Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 August 3

< August 2	August 4 >

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 Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard L Block

Non-notable person. I cannot find either of the 2 books listed. The ISBN does not match a published book. Tassedethe (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Incoherent article, no sources, no proof he or the books exist. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no relevant references or Ghits, can't find the books, ISBN quoted doesn't exist. Hoax? JohnCD (talk) 16:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No, I don't think it's a hoax, just not notable. Article created by Rblock7 whose only other edit was to remove a notability tag from the article. The book seems to have been a Microsoft Word E-book, but it's no longer hosted at the site I found. A few blog hits for "Richard L. Block" or "Richard Block" that appear to be the same person, but nothing that meets WP:N or WP:BIO. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the author Rblock7 (talk · contribs) had never had any welcome pointers, so may not know that autobiography is frowned on. I have given him a welcome para and a notice of this AfD; but as he only edited in November to put the article in and in January to take a notability tag off, he doesn't seem to be a frequent visitor. JohnCD (talk) 19:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- even if book exists and claims in article are true, article would still fail Wikipedia notability requirements by a mile. Regarding the ISBN that doesn't exist, the ISBN in question isn't even valid. The last digit is a check digit, and the first nine numbers would result, by my calculations, in a check digit of 5 and not X (X is a valid check, but not for this string). A search for the same ISBN but ending in 5 also shows nothing. DreamGuy (talk) 20:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: I even tried to see if one of the first nine numbers might be a typo, but in order for the check digit to be an X more than one of the first nine digits must be wrong (the check digit is off by 5, the only way do get a difference of 5 in a single digit is in the 5s multiple digit, which is already a 9 and thus can't be any higher than it already is). That means the ISBN is not even close to being a real one. DreamGuy (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ISBN is impossible. For future reference, there's http://www.isbn-check.com/ which will automatically help in such cases. Since the check digit works mod 11, there are several other possibilities, but as isbn-check and amazon.com confirm, none of them appear to be for a book by Block.John Z (talk) 02:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:10, 5 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 per WP:CSD#G12. Sherool (talk) 17:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Broken Lyre

No sources, written like an advertisement, probably self-promotion - all that could be fixed. The problem is that, though this band have had local successes in Niagara Falls, perhaps enough to escape a speedy WP:CSD#A7, they really don't meet the requirements of WP:BAND. JohnCD (talk) 15:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Will change when they magically meet WP:BAND. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 15:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't believe there's any question about this. No where near meeting WP:BAND (I particularly enjoy the comment that they are soon to start their first tour) and the writing strongly implies self-promotion. -Markeer 15:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - blatant copyright infringement of http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=83943892 Canterbury Tail talk 15:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G12 per the above. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:01, 3 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. Synergy 20:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Saturday Night's Main Event results

This was discussed many times before, but this list was kept because the event wasn't an ordinary television show by WWE, but the show is just another television show produced by WWE and is nothing special, other than it airs every here and then. This list is just listcruft and either way violates WP:LIST as no prose is present. The list also can not be verified as there are only a few references to the 36 times this has been held, that number is too many shows to list every result. S_RX 15:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions.--S_RX 15:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If this were a list of results for a weekly television program, I would support the deletion, but Saturday Night's Main Event isn't a standard weekly show. Given, it isn't on the level of a pay-per-view event, either, but it is significant enough to makes its history noteworthy. Jeff Silvers (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. ...Though I will concede that the article needs to be cleaned up and more properly referenced. I'd especially like to see the new PPV results table used, though I know that would be quite an undertaking. Jeff Silvers (talk) 16:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per Jeff Silvers Adster95 (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for two reasons: It details a significant period (and developments) in professional wrestling history — in particular, the growth seen during the boom period of the 1980s and later. Second, this discussion has come up before and the concensus was to delete; WP:AFD is not a contest of, "well I disagreed with the concensus reached before, so I'll renominate it until I get the desired result." I could see deletion as a possibility if this were standard week-by-week, but it is not the case here. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 23:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)]][reply]

Comments- Okay, but is has been almost a year since the last AfD and nothing has been done to improve the quality of the article, no refs, not clean up, no taken care of.S_RX 02:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realize you and other Wiki editors are busy, but be bold and if you find sources for an article that can be sourced (which I believe this article can be using reliable sources), then do so. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 19:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)]][reply]

Keep- Very notable since its a major wrestling event. Adam Penale (talk) 19:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Could in the future be transformed to look like PPV articles, back in the day SNME was huge. D.M.N. (talk) 15:43, 6 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 per WP:NOT#NEWS. Sandstein 18:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flybe Flight 7016

Non-notable incident, and article misrepresents the events anyway. Article states 4 injured by fire, news story indicates four injuries. Injuries most likely caused by emergency evacuation (as happens all the time) and no indication there was any fire. Canterbury Tail talk 14:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weakest Keep But Sigh, this is one of those articles that sneaks up behind the notability guidelines and tries to mug it. I haven't done a web search but simply because it's a plane that had a problem I have absolutely no doubt that one could find coverage of the incident in reliable secondary sources (beyond the one already linked in the article). Airline issues nearly always get at least a blurb in the news, no matter how small or insignificant, and technically that means that such issues immediately pass the whole "multiple non-trivial secondary sources" test. Which is of course where the problem is, because this is plainly a non story. A small plane had an air-conditioning problem so needed to land, and that's it. The "But" in my depressed weak keep vote is to ask anyone if they know of any articles regarding minor aircraft-problems that this could be merged into. While I believe it technically passes notability guidelines, it would be better served as one to two sentences in a larger article. -Markeer 15:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I'm sure newspaper coverage could be found, but this fails WP:NOT#NEWS. JohnCD (talk) 15:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable or anything unusual, smoke or mist from the air conditioning and a few injuries from the escape slides not that uncommon event. MilborneOne (talk) 21:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A perfect example of recentism. Smoke in the cabin! Emergency landing! Used the slides! A mention in evacuation slide would be okay. Mandsford (talk) 03:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A minor incident involving an aircraft diverting to a non-destination port, followed by a precautionary evacuation. Almost a routine event somewhere in the world. Article fails to establish notability. Dolphin51 (talk) 03:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tend to agree this is a minor event in avaition terms, and certainly one could not expect to have everty such event listed, since keeping track of them is a full time job. However, it is I believe possibly the first such event for the type, which has been used as justification for larger aircraft. Perhaps the best solution would be an entry in the page for the airliner itself, or a list type page of evacuations etc.? MadScot666 (talk) 23:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once again, it happens too often to document them all. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a very minor aviation incident, which I do not even think got on to the news. Utterly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NN incident. Precautionary action taken with minor injuries on evacuation per source.[1] No evidence of long term significance. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 7 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 15:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A G Walker

Contested Prod for a WP:BIO1E. A.G. Walker was the prison warden for Winnie Ruth Judd, the "Trunk Murderess." He gets passing RS mentions for his involvement in her case. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Notability is not inherited by association with someone notable. JohnCD (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 14:50, 9 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 11:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Kenny (artist)

An SPA's article on a photographer who's had one exhibition that got one mention in a newspaper. Perhaps he's what's conventionally/optimistically called an "emerging" artist (he's still a university student); if so, let him emerge, let's see the independent critical commentary, and then let's give him an article. Hoary (talk) 13:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 13:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 13:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was more than just one article but also a TV interview which was shown many times throughout the first week of the exhibition. Also a shortlisting in an International competition. With the website being known globally this is also a suitable reference for wikipedia.

This is not including the numerious group shows in the City of Belfast. So it should be kept in wiki.

Tangledupblues (talk

Do you have any reliable source for the frequent airing of that interview? (And how long was the interview, in broadcast form?) Which globally known website are you talking about? -- Hoary (talk) 01:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Northern Visions Television the interview lasted for 20 minites and was showen throughout the week. Andrew Kenny was shortlisted one of the Designboom.com International competitions. Did you not even check the references on the page? Tangledupblues (talk
  - Sure did! So do you have any source for the claim about the interview? And if designboom.com is globally known, I guess I'm not on the globe: it was a completely new name to me. -- Hoary (talk) 00:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'3431 participants from 92 countries' is quoted from this page http://www.designboom.com/contest/winner.php?contest_pk=19

So it would be classed as a global and International competition.

Tangledupblues (talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.225.168 (talk) 14:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Al1 right, all right -- it's global! Kenny was shortlisted (on a not so very short list) for "LED lighting indoor" or whatever it was. Sounds to me like an honorable first step toward eminence in lighting. But that's all. And it says nothing obvious about his photography, which is his claim to fame in the article. -- Hoary (talk) 15:40, 9 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, Anthøny^(talk) 19:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This person has not received non-trivial media coverage, as far as I can tell. I don't see how this article passes any of the criteria at WP:CREATIVE. Besides this, I think there may be significant conflict of interest here. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable enough yet. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article was in the Irish News which is good media coverage as it is a large newspaper in Belfast. As well as the Interview in Northern Visions Television it would be seen as a notobale exhibition due to the press coverage given. Tangledupblues (talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.225.253 (talk) 01:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- When you talk of an article in the Irish News, are you referring to the one whose text reads, in its entirety, Visitors to the Safe House Arts Gallery in Belfast this month will have the opportunity to embark on a journey across Europe, thanks to photography student Andrew Kenny? If you're referring to something else, then please specify it. If you are indeed referring to this article, then you're unconvincing. -- Hoary (talk) 01:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The original took up a 1/4 of a page including the image. Tangledupblues (talk
    - Then you may wish to scan it, put it up on your website as a JPEG, and link to it. The article would then have one (1) non-trivial source. I'm sure it would not be enough, but it would be a start. -- Hoary (talk) 00:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:57, 15 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 CSD G3 hoax. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DWYG

Hoax article with no valid references. There is no station assigned to the 107.1 MHz frequency in Metro Manila. -Danngarcia (talk) 12:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G3 Hoax. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 12:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I tagged this myself, but apparently the article creator removed the tag. Enigma ^message 16:33, 3 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 per WP:SNOW. The weather forecast can often be wrong, but this also isn't the place. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Winter 2008/2009

Wikipedia is not a forcasting service triwbe (talk) 12:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —triwbe (talk) 12:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All of the information in that article belongs on a weather forecasting website, and not on Wikipedia. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per a loose application of WP:CRYSTAL. I can't imagine the winter as a whole will be particularly notable, much less a weather forecast for a specific area. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 12:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. JohnCD (talk) 12:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this is WP:SNOW. Would a passing admin please consider ? --triwbe (talk) 13:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not The Weather Channel or Farmer's Almanac. I think I see some crystal snow in this article's future. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:29, 3 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 and move to List of Members of the Canadian House of Commons from Manitoba--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 18:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Parliamentary Caucuses from Manitoba

This information can be found in the category:Members of the Canadian House of Commons from Manitoba NorthernThunder (talk) 12:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think such a list is notable in and of itself, and if the information is already included elsewhere, all the more reason to delete it. It's also not named correctly; if it is not deleted, it should be moved to List of Canadian Parliamentary Caucuses from Manitoba. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 12:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created this article, but I don't have particularly strong feelings about this afd one way or the other. If people believe the article is not terribly useful, I won't try to prevent its deletion. CJCurrie (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and question: Does this mean anything other than "the list of all the MP's from that province and party"? Is the caucus an organization that does anything? If so, we can keep it, on analogy to Congressional Progressive Caucus. JamesMLane t c 03:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would almost certainly be worthwhile to compile lists of past and present federal MPs organized by province (current lists organize them only alphabetically, whereas senators already have both alphabetical and by-province lists), but as currently constituted this does simply duplicate information that's already present in other places. (The category isn't that place, though; lists and categories serve different purposes and aren't redundant with each other — for one thing, the category can't annotate people's party affiliation, term in office or electoral district.) Keep, but (a) move to List of Members of the Canadian House of Commons from Manitoba, (b) add past MPs to it, too, and (c) compile similar lists for all other provinces and territories. Bearcat (talk) 21:29, 9 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, JForget 22:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bearcat. Keep; move to List etc.; add past MPS with dates; do other provinces. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 20:30, 18 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. Sandstein 18:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maxwell Baumann

This was created for an unsuccessful candidate for the 2007 Australian federal election by copying and pasting. He appears to be non-notable and should be deleted as normal for unsuccessful candidates Grahame (talk) 11:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 11:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. The first part of the article was copied verbatim from Ruth Russell, introducing the humorous pronoun gender error. Much of the remainder seems to be copied from the top left expandable sidebar of Baumann's profile on a blogging site. ~~I believe the user who created this page (User:Mifren) may be a bot, and will investigate this further.~~ I wish there was a directly applicable speedy deletion criteria so I could put {{db}} on this... perhaps G12? --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 11:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps the user is not a bot, but I think that the last part of the page is patent nonsense and the middle part is a copyright violation. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 12:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - One additional comment. It is the original version of the page that gives rise to my concern with its content. Also, what remains does not establish notability anyway. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 12:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable aspirant to political office. Article fails to establish notability, as required by WP:BIO. Many claims but no references and no in-line citations. Plenty of original research! Dolphin51 (talk) 12:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability guidelines for politicians. No references. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 12:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources (now nonsense refs to someone else have been removed); not notable. JohnCD (talk) 12:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Borderline speedy, but an attempt has been made to assert notability (though I don't believe it comes close to passing WP:BIO), so AfD instead--Yeti Hunter (talk) 14:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I'm surprised it wasn't speedily deleted. Non-notable. --Roisterer (talk) 01:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - True, but at least it makes the barest attempt to establish notability. Speedy is for blatant vanity pages, so i guess an article about the childhood, passions and early political life of a political aspirant written by one of his fellow party members just barely escapes that brutal fate. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 03:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there's an assertion of notability there so clearly not a speedy, but other than that this is just another garden-variety unsuccessful political candidate, with no other claims to notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: Did someone accidentally post their CV on Wikipedia?--Lester 13:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Satu Suro 23:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Yeti Hunter. Only barely clears A7. Campaign ad for a non-notable politician. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:RS. Cliff smith ^talk 20:17, 5 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. Sandstein 18:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sasquatch principle

To anyone who knows what a Dedekind domain is (and the article presupposes this knowledge, so offers nothing to anyone else) the statement is completely trivial. Essentially we have a page devoted to the observation: if g is an element of a group G such that two consecutive powers $g^{n}$ and $g^{n+1}$ are both equal to the identity, then g itself is equal to the identity. Even in this regard the observation is feeble; of somewhat more interest and use is the generalization to the case that $g^{m}=g^{n}=1$ for relatively prime integers m and n. The latter statement might (possibly) merit mention in some article on group theory; there is no way that there is enough content to merit an entire article.

The name is also problematic, but my reasons for recommending deletion are independent of this: I would feel the same way if the article had some more sensible name like "A criterion for an ideal in a Dedekind domain to be principal." Plclark (talk) 08:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not really enough content for an article. JohnCD (talk) 10:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Dedekind domain. It seems to have at least some legitimacy, but I can't imagine it would merit its own article. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 11:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it seem to have some legitimacy? Plclark (talk) 00:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The fact given in the article is not notable, and the article's title does not appear in the literature (see Talk:Sasquatch principle). Ozob (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We had one of these when I was in elementary school.— Preceding unsigned comment added by mandsford (talk • contribs)
Delete per Talk:Sasquatch principle and evident lack of WP:Notability. - Eldereft (cont.) 09:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is a joke (not meaning to be rude). To put it in the simplest way, creating this article is like creating an article on why n+1 - n = 1. In fact, one doesn't need to know group theory to understand the triviality of the article.

I don't think there is need not mention the following but I will do so anyway:

Why include a whole section on a trivial example?
Isn't it of equal difficulty, if not harder, to prove the hypothesis in the criterion
If I understand correctly, the article claims that someone has published the result. I think that this is ridiculous. Topology Expert (talk) 07:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Mathematically trivial. Possibly intended as an article on mathematics instruction, but does not clearly indicate how it is (or even could be) notable in this regard. JackSchmidt (talk) 14:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:12, 5 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 due to notability issues, though it's close. If more sources can be located I'm willing to help out with a draft version and will userfy the article for those purposes. lifebaka++ 14:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One Dark Martian

I've declined a speedy request on this, but I'm not sure he warrants a Wikipedia article as he doesn't quite appear to meet WP:MUSIC yet. Bringing it over here for a consensus one way or the other. – iride scent 10:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think he meets the third criterion in WP:MUSIC, having produced a gold album in the UK. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 10:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - if you mean Rewind: Back to the Old School, that was produced by DJ EZ; One Dark Martian just contributed a track to it. – iride scent 10:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete; the wording on that is somewhat confusing, then. If it doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, it'd be silly to keep it, and I don't think it does meet any other criterion. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 11:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i think he is a well known garage producer in UK Garage. and has obviously worked hard at what he does. i belive he should be entitled to have a wikipedia page. If your saying he does not come under the catagory for WP:Music Then Wat Does he need to come under? The fact that he has tracks on puregarage shows that he is a producer. 81.153.5.233 (talk) 12:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just being a producer isn't enough. Just saying he's "well known" isn't enough. There're local bands around here that may be "well known" in a very small circle but nowhere else. Back up your claims with some reliable sources (not Puregarage) and I'll reconsider. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 12:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok regarding the sources. . . ive not ever done this before. What sources do i need :D 81.153.5.233 (talk) 12:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- UKG isnt just a local thing its a major genre in popular music in the UK an odm is one of the main names within that genre. i dont see how i can prove it. Ie His music is played on Londons Kiss100. I dont see how i can prove that though. [ http://www.sfbg.com/40/10/noise/marke.html ] 81.153.5.233 (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that when an artist is getting almost weekly airplay on a national radiostation like KISS 100 during a Friday evening, you ARE a respected producer (see: http://www.totalkiss.com/Channels/Music/Music_DJPage.aspx?djId=62). ODM has had several releases over the years (http://www.discogs.com/artist/One+Dark+Martian), is featured on two Pure Garage CDs (also on Pure Garage - Rewind Back To The Old-Skool, disc 4, track 4 (remix) and disc 4, track 25, see http://www.play.com/Music/CD/4-/3513079/Pure-Garage-Rewind-Back-To-The-Old-Skool/Product.html). If a producer has several tracks on CDs that have sold each over 100.000 copies, is still getting airplay every week by major radiostations, and has original tracks that are being released on vinyl I think you can say that a producer is a top player in a genre. There IS a wikipedia page about DJ EZ, about UK Garage, and personally I think that a page about One Dark Martian would be a great addition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.251.17.118 (talk) 13:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I have Been reading "Wikipedia:Notability (music)" I have noticed that it states "Number 11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network". And there's proof of this on One Dark Martian. as stated above his tracks are played weekly on Londons Kiss100. 81.153.5.233 (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't vote more than once. Also, Discogs, play.com, and Totalkiss aren't much more than directories. If you have a non-trivial coverage of him, like say a biography or a news article about him, then add it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You realize, of course, that as an IP he doesn't get to actually vote, right? --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 05:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're thinking of RFA; IPs are perfectly free to comment at AfDs – iride scent 15:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't see how this met WP:MUSIC yesterday, and I still can't. -- role^player 15:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Interview with One Dark Martian http://2step.ru/articles/index.html?20 81.153.5.233 (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thank you for providing that link, it is also linked in the article and I did read it yesterday. One problem though is that at no point does it say who he is or what he's achieved, it's just an interview about productions. As a reference it does nothing to support his claim to notability. Sorry. -- role^player 15:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as stated in the WP:MUSIC and i quote: (10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article.)) ODM has been included on 2 compilation CD's with a total of 3 tracks, both CD's are major releases in the UK, put out by a major label (Warner) and have both become gold selling cds. i think that ODM does meet one of the criteria. also, to add, ODM has been in the official UK Garage chart that is run on BBC 1Xtra with his 12" release of Always Be There in 2004. There is no way to prove this online because the charts are updated weekly and there is no back dated chart for this length of time. however, the recent chart can be found here [2]- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onemartian (talk • contribs) 16:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I think this should be kept he is a well respected UK Garage producer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.5.233 (talk) 13:16, 6 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 Ba game. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baw game of Scone

Not notable? Hoax? Google search for "ba game of scone" (in quotes) found one entry, which looks like a Wikipedia echo. Google search for "baw game of scone" (In quotes) found 21 entries, which are search name lists and apparent Wikipedia echoes. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Ba game. Not a hoax - it's been a traditional sport in Scotland for centuries (James III of Scotland issued a ban on it, so it's existed since at least the 15th century) but there doesn't seem any reason for each fixture to have its own entry when they'd work better as subsections of the main article, allowing people to compare the different games. I'd suggest merging Kirkwall Ba game as well. (Incidentally, here's a BBC story for those who don't believe the sport exists.) – iride scent 10:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per above. Google is not a definitive means of establishing accuracy (or notability), though I am surprised it would find nothing; there may be alternate names and spellings. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 11:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this was originally part of the Scone village article, but was split in two in 2006. 70.51.11.219 (talk) 09:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does exist (would be in Standard English "Ball Game of Scone")[3], but doesn't merit an article. Delete and move all referenced material in the article (none) to Scone. In future time it might merit a referenced place in an article like Scottish ethnology, but the material as it stands is useless to wikipedia, being totally unverified. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:10, 4 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, JForget 22:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedeia is not for things made up in Scone one day which in hundreds of years have not gained multiple independent and reliable sources with substantial coverage. Edison (talk) 03:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Ba game - alternative title to an existing article --T-rex 00:28, 16 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 A7 speedy deleted by Dlohcierekim. Non-admin closure. Jamie^☆S93 14:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hyro Da Hero

Self promotion. Lack of quality sources to prove notability Theresa Knott | The otter sank 08:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:MUSIC. References almost all blogs, Facebook etc. Album isn't released till Friday - WP isn't here to promote it. JohnCD (talk) 11:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD A7. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 11:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like promotional; delete it if cleanup is not successful. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 12:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. Artist is obviously not signed, and anyone can "release" an album that way. User: Hyrohero is also creating a problem with incessant edits to promote songs at Jena Six, sourced only to myspace.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:35, 3 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; consensus is that his media coverage was not substantial enough. Sandstein 18:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Gould III

Is this notable? Should it be merged to the Jay Gould article? SunDragon34 (talk) 07:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notability in Wikipedia means that the media has taken notice of you ... so that there are "multiple reliable sources" to confirm the information in the article --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is more than just that to it; see WP:BIO. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 11:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability is not inherited from notable relatives. Reyk _YO! 07:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established, references are little more than gossip column entries. No big deal ... WWGB (talk) 08:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The apparent reason those articles were published was his lineage, which does not make him notable here. Otherwise, being married and divorced is not notable in and of itself, even if married three times. I would ordinarily say merge, but I don't see any relevant information at all. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 11:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Divorce us from this article. It has irreconcilable differences with WP:BIO. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 14:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If not for all the sourcing I would call this an A7 speedy; there is no assertion of notability within the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs more content, but the scope and breadth of the sources indicates that this is someone who the media of his time deemed notable, regardless of current impressions. The reliable and verifiable sources provided satisfy the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 04:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Um? What notability standard is this? The one in WP:BIO appears unmet to me. As I said, being put in a couple gossip magazines for being married and divorced does not confer notability. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 05:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Um? The seven sources in the article come from Time magazine, the Los Angeles Times, the Hartford Courant and The New York Times. Which of these meets your definition of "gossip magazines"? Alansohn (talk) 05:23, 7 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. Speedy deleted per author request. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Mansour

This person does not appear to meet the standards of notability. None of the external links in the article work with the exception of www.shareeanews.com which is still under construction. The only linkedin profile under this name is for an IT manager. There is a person listed at Interpol but appears to be a different person. Part of the difficulty in looking for sources that indicate the notability of Mansour is the fact that Mohammed Mansour Jabarah tends to overshadow any search results. The organisations listed, Come2Islam, welcome 2 Islam and Islam is the solution, do not appear to have any major web presence. Not that that is any indication of his lack of notability but that it is hard to prove it. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 06:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC) CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 06:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whoever this is, the article is poorly written and formatted. Links should be included in footnotes below and there are capitalization and grammar errors. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 08:03, 3 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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turbotronics

Non-notable band - I declined a speedy on this article but still have doubts about wider notability. Main claim to fame is that they had three songs used in MTV commercials - question is does this make them notable? Google produces usual myspace/blog/upload sites Google news (all dates) draws a blank. nancy ^talk 06:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree it's not good for speedy deletion by A7, but I really don't think it satisfies WP:MUSIC. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 11:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. The band barely exists 6 months and "licensing" songs to MTV doesn't mean MTV actually used them. Channel ® 13:28, 3 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 per G7. MrKIA11 (talk) 07:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seneor Goat

Vandalism. Article consists of content copied from another article with a completely nonsense title. Beemer69 ^chitchat 06:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - tagged as G7. MrKIA11 (talk) 06:59, 3 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, consensus is that this is unsalvagable. Davewild (talk) 18:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trainbaby

Anthropomorphism of a likely non-notable train. Weird stuff. All online sources I found were of forum pages, youtube hits, facebook entries, flickr hits, and the like. Samuel Tan 05:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 08:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; this is utter nonsense. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 12:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: too confusing. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 12:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete junk JuJube (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NONSENSE or WP:BOLLOCKS. Take your pick. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 21:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has cult appeal amongst trainspotters in the North of England as per [4], though Conditional upon a rewrite DannyM (talk) 22:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Seems to be a NN trainset. The article does not even explain what makes this particular one distinct from the rest of its class. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's confusing, nonsensical words jumbled together. It also totally fails the WP:N guideline, if I must say. IceUnshattered (talk) 01:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this totally unverified, unreferenced notability violation that borders on worthiness of speedy deletion. Cliff smith ^talk 20:23, 5 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 per G3. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Winston george tannis

You people are clearly not responsible or competent in making proper reviews and commenting upon them, publicly and even internally. Mr. Tannis is a distinguished juridical scientist and certainly not a hoax. Even a basic internet search would have revealed this (see Power Books, e.g., or the participant authors of the Queen's Annual Business Law Symposium [at Queen's University site] - including SEC and OSC Heads and members of the 'Seven Sisters' of the Toronto Financial-Legal Community noted on your site already [for example - Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg, of which he is an alumni). Someone should sue you for defamation for making such reckless statements. Tragically, these public comments make Wikipedia appear like a hoax - that is, you are not apparently responsible or competent to make encyclopedic findings (that is what appears when you make such perverse statements). If you wished for additional data to support the patently accurate submission, you should have merely stated that. You should remove this discussion from the net before you get sued and degraded and downgraded as an encyclopedic institution, receiving funds as a non-profit institution. I truly hope this is a very rare instance of foolish, reckless,immature, irresponsible public utterances as connected to serious scholastic work.

Unverifiable, possibly hoax, biography of a living person. Online sources list many "live spaces" pages, and searching for the subject along with names of awards and organizations listed in the article produced no reliable sources. Samuel Tan 05:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I found some other related nonsense and removed it. It looks to have been added by DoctorFacebook. The information in this article appears to be a hoax. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 12:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G3 Hoax. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 12:34, 3 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. Sandstein 18:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caffeinista

Prod contested: Non-notable neologism that doesn't appear to be in ubiquitous use according to reputable news engines: [5] and [6] Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 05:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 05:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism, no reliablee sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 12:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a neologism and a dictionary definition besides. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 12:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The cited article admittedly created a neologism based on the correct word barista, and there is no indication that this word found its way elsewhere. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The source (which isn't linked to) was probably using the term sarcastically, which isn't a reason to make an article. If it wasn't than it still fails WP:NEO anyway. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unreferenced neologism. Cliff smith ^talk 17:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism, probable candidate for WP:SNOWBALL. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 22:41, 6 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Volapük Wikipedia

Contested prod. Version of Wikipedia for a language (Volapük) apparently spoken by around 20-30 people worldwide. No indiction in the article of this Wiki's notability, other than the fact that it appears to be made up almost exclusively of bot-generated stubs. The six references used are all from various Wikipedia or Wikimedia pages. Searching on Google for possible replacement sources yields results ranging from pages on various language Wikipedias about Volapük, mirrors of the same, pages that make mention of both Wikipedia and Volapük (difficult to see the wood for the trees, so I could have missed something somewhere), and blogs, but there's nothing I can find on Volapük Wikipedia itself to demonstrate that this apparent one-man project is notable. Miremare 22:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you check out the Volapuk saga on Wikipedia, this article is actually relevant. The whole Volapuk arena is weird, but it snuck in under the radar some time ago and now it exists. --Quartermaster (talk) 23:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Quartermaster, vo.wp existance has provoked several internal discussions so this article is useful. --MarsRover (talk) 04:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Every Wikipedia has its own article, so no reason to single this one out for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not all of them do. See below for further details. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete despite WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and any internal drama there are no reliable 3rd party sources available for the subject of the article. Although, if we apply WP:IAR than it could probably be kept. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Volapuk Wikipedia is a big wikipedia, so there must be an article about it, I think. -- Wisconsus ^TALK|^things 12:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a "big wikipedia" is not criteria for inclusion according to WP:WEB -- there needs to be non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable sources. JBsupreme (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If I might reply to those who have !voted keep above, whether a subject is "important" to Wikipedia, or has been discussed internally at Wikipedia, is irrelevant to the existence of this article and is in no way a reason to keep it. Also, not quite every Wikipedia has its own article, as the red links on the relevant template indicate, but again this is irrelevant to the discussion of this article. Notability requirements aren't there to make sure something is important enough for inclusion, but to ensure that there are sufficient sources to make a verifiable, NPOV article with no original research. Please base your arguments on WP's policies and guidelines rather than personal preference. Miremare 14:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It doesn't violate any policies or guidelines. Its existence is verifiable and nothing I can see in the article constitutes original research as that term is actually defined in the relevant policy. What we are here to discuss is its notability, which is subjective and is indeed largely down to personal preference. If it were not we wouldn't need AfD discussions at all! -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply we are indeed here to discuss its notability, but notability is certainly not subjective or down to personal preference. It's down to Wikipedia's definition of notability, which is quite clear: significant coverage from reliable independent sources. The purpose of AfD discussions isn't to decide amongst ourselves if we think or want something to be notable, but to prove it's notable (or not) by presenting sources (or not). If you can prove notabilty by presenting these sources, then please do. Miremare 21:07, 1 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a Wikipedia version in one of the world's most notable constructed languages is notable. JIP | Talk 05:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either redirect to List of Wikipedias or delete. It is not the case that we have separate articles about every single language edition of Wikipedia. For example, the Scots Wikipedia, Inuktitut Wikipedia, and Tibetan Wikipedia articles were deleted by AfDs, and the Kashubian Wikipedia article was redirected to List of Wikipedias. Wikipedias have to establish notability like any other web site per WP:WEB. That said, the Volapuk Wikipedia is larger, at least in number of articles, than most other Wikipedias, which might not be enough to establish notability, but it doesn't hurt. There has been some controversy over the fact that it has been mostly created through bot-generated articles, but as far as I can tell the controversy has been limited only to Wikimedia sites and a few blog posts. I can't find any coverage of the Volapuk Wikipedia in regular media. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Suggestion. Is there a place for this article, or at least some of the content, in Wikipedia Namespace? Mostlyharmless (talk) 12:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This isn't something insignificant, it's an actual official Wikipedia in another (albiet constructed) language. This isn't an Wikipedia clone somewhere else, but an official part of the Wikipedia namespace. Canterbury Tail talk 15:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scots Wikipedia (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inuktitut Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tibetan Wikipedia, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kashubian Wikipedia (2nd nomination). Those are all official Wikipedias, but just being a Wikipedia edition was deemed not enough to warrant having separate articles for them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not notable under WP:N or WP:WEB, not even close. Nary a reliable source has paid attention to this site, and if it weren't a WMF project we wouldn't be here. Afterall, for all other articles we require independent coverage. If there's content that isn't all ready at List of Wikipedias, I suppose I would not object to adding that in, and a redirect is appropriate, but there just isn't the independent coverage to justify a stand alone article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:46, 3 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. Nomination withdrawn. Non admin closure. Undeath (talk) 20:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milton High School, Bulawayo

Extremely incoherent. No sources to provide any proof of notability. I can barely understand the article in some places, and the entire middle and end sections read like an advertisement. Delete Undeath (talk) 04:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely unsalvageable; I can't make much sense of it, so it can't be fixed. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 04:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Besides high schools being generally considered as notable as shown in WP:OUTCOMES, this was the subject of multiple secondary sources [7] and while I don't know details about this school now, it seems that a bording school created during the British colonial days, specifically 1910, would be considered historic to Zimbabwe. Reduced it to a stub so it can grow hopefully to higher standards than the previous version.--Oakshade (talk) 05:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - historic high school and the sources are available to meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 12:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Granted most high school articles stay stubs, but nothing's wrong with that.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Not sure why one editor thought the article was inco[reply]
Comment If you want to see why I thought it was incoherent, look at the article before it was reduced to a stub. Undeath (talk) 15:15, 3 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, exact target not yet chosen. Tentatively redirecting to …Baby One More Time. lifebaka++ 14:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hair Zone Mall Tour

Non notable concert tour. This was a shopping mall tour. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 23:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 23:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The tour by Spears was a one time event and doesn't merit a separate Wikipedia article. Artene50 (talk) 04:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. That it was a shopping mall tour makes it more interesting, different, and notable rather than less. A lot could be written about this: what demographics did she go after in picking the malls, did she play during the day or night, did she draw audiences in advance or just passers-by in the mall, did she really sing or just lip-synch, how elaborate was the stage and production values, did the tour improve her reputation or harm it, etc etc. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are there sources for any of that? Note 'interesting' is not a criteria for notability. --neon white talk 20:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you point, but wouldn't it be better to have this discussion on …Baby One More Time article? Tenacious D Fan (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, because tours and albums are different things. Spears's tours are often elaborate productions that are artistic works of their own (like musical theater), even if they are staged after an album release. And some Spears tours don't neatly coincide with albums at all, like this one and Crazy 2K Tour. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Merge any relevant information into the album article. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into …Baby One More Time Dalejenkins | 18:54, 1 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, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge either into …Baby One More Time or better still, Britney_Spears#Childhood_and_discovery, where some of her early, pre-album tours are already mentioned. Lack of sources or notability for it's own article. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. If this were the first of its kind, it would be notable, but the article itself says it is not, and therefore it is not notable. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 12:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Britney Spears - no claim to be notable. In fact many claims to not be. most tours are not notable, I offer to redirect due to this essay --T-rex 04:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Merge and Redirect, clearly not a particularly notable (or a very minor tour)--JForget 22:43, 10 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 East718 (then undone and re-deleted by Peter Symonds), non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal (song)

Non-notable song by non-notable performer - fails WP:MUSIC. ukexpat (talk) 03:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 03:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:IAR. The artist in question doesn't have a page (note there's a Ben Joyce but it's not the same guy), so this might as well be shot down ASAP per common sense. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:41, 3 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, consensus is that it is not notable. Davewild (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

XL Airways Flight 237

Minor incident that doesn't rise to the level of encyclopedic material. Fails the proposed notability standards for incidents involving commercial aircraft which has been discussed and informally implemented by wp:air. This was prodded by a member of the project, and prod was removed. AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, relatively minor incident, not exactly notable. JIP | Talk 05:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless I'm missing something, I dont think 2 drunks (nor their actions) are notable. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 05:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article isn't about the flight itself, for one; it relates to an incident on one particular iteration of it. Additionally, that incident happens frequently and is not even newsworthy, much less notable. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 09:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable and a minor incident and not an uncommon occurence with no claim that this is any different of the many other types of this event that have happened before. MilborneOne (talk) 09:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How many hundreds of times does this happen a year? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely unnotable incident. No one was injured, no one was at risk. Happens all the time. Canterbury Tail talk 14:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Recieved wide coverage in the media but will likely be forgotten before long. --neon white talk 20:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- There seems to be at least one incident each summer where planes have to make an unsscheduled stop to get rid of drunks. This case is not exceptional and thus NN. A summary of the content (probably a single sentence) might be placed in an article on such incidents, but I am not sure ewven that would really be worth having. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A minor, unnotable WP:ONEVENT that is hardly news. The plane landed safely on the ground. Artene50 (talk) 00:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Still, it may be a milestone in the equality of the sexes that the two drunken, obnoxious pasengers who got kicked off of the plane were women. You don't have to be a guy to be an asshole anymore. Mandsford (talk) 03:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even the fact they were two women isn't notable; I recall a couple of playboy bunnies got arrested for being drunk and disorderly on a plane in the US several months ago at least, and I can only remember that because of the prurient interest. MadScot666 (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this news story. And per Mandsford. Cliff smith ^talk 20:33, 5 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 03:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Barney humor

Article is unencyclopedic, as it's based solely on opinion (most of it unsourced), contains inappropriate content, and is simply a breeding ground for POV and advertising of third-party links/sites. Maybe some of it can be moved to the Criticism section in the original Barney & Friends page, but overall there is nothing notable about Barney haters that it warrants its own article. Beemer69 ^chitchat 02:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You know, for a silly topic, there seems to be a whole lot of references. Haven't gone through them in detail, but it seems to be better sourced than a lot of more serious articles. Reserving judgement. Jclemens (talk) 02:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 03:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 03:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is full of fact and truth. Everything has been studied and referenced. Angie Y. (talk) 03:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of sources within the article, and the show's noteriety as an annoyance and against the educational mission of PBS came with the popularity of the show; it actually one of the first children's shows to inspire such a response coming in tune with the rise of the Internet. If there are any issues with the article, they're usually quickly taken care of like they are in the parent Barney article. Nate • (chatter) 04:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If I'm outvoted, fine, but most material therein is non-notable and will likely be removed, as the likes of "jihad.net," some writer named "Brian Bull" (who's not even on Google) and cheap videos made by YouTube hacks are not noteworthy in the slightest. And with all due respect, Angie, "everything" therein is not referenced, and your vote is biased because you've trolled on related pages in the past declaring your hate for the "pathetic" show. Beemer69 ^chitchat 05:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - not sure which Google you were using, but putting in "brian bull" barney yields the WP article first, then numerous "Day of the Barney" links. P.S. the Jihad.net website was covered in The Guardian in 2003 as referenced, well before this article was created. Dl2000 (talk) 23:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Touch-ups are likely, but this looks like a valid article to me. I don't know if everything included in necessarily "anti-Barney," such as the radiographic study performed by the annals of improbably science -- seems kinda neutral to me. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Covers a valid subtopic relating to Barney & Friends, and is a reasonably well sourced and structured article.--Father Goose (talk) 07:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Also, the New York Times can't be wrong. ;-)
"Wikipedia, the community-edited online encyclopedia, maintains a useful history of anti-Barney Internet humor — from the “Jihad to Destroy Barney,” which has evolved into a role-playing game, to fictionalized stories and images documenting Barney’s womanizing and crack habit."[8]--Father Goose (talk) 07:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is not about a PoV, so much as it is about a phenomenon which has spanned a rather lengthy time and crossed a relatively large number of media. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 09:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination indicates that there is material worth retaining and so is implicitly proposing a merger for which deletion is inappropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article needs alot of work to remove the original research and unreliable sources but it seems there are one or two reliable sources on the subject (Guardian, LA weekly etc). --neon white talk 20:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete entirely silly topic with very small scope. It's just not notable, merge with Barney. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 23:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notability is established. Sources listed are mostly tangential, and provide little to no substance to the article --T-rex 00:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the appropriate criterion is Wikipedia:Reliable sources - there is no Wikipedia:Tangential sources. Sports Illustrated, The Seattle Times, EFF, feature films, yadacetera are sufficiently reliable. Dl2000 (talk) 23:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A legitimate article about a response to a multi-million dollar franchise. To reject Barney is, in some western cultures, a rite of passage into being a pre-teen. Mandsford (talk) 03:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A negative (and with good reason) response, at that. Barney and his bumchum cohorts (and those retarded kids he masturbates) represent not only mental retardation, but the negative effects of today's culture on modern-day children, who mutate into mindless sacks of drivel with every second that they watch this godforsaken nonsense called Barney and "Friends". Plus the theme song and the dino characters suck, and Barney sounds like a retard. Angie Y. (talk) 12:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In comparison to you, I'm afraid, Barney sounds like William F. Buckley. Mandsford (talk) 15:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't go there, girlfriend.--Father Goose (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Anti-Barney humor is a legitimate folklore topic. Barney jokes and parodies are the subject of a full chapter in Sherman and Weisskopf's Greasy Grimy Gopher Guts: The Subversive Folklore of Childhood. It's grown to be something worthy of a separate topic; this article is well referenced, and there's nowhere to merge it without either loss of information or undue weight. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Article needs to be checked for any Original Research. But the subject is certainly notable. John Sloan (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge only what is verified, per nom. Cliff smith ^talk 17:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is way better written even than I expected such an article to be. If it matters at all, I see Barney jokes online all the time. Tezkag72 (talk) 23:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because Barney is a very famous internet meme. There are barney jokes all over the place and they are mostly funny. --Bb22493 (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - None of the nominated reasons meet the WP:DP criteria, and to some extent have been refuted (many sources are established). As for "inappropriate content", well WP:NOTCENSORED. And the "breeding ground for POV"... so what else is new throughout the entire WP-land? The topic is developed enough that merge to main is not needed. Nothing new has been argued since the first AfD nomination; since then it has ceased to be a dumping ground for satirical Barney songs. With some cleanup, it will also cease to be a dumping ground for the nn "Barney Bunch" material and any other fluff. Dl2000 (talk) 23:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a charter member of the Barney Haters' Club, I can do no other. :p (Man, that was a long time ago.) More seriously, the listed reasons are not grounds for deletion. Rogue 9 (talk) 16:32, 7 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 Snow delete, title is not a likely search term so no use for a redirect. TravellingCari 19:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maroon 5(+)

There is no need whatsoever for this article. It seems to be a chronology of events/albums involving Maroon Five; this is already covered in the Maroon 5 and Maroon 5 discography pages. Ironho lds 02:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant to existing Maroon Five page. Nothing new in this page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant as stated. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant. Basically collects every article about the band into one article. Which makes it essentially a fan page. This has so many violations of WP:NOT that it would make no sense to list every one. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 04:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unnecessary duplicate article. JIP | Talk 05:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Maroon 5. What exactly is the plus for? It's not like the page has no content, but it all belongs in the existing article. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 08:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:22, 3 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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines but that a redirect is appropriate. Davewild (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Worker in the Light

WP:BK failure, it seems to me. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable, and fails book notability standards Yamakiri ^T_C § 08-3-2008 • 00:56:17 00:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BK. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability Redirect per Zagalejo. JJL (talk) 02:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can come forward with evidence that it is notable. I don't think wikipedia is a catalogue of anything that has been printed and assigned an ISBN. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 08:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to George Noory, where the book is already briefly mentioned. Zagalejo^^^ 19:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Zaga, I think it's a viable search term and the author's article could provide the reader with what s/he's looking for. TravellingCari 19:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per above. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:14, 5 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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 17:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skullkrusher

Article on a defunct punk band which as far as I can tell, does not assert any notability nor meet WP:MUSIC in any way - nothing in the article, a Google search returned nothing either, asking on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Punk music got no response. The article is orphaned also. Stormie (talk) 00:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Stormie (talk) 00:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see nothing that asserts notability per WP:MUSIC. No releases on a notable label, no reliable sources, et cetera. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability, and no reliable sources. Yamakiri ^T_C § 08-3-2008 • 00:49:56 00:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources, non-notable. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced and contains way too many nonexistent links. Non-notable. Beemer69 ^chitchat 02:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:MUSIC. There are lots of these bands, but I don't think more than a handful of them are notable; they seem to be very little more than a now-defunct local act. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 08:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 20:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MUSIC multiple times. article is mostly excuses of why nobody remembers them --T-rex 00:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cliff smith ^talk 16:47, 5 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.