nsk92 (talk) 23:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Cuil, coverage in secondary sources is of transient WP:NOT#NEWS nature. Biographical notability entirely inherited from Cuil (which seems wholly of WP:NOT#NEWS interest itself). Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 23:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Costello

Note: There is now an article for Tom Costello, an American jockey. Handicapper (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been tagged for over a month. Besides, even if Cuil were notable (a big assumption), is it's founder's husband? Misterdiscreet (talk) 17:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The search engine was founded last month and this is supposed to be the level of entrepeneur who gets an article here? Absolutely not. Let the engine become popular, the company profitable, and then let the businessman do something that sets him apart from other IT startups. Utgard Loki (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, per WP:BLP1E. Hmmm. A fairly strange case. I don't think there is any academic notability under WP:PROF here. Little info is available about his research and I could not find much beyond his old webpage as a postdoc(?) at Stanford[81], which is about 10 years old and does not have much info. In terms of notability under WP:BIO things are more complicated. There is a massive amount of short-term coverage related to the Cuil launch. GoogleNews gives 1669 hits for "Tom Costello" cuil[82]. However, all of this coverage is very short-term and related exclusively to the Cuil launch. So for the moment this is a WP:BLP1E case (and, in fact, the entire Cuil episode has a WP:NOT#NEWS feel to it). Delete the article for now. If there is any relevant biographical info here (which there does not seem to be a lot of), it can be merged into Cuil and covered there. Nsk92 (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Cuil. Agree with Nsk92 that this is a biography of person of transient (ie WP:NOT#NEWS) interest. Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless any material can be merged with Cuil doktorb _words^deeds 20:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atsec information security

fails WP:CORP. See [83]. Out of the five hits, two are press releases and three are for another organization - Action Against Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation of Children. nn. Misterdiscreet (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Advertising. Utgard Loki (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search for reliable indepenent sources revealed only extensive PR from the company itself. Delete as per WP:CORP benjicharlton (talk) 06:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: No assertion of notability. Toddst1 (talk) 22:11, 29 August 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.

^ http://punchlinemagazine.com/blog/stand-up-comedy-around-the-world-a-glance-at-china%E2%80%99s-and-africa%E2%80%99s-scenes
^ http://www.hkcomedyfestival.com/competition.html#c1
^ http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q="james+tramel"+episcopal&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&ned=us&btnGt=Show+Timeline

[1] ttp://punchlinemagazine.com/blog/stand-up-comedy-around-the-world-a-glance-at-china%E2%80%99s-and-africa%E2%80%99s-scenes

[2] ttp://www.hkcomedyfestival.com/competition.html#c1

[3] ttp://news.google.com/archivesearch?q="james+tramel"+episcopal&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&ned=us&btnGt=Show+Timeline

[1]

[2]

[3]

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anderson Biro (2nd nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Peters (2nd nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wanted!_The_Hundred_Mile_an_Hour_Dog}}