Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ohnoitsjamie (talk | contribs) at 15:14, 9 October 2008 (added iProfile). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< October 8 October 10 >

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. MBisanz talk 01:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The iProfile

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

Fails WP:WEB; no non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dahili Network

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

While this information may or may not be factually correct (a Google search turns up nothing), the article is so poorly written that it defies attempts to recast it in standard English WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense. It's unsalvageably incoherent. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No, this is not what Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G1 means by "patent nonsense". The term explicitly excludes "poor writing, vandalism, material not in English, badly translated material, hoaxes, etc." I have tried to clean up the text so that it makes more sense. -- Eastmain (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The claims made in the article are intriguing, but this Google News archive search doesn't turn up anything useful. -- Eastmain (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I can't quite understand the article: it isn't made clear if this is something actually in operation (which may be notable), or whether it's simply proposed and in-development (which probably isn't notable yet). Lack of reliable sources is also a concern. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... though it is a fairly nice description of a Local Area Network in Turkey. I don't see its notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's a section on language--there needs to be some language work. A section on Gerontology? Drmies (talk) 02:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Its hard to judge because the citations and external links are not any help. Doesn't seem notable, or encyclopedic. Sentriclecub (talk) 00:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Cardboards

AfDs for this article:
The Cardboards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Taking this to AfD rather than prod because this may be a case where sources will be pre-intertoobs. Claims of notability are iffy: early band in Pittsburgh punk scene and pioneers of a technique of unknown notability. One album released, no claims of charting or awards. No entry at allmusic, no reviews found at metacritic. Gsearch turns up tons of false positives, and my googlefu isn't narrowing it down well enough. Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was a student at Carnegie-Mellon University in Pittsburgh from 1980 to 1983 and I saw them perform numerous times and I loved this band. It was a very original band which was at the same time very much of the moment, and it belongs in any history of punk rock and new wave music. Not everything interesting happens in New York. Erxnmedia (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. Appears to also have been deleted before. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence they pass WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep – I've added one reference that helps to verify a little of the article content: that the band was part of the early Pittsburgh punk scene, that the drummer was the subject of a documentary, and that members went on to be part of The Cynics and Hector in Paris (oops, that one is a red link at the moment). Like the nominator, I am cautious when it is a band that likely would have had most of its press coverage pre-Internet. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 22:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kurykh 05:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TCM - Time Critical Manufacturing

TCM - Time Critical Manufacturing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Software product by a redlinked company (deleted through PROD); article submitted by the marketing manager of the company. While the Milwaukee Business Journal reference is valid, I'm not finding other reliable, independent (ie not a press release) sources in gsearch or gnews. The MBJ article doesn't give me enough to rewrite without the advertising copy, previous prod has been contested, so here we are. Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep, no argument for deletion given, original afd tagging by anon edit-warrior clearly made in bad faith. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zajdi, zajdi, jasno sonce

Zajdi, zajdi, jasno sonce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

In my opinion, this AFD is part of an on-going edit war between an anon with a floating IP and other users. (The edit summary of an editor removing the AFD reads, "someone needs to study the correlation between vandalism and ethnicity.") I got dragged into this mess declining a speedy deletion added by the anon. He'd also added an AFD tag but failed to complete the discussion subpage and list the AFD. I removed both. He re-added both with an admonition to not remove deletion tags. I left a testy edit summary suggesting he complete the process and again declined the speedy. Another editor removed the AFD tag. The anonymous editor reverted but again did not complete the process. Pro forma nom, as I can't leave this hanging in Limbo any longer. See my "keep" below. Dlohcierekim 14:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dzied. Should have crossed this particular "t". I guess I have to speak for the anon who started this. I'll assume good faith and say the anon feels the subject is not notable in that it lacks sufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. That the subject lacks inherent notability. That the sources I listed are deficient. As pointed out below, he could not complete the process, and may not have realized that he was not finished. Unfortunately, I've not been able to establish a meaningful dialogue. Dlohcierekim 16:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if an anon refuses to talk, a proper solution IMO is to protect the article from anonymous (since the IP is floating and it cannot be blocked for disruption), rather than to drag other people into wasting their time. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 17:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Constructive edits are being made by anons. I'm assuming good faith because there may be some language barrier there. ACheers, Dlohcierekim 17:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Editors without accounts cannot complete the AFD process, because they are prohibited from creating new pages in the Wikipedia: namespace. It probably wasn't the best approach to demand that someone complete a process that they are barred from completing. Uncle G (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The editor certainly could have asked for help or discussed on talk page, rather than edit warring, as the page history hows him doing. As it went 24 hours without any progress, I went ahead and completed the process. Cheers, and happy editing. Dlohcierekim 15:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Folk songs are probably inherently notable from the start because of their long-term cultural impact. The sort of thing a not-paper resource should include. (If we were talkin' about "mah noble Stewball," I'd know I was on terra firma. ) In attempting to source this, I've been limited by not only language barriers, but by alphabet barriers as well. However, I was able to find a number of mentions on the Internet. The Balkans is a region with a large number of languages, so there may be references I have missed. Hopefully, someone can help me out with the sourcing. So far, the editors of the article have not.
Appears notable--
Other potential sourcing--
Sadly, the edit warriors have not yet come here to say the article should be kept and why. Dlohcierekim 03:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting POV vandalism is different to edit-warring. The only reason the vandal wanted the page deleted was because he wasn't happy that his vandalism was being dealt with (and therefore he couldn't express his POV). BalkanFever 09:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--This is a most popular traditioanal and antologic macedonian song. --Raso mk (talk) 06:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC) P.S. The bulgarian POV in this article is needless. They have allready own song "Černej Goro"[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mount Lofty CFS Group. (non-admin closure) treelo radda 00:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ironbank Country Fire Service

Ironbank Country Fire Service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a short and unreferenced article about a local fire authority. Grahame (talk) 13:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Withdrawn. My nom was obviously poorly researched. To my credit, the articles are not new, yet are most all wholly unreferenced, giving no indication of notable singles, albums or members. Jennavecia (Talk) 16:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M.O.P.

AfDs for this article:
M.O.P. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band, fails WP:MUSIC. Jennavecia (Talk) 13:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Including with this nom:
Jennavecia (Talk) 13:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions and list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jennavecia (Talk) 13:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears notable, two major releases- one on Koch, one on Colombia. Also, I know google isn't a reliable indicator, but it pulls up over 100,000 hits on Ante Up alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.181.195.10 (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - significant chart activity in Billboard, also achieved two top 10 hits in the UK in 2001 (offline source: The Book of British Hit Singles and Albums), Google News search shows coverage in Rolling Stone, Music Week and several newspapers - group definitely seems notable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Two UK Top 10 hits, plus major-label releases. It isn't hard to find reliable sources either, look here and here. sparkl!sm hey! 15:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand several chart singles, releases on notable labels, seems good enough for me. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Weird nom. Firing Squad (1996) is considered a classic, e.g. by Brian Coleman in Check the Technique, 2nd. ed., New York: Villard, 2007. ISBN 978-0812977752 pp. 276–288 (a whole chapter) while Peter Shapiro (who prefers First Family 4 Life (1998) and thinks Warriorz (2000) is better than both) notes that "Ante Up" (a "classic", in his words and in the words of most other people who know about the subject) and "Cold as Ice" were both top ten hits in the UK.(Rough Guide to Hip Hop, 2nd. ed., London: Rough Guides, 2005. ISBN 978-1843532637 pp. 259–261.) The greatest hits compilation 10 Years And Gunnin' (2003) is available on Columbia. 86.44.23.229 (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes MUSIC on strength of chart hits alone. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Longhair\talk 03:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almighty 12th street players

Almighty 12th street players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable alleged "gang," no sources proffered, reliable or otherwise, article untouched since creation. A Google search turns up 32 hits [1], exclusively from this article and various other Wiki mirrors and self-editing sites; plainly someone wants to claim the gangsta mantle, but the world hasn't yet noticed. Fails WP:ORG, WP:V.  Ravenswing  13:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lumpawarrump

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

Wholly insignificant character. No citations to third-party reliable sources to establish notability. Entirely plot summary. Redirect to appropriate target -- Chewbacca -- reverted by User:Ksempac since apparently I'm just "sneaky". Bringing it to AfD for community consensus that this Wookiee, marginally significant within the Star Wars universe, doesn't meet the notability threshold for such "detailed" coverage at Wikipedia. --EEMIV (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or redirect Fails WP:Notability --Megaboz (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong venue There is a way to deal with such reverts, to get community opinion about whether they are justified, and it's WP:Dispute resolution. Afd is not intended for such purposes--it is an abuse of process to bring something here unless the actual intent is to delete it; if a redirect is proposed, then keep arguing for one in the proper place through the various steps. Frankly, if i weren't involved in this topic I would close this right now as "no request for deletion" DGG (talk) 15:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A redirect is the recommendation before material as an alternative/precursor for AfD. Apparently its notability is disputed. The underlying issue is that this topic doesn't warrant coverage here. Hence, AfD. --EEMIV (talk) 15:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have neither conflict with EEMIV, nor interest for this article. I simply want the community to agree on the delete or merge instead of one user doing it all by himself (especially since another user ( RMHED ) asked to go for an AfD before EEMIV redirected the article). About the AfD, i agree with Dzied Bulbash (below), since right now the Chewbacca article has a link to Lumpawarrump and no mention of who he is. Ksempac (talk) 08:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete content as an original essay; redirect to Chewbacca (as it is done for xis mother, Mallatobuck ), with short description. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 16:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- treelo radda 19:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- treelo radda 19:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR/fancruft and then redirect to Chewbacca. We can easily modify this AfD to just say "Delete this article about a non-notable subject" and not care about where it redirects to. the suggestion of the redirect is to help navigation and to help prevent some attempts at recreation. We can't just assume that because someone disagrees with this outcome that it is a content dispute. By definition, for every article in wikipedia, there is someone who wants to keep the article as is. The existence of that person doesn't dictate which venues can be used in a debate. Protonk (talk) 17:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One of many minor SW characters who have unnecessarily overlong articles padded with in-universe fluff. sixtynine • speak, I say • 07:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capital Subscription Fund

Capital Subscription Fund (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Neologism; no sources; almost no Google hits. Biruitorul Talk 02:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 16:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kurykh 05:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems obscure enough that hardly anyone has heard of this type of fund (under 100 ghits for "capital subscription fund"), so it could have been prodded. Also relisted twice... VG ☎ 08:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sounds like a neologism to me with the three Google hits. MvjsTalking 09:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lazulilasher (talk) 03:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary Verse 2

AfDs for this article:
Contemporary Verse 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not long enough and non-notable

  • Delete the magazine is only published to the City of Winnipeg. (From website) Whenaxis (talk) 22:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Where does it say that? I see that it is published in Winnipeg, but that's not the same thing. On the contrary, it says that "CV2 is distributed to newsstands and readers across Canada, the United States and the rest of the big wide world.". The journal appears to have been running continuously for more than a quarter of a century, which suggests notability. DionysosProteus (talk) 23:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep established literary magazines deserve an article ... is the Winnipeg comment a joke?? Why does it matter where something is published? I can't remember why I started this article now - I probably found some reference to the magazinr somewhere and wanted to find out more about it, but Wikipedia didn't have anything. Of course the article hasn't progressed much since then! Certainly loads of room for improvement, but I think the essential nature of the notability stands. Stumps (talk) 05:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: How many copies does it distribute across the World, valuable information is not being inserted into the article, Contemporary Verse 2, why is it not? 64.231.192.93 (talk) 11:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--literary journals are notable, esp. if they've been running for that long (that's a feat). I wish the article were expanded. Drmies (talk) 02:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. g4 per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Future_Lovers_(Madonna_song) slakr\ talk / 23:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future Lovers (Madonna song)

AfDs for this article:
Future Lovers (Madonna song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Topic is not notable per WP:NSONGS. It is an album track which has been performed live on ONE world tour by Madonna. Not reason enough for its own article Paul75 (talk) 08:47, 9 October 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) 00:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the qualified reasons cited by the nominator. I see that this was deleted by consensus once before, is this a repost? If so, speedy delete it. JBsupreme (talk) 02:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy None of the concerns raised in the first AFD have been addressed.—Kww(talk) 11:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Music (Madonna album). MBisanz talk 02:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive Instant

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

Fails notability per WP:NSONGS. Article is almost entirely OR. No references. The authenticity of image used is dubious as well - cannot be found on the website stated by the person who posted image, and looks fake. Paul75 (talk) 09:02, 9 October 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) 00:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Was released as a club promo only, never a single, never charted, article has no sources to show it had external notability. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • changed to weak. What it charted on gives it a tiny amount of something, but not sure that is enough. PHARMBOY (TALK) 11:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Music (Madonna album). Fluffed-up permastub. Nothing sourced, and no reason to believe most of it is sourceable. The interminable list of remixes that these things get are not a reason for keeping an article, and that is what this article primarily is.—Kww(talk) 11:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Was considered a single in its own right and still charted, but didn't go commercially on sale. As long as there is enough substance, the article should stay. Geoking66talk 04:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "considered a single in it's own right" is pure OR!
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Final Exit Network. Stifle (talk) 11:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jana Van Voorhis

Jana Van Voorhis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There are several reasons for deleting this page. (1) This is a person known for just one event (her death) -- fails WP:BIO. (2) Contributors to the article are now implicated as probable sockpuppets of a banned user known for falsifying sources and content. (3) The article asserts notability on the basis of commentary on the case by medical ethicists, but the one article allegedly about this case is actually about a Swiss case.[2]. In fact, coverage of this case appears to be limited to local Phoenix news media and anti-euthanasia blogs. Orlady (talk) 04:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kurykh 05:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unpleasant as it is this seems to have been a notable case. I can also see the case for "merge" but decided to vote "keep" since her case does seem to have been widely discussed. Redddogg (talk) 05:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Final Exit Network. Wikipedia is not a place for news reports, no matter how fascinating. This information is better categorized under the organization that led to her death, since thats what the discussion of her was mainly dealing with. Themfromspace (talk) 06:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Final Exit Network. That article is stubby to begin with, and has some difficulty establishing notability had it not been for Jana Van Voorhis. VG ☎ 08:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

exit fart

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

I have moved all info to a more generic page, this would be PRODed, but someone contested. Natually, I vote Strong Delete'. [[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|Tutthoth-Ankhre~ The Pharaoh of the Universe]] (talk) 16:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect: All the relevant information has been moved to the Makuta (Bionicle) article, thereby rendering this one superfluous to requirements. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Despite the need for expansion for Bionicle on Wikipedia, I believe this information can be easily included in the main Makuta (Bionicle) article, there is not that much information that requires a new page, in my opinion. Lesovikk1996 (talk) 02:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 02:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody Knows Me

Nobody Knows Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails notability per WP:NSONGS - album track only. If that's not enough, add its lack of references and original research. Paul75 (talk) 08:58, 9 October 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) 00:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wow, I say that so rarely on this list, it felt strange to type. Anyway, as a single, the article is truly bad. However, about the song, it makes sense to have this as a separate article. It's been on two albums and the B-side of two singles. On a purely navigational basis, I just can't see where I would argue to merge it to.—Kww(talk) 11:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources, song didn't chart. Alternatively, redirect to her discography. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Hammer above, notability has not been established. — Realist2 22:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted as copyvio of [3]. I write bureaucratese like this for a living, and I can tell from a mile away when someone copy-pastes governmentspeak from a government website into an article.  Sandstein  15:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regional Council of South Ostrobothnia

Regional Council of South Ostrobothnia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just another local bureaucracy; anything special about this one? Biruitorul Talk 03:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a sub-national government. -- Eastmain (talk) 04:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If Finland were a federal state with sovereign sub-national entities, then it might make sense to have articles on those governments, like we do for (say) Germany. But (except for Åland, for which we do have an article on its government) Finland is a unitary state, with power concentrated at the centre and very little devolution to regional bodies. Moreover, local councils are created by and can be abolished by the national government. (We don't, for example, have articles on too many of the 3000+ county governments in the US, also created by higher authorities - exceptions being very populous entities like LA County or Cook County - which, I might add, actually do some important things.) There's a nice red link under "Regional Council" here - let's delete this and write a couple of sentences about it there. Or, since they all do the same thing, write an article on regional government in Finland. But a stand-alone article on a toothless body is neither helpful nor wise, as someone will come along with articles on its 18 counterparts, and perhaps on similar sorts of county governments elsewhere, none of which would be especially useful to the project. Biruitorul Talk 05:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Governmental body. 94.192.13.95 (talk) 11:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, but as my comment above indicates, is that inherently notable? If so, why? Biruitorul Talk 18:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 16:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Southern Ostrobothnia — surely the government is a worthy topic to cover in that article, even if it's not a really notable topic by itself, which it isn't. We can always split it out if the government section of that article grows too large for the article. Nyttend (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take A Worm For A Walk Week

Take A Worm For A Walk Week (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Ok, a little weak but there are some assertions of notability. Having an album mixed by Iain Cook and a split album with DeSalvo (see Idlewild (band)) and another split CD probably isn't enough for notability. If the band members were connected, ok, but split albums probably don't qualify. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:47, 30 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) 01:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 04:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. gone, clear A7 TravellingCari 00:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Smith (Lismore)

Isaac Smith (Lismore) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article was created about somebody who unsuccessfully contested preselection for the Australian federal election, 2007. Clearly not notable. Grahame (talk) 13:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Waddington

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

Non-notable entertainer. No reliable sources to show why this person is notable. Fails WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N and WP:ENTERTAINER. PROD removed without reason. JD554 (talk) 12:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep He's made numerous TV appearance and won a magic competition, though I'm not sure how notable that competition is. I'd lean to the side of keep for now. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He claims (it's an autobiographical article) to have made TV appearances. There are no reliable sources to back up any claims in the article apart from the non-notable competition. --JD554 (talk) 13:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:N, the reliable sources need to be "independent of the subject"—that rules http://www.uk-magic.co.uk (a directory listing written by the subject) and http://www.warble-entertainment.com (the agency he belongs to). The realitydigital.com reference doesn't show that he has appeared on TV and the remainder of the references are for an online competition of very dubious notability. There is nothing in the article that is verifiable to show that he meets any of the criteria at WP:ENTERTAINER. --JD554 (talk) 09:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel as a magician he meets that criteria of WP:PEOPLE, when 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". Further WP:Ent is only one of the "additional criteria" of WP:PEOPLE that follow the caveat "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included". Another of these additional criteria... one which precedes WP:Ent... is "Any biograhy", which allows "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them". So, I can only address your statement "competition of very dubious notability", by pointing out that A) The contest spanned the globe, B) He won first place, and C) his win was verified in a reliable secondary source independent of the subject. I will continue to seek sources for his television performances. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being a magician doesn't make a person "worthy of notice", but being a notable magician would. If the competition was notable I would have expected to have seen something in a national newspaper rather than a local newspaper that covers the area the subject is from. There are still no reliable sources to verify him being a notable musician or the fact the competition is notable. --JD554 (talk) 06:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G3) by KillerChihuahua. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 15:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National skip share week

National skip share week (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This seems like somewhat of a hoax. What further reinforces this sentiment is the fact that the event is not-notable, contains absolutely no external links or inline citations along with being orphaned and written in a contextually poor manner. Also user's first contribution. Flewis(talk) 12:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Could someone check this out, because if a hoax, this may warrant a speedy delete --Flewis(talk) 12:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as hoax. I fail to believe that a national holiday would receive zero Google hits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as hoax. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, hoax. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Wikipedia is not a place for hoax pages. Kalivd (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Sonic Edge

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

Non-notable music developer. Article is written by someone affiliated with the company, so conflict of interest is apparent. CyberGhostface (talk) 12:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether it is written by affiliation or not this is the wikipedia guidelines I read:
A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor.
The article has been edited down to a neutral standpoint. The article is reliably sourced.
I do have an interest in the article though it is not to promote oneself. Just as before I am open to any suggestions on making this acceptable. I have written and edited the page no different from many other company articles I have read on wikipedia.
suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesonicedge (talk • contribs) 00:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete are you familiar with the Monty Python song, "Spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam". The article may have sources (all primary) and it may be verifiable but COI still remains as the primary editor is still the one with COI. You need significant third party sources. Notability is not met. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been edited to a neutral standpoint and meets the wikipedia guidelines. Were this spam, there would be text indicating a special sale or discount for example. This is no more spam than is the Lucas Arts or Danny Elfman page on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesonicedge (talk • contribs) 21:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not for you to say it is neutral, it is for other editors (ones who have made edits other than to this page and who don't have the page name as their username) to say. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kurykh 05:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- all the sources are primary. Fails WP:N. Reyk YO! 05:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam. No third party sources for verification of notability. Themfromspace (talk) 06:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam. I just did a google search and there are very few references to this "The Sonic Edge" and those that are there are first party. There appears to also be a Christian music group and a sound card from Philips with the same name. The sound card meets the notability requirements if anyone wants to write that article. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ballyhoo! (band)

Ballyhoo! (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Cmt. sorry, but i don't think that amounts to anything more than a puff piece (non-reliable source) and i can't see anything to meet any of the WP:BAND 12 in there. tomasz. 08:49, 10 October 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) 00:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kurykh 05:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Run (Rock band)

Run (Rock band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nonnotable band. Keep having to fix bad wikilinks by original author (see history) and deleting references that are Forums, etc. Being on the radio a little doesn't make you notable. I've tried to clean it up to see if it would be ok, but author keeps reverting to wikilink stuff improperly, etc. so I give up. PHARMBOY (TALK) 11:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. WP:BAND requires groups to be "in rotation nationally by any major radio network" to qualify via radio. This doesn't meet that or any of the others. tomasz. 12:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Actually, a band does not have to be "in rotation nationally by any major radio network" to qualify as notable, it can hit many of the other WP:MUSIC criteria but that (a great example of this is The Fall), but this band does not meet any of the WP:MUSIC critereon and the articles only attempt at notability is a list of five or so radio stations that the band allegedly gets airplay on. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 14:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a band does not have to be "in rotation nationally by any major radio network" to qualify as notable, it can hit many of the other WP:MUSIC criteria. Yes, that is why i wrote to qualify via radio. i.e. to qualify for notability status via the "radio play" criterion of WP:BAND (#11), which is the only one they come within a country mile of being able to claim. i also said the article doesn't meet "any of the others", i.e. any of the other 11 criteria of WP:BAND (#1 - 10 & 12). Please read again. Thank-you. tomasz. 15:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, right you are. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 15:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that being on the radio a little does not make a band notable. But the band was added to regular rotation on many stations, which meets the criteria for notability. Also fulfilling the criteria is the fact that the bands music was used repeatedly in two different network television programs Road Rules & Battle for Ozzfest. These aren't just claims... They are facts. Thanks for your consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.240.81.23 (talk) 18:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nothing is "fact" unless it is cited, and nothing is cited here. I reverted yet more bad wikilinks to boot. PHARMBOY (TALK) 18:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not here to argue with anyone. They are facts. I witnessed them. Wikipedias policies may restrict you from allowing the information if it's not properly cited, but that doesn't diminish the facts. I've personally heard the band played in regular rotation on these radio stations recently and many others while the band was on tour in 2005. Please consider that this is a nationally touring act as well (yet another of the notability requirements. That's 3 total, with only one being required). The write up in "Arizona" Weekly Entertainment Magazine about a "Los Angeles" band actually verifies that they are a nationally touring act. Darren Mercier —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darrenmercier (talk • contribs) 16:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You would do better to work within the guidelines here to try to keep the article, rather than using an emotional appeal (which is guaranteed to NOT work). A small amount of uncited material is allowed in an article for a while (thus, the reason the FACT tag exists) but in general, Original Research (your personal witnessing) isn't. You can easily shut everyone here up by simply providing enough verification using reliable sources. I never understand why people want to argue instead of just fixing the problem. If it can't be fixed, then that supports the idea of deleting. I probably save one or two articles per week that were overwhelmingly DELETE by first adding tons of citations, THEN saying something in the AFD about it, and watching others change their votes. Its called putting your money where your mouth is. PHARMBOY (TALK) 18:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "Wikipedias policies may restrict you from allowing the information if it's not properly cited, but that doesn't diminish the facts". Exactly. So till proper cites appear (no sign yet), Wikipedia's policies do indeed restrict us from allowing it. Also the radio criterion doesn't fly as none of the quoted stations are national networks, and an article in a newspaper from a different state to the one the band are from doesn't come within a country mile of proving they have toured nationally. tomasz. 16:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Also note a "Darren Mercier" is the band's bassist. Tho' it could be someone else of that name, of course. tomasz. 16:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the observation. I am the bassist. I'm not trying win anyone over with emotions. I don't understand how these facts could be more credible if they are coming straight from the source. Still, I don't need sympathy. But I simply don't know what you mean by "citations". I'm not here looking for free advertising. I would love to substantiate these facts for you. Problem is, I'm a musician and probably not as computer savvy as any of you. Perhaps I can have our record label, lawyer and management company send letters verifying these facts. Our first album is signed to a nationwide distribution deal with Sony/BMG. If I can verify this is it cool? But then we're back to me not knowing how to "cite" it. If you can ellaborate on how to properly "cite" these facts, I'll be happy to comply. I've read the policies but simply don't know where to begin. Thanks for your input. I look forward to getting it straightened out. Darren Mercier (The bass player) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.240.81.23 (talk) 00:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article really should be written by an independent, third party. As it stands right now, your participation to this point violates Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest and also is strong evidence that this article is an advertisement. It adds more justification for deletion. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 00:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is why Wikipedia requires that the article is written by someone NOT in the band. You may mean well, but you also have information that is not written anywhere and can't be verified. All encyclopedia material must be verifiable. One of the basic tenents of Wikipedia is that we are not interested in TRUTH, we are interested in that which can be VERIFIED by independent parties (news papers, reputable internet sites, etc.) It is a core principal. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a very clear understanding. Ignorance is no excuse but it was all I had. Perhaps the information will be submitted by an independant when some of the facts are a bit easier to cite. Sorry for being a thorn in anyones side. Remove at will. Darren Mercier —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.240.81.23 (talk) 05:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep. The article seems to have just been created 5 days ago. Understandably the creation of the article by a band member brings up questions however many Wikipedia articles seem to have been started by people close to the subject and at some point they either take on a life of their own or are deleted. Five days seems too short to allow any article to grow, no matter who may have started it.Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 IAR, snow on the main AfD and common sense. Albums/singles from a non-notable and speedied artists aren't going to be notable either. Just because we can't A7 doesn't mean they need to run five days. TravellingCari 03:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Going Back

Keep Going Back (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 IAR, snow on the main AfD and common sense. Albums/singles from a non-notable and speedied artists aren't going to be notable either. Just because we can't A7 doesn't mean they need to run five days. TravellingCari 03:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...The Fame

...The Fame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kurykh 05:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Rush (1985 album)

Jennifer Rush (1985 album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)


Don't know where this album came from, but it's not mentioned anywhere in any official site or any list of albums I've ever seen. The guy has added in a bunch of references taken from the Jennifer Rush (1984 album) page which do not relate to this album. It could just be a budget release cobbled together from 2 different albums.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 10:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The All-Girl Boys

The All-Girl Boys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

unsourced, only one release. No significant coverage in reliable sources found. Duffbeerforme (talk) 09:21, 9 October 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) 00:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Chicks with Picks Sorry, just had to say that, as from the title alone, I couldn't tell it was about music... Unfortunately, bluegrass is a hard genre to source sometimes. It is an older demographic I suppose, but wp:v still applies and I couldn't find sources to show they were actually notable enough to pass wp:band. I even tried to dig up a bit on their 1997 "critically aclaimed" CD, Heart's Desire, but couldn't find anything that would remotely pass wp:rs. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 22:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Desde Las Estrellas

Desde Las Estrellas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:CRYSTAL I could not find any listings for Desde Las Estrellas in connection with Yuridia in google search. If and when the album is released perhaps then it will pass WP:MUSIC. But without references to where this article has gotten its information and the lack of search results, I say it needs to be deleted pending release. JavierMC 08:46, 9 October 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) 00:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article says it all -- recording hasn't even started yet. No prejudice against recreation if the album is released and notability is established.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Murphy (1965 - )

Paul Murphy (1965 - ) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail WP:BIO. Biruitorul Talk 02:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think a judicious bit of referencing is a higher priority if this is to survive AfD. I couldn't find anything useful when I searched for his name in conjunction with the titles of his supposedly main works, apart from the fact that they exist and can be bought:
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Phil Bridger (talk) 8 October 2008
  • Did some wikification... and will look into sourcing... but am unsure as to how to handle wikifying his huge body of work. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative delete unless MQS or someone can actually post the references to his work that he thinks supports the article. I didn't see any. DGG (talk) 17:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kurykh 05:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DGG. Stifle (talk) 11:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my searches above. For any notable writer of this age and nationality Google would be able to find substantial coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. still limited participation but there are no keep votes and I don't think re-listing would help. I look at it as I would a 9 day PROD TravellingCari 17:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Festive Land: Carnaval in Bahia

Festive Land: Carnaval in Bahia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable per WP:NOTFILM. No Independent reliable source prove its notability. The director was already deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carolina Moraes-Liu. Tosqueira (talk) 08:07, 9 October 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) 00:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFILM. Bsimmons666
  • Weak delete. Othe than that silver award, which is secondary criteria for WP:NOTFILM, there are no reviews and less than 100 ghits. VG ☎ 13:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. The consensus of the discussion was to delete, and the sourced coverage of the organization cited in the article appeared to be largely incidental. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beadling Soccer Club

Beadling Soccer Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable youth football club which has won a few tournaments. Article claims it is the oldest club in the USA but there is no independent evidence to support this. Prod removed by article's creator without explanation. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 11:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The 'oldest team in the US' claim is repeated once on WVSPN and again on Explore PA History (note how they both say it is ONE of the oldest, not THE oldest). However, I don't feel this is enough to make this team notable enough for Wikipedia. Third-party sources seem to be rather thin on the ground, consisting mainly of directory listings. That's not to say youth teams aren't always non-notable (Wallsend Boys Club springs immediately to mind), but in this instance, I have to go with the nominator. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 11:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've gone about rewriting this article in attempts to see if it can be salvaged. Being one of the oldest soccer clubs in America and having a former NFL player playing on the team I think is grounds enough for notability. I've added a few sources and fixed the mistakes, and in general "wikified" it a little bit. Hopefully its easier to see its potential merits now, although it needs expansion. I also found a news article about the Beadling Soccer Club here, but I'm not sure I can use that in the article. --Banime (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In addition many Penn State soccer members come from there as I've found out (and added and sourced in the article). --Banime (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The fact that it's one of the oldest U.S. soccer teams is interesting, but I don't think it establishes notability by itself. The fact that notable people have played on the team doesn't do it for me either; are all youth teams that athletes play on notable? I think not. Significant coverage in reliable sources is the general guideline for notability, and the given sources don't provide that; they all have only brief mentions of the club. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - even having produced multiple future professional players would not be enough to render a boys' club notable and this club hasn't even achieved that (only non-professional college players and one solitary pro in a different sport altogether, as far as I can see) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. BanRay 22:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a 110-year old soccer club in the USA? Article is very well referenced, and I can't think of another club that comes close in age. Notable. Nfitz (talk) 05:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Weak Delete' Err...I really, really wanted to keep this one. However, no significant coverage in secondary reliable sources leads me to a weak delete. Lazulilasher (talk) 03:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC) Change to weak keep (about 10 seconds later). After rereading Nfitz comments above, I must say, being a 110 year old soccer club in the USA is inherently notable. Article is short, concise and provides a reasonable explanation for such a subject. No reason to delete; subject is verifiable. Lazulilasher (talk) 03:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Orangemike as G3, non-admin closure. — neuro(talk) 18:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Kid:The Devon Eaddy Story

American Kid:The Devon Eaddy Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This appears to be a hoax. I can find no sources for this article. I get ZERO hits on google. JavierMC 07:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 08:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as vandalism. Obvious hoax from the text ("It is a biographic film based on a African-American never ever discoverd.The director is a friend of that kid."), and doubly so given that the author's talk page suggests a history of creating articles on nonexistent film projects. Zetawoof(ζ) 10:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Zetawoof. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. delete. Consensus had coalesced around the non-notability of the radion station. Lazulilasher (talk) 03:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frequency (radio station)

Frequency (radio station) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Speedy delete as a recreation of deleted material. Notability and verifiability issues raised in previous deletion debates have not been addressed. — mholland (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Change opinion to delete, per Nyttend, below: I'd prefer to let this AfD run, on reflection. I cannot, however, find any substantial independent coverage for this student radio station. I'm also sceptical that much information beyond the mere fact of its existence can be reliably verified. — mholland (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't speedy delete Both previous discussions seem to be rather lacking in content, especially the first, so I'm uncomfortable with according them too much weight. As it is, I know that radio broadcasting stations in the USA are notable; are UK stations considered otherwise? I'm inclined to keep on this one. Nyttend (talk) 14:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd be inclined to keep this one. Student radio is pretty big here in the UK and this is a pretty funny article. As far as I can tell it sticks mostly to the facts, too. craigelaycock
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Longhair\talk 03:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beta Omicron Iota

Beta Omicron Iota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I started off reverting a blanking of this page, but the blanker, an anon, had included an edit summary which caused me to look more deeply at the article. The anon was correct, this is all unsourced, and when I googled, I could not find anything on this organization other than our Wikipedia article. Apparently, there are some chapters of some frats that are called Beta Omicron Iota, but this does not appear to be them, nor does it appear to exist in the form the article purports. Unschool (talk) 04:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 12:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oldominion

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

Non-notable hip hop crew, fails WP:MUSIC -- lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment if deleted, redirect to Old Dominion as plausible typo 70.51.10.188 (talk) 05:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: its no typo. "Oldominion" is the spelling of the group's name. I cannot speak toward WP:Music, but my search found stuff on them. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Group has made no substantial contribution to hip-hop music and should therefore be deleted. Group has also not generated any significant media coverage (most sources trivial).

oldmic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.82.140 (talk) 05:51, 12 October 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) 00:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My apologies for this relist. I was on the wrong log page --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 01:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Searching fails to bring up any non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 01:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article has few references, does not explain why the subject is notable, and is mostly lists of information (WP:TRIVIA). Nat682 (talk) 01:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - btw nothing from MySpace should be linked to from Wikipedia Nat682 (talk) 02:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Myspace is not notable--Freeway8 03:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John J. McGraw

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

Delete. On available evidence the subject does not appear to meet reasonable notability or verifiability threshholds for inclusion. Suject is author of a single nonfiction book, published by a small 'independent' press that (going by material at publisher Aegis Press's website) has published only 4 other titles, 3 by this and one other author, plus one likely out-of-copyright reprint of a 1930s book. The publishing house may likely be connected with, or set up by, the author(s) themselves. Discounting the dustjacket blurbs, Amazon reader reviews and 1 or 2 blog mentions, a search in the usual places—GoogleScholar, GoogleBooks, JSTOR, WorldCat, etc—to see if the author or book have been cited, commented upon or otherwise mentioned by notable independent 3rd parties draws pretty much a blank, save for two general book reviews in not-very-prominent periodicals- one in the Journal of Religion and Health, another in Esoteric Quarterly. The 'book of the year' award comes from an otherwise quite low-key magazine ForeWord, a low circulation publ. apparently devoted to titles from small independent publishers. General ghits for the author/book are likewise at the low end of the spectrum. In addition there may well be a WP:COI aspect here, to judge from the article creator's other contribs consisting mainly of inserting links & mentions of the author & book. With no further demonstration of notability in the article, and no disrespect or opinion on author/book intended, ATM I can't see that this article meets N or V criteria for inclusion. cjllw ʘ TALK 04:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jay-Z vs. Nas feud. Stifle (talk) 13:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supa Ugly

Supa Ugly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable mixtape which fails WP:MUSIC. JBsupreme (talk) 05:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 04:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kurykh 05:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Jay-Z vs. Nas feud This song doesn't deserve it's own article for notability reasons and WP:MUSIC, but the content is justly deserved in the article of the album. Themfromspace (talk) 06:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Supa get rid of since it fails WP:MUSIC by itself. Coverage seems incidental: his mom chastised him for it, etc. Presumably merge any info not yet in Jay-Z vs. Nas feud. VG ☎ 10:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 13:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Free

Phil Free (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:MUSIC policy on bandmembers Ironholds 02:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 04:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge. The band itself is barely notable (no hits at all on the official UK Charts), but probably just about - certainly non notable individual members.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 11:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Crass easily pass WP:MUSIC; I wouldn't describe them as "barely notable". Ironholds (talk) 12:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kurykh 05:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Europe Today Project

Europe Today Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is about a non-notable news organization. No reliable sources provided, none found. Author contested speedy and asked for community input, so here we are. I don't see where organization meets the guidelines for notability for either organizations or websites. TN‑X-Man 15:26, 30 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) 01:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as totally non-notable. Google gives only one page of hits and most of these are not independent of the subject. Reyk YO! 01:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 04:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 36 hits on Google, many of which are just refering to this article or are not independent of the project itself, and none of which would be a reliable source. The only reference points to the project's web site. Such a project has a long way to go before it would be notable enough for inclusion. gm_matthew (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 00:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USAG compulsory routines

USAG compulsory routines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not for lists of gymnastics exercises. Tikiwont (talk) 07:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Well, Wikipedia is for lists of gymnastics exercises, in that a comprehensive article such as gymnastics has, and should have, an annotated list of the various forms of gymnastics. However, this is more of a curriculum than an encyclopedic list. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. I was indeed referring to stand alone lists of specific routines as this one and not to lists of exercises in general.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:28, 30 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) 01:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Gymnastics -- ratarsed (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 04:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kurykh 05:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Insense

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

Non-notable metal-core band from Norway. No refs and misses WP:MUSIC by miles. Delete.    SIS  22:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I do not see how the band is notable, especially without any cites. This reads like a rockumentary. XF Law talk at me 09:52, 1 October 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) 00:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea about specialised labels in this genre but they have at least two albums with Devil Doll Records, a label mentioned in several WP articles, e.g. Toilet Böys, Sonny Vincent, Dying Fetus, Half Man (band), The Napoleon Blownaparts (although for all I know, those groups may not be notable either). They also record for Black Balloon Records and Candlelight Records. Voceditenore (talk) 10:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Update. I've copy-edited and formatted the article and added a few external links/sources. I remain neutral as I don't know enough about the genre or the notability guidelines for it to judge. Voceditenore (talk) 11:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 04:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom the band is not notable at all. JBsupreme (talk) 04:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tuesday (film). MBisanz talk 01:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meidan-i-Noor

Meidan-i-Noor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hoax/spam for forthcoming film. Beyond Wikipedia mirrors and publicity for the film, there are only two Google hits, neither of which are reliable sources. chocolateboy (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Tuesday (film) actually this subject is not a hoax, but an article about the gem that was the object stolen in the film Tuesday (see here). However the article about this fictional gem itself makes no mention of the film... and we certainly don't need an article about the gem that is longer than the article about the film. Let's set a redirect. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. I did mention that it's spam for the film (click the Google link), though there's precious little evidence that the stone has ever existed (hence "spam/hoax"), other than one amateur site (two of the four Google hits are Wikipedia mirrors), and, of course, the bulk of the article chronicles the stone's fictional afterlife. chocolateboy (talk) 08:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That was a good call, specially since the article itself makes no mention of the film. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 15:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 04:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/redirect -- I am not absolutely certain that objects of this sort in what appears to be a minor movie are appropriate for even a redirect, though it should be mentioned in the article on the film. DGG (talk) 18:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Warhead"

"Warhead" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article contains speculation about a proposed but never made non-canonical James Bond film. The only ref is the name of a book. No pages link there. Reywas92Talk 22:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 04:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is important to have information on wikipedia that people would be interested in and fans of James Bond would find this interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyla112 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Lacks reliable sources. miniluv (talk) 10:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the decades-long legal struggle over this thing has been the subject of enormous media attention and even a book. Notable enough by far. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment- except most of that is covered in the Thunderball articles (or was, last time I looked). 23skidoo (talk) 14:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Smashvilletalk 03:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Potter and the Hall of Elders' Crossing (Film)

James Potter and the Hall of Elders' Crossing (Film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about a non-notable "film"; seems to be an article about a home project ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 03:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • My response to the deletion KEEP As the creator of this article I would just like to say that this film is based on a very notable piece of fanfiction by G Norman Lippert and almost everybody who does know about the work of fanfiction by Mr Lippert knows about this film and Mr Lipperts fanfiction is noted enough to have its own wikipedia page Also the film is NOT a "home project" there are people from around the world working on this film. Luke A Crazyla112 (talk) 04:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP! This is a fan film that is currently in production. There are articles all throughout wikipedia dedicated to other fan films created around various other works. Mr. Sanchez, you need more of a reason to propose a deletion of an article, other than not liking "home projects". Ed, if you want to contribute, how about doing some research and trying to make the article better. As for me, I can't wait to see this, little flick, come November. CampAnawannaDave 01:03, 9 October 2008 — CampAnawannaDave (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete per nom. Has not recieved significant coverage in reliable sources. Crazy, you're welcome to claim it is notable, but neither that nor the notability of the original story makes it so. And Camp, please remain civil in discussions. Personal attacks hold no weight in a deletion discussion or in Wikipedia in general. L337 kybldmstr (talk) 05:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-canonical fan fiction without any independent coverage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think J.K. and Warner Bros. would have plenty of things to say about this fanfiction ever getting to the film stage, namely within the filling of a multi-million dollar lawsuit. Nate • (chatter) 06:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising in-production fan films based on fanfics. --Pixelface (talk) 07:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The creators of the JPHEC movie series receive no money or compensation for making the film and the whole film is made voluntary because the film makers love the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyla112 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lawyers don't differentiate between profit or non-profit for copyright violations. Just ask anyone who has dared to post a fanfiction with Anne Rice characters. Nate • (chatter) 07:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A noticeable fanmovie is no different to a noticeable fanfiction it just depends on who authorises fan work and who doesn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyla112 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fails WP:NF. Covergae in blogs by a fanbase does not count as reliable and verifable. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It makes no difference that this is a labour of love, or that people in more than one country contribute to it; it is not a notable work. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Utterly non-notable fan film. I also question the notability of the original novel; all the sources on its page are trivial. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the article: "fan movie based upon G Norman Lipperts fan fiction". If this were any less notable, it would create a black hole of non-notability, eventually nullifying the notability of the rest of the universe and causing irreperable harm to the space-time continuum. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because Wikipedia should be a website where people find about new releases (of any kind) and I am a fanatic inclusionist. Xammer (talk) 13:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN fanfic production. Precedent holds that fanfic and fanfic films are not notable except in the most extreme exceptions - basically the Star Trek fanfilms that have been nominated for Hugo Awards and feature notable production crew and performers are the only exception I'm aware of. Under the rules that have been set out, unless this is made by a major company, or receives third-party media coverage somewhere (and Wikipedia's 20th Century-vintage rules don't allow blogs), or unless JK herself has authorized it, then there's not much can be done. 23skidoo (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible delete - the very quintessence of non-notability (as well as being an advertisement for blatant copyright violation); the creator is advertising on his userpage for people to come here and "vote" to keep it. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have read both of Mr. Lippert's well written and notable books and would really like to see this film. I think it is too soon to talk about deletion. Fan made films can easily become well-known. Rather than delete the article, it is possible to "merge" it with the book's page to keep the information available? Lady Hester--Lady Hester (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC) — Lady Hester (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • You have the cart before the horse. Before being documented inside Wikipedia, things must be documented, by independent and reliable sources, outside of Wikipedia, per our content policies. This is not a vote. Your effort would be better spent getting this film properly documented, by reliable sources, outside of Wikipedia than in trying to stuff a ballot that does not exist. Uncle G (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball delete. Unlike the fic, this has no third party coverage that would indicate notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:N and WP:NF . Edison (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There do not appear to be any reliable third-party sources confirming this film's notability. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Crazyla112: "almost everybody who does know about the work of fanfiction by Mr Lippert knows about this film"--nicely describes the scope of notability. Please close early to stop canvassing action here. Owen× ☎ 21:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no notability that I can find. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Federico Vellani

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

Non-notable board game designer, who "appears to have withdrawn" and for whom there's no other evidence of notability. See this AfD for a related discussion. Would have bundled but was not aware of this article at the time. Bundling now:

Note I am explicitly not listing those who seem to have other notability. TravellingCari 03:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, treelo radda 00:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, and seriously consider deleting the list of 18XX games too. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nom, why is this being re-listed over and over? There is a clear consensus on this, from what I can see. JBsupreme (talk) 07:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted as an article with no substantive content. Article consisted entirely of a list of external links. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of image analysis software

List of image analysis software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Random list of ELs. Adoniscik(t, c) 03:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 11:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Malaysian coats of arms

List of Malaysian coats of arms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Gallery of non-free images. ViperSnake151 21:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 21:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As the deletion rationale has to do only with copyright-related legal issues, I don't believe AfD is the appropriate place to discuss this article. It can be speedied under criterion G9, or it can be kept. Either way, I believe this is one best handled by Wikimedia's legal team, which should be notified about the existence of this article. I took the liberty of listing this article at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 October 4. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Nomination is in 2 parts: "gallery" and "non-free". Galleries of images are often not encyclopedic, so it could be deleted for that reason. Without discussion, it seems a certain fair use infringment though, true.Yobmod (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xclamation point 03:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The material invites graphical presentation in just this manner. Print encyclopedias traditionally feature plates depicting coats of arms, flags, and the like. If they can do it so can we. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When a print encyclopedia features “plates depicting coats of arms, flags, and the like,” it either choses images that are in the public domain, or it pays royalties to the copyright owners. These gallery images are not in the public domain, and as a matter of policy Wikipedia never pays royalties.—teb728 t c 20:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Smerdis. Edward321 (talk) 23:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The use of the images is decorative with no pretense of critical commentary that would justify fair use. As such all but one of them are certain to be removed from the article. Indeed all but three could be summarily removed for lack of a non-free use rationale. With the removal of the images the article will have virtually no remaining content. —teb728 t c 00:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kurykh 05:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete recommendations. TerriersFan (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Georgiana Bruce Kirby Preparatory School

Georgiana Bruce Kirby Preparatory School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources found to verify notability. Prod contested with "Removed prod. Consensus at AfD is that all high schools are notable." I contend that subject be considered for deletion due to the nature of it being a private, for-profit organization which completely fails all general notability tests. Not that it's a conclusive test, but Google has no news articles about the subject. I swear there's no WP:COI here, I just contend that subject doesn't meet notability guidelines. —  X  S  G  02:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - sources are available to meet WP:N and this is a high school that educates to Grade 12. TerriersFan (talk) 03:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Could you help the article by adding some of the available sources? I looked but found nothing that would help toward WP:NOTABLE, and I'd vote to speedy keep if notability could be demonstrated. —  X  S  G  04:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 03:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If someone could enlighten me on whether there is a proper process for abandoning an AfD, I'd like to do so. The for-profit versus non-profit nature of the subject causes me to regret having submitted it. It's also kind of embarrassing that I missed something so obvious. —  X  S  G  14:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn per rewrite.  Frank  |  talk  18:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Studio job

Studio job (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Notability is questionable; the company clearly exists, but independent coverage about the company does not seem to be forthcoming.  Frank  |  talk  02:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Company has won multiple awards, and is mentioned in published books here [7] and here [8]. Plus, in my opinion Biscuit selected for International Design Yearbook is enough by itself to merit an article. --Megaboz (talk) 03:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cleaned up the article and added some additional sources. I think it satisfies notability now. --Megaboz (talk) 17:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Nadolski

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

I thought there was enough to avoid a speedy here. Article was created by his production company, however I'm not finding any evidence of notability to back up claims so it's here for discussion. TravellingCari 02:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) treelo radda 00:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Chemical Feast

The Chemical Feast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This book does not appear to meet any of the 5 criteria set out in Wikipedia:Notability (books). I have previously prod'ed it, but the prod was removed with the edit summary "famous author, well known book, look for reviews and other refs" - which is factually incorrect. The famous person, Ralph Nader, wrote the introduction, but the book itself is by the relatively unknown Jim Turner, who does not meet criteria 5 of Wikipedia:Notability (books) (The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable.) NoCal100 (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that deprod summary was my fault. I read too quickly & was careless enough to think it was Nader. DGG (talk) 05:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep pending further search for reviews. The book , that's the book not the report on which it is based, is in over 1200 US libraries. It was translated into French [9] and into Japanese[10] There is, confusingly, another fairly widely held book with almost the same title but on a slightly different subject of diet in disease, Le Riche, W. H. (1982). A chemical feast. New York, NY: Facts on File. ISBN 9780458954209 DGG (talk) 05:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A Google Books search shows that this report is very widely cited by other authors. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revenge (Madonna song)

Revenge (Madonna song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails to reach notability per WP:MUSIC / WP:NSONGS. Delete Paul75 (talk) 01:48, 9 October 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) 00:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, of course, per WP:CRYSTAL. Bsimmons666 (talk) 00:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless someone can find verifiable evidence that the leaked demo received truly significant notability, which isn't sourced at all in the entire article. Master&Expert (Talk) 00:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article itself sums it up rather nicely: "Revenge" is an unreleased demo. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pharmboy, this is non-notable vaporware. JBsupreme (talk) 02:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 12:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Digital property framework

Digital property framework (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Neologism serving as a coatrack to promote a company. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Feel free to delete if you like, this is a valid framework with years of research behind it, not designed to promote a company, but rather emerged from a company on the leading edge of the issue, and is provided to promote open standards in dealing with canvas based environments as opposed to intellectual property. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marlinknecht (talk • contribs) 01:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete coatrack, explained using more marketing words that I can handle, and I run a market dept. for a living. PHARMBOY (TALK) 02:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as written. It may be possible for someone experienced in that field AND Wikipedia to actually make it encyclopedic. With respects to Marlinknecht, perhaps you might consider doing sourcing and rewriting? I myself do not have the knowledge as to what is or is not important in that article... but it feels like it has possibilities. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The content is promotional and unencyclopedic. In addition, the page is a copyright violation of http://digitalpropertyregistry.org/ --Megaboz (talk) 02:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pure promotional material. Owen× ☎ 14:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. They are also advertising at rational data industry model. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Féile an Phobail. MBisanz talk 01:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Draíocht Children's Arts Festival

AfDs for this article:
Draíocht Children's Arts Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Anything special about this festival? Biruitorul Talk 03:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Féile an Phobail per Helenalex. This festival is not notable, but the article contains useful, encyclopedic information that is better used in Féile an Phobail. Cunard (talk) 01:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is no reason to delete this. It is a festival in it's own right, and has been referenced accordingly. -- Daibh (talk) 13:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The references show merely that it exists (which no one questions), not that it's notable. Biruitorul Talk 17:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Féile an Phobail, as already suggested above. Delete as second choice only if merge is resisted or fails. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last student standing

Last student standing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced article about a survival contest run by a local radio station. Is it notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Radio stations run contests like this all the time. Not notable. --Megaboz (talk) 02:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: [11][12] seem to be out there for some expansion and sourcing. Just a flash in tha pan as a "one of many such"? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as this one seems a bit different to the normal one-timer radio competitions (ie seasons, a real prize and show layout etc) --Fred McGarry (talk) 11:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not even worth a merge to the station. Radio stations hold contests all the time, and this one is as non-notable as the rest, especially given the $10,000 prize mentioned in the article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eureka ITEA2 WellCom Project

Eureka ITEA2 WellCom Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A European research project. No evidence of notability. The link to the ITEA 2 website - the programme running it - don't work. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep - Wikipedia should grant this article existence on the basis of 1. It informs about a real, public/private funded project. 2. It contributes to the dissemination of science and of new technological breakthroughs. 3. It has no profit motive in mind.
  • keep - First of all I updated the link and now its works. This page is under progress. It is an European Research Project granted by Public Authorities. This project dissiminates its results in the main scientific conferences. -- Emmanuel.marilly (talk) 14:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - no reason why this page shall not be there (other European projects, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUSE_QoS_solution, also have their description). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.138.227.11 (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Other projects are here, is not a valid reason to keep. GtstrickyTalk or C 17:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I could not find any sources to support notability. Only sources found are their own Wiki and internal docs. I also see no valid policy reason contained in the three very similar !votes above. GtstrickyTalk or C 17:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - I think that this page is useful and can be improved. Therefore, we have to keep it. Job.alu (talk) 07:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • keep The reason for deletion is supposedly missing evidence of notability. A google search with key words "WellCom" and "ITEA" returns about 130 hits, of which about half are relevant, and of these again roughly 1/5 are from non-WellCom sources. Considering that the project has only existed about 1 1/2 year and not been overly active in profiling itself, this visibility is not too bad. In addition, the project has published in and have submitted to international, refereed conferences. The project covers a subject with much industrial and academic activity, some duplication of effort with other research projects should therefore be expected and allowed. The proposal for deletion seems to be justified also by a non-functioning link, this was easily corrected. I do agree that language can be brushed up and the article shortened (e.g. take out the second figure), this should be undertaken by project members if the article is not deleted. (Torbjørn Sund. Possible bias: Working within the WellCom team). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.47.109.183 (talk)
"In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; usually followed by university-level textbooks; then by magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; then by mainstream newspapers." Please read WP:V and explain what sources meet those requirements. GtstrickyTalk or C 13:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
see below my response --Emmanuel.marilly (talk) 14:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - Notable accodring to definition of notability.

http://www.internet2008.fr/spip.php?article480

http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/events/cf/item-display.cfm?id=146

http://www.atelier.fr/mobilite/10/06102008/mobile-nfc-tv-interactivite-communautaire-projet-wellcom-37254-.html --Alexis Germaneau (talk) 13:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being listed as an exibitor at a trade show does not establish notability. GtstrickyTalk or C 13:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For your information the Information Society Event (above) is not a trade show but a conference with review by a scientific committee.
Please find below a list of WellCom paper:
  1. . M. M. R. Chowdhury, S. Alam and J. Noll, "[Policy Based Access for Home Contents and Services], Fifth International Conference on Soft Computing as Transdisciplinary Science and Technology, IEEE/ACM CSTST'08, October 26-30, 2008 - Cergy-Pontoise/Paris
  2. . S. Alam, J. Noll and D. Roman, "[Semantic Policies for Service Access in Mobile supported Sensor Networks]", Int. Conf. on Advances in Human-oriented and Personalized Mechanisms, Technologies, and Services, I-CENTRIC 2008, October 26-31, 2008 - Sliema, Malta
  3. . M. M. R. Chowdhury, N. Elahi, S. Alam, J. Noll, "[A Framework for Privacy in Social Communities]", Special Issue of International Journal of Web Based Communities (IJWBC), Inderscience Publishers, ISSN(online): 1741-8216 ISSN(print): 1477-8394.
  4. . M. M. R. Chowdhury, J. Noll, "[Semantics Supported Access Authorization Based on Decentralized Architecture]", International Journal Communications of SIWN, UK, ISSN: 1757-4439.# J. Noll, S. Alam, and M. M. R. Chowdhury, "Integrating Mobile Devices into Semantic Services Environments" Fourth International Conference on Wireless and Mobile Communications, ICWMC 2008, July/August 2008, Athens, Greece
  5. . S. Alam, J. Noll, and M.M.R. Chowdhury, "Extending Service Oriented Architectures for Mobile Environments", Proceedings of WWRF #20, April 2008, Ottawa, Canada
  6. . N. Elahi, M.M.R. Chowdhury, and J. Noll, "Relation-based Access Control through Semantic Rules", Proceedings of WWRF #20, April 2008, Ottawa, Canada
  7. . N. Elahi, Mohammad M. R. Chowdhury, Josef Noll, "Semantic Access Control in Web Based Communities", In the proceedings of 3rd International Multi-Conference on Computing in the Global Information Technology ICCGI July/August, 2008 - Athens, Greece Published by IEEE CS press (IEEE Explore).
  8. . Gondi, Vamsi Krishna; Lehtihet, Elyes; Agoulmine, Nazim, "Ontology-Based Network Management in Seamless Roaming Architectures" In Network Operations and Management Symposium Workshops, 2008. NOMS Workshops 2008. IEEE7-11 April 2008 Page(s):60 - 65
  9. . Lehtihet, Elyes; Agoulmine, Nazim , "Towards Integrating Network Management Interfaces" In Network Operations and Management Symposium, 2008. NOMS 2008. 11th IEEE/IFIP 7-11 April 2008 Page(s):1 – 4
  10. . Nguyen-Vuong, Quoc-Thinh; Agoulmine, Nazim; Ghamri-Doudane, Yacine , "Novel Approach for Load Balancing in Heterogeneous Wireless Packet Networks" In Network Operations and Management Symposium Workshops, 2008. NOMS Workshops 2008. IEEE 7-11 April 2008 Page(s):26 - 31
  11. . L. Trappeniers, M. Godon, L. Claeys, O. Martinot, E. Marilly, "Cross-Media Experiences: Ambient Community Interactions in the City", to be published in the Bell Labs Technical Journal, v13-2 – Summer 2008
Do you think that work published in IEEE is not notable ?

--Emmanuel.marilly (talk) 14:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep - Notable according to definition of notability and with more than 130 hits in google. I agree with the previous keep messages. Bertrand.boidart (talk) 12:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
130 ghits does not establish notability. GtstrickyTalk or C 13:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right, but IEEE papers establish the notability... If you know what is it... Therefore KEEP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.160.224.217 (talk) 19:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IEEE... yea I know it and I disagree. GtstrickyTalk or C 01:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You should argue and be factual (as said in the wiki etiquette), because your response is not constructive. Emmanuel.marilly (talk) 15:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - The project represents one of the new trends in Interactive TV, using the mobile phone for seamless authentication and personalisation of services. As such it extends the current developments of e.g. Full service broadband towards personalised service provisioning. I suggest that we take up the new trends in interactive and personalised TV and use WellCom as an example. Josef.Noll (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[13]] • contribs) [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ILLmacuLate

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

Fails WP:MUSIC, no evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 06:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Chicago Tribune ref appears to write about the entire festival, not so much about the rapper, but I have no way to check that. The Portland Mercury looked a bit too local and "bloggy" to me. While winning the 2004 competition was beyond any doubt. So I went for the one requirement I was sure of.    SIS  22:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 23:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RockManQ (talk) 01:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I don't see how winning a minor award or being mentioned in a trivial contest quite qualifies. Still, it's marginal.  Xihr  04:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Canadian debaters

List of Canadian debaters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Basically, this should be deleted because it is not notable. I am sympathetic to debating articles, I've been a contributor to a number of them, but this is a blatant attempt to dodge the criteria for notability given on the list of debaters page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_debaters). There is nothing notable about being a "notable" Canadian debater, some of these IVs are small and insignificant, and this is basically a clear glory page that attempts to dodge the extensive discussion and rulings on debater notability. If you have won a world championship or something, fine, you are listed on the list of debaters page, but this is just vanity of no note. by all means, these IVs can have their own pages, that should mostly fit in notability. But to give a page to list all the previous finalists and top performers, for some very average IVs, is for mine a step way too far. To conclude; let the previous winners be noted as a subsection on the page of each IV (assuming the IV is notable), but all these lists of stuff covered elsewhere is just too much JJJ999 (talk) 03:14, 4 October 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) 01:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete HUGE list of non-notable people, nearly all of whom would be redlinks and (nearly?) none of whom would pass WP:BIO. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Yobmod. MvjsTalking 21:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MiRoamer

MiRoamer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
MiMedia Holdings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable internet radio portal and the company that runs it. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ariana Strozzi

Ariana Strozzi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nice resume, but no real evidence of notability. Biruitorul Talk 02:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep for the same reason. At the pace you just nominated 2 dozen articles, did you even read through them all properly?JJJ999 (talk) 03:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you say puff piece? -- Biruitorul Talk 03:52, 4 October 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) 01:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's a candidate for cleanup, not deletion. RockManQ (talk) 01:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Any reason this didn't go up for WP:PROD first? —  X  S  G  02:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Despite all claims above, while searching the net for references I found nothing that could substantiate notability. Self-published books, people talking about a class she taught, but... nothing about the subject. —  X  S  G  04:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lot's of self-generated publicity on the web, which is the place for it--not wikipedia. One self-published book. That sfgate took the hook doesn't mean that we have to. DGG (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 12:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rikitiki & Merendeque

AfDs for this article:
Rikitiki & Merendeque (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:MUSIC. I can't find any legitimate news sources that mentions this duo. The only hits I get via Google are for MySpace, YouTube, and other video sites. Pinkadelica (talk) 06:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As I noted on the talk page, selling your music via Amazon does not equate to automatic notability. That said, not only are there notability concerns, but also verifiability. The article cites no non-blog sources. I would reconsider if independent reliable sources were found; however, in the current condition, the article fails both the notability and verifiability requirements. —C.Fred (talk) 03:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:40, 6 October 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) 00:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lack of reliable sources --Megaboz (talk) 02:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & above. JBsupreme (talk) 04:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not even famous or popular on youtube. I clicked one of the linked videos at random at it had some 2000 or so views. In a community where a 10-second clip of a sleepy kitten might get 10 million views, 2000 views is absolutely nothing at all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chief Commissioners of Panth-Piploda

List of Chief Commissioners of Panth-Piploda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A list consisting of one entry is not a list at all. All the necessary information contained in this "list" are already in the main article. Hence, I nominate this for deletion. kurykh 00:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Libre services

Libre services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:OR, WP:SYN. The term "libre services" is a neologism with no notable adoption; references to the term in the wild in English refer almost exclusively to the manifesto. The article pieces together various disparate references to things which might consistitute "libre services" in attempting to describe it. Insofar as the concept itself is notable, it is already dealt with in other articles within Wikipedia's coverage of free software. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No evidence of notability outside the single primary source (libreservices.org). VG ☎ 14:51, 4 October 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) 00:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete seems to be using a neo as a coatrack. PHARMBOY (TALK) 02:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per WP:Notability and OR. Plus I was reading the citations and this one will be helpful to other voters or the closer. Sentriclecub (talk) 23:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC) [reply]
1.3 Our philosophy
We believe that the intellectual property ownership mechanisms of patents, copyright and trade secrecy, as they exist today, have virtually no legitimacy at all within the digital domain.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Betsy Fagin

Betsy Fagin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreated after ProD. Does not appear to meet notability guidelines at WP:CREATIVE. gnfnrf (talk) 22:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burns, White & Hickton

AfDs for this article:
Burns, White & Hickton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nothing in this article really indicates to me that the law firm is notable by Wikipedia standards. The awards won ("Best Lawyers in America" and "Super Lawyer") were won by individual employees and not the firm itself. Besides which, is that a significant number of honours for a law firm? Contested prod.... discospinster talk 00:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Without citations in secondary sources, the firm fails Wikipedia:Notability. The awards mentioned do not confer notability - they only indicate which lawyers are viewed favorably by others in the profession. --Megaboz (talk) 03:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Delete"" In my opinion this article does not meet wikipedias standards

Crazyla112 (talk) 06:21, 9 October 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) 00:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteThe article reads like an advert. This is an article about a law firm, per Discospinster's nom, individual awards do not necessarily indicate a law firms notability.— Ѕandahl ♥ 00:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--indeed, not notable, and the author's reason for inclusion (that it was a school assignment) has no weight. Drmies (talk) 04:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Languages of Muslim countries

Languages of Muslim countries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article is well-intentioned, but it appears to be a randomly assembled hodgepodge list of blatantly obvious observations (they speak Turkish in Turkey, French in France, etc.) Ecoleetage (talk) 00:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm, it's a tough one for sure. I would say it could (with a chance) be salvageable, but unless no one wants to clean it up...Delete. RockManQ (talk) 01:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it is well-intentioned but this could easily be Languages of countries because there appears to be no definition of what makes a Muslim country, etc. Also do, for example, no Muslim people in America speak Arabic? I don't think so. TravellingCari 02:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I think that this could be improved with some census data, which would be a primary source for the information about languages. I agree that a lot of this is blantantly obvious, but this article is not beyond cleanup. Mandsford (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a plainly impossible-to-define topic: as Cari notes, how do we know what a Muslim country is? If this were specifically about countries where Muslims are the majority, or where Islam is the state religion, or with other similar criteria, but "Muslim" by itself is too broad. Nyttend (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is not beyond cleanup, not all of it is obvious.--Res2216firestar 21:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless wikipedia has an article Muslim countries a list of the sort x of Muslim countries should not be included in the encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RegentsPark (talk • contribs)
  • Delete--even if this is cleaned up, there's still no point to it. Right--what IS a Muslim country? Even with Nyttend's specifications this remains pointless: the languages spoken in a country are the languages that are spoken in that country, irregardless of anyone's religion. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge into a Languages of Muslims article 70.51.10.188 (talk) 04:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ummm. no. Languages in mulsim countries = languages. Farsi, arabic, french, english, turkish, Indonesian, Languages of China...the list goes on. Protonk (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lahing Kayumanggi Dance Company

Lahing Kayumanggi Dance Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I couldn't find anything online to confirm the notability of this dance group. Appears to fail WP:ORG. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:28, 9 October 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) 00:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable enough, even in the Philippines. --- Tito Pao (talk) 08:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Gustafson

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

Not sufficiently noteable. Geronimo20 (talk) 00:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral, leaning towards the D-word. The main question is (ignoring the cruft about teaching and children's books) whether the subject is a notable pike angler... but I'm not sure that the single decent source (the Telegraph article) holds enough weight on its own (and Googling doesn't yield much else). This article has tested my adherence to policy and certainly stretched the boundaries of AGF so I wouldn't be too sorry to see it go, but I'm staying neutral for the mo. OBM | blah blah blah 09:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral Living in the local area, I thought he was more notable for his books myself. I don't particularly care about the article but describing is writing as 'cruft' seems a bit POV. 137.205.17.89 (talk) 13:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: 137.205.17.89 (talk • contribs) is a suspected sockpuppet of the creator of this article --Geronimo20 (talk) 07:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable enough to have his own page. He is probably only notable around Oxfordshire for his books and maybe angling but that's about it. I haven't heard anything about him for years. --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

La Vie Theatre

La Vie Theatre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I don't believe this small Minnesota theatre company passes WP:ORG standards. The BackStage.com coverage cited in the article is for the Minnesota Fringe Festival and is not a profile of the theatre itself. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:25, 9 October 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) 00:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My apologies for this relist. I was on the wrong log page --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eurocontinental champion

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

Just created, however, irrelevant creation. This title has never existed in WWE and is just a "term" to refer wrestlers who have won the WWE Intercontinental Championship and WWE European Championship (hence Euro-continental). Their is no such a thing as a "Eurocontinental Championship or Eurocontinental Champion" and is just a hypothetical term. No sense in merging as term is rarely ever used. SRX 00:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator of deletion.--SRX 00:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 16:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not an actual championship. Perhaps put the content into the Intercontinental and European Championship articles. Lastingsmilledge (talk) 20:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the user has only created this page after adding to the the wrestler's articles concerned. Unlike the TCC and GSC, which at least have a sliver of evidence for them, this has only really been used by Kurt Angle as a jokey attack on D'Lo Brown, and is not a real term. I agree that no merge is needed as well. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn based on input from Andrew Lenahan. I would also like to use this space to acknowledge that I seriously misinterpreted Andrew's comments and I would like to apologise directly to Andrew for my error. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

La Cala Resort

La Cala Resort (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Welcome to the Wikipedia Holiday Travel Guide, where you can choose a fine resort...oh, wait, Wikipedia is not a holiday travel guide! This slice of tourist spam needs to be tossed out. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOT.--SRX 00:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete...Wikipedia is not a travel guide. RockManQ (talk) 01:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article reads like an advertisement for a non-notable resort --Megaboz (talk) 03:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep probably more recognisable to golfers than resortgoers in general, but La Cala is certainly notable. It's by far the biggest in both Costa del Sol and Spain itself, and hosts a number of notable events. Try a Google News search for "La Cala" +golf, there's certainly no shortage of reliable sources, and that's without even resorting to any of the number of magazines that cover golf exclusively. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per what RockManQ said.--Res2216firestar 21:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Walt Disney World Resort, for example is purely a holiday destination and that is on here I can not see the need to pick on La Cala Resort, certainly the largest of it's kind in Spain. Ecoleetage can not have double standards. There are hotels, airports, Islands, Cruise Ships etc here that have not had a speedy delete tag placed on them, I can not see the need to single this article out. As for notability what are you judging this on. It is purely in the eye of the beholder.--Theoneintraining (talk) 22:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not recognised as a valid argument for keeping an article. And please focus on content and not contributors -- I don't possess "double standards" and I am not the subject of this discussion. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In this case I really have to question whether you Googled the subject before listing. Even a cursory glance at the results shows notability well past the point of inclusion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith before openly questioning someone's research and editorial skills in front of the community. I never put articles up for deletion without first checking via Google. The search I did focused on the "La Cala Resort" name (I did not include "golf") and what came up was overwhelmingly either a bunch of press releases or coverage where the resort was mentioned only in passing. You can confirm this via [15] and [16]. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let me get this straight... you listed a resort with three golf courses, mentions of golf tournaments in the article, and even a picture of a golf green(!) in the article, yet you didn't think to include "golf" in your search?!? Ooookay then. Since clearly your actions in this matter are impeccable and any attempt to question your Sherlockian methods would be an indefensable breach of AGF, I'll avoid stating the obvious here. However, I can't not state that even your own searcg linked in this very comment includes substantial claims of notability from reliable sources in the very first couple of results: specifically, articles from The Scotsman indicating the resort as host to LPGA tour events. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew, if you cannot contribute to the conversation without being rude, please click that little red box in the upper right corner of your computer screen. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried following your technical support, but all it did was close my browser and I still don't understand why you're apparently ignoring the sources found in your own search. Ok, ok, all kidding aside, you can't behave so bizarrely and expect no-one to remark upon it. The world simply does not work that way. I still don't see why you've discounted the Scotsman articles as sources (again, they were right at the top... of your search, not mine). I'm also curious whether, after being told using "La Cala" +golf would bring far more sources--I get 300 or so--you apparently think all these should be discounted as well. The bottom line is neither notability nor verifiability are in question here, nor does the article have an advertising-like tone. What deletion rationale is left? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record There are two articles from the Scotsman, [17] and [18] -- neither focuses on the resort, and both only mention the location passing during the course of a single sentence. That doesn't pass the test, sorry. And neither article is about the LPGA. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They do, however, verify that the resort is host to PGA events, which is one of the primary claims of notability in the article, the other two being the largest golf resort in Spain and also having a five-star hotel. Even if one attempts to claim that none of these are on its own notable enough for an article (with which I would disagree), it's still unfathomable how all three aren't. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability isn't inherited and five-star hotels are not notable unto themselves. But let's get off the carousel with an easy solution. Andrew, if you are so eager to save the article, why don't you rewrite it with all of those goodies that you are citing (facts, references, etc.)? When it looks like a real encyclopedia article and not marketing collateral, I will withdraw the nomination. I think that is fair, yes? Ecoleetage (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If hosting top-level professional golf tournaments, being the largest in a major country (Spain), and having internationally-recognised facilities doesn't make a golf resort notable, then please tell me what, in your opinion, would make it notable? What possible standard of notability are you holding it to? (Oh, and for what it's worth I don't see any marketing material in the article. Specifics, please.) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 lies. DS (talk) 02:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bolgarith

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

I can only find six Google hits for this word, and none of them gives me any strong feelings that this is a real word. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Gazimoff 08:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Herrell (motivational speaker)

Tom Herrell (motivational speaker) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, and lack of Google hits for this person. Possibly a joke page of some sort by a student. And what exactly does "The Bare Midriff Look" have to do with motivational speakers anyway?? Doesn't meet WP:BIO by an inch, but not speedy delete. Walmwutter (talk) 11:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Besides the apparent COI, I see no notability here. Pinkadelica Say it... 14:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Megaboz (talk) 15:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy delete assuming this meets the random criteria of what's allowed to be deleted under A7. Doesn't assert the subject's notability, and can't because there is none. [19]. Sticky Parkin 16:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete please--poor advertising. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - according to this diff the only 3 to have edited (create, edit, afd) the Tom Herrell page are the same person. Occuli (talk) 16:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Holden Apollo. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chevrolet Apollo

AfDs for this article:
Chevrolet Apollo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article appears to be a hoax, no Vauxhall Cavalier/Opel Vectra was ever badged as an Apollo as far as I know. Alkwingle (talk) 11:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_October_9&oldid=244146536"