Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 February 18

< February 17	February 19 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 14:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swathi

I'm on the fence on this one, but I don't think it would be considered notable. Per WP:BIO. Gary King (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not establish notability. Has been in article space for more than a year, and remained as an unsourced stub of couple of lines. Too little context. - KNM ^Talk 01:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Google news has fairly frequent passing mention in the film pages of The Hindu (didn't copy the link - but anyone can check easily enough), and there's the odd dedicated mention, such as this. She's been a supporting actress in several notable films, and leading lady in one notable film and in a series of flops that were supposed to make her a "star" but didn't. I reckon that's enough to make her worth keeping. --Paularblaster (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article itself says "she did not make it big". No reliable sources with non-trivial mentions. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, quickly. Besides the fact there is no attempt at referencing notability, the author eludes that the subject is non-notable. Suggest the attached non-notable films be deleted as well. --Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 06:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rjd0060 (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Herb Pearson

Non-notable; no information found when doing a search. Per WP:BIO. Gary King (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Conditional~~ keep if a reference can be found. Pburka (talk) 21:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Jpeeling has added references. Pburka (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if one can't. This may have been intended as a memorial, and Wikipedia is not a memorial. Mandsford (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References have been added, and since he played his sport at the professional level he is notable. Edward321 (talk) 03:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. --Jpeeling (talk) 10:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep - needs to state in the article that he is a first-class cricketer. Andrew nixon (talk) 11:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BIO (section on Athletes) but article needs to make notability clear. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Played in 30 first-class matches, the highest representative level of competition before Test cricket. —Moondyne 10:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I have now stated explicitly in the article that he played first-class cricket. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Gary King (talk) 05:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pál Balkay

No real information can be found on this person; the person's artwork is the primary result when searching. Per WP:BIO. Gary King (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm gobsmacked by this afd nomination. Since when was google the yoda on knowledge?. I bet there are even many books on him in Hungarian, let alone tens of paintings in various major galleries. He has worked on many of the major cathedrals and churches in various towns in Hungary. oh but I forgot, wikipedia should remain systematically biased and base the construction of the encyclopedia on the United States. Why not target an article on the list of Pokemon or various childish lists rather than an article which is encyclopedic? A very strange selection for a deletion I must admit. There are several images of his paintings in the commons but he was aslo a noted sculptor and engraver. Its a stub yes and there doesn't appear to be much web info on him but even as it is I think it is worth it. I;m certain it could be expanded if somebody could find a book or something about Hungarian art. This page lists Pal Balkay under Pablo Picasso in an A-Z list of the top painters. Unfortunately that site they haven't got any reproductions of his paintings, but I seriously doubt he would be listed after Picasso if he was some amateur. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per Blofeld of SPECTRE. EJF (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 21:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject's work is clearly notable, as per the nominator's own statement. Given the notability of that work, and the fact that the article, even in its current state, does have biographical content, indicates that the subject and artwork combination of content is notable enough for an article based on the existing available evidence. It is of course very likely that further evidence is available, as per the above, but the notability of the artist/art combination, which is what the content deals with, is clearly notable enough for at least a single article. John Carter (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Important enough to be in reference works about artists. I don't get the comment about "the person's artwork is the primary result when searching". Mandsford (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Represented in the Hungarian national gallery, as can be seen from a search on that site. By the way, Google is much more successful searching for him using the Hungarian name order Balkay Pál than the name order used here: [1]. Also, a few hits in Google books. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he seems to be notable (and Blofeld said it perfectly). jj137 (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest keep - per above. I can't believe.. Shahid • ^Talk2me 04:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -Djsasso (talk) 23:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Xeno Project

Not a notable gaming mod. Per WP:FICTION Gary King (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable, unsourced, pet project. - Chardish (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only web results I could find were essentially download links. No reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've originally added it to the List of Half-Life mods simply because it was mentioned in the article about the game it is based on, Half-Life. At a later time it was discussed that the mods in this list should have their own article, so I created one for The Xeno Project, too. However I forgot to link these articles back to the Half-Life article which I've done now. I have also added more reviews, do at least some of these count as reliable sources? --Pizzahut2 (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added references. --Pizzahut2 (talk) 11:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added real-world impact as well so it doesn't fall under WP:FICTION. --Pizzahut2 (talk) 21:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 05:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti Ittna Haapapuro

Only notability seems to be mainly from online forum websites rather than professional media networks. Per WP:MUSIC. Gary King (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. JdeJ (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 until band can be clearly demonstrated to meet the criteria at WP:MUSIC. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait For Green

Local band; may be up-and-coming, but doesn't seem to have made it to the level of WP:MUSIC yet. Jfire (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - they've only attracted local interest. They do appear to be going places but currently do not meet any of the criteria for inclusion per WP:MUSIC. -- Whpq (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 13:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snowball delete. Acalamari 23:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Kubiak

Non-notable per WP:BIO. Gary King (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 --L. Pistachio (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as possible hoax/vandalism, not quite a speedy tho. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most likely a hoax --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 21:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's too cute to be on Wikipedia. Go carve this into the side of a tree. Mandsford (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - hoax. Macy's123 (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like a hoax to me. jj137 (talk) 23:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rashidul Bari

Non notable author. Fails WP:N. Much of the content of this article is constantly being added by the subject via anon IPs from his college and various socks. Author returns only 220+ (non-wiki, non-blogspot) google results. In his native Bangladesh, the author is not notable other than fleeting mentions in a few places. Note that, many of the ghits are not even about this author but about different persons. Also, some of the google results (even after filtering out blogspots) are self-published by the subject. --Ragib (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apparently non notable author.--NAHID 19:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete immidiatelybecause he claims that he is a biographer of Nobel Prize winner Muhammad Yunus, but he is not. Yunus came to York College to Inaugurate York College Grameen Scholarship—on Monday, February 11 at 7pm. Bari was not invited. Please delete him. R.Ahmed, YC, CUNY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.61.20.129 (talk) 03:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This source seems to confirm that he is the biographer of that book. This one (which includes a photo of the book cover) does also. However, there's no evidence that I can find that this book is notable. I only get 6 ghits on it, so I can't find anything helpful there. I found 77 distinct google hits on the author, but only one other came up from an apparently reliable source: it's a book review he wrote. Lacking further reliable sources to verify otherwise, he just doesn't seem to meet bio at this time. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Chetblong^{T C} 05:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Realm Fighter

Excessive summary of game plot and mechanics for a game that hasn't even been released. No real world context, no third party sources, edit history indicates it was created and heavily edited by interest-conflicted parties; this is basically nothing but spam. Delete. Jfire (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And note that the article was previously deleted in 2005 for much the same reasons -- this game is vaporware. Jfire (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nom says it all; this is an excessively detailed article on a game that isn't in any way notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong, speedy delete - no notability, recreated version of a deleted article, no sources, no out-of-universe content, no context, no verifiability, Wikipedia is not a video game guide, self-promotional spam written mostly by SPAs, do I really need to go on? - Chardish (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This article seems to have been created as a promotion for a never-released game and was subsequently abandoned by its authors. JFlav (talk) 03:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, no evidence of notability Travellingcari (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Kubigula (talk) 04:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Vanden Bussche

Cadidate for Miss Earth 2008 who hasn't thus far received any significant media attention. 32 distinct Google hits for a "Miss" are peanuts[2]. One trivial mention in Google News (Dutch langauge)[3],one trivial short mention in Google News (English search)[4] only two images[5]. For the moment, she is just not notable yet... Fram (talk) 08:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SorryGuy Talk 20:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She is the winner of a national (actually tri-national: Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg) beauty contest. That is sufficient notability even with limited ghits. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I'm not sure how notable the Miss Earth pageant is, but here's the Miss Benelux site, with more photos. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is the first winner of Miss Benelux. The title by itself is notable since it is participated by 41 contestants from tri-national competitions: Belgium, Netherlands, and Luxembourg. The distinction of being the first Miss Benelux is remarkable enough.--Johnsoul (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Even the nominator says "appears to be notable?" Phil Bridgers links need to be incorporated into the article, so I'm marking this cleanup. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Meadmore

Appears to be notable after reading the article, but when doing a search, couldn't find any content that associates the musician with any professional media organizations. Gary King (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominated for top award and hit the charts. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Phil Bridger. Meets WP:MUSIC, as has evidently been nominated for a major music award. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Kubigula (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James McConvill

Subject was only notable for a single incident, and reference to this has been deleted in line with WP:BLP JQ (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure yet whether or not the subject is notable. However the current revision doesn't even has assert notability and is thus eligible for speedy deletion. I encourage editors to look at the history of this article. It was once much longer. Pburka (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thank you for alerting us to the fact that this was once a longer article. I looked at the June 11 version, and I don't see anything special about this guy. Mandsford (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no sign even in the longer article that he can pass WP:PROF, and (from the longer article) a failed campaign to become head of a school is even less worthy of an article than a failed campaign for higher political office. Director of a think tank could conceivably be notable, if the think tank itself is, but with four ghits (one of them a Wikipedia clone) I don't think this one is. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. The expanded article now looks like it could plausibly pass WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~'weak keep'~~ Keep--see below if the material that was eliminated shows additional sourcing. To facilitate discussion I have restored it. DGG (talk) 06:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I re-added the material after it had been deleted, but discussion over at the BLP noticeboard convinced me that WP:BLP#Articles_about_people_notable_only_for_one_event applies here. The event is covered in Drew Fraser -a brief mention of McConvill's role might be appropriate there.JQ (talk) 08:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to a definite keep--he has written at least six academic books on law, by international and Australian legal publishers, including one by Cambridge University Press This information was also deleted from the article in an earlier revision, and I have re-added it. there are also at least fifty legal articles in international and Australian journals. The earlier version did not list them properly--just gave a link to Google Scholar. I found them without the least difficult in OCLC, a free resource. He's a notable scholar, who in addition to that has reached public attention for one politicized event--so the result of the editing has been to first remove mention of the scholarship, and then remove mention of the event -- and after that, the article looks deletable. DGG (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out some additional material was omitted; the fact that he received a PhD in addition to his law degree, the name of the law firm he worked for, the existence of his association with a major research center, his editorship of a major journal besides the one involved in the controversy, and a full list of the over fifty publications in legal journals. I'm still checking. The full history of the article is quite illuminating--the very first version was simultaneously a puff piece, with supplemental material to turn it into an attack on him. DGG (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. Pburka (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While it's not exactly an AfD problem, I'd suggest a look at the history. If we have an article on McConvill, it's hard to avoid mention of the Drew Fraser article, and there's been a consistent attempt to scrub this info from the article. My view, despite the PhD and the textbook with CUP is that his former career as an academic would not amount to notability without the Fraser business. So I take the view compared to the options of (i) a puff piece and (ii) a long-runnin g edit war/BLP dispute, deletion is the appropriate course. JQ (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep is a major academic who would deserve an article even without the Fraser matter. I furthermore see no reason not to include the Fraser blow-up; while obviously per WP:UNDUE it should not focus on that matter it is notable and should be included. When matters get international attention it is hard to justify deleting them using BLP penumbra logic. See User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP for related issues. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Canley (talk) 01:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Dembo

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC Gary King (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. —Bláthnaid 20:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. His music is widely distributed by the notable Gallo Record Company. Pburka (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've done some cleanup/rewriting since this nomination (removing POV, removing editorialized comments, removing copyright violating quotes, adding sources and formatting). One source I added indicates that Leonard Dembo recorded the most popular song in Zimbabwe since 1980. – jaksmata 22:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep nom-withdrawn. Chetblong^{T C} 05:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Chaplin

Autobiography. Subject does not appear to meet the criterion for notability of WP:BIO: best known work is the book claimed as the world's smallest, which does not seem to have garnered significant critical attention. Jfire (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Teeny Ted from Turnip Town. The book seems to have had a bit of coverage regarding its size, but the author isn't notable for anything else it seems. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete. The best independent coverage I could find was this CBC radio piece, but it's really more about the book than the person. Can't find reliable sources showing notability for his other book or fine art work. FWIW, I've added a link to the Reuters news story about the book to the book article. --Fabrictramp (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Publisher of a book that's easily misplaced. I hear he's coming out with a large print edition of Teeny Ted, which will be as big as the head of a pin. Mandsford (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 22:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above, he seems to have no independent notability. Travellingcari (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Member of the Royal Canadian Academy of Arts passes WP:BIO for creative professionals: "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors". Phil Bridger (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keeep. Keep per Phil Bridger. Here are the criteria for election to the Academy: [6]. Perhaps the tiny book should be merged to the artist's article.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the Academy criteria and additional references found by Ethicoaestheticist are enough to establish notability. Nomination withdrawn. Jfire (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fram (talk) 14:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peer39

non notable company Excariver (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Regarding notability, this company has had articles about it in Dow Jones Marketwatch, Crain Communications Inc. (Crain's New York), Globes and Jerusalem Post in print. These articles reference the notability of the company in the industry. In addition to these major news outlets, the company has been covered online extensively in industry media. To reflect this, I have edited the entry to include other verifiable external sources.Emilgray (talk) 08:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Gavin Collins (talk) 12:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, seems to have generated some limited news coverage in the field, which indicates notability of a sort. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as this reads like an advertorial, and sources cited do not provide any evidence of notability: for instance, there is no evidence that this company has actually sold anything as yet.--Gavin Collins (talk) 17:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Crains story is sufficient sourcing for notability.DGG (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - what notability it has seems to be that it raised some money from notable companies. That is about all that is verifiable from the references. Is that sufficient to call it notable? Sbowers3 (talk) 23:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Raising money from notable companies doesn't make it notable, but independent reliable sources reporting that it did so does make it notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Raising money from major venture capitalists does make a company notable, if we want an encyclopedic coverage of venture finance, startup, and technology. The fact that major publications write about it, and everyone reads it and wants to know about it, seems to bear that out. That is what notability is, something being worth knowing as evidenced by significant coverage in reliable sources. I might agree that a single A round from a top or second tier VC doesn't guarantee notability, but with a second round and over $10 million raised from top tier firms, a company is more or less guaranteed to be notable. Wikidemo (talk) 01:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete just doesn't do it for me, words like minor papers, raises money for notable companies, advertorial, scream WP:NOTAD, look it just isnt WP:N. maybe in the future.Boomgaylove (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - preceding "delete" comment made by a user now indefinitely banned for disruptive editing.Wikidemo (talk) 14:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The keepers in this case are right. The fact is this company was covered in the most respected news sources online and in print, and is referenced and cross-referenced thoroughly. Furthermore, I am full agreement with Wikidemo: when top-tier venture finance firms invest over $10 million in numerous rounds of funding, that's proof that the company is notable. For Wikipedia is to be a relevant compendium including notable startups and new technologies, it must retain entries like this.Tedklonsky (talk) 12:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: passes WP:ORG, multiple third-party references.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 06:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, although I don't see much useful content, so I'll default to redirect. If anyone finds more useful info, please add it at the destination page. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 22:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arlington Aircraft Company

Non-notable company per WP:ORG Gary King (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Sisu 1A, the glider that was the company's sole product. Some reconciliation may be needed; the Sisu 1A says it was the "most competitive American sailplane" ever made, and this article says that only ten were ever made. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - this with the glider or vice versa. --Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 06:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 remembering this isn't a vote counting exercise and weighing the votes accordingly, this article doesn't measure up to notability guidelines. It's quite possible one day the subject will meet standards for inclusion in an encylcopedia but at this point it just isn't there. Delete and if her notability takes off after Survivor, the article can be restored. Sarah 09:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Jones

It looks like a vanity page and was started by Lexijones1 (talk · contribs). Either way, Jones fails WP:BIO and doesn't seem to have done anything of note other than Survivor and precedent shows that that usually isn't enough. A lot of the stuff on this page is rather trivial, starting a fansite, being a contestant on the Price is Right, and starting a small NN company really don't help her pass WP:N. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disempower, aside from the TV stint, just another motivational speaker. --Dhartung | Talk 09:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Survivor: Micronesia -- Whpq (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. This page does not fail the WP:BIO, rather it exceeds it. In fact, the assertion that it fails is a mere declaration that makes no effort to explain its reasoning. The original author cites to himself as precedent, which is clever but unavailing. The criterion for whether an article is publishable is that the person is "notable"; that is, that "she has been the subject of published, secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". One of the examples specifically described is television personalities. The subject of this article has countless devotees from previous far-reaching and popular broadcasts and she will continue to acquire more as her following grows and as the current season gains popularity. There is well-documented sources dedicated to her ambition to empower young women that is not conveyed by the rather cynical description of her as "just another motivational speaker." This is a cutting-edge quality to a young, popular TV star on which many Wikipedia reader rely. For that reason, I hope that we can agree that this young woman deserves the credit she is due. I vote she stays." -- Clamorformore (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)— Clamorformore (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- If there are "well-documented sources", how come they aren't in the article? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced vanity piece Mayalld (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. If she wins or is a runner-up then it can be recreated Survivorfan101 (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it turns out she's actually notable we can make the page again. As it says on the page, "details are unknown". -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 04:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE - She was voted one of the top three college newscasters in the country when she hosted Trojan Vision's most popular show for an unheard of three years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uscrob (talk • contribs) 05:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC) — Uscrob (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. Nothing that demonstrates she has achieved notability yet. —C.Fred (talk) 05:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE because an entire dorm of students at USC was so dedicated to Alexis' sportcast that they petitioned to make her the honorary mascot for USC's 2006 football home opener. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikfranklehrer (talk • contribs) 06:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC) — Nikfranklehrer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Do not delete.She has done many things before Survivor, including writing a book, sportscasting, and most importantly working on empowerment of young girls all over the country. DO NOT DELETE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nataliyam (talk • contribs) 06:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC) — Nataliyam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Do NOT Delete because Alexis has been a large part of internet sports broadcasting, college broadcasting, and otherwise. She has had a following since before survivor, and also has many notable attributes that can be expanded upon on this wiki page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KM2studios (talk • contribs) 06:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC) — KM2studios (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

DO NOT DELETE because Alexis is the best host Trojan Vision has ever seen and is probly the most popular 20 something to come out of USC in the last decade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharvimj (talk • contribs) 06:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC) — Sharvimj (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete: fails WP:BIO, OBVIOUS (and almost laughable) sockpuppet help. Somebody should run a check user, block the puppeteer and ban the socks.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 06:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smeag91 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC) — Smeag91 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frans Suell

non-notable per WP:BIO Gary King (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. —Bláthnaid 20:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Stubby, but claimed achievements are notable. JQ (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. Founded the Malmö harbour. They made a statue of him for Pete's sake! What's with all of these nominations of historical figures? Pburka (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep Yes, his achievements are notable, but the article doesn't cite any references. --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 21:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Dhartung is right. Google Books does have plenty of sources. --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 00:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, tag for sources, plenty of them in Google Books (mostly Swedish, naturally). --Dhartung | Talk 21:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The reference which shows notability is right there in the picture in the article. Non-notable people don't get statues. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fram (talk) 14:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Birdwatcher

non-notable musician per WP:BIO Gary King (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Member of a marginally notable band JQ (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO, WP:OR.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 07:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SK. Serpent's Choice (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Bushyhead

non-notable religious leader per WP:BIO Gary King (talk) 20:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets the basic criteria of WP:BIO, as he has been talked about in multiple reliable sources, eg [7] (halfway down the page) [8] and [9]. His grave is includedin the National Register of Historic Places, which also gives him notability. Bláthnaid 20:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Office of Chief Justice of a nation is a notable positionJQ (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets the general notability criteria, 2 sources already referenced in article, Bláthnaid found an additional two. Note that notability comes as from being one of the leaders of the Cherokees during the Trail of Tears not from being a "religious leader". (Full disclosure, I created the intial version of this article) Dsmdgold (talk) 20:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, key figure during important historical events. Why would his grave be on the National Register if he weren't important? Nominators should be more cognizant of such indicators even in the absence of sources. --Dhartung | Talk 21:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In this case, the nominator should have done some more research before writing this person off as a non-notable religious leader. Among the Cherokee Indians, he was rather prominent. Mandsford (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parkwood Stable

This is a non-notable horse racing stable per WP:NPT. Gary King (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Windfields Farm. Pburka (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in light of Handicapper's recent edits. Pburka (talk) 15:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the tags as this is not an article to ever be deleted but was missing the "stub" tag and did not have the Wikipedia:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing tag on its Talk page so that it could have been referred there. Just for the record, Parkwood Stable has nothing to do with Windfields Farm. Handicapper (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. No valid deletion reason presented by nom - what on earth has WP:NPT got to do with this? And anyway it's pretty obviously notable by any criterion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has a notable history of producing winners. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 23:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James F. Phillips

This is a non-notable environmental activist per WP:BIO. Gary King (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google News has newspaper articles that establish notability: [10] [11] [12]. Bláthnaid 20:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. a lengthy NYT obit is a good indication of notability. Zagalejo^^^ 23:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability obviously demonstrated. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don Repella

This is a non-notable photographic artist per WP:BIO. Gary King (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article doesn't establish any of the WP:BIO criteria - if a reference can be provided to show that the international showing of his work has involved actual galleries instead of just billboards, that would allow him to qualify, however I can't find anything online, and his website is proving equally, if not, more difficult. Oh, wait, here's his bio, finally.... hm, nope, nothing notable there either. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A single blog entry[13] doesn't cut it as a multiple, independent, reliable secondary source material. A lot more will need to be added to meet WP:BIO. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per discussion below. Non-admin close. --jonny-m t 03:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tales of the Moonlight Cutter

This is a non-notable graphic novel per WP:FICTION. Gary King (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is a work of fiction with objective existence, not a fictional work -- as such WP:FICT does not apply. The closest notablity guideline that applies is WP:BK, and even that claims may not apply to graphic novels. Please be more careful in your deletion rationales in the future. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As to the article itself, this looks to be a borderline case. I am finding notice of the series outside of booksellers, but of apparently semi-reliable sources: that is, comics reviews sites, rather than pure blogs. Some of these may be considered fully reliable in the comics community, and as such, this needs to be evaluated by an expert in the field. I withhold deciding either way for now. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article talks about it, but you have to go to the library. [14] [15] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In addition to the above mentions, it's also discussed here, and has recently been optioned for a feature film. While neither of those alone are sufficient for WP:BK, when both are taken together with the fact that WP:BK isn't targeted at graphic novels (as Quasirandom notes), I think it is definitely definitely notable enough to merit retention. jSarek (talk) 00:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Kubigula (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beefcake (band)

Not a notable musical group per WP:MUSIC Gary King (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 00:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable unless sources provided. -RiverHockey (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 13:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Thirlby

Not notable enough per WP:BIO. This article has been around for years and has not grown much. Gary King (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—the only bishop of Westminster Abbey. Seems like he's at least somewhat notable. He was one of eleven confessor-bishops imprisoned by the Queen.[16] There seem to be plenty of references about him.—RJH (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All bishops are notable. Pburka (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's in the ODNB. This is a ridiculous nomination, and the WP:EFFORT argument pretty much seals it. --Dhartung | Talk 21:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per listing in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Isn't the fact that a reliable source has noted him ipso facto evidence of notability? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as ridiculous nomination. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --MCB (talk) 08:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blitwise Productions

Anon nomination from talk page: This page sounds more like marketing than encyclopedia. It is a worthy entry, but should be rewritten with more facts and less editorializing. 89.1.107.148 (talk · contribs). To which I add: skirts A7 with a single uncited claim; otherwise, I'd say the dreaded letters NN (not notable) apply ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 19:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search on Google for "Blitwise Productions" produces an unusually high number of ghits for what I usually find nominated at AfD, and does include a few interviews and reviews of their games, however most of the links are there solely to download the games. Having played Pocket Tanks previously, I can also say that they're nothing too exceptional, so they're not getting any notability points off of that. The article is written rather spamishly, as pointed out by the anon above, and while that can be cleaned up, I'm not sure it's possible to find enough references to justify inclusion. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This search string removes most of the irrelevant links, but I'm still not finding too much of use: "Blitwise Productions -download -site:blitwise.com" (sorry, making that one a link doesn't work.) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sigh, this gets old. Fails WP:OR, has no references, etc, etc, etc. Give it some refs and take out the OR, then it meets WP:N.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 18:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carioca (talk) 01:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manus (insult)

Dictdef with no claim of meeting WP:Notability. Gsearch isn't turning up this usage except in wikipedia and urban dictionary; no sources in article to show notability. Contested prod. Fabrictramp (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if a source were found that used this word in this manner, it would still be just a slang dictionary definition. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 19:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a WP:NEO. We're not a dictionary, particularly for made-up words. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for neologisms made up one day - Chardish (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOT, WP:NEO. Completely non-notable and fails WP:V. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 01:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fram (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

123 Pleasant Street

This page was recreated after being deleted, and the CSD tag was removed by administrator. Just as non-notable as it was the last time it was deleted. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 19:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The notability wasn't the question in the second nomination (which was far to quick to relist, IMO), it was the sources. This article is nothing like the original one that was deleted previously. There are no sources, just that it exists and a list of bands that played there. DarkAudit (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment If the bands listed did in fact play there, there should certainly be sources. Has anyone looked and failed to find them? DGG (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LOCAL, nothing significant found in Google News Archive -- just event listings and the odd mention in an article. --Dhartung | Talk 22:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless somebody has better luck than I did finding reliable sourcing to verify the notability of this place. I only found trivial coverage. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 into King_Arthur#Arthur's_weapons. Non-admin close on a clear consensus. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 23:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rhongomiant

Badly written stub that could be incorporated into King Arthur? Susan Gleason (talk) 19:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Good question. Can anyone find a source for this thing? As in, which Arthurian soruce-text this is from? —Quasirandom (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yeah, the submitter's other contributions appear to be fictional/vandalistic. Susan Gleason (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Oy, no wonder I didn't recognize this -- it's from the deep Celtic strata of Arthuriana. One of the Welsh triads mentions his three weapons: "Rhongomiant his spear, Caledfwlch a sword, and Carnwennan his dagger." Looks like it was also mentioned in the Mabinogion, but didn't make it into the French retellings (where the Big Guy got a different sword as well). So, not a vandalous hoax. But is it notable? I'm dubious, but if anyone can find arguments/evidence otherwise, I'll listen. —Quasirandom (talk) 09:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - as it stands, it fails WP:OR. However, I feel that the subject itself is notable (however not on its own). Merge with King Arthur or something related.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 18:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, it's not original research -- it's unverified, which is not at all the same thing. Text that's unverified may be original research, or it may be a direct copy of someone else's research, or a encyclopedia summary that the editor simply didn't source. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable point, however, if there are no references, the only thing a resonable and prudent person can surmise is that it is OR and unverified. The burden of proof of notability, references, third-party, etc. etc. etc. falls on the author, not the reader. Without this standard, WP looses credibility.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 19:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I agree it should be merged to King Arthur or similarly suitable article, and that the action should be done by editors familiar with the articles in question rather than willinilly. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. An article may be created when reliable sources exist to support it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary Duff's 6th Album

100% pure unsourced speculation per WP:CRYSTAL Tabercil (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Bláthnaid 20:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. No sources presented in article. --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 21:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Albums should never have articles until a title and tracklisting have been released by the artist or their label. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of media coverage. Addhoc (talk) 17:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Multiple results. Just Like You Imagined is Keep. The others are really No consensus, though it appears that a merge and redirect would be appropriate. You don't need an AfD consensus for that though. Please note, an AFD is not necessarily the most appropriate venue for deciding whether to redirect an article. That is a talkpage issue (as noted in the nominator's statement). Things brought to AfD should only be brought here if it is reasonable to believe that the community needs to keep or delete something by consensus, not whether the community needs to reorganize. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

10 Miles High

Nominating for deletion per a discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative music (see here) concerning articles for non-single songs/tracks with limited notablity. Deletion (as opposed to a redirect to an album page) seems preferable in this particular case since the song appears on multiple Nine Inch Nails releases. I'm also nominating for similar reasons the following articles (the last of which I'm iffy about, but figured it was worth nominating along with the others):

Drewcifer (talk) 19:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect Delete the first three and redirect "Just Like You Imagined" to The Fragile. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 04:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think each of these articles should be nominated separately. All the AFD links for these articles leads to "10 Miles High." The merits each article should be addressed individually. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And a Keep for Just Like You Imagined. While the song was not a single, has achieved a level notability as a result of it's extensive use in and for the advertising of 300. Further spurring an Internet meme in which the the song was used in various parody's. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination page suggested nominating similar articles by lumping them all into the same AfD. Drewcifer (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I missed that. Notwithstanding, my previous keep stands. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If content gets merged, redirect to preserve edit history. Just Like You Imagined has source-able for The Fragile. There is nothing to merge from 10 Miles High (merely a summary) and At the Heart of It All (info was already at 26 Mixes for Cash). –Pomte 19:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I believe these should be listed and discussed separately, since they may well warrant differential handling. I'll note that Just Like You Imagined is well sourced enough to suggest stand-alone notability, particularly given its prominent connection to a film. Since they're together, I'd like to point out that WP:MUSIC indicates that "Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song." Note the similarity to this AfD, which I closed today. The fact that these songs may have appeared in more than one location is not reason to delete them, although it may be reason to include a separate section at the discography for multi-appearing tracks. They remain valid search terms, and hence it seems better to handle them in line with the consensus established in the guideline. It might be best to merge/redirect those that warrant it into the first product on which they appeared. At the Heart of It All could be merged as proposed into the album article Further Down the Spiral (and retained for GFDL reasons accordingly); The New Flesh could be merged with Into the Void (Nine Inch Nails song). No one has proposed merging 10 Miles High into We're in This Together, but that might be the best home for it. WikiProject album recommends including information (up to a paragraph on each) on each song in album/ep articles, and there's no reason for this information to be lost because finding a home for it is a little more messy than usual. Although as a participant now in this AfD, I am not obviously going to be in a position to close this AfD, I will gladly help with merging accordingly if the AfD closed in that fashion. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fram (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Purple for Peace International

A multinational student advocacy organization created in late 2007. Makes some expansive claims but provides no evidence to back them up. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP, WP:RS, and WP:V. Google search turns up some 227k results, the only one related is its Wikipedia article. Mr Senseless (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if their claims are right they will certainly be notable some time later, and there will such an abundance of news media coverage that nobody would dare nominate it for deletion... hell we'll all be members. But they really are not there quite yet, so delete as an utterly non-notable very new organization. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -Djsasso (talk) 23:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled 8th Studio Album (Green Day Album)

Crystal ball article on future album. Album may very well be notable once it comes out, but best to wait until it at least has a title. At best, should be merged into Green Day article. Contested prod. Fabrictramp (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and the fact that speculative crap like this gets deleted on a daily basis. - Chardish (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or weak Keep. Why both re-creating it later. whatever.♠Д narchistPig♠ (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think it sounds like an advertisement, and there is almost no information on the album/whatever itself. _contribs STYROFOAM☭1994^TALK 02:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball. 'Green Day are going to release an album at some unspecified point in the future' is hardly sufficient content for a Wikipedia article. If and when there's enough content to actually fill a stub, then we can have this page.Cynical (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with appropriate sources. There's an article about U2's upcoming album that's even further away; I don't see why this album doesn't deserve an article. It might need to have better sources, but can be an interesting read in the near future. — Alex Khristov 09:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Royal Conservatory of Music (Canada) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RCM Examinations

Delete: Blatant advertising; lacks criticism section Johnny Au (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Royal Conservatory of Music's examinations are notable. RCM examinations are the standard for measuring music performance and teaching skills in Canada. --Eastmain (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge after trimming to Royal Conservatory of Music (Canada) -- Whpq (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my mind: Merge: I think that some of the material can be incorporated into the main article, since it would be more interesting to read. Johnny Au (talk) 05:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - (at best) into parent article. Massive original research, no attempt at references.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 18:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Chetblong^{T C} 05:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piss Metal

Unreferenced, non-notable neologistic music genre Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 19:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable and appears to be a hoax - unable to find any evidence that the bands mentioned in the article exist. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 20:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, article is a hoax, probably qualifies for Speedy Delete. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete a big fat hoax Doc Strange (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 13:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BOOMj

No establishment of notability. WP:WEB, no awards, no significant coverage by sources independent of the subject. Press releases don't meet that. Crossmr (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I deleted all the unreferenced material in the article weeks ago, and no one else has found any reliable sources. Sems to have been ad/spam. Snowfire51 (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is such a joke, this is clearly notable. Been in the new york times, top 23,000 on alexa, was featured on nbc, is publicly traded and it was even on forbes tv a while back. all of this is in the old versions of the article but someone keeps deleting stuff from it, prob from a rival site or something. Def not worth deleting in my book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.195.95.182 (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Provide the links then. This is a debate for deletion and claims of notability need to come with reliable citations.--Crossmr (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have provided additional information and a verifiable third-party citation. It now barely conforms to WP:ORG.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 19:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the IP address above: Don't talk about notability, show it. This is a forum to decide what to do with an article as it stands. If you feel that it is should not be deleted and falls within the guidelines of notability, don't whine about it, find the references and bring it up to standards. --Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 19:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sallicio's sources, seems to just pass notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Alexa ratings does not assert notability. With that said, it has some prominence and weakly passes WP:ORG. seicer | talk | contribs 16:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G1: Patent nonsense, meaningless, or incomprehensible) by Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) at 22:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC). cab (talk) 00:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aw Here it Goes

Uh... (speechless). These kind of articles to not belong in an encyclopedia, saying that Wikipeida is not a blog. And WP:SOAP. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 18:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Doesn't assert notability, no references, virtually no encyclopedic material and frankly, the article is a big mess. --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 21:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Delete, apparently WP:SPAM, the text makes it seem like it's a copyvio, not even an article, and it's complete nonsense besides. Meets at least five, probably up to seven of the reasons to delete. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, duh Providing a reason would be insulting the intelligence of the closing admin, and possibly anyone else who looks at this AfD. - Chardish (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; author requested deletion and consensus here was heading the same way.--Kubigula (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Giora Ram

Contested prod, suspected non-notable individual. Only 20 ghits for this individual when searching for "Giora Ram" with scientist. Also as the only editor of the article is Gioram (talk · contribs) it is a violation of WP:COI. Roleplayer (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:COI. A self-written bio. Doc Strange (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Gioram blanked the page, I would normally have put a db-author tag on it, but since it's listed for AfD, I just reverted the blanking. Corvus cornix_talk 23:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy Delete. No notability asserted, and nothing in Google Books, Scholar, News archive or web to indicate any possible notability. For any notable person in this field there would be loads of stuff on the web. I'm putting a {db-author} tag on the article - there's nothing in policy that says speedy deletion can't trump AfD, and this one is pretty clear-cut. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep nom-withdrawn. Chetblong^{T C} 05:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nehemiah Corporation of America

Deletion nomination This group appears to do really noble work. I appreciate the work they do, however the group appears to lack any notability as defined by WP:N. There are NO independent references that establish that this group has been noted by any source aside from itself and this wikipedia article (The 5 external links are ALL to websites maintained by the group itself). If no independant, reliable sources can be shown to exist, the article should be deleted. Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Google produces heaps of media references (for example [17], [18]) and the scale of operations indicated ($1 billion plus) implies inherent notability JQ (talk) 23:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination Good call. The article could use to mention those facts so that this situation does not arise again. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Chetblong^{T C} 05:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Book 5

Contested prod of a borderline speedy candidate. Article provides unverifiable speculation about an unnamed book to be released at some unknown future date. Delete as per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Allen3 ^talk 18:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced speculation in a non-encyclopedic tone. Regards, High on a tree (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indeed, very close to SD. Pundit|utter 18:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely unencyclopedic, and unsourced. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 18:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as prod nominator. Speculative, and written like a fan site. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 21:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If we don't even have a title, I really don't see how this could possibly exist in an article. Could almost be speedied under A1, yes. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mercedes

If the band is notable, the article certainly doesn't show it. Unless notability shown, delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also proposing the following related pages for deletion for the same reason:

Bob Nanna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Damon Atkinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Everynight Fire Works (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Loses Control (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

And, through Nanna, the following articles -- although I admit that this may become unwieldy, and I'd be willing to divide these if it is felt that it's better to divide this:

Braid (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chris Broach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Frame and Canvas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Firebird Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The City on Film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
L'Spaerow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
SacHead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Louis T. Hunter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Seven Inch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Keep all Braid can be shown to be a notable band, if only by this non-trivial biography on allmusic.com. While I know, understand, and support the idea that a band is not automatically notable simply because they have an entry at allmusic.com, this entry has an extensive review and overview of the band, not simply a discography. Also, the Braid article shows interviews and reviews by reliable publications, which is the hallmark of Notability. If for that reason alone, this entire entry should be kept. If a smaller subset of these article does NOT meet guidelines, that smaller subset should be renominated. However, Braid is plainly notable. Even the main entry on this AFD, Hey Mercedes, has some non-trivial coverage, such as here and here and here. A google search [19] turns up even more that you can peruse on your own. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD should only be merged into one entry if the subjects are connected, not merely because there are similar reasons for the AfDs. It is entirely possible that notability will be demonstrated for some of these bands but not for others. Regards, High on a tree (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All and cleanup per Jayron32's research and the fact that Braid are notable. They have have had albums reviewed by Pitchfork Media (one is [20] which meets critea 1 of WP:MUSIC, released albums on Polyvinyl Record Co., a notable indie record label (who have released albums by the notable likes of of Montreal, meets 5), and just because a member of a band that you consider NN is a member of Braid, Braid is therefore NN. That's not how WP:MUSIC works. Did you even RESEARCH to see if any of these bands were notable? I do agree that citations and what-have-you should be added to the articles to show notability Doc Strange (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and cleanup per same as above. In addition, Atkinson is certainly notable since he was the temporary drummer for Saves the Day.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All Braid is notable for so many reasons that I am insulted by the fact that deleting all of this is even up for debate. First off if you type Braid into google their biography comes up on the second page. On Lastfm Braid has 32,108 listeners. Their discography and release of a vhs/dvd of their last show and the fact that people cared enough to make these pages should show that Braid and all bands and people related are important --FirebirdWineDisaster (talk) 00:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Additionally, no evidence to support nominator's claim that article was ever deleted or listed at DRV. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't We Almost Have It All?

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete episode shows no independent notability from the show itself. It is essentially an in-universe plot summary coupled with a short list of actors that appeared in it. No evidence that this specific episode is unique or notable in any way. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confused Is it just me or does the nomination not match the article? We have a television episode, the cited policy is for notability of academics, and the unless I'm missing it I don't see this article on the DRV page?--Cube lurker (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm not sure this was the intended article. If this is the article that was intended for nomination, please note that it cannot be closed with a delete, merge, or redirect consensus until further notice is received from ArbCom. However, if this was not the intended article, we can safely close it as a horribly malformed nomination. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's bizarre. This was never speedied and never on DRV, and WP:PROF is definitely all wrong, but the edit summary for the creation of this discussion page says to see Grey's_Anatomy_episodes_(Season_3)#Didn.27t_We_Almost_Have_It_All.3F, which is certainly duplicate content. --Dhartung | Talk 09:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but hack the plot section to death (aka cleanup) This article would meet the standards set by other articles of the same type if the plot section were about ¼ as long as it is now. Cut that down, toss in some references (which can't be difficult to find for something like this), and it'll be fine. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is an episode of television series notable enough to have an article, (although I have no idea what the nominator is talking about. The first 3 sentences of the nom appear to be nonsense.) --Pixelface (talk) 02:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 02:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Unlike many TV episodes, the season finale of Grey's Anatomy generated--surprize!--some actual press coverage here. Blast Ulna (talk) 06:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't need a separate article. Merge into Grey's Anatomy episodes (Season 3). Bearcat (talk) 00:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup - Per Blast Ulna's sources and the many (I'm sure) other sources that are out there for this episode. It was a fairly big deal within the show's history as well as the entire real-life "faggot" controversy surrounding Washington's departure from the series. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 03:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Blast Ulna. C'mon people, is a season finale and has lots of independent press talking about the episode and reactions to it. Ulna has only only given a fraction of that coverage. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to coverage in multiple reliable third-party sources. Season finales of recognizable shows are notable. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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), nom withdrawn. BusterD (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glina massacre

Glina_massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

Short article, written in a somewhat POV style, that duplicates information at Glina, Croatia. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 08:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've completely rewritten the article from scratch. The original version was certainly a mess, written by an editor whom I've warned for many POV edits to other articles, but there's no doubt that the subject is significant and documented by multiple reliable sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thanks to ChrisO for the rewrite - I'm happy to retract my afd nomination. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Needs some love that only the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history can offer. BusterD (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete for lack of verifiability. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Live/Wire

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Live/Wire

This article was originally the article for an alleged band called The Livewire, as the text of the article still indicates. I proposed this article for speedy deletion, because a google search on the band's name, and on the names of the alleged band members, brought up no evidence other than this article itself that the band in question ever existed, or that the records the article claims they released were ever released. In response to my suggestion for speedy deletion, someone else did a google search and determined that the article should be moved from Livewire to Live/Wire, on the grounds that there is a band by that name. Yes, there is a band by that name, but they are an AC/DC tribute band, and not the "Nu-Grunge" band the fictional history of which is outlined in this article. In short this article is a fictional history of a fictional band, which has now been moved to match the name of a real band, who, as a tribute band, would not merit an article of their own. This article should either be deleted, or entirely re-written to reflect the history of the real AC/DC tribute band Live/Wire, and if someone does the latter, the article should then be deleted on the grounds that the AC/DC tribute band Live/Wire, no matter how hard-working or professional they may be, are not notable enough to deserve an article. Mesnenor (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I search a number of terms within the article, including "Timmy O'Hearth" and "Half-Single to Boxgrove" (which is claimed to be a hit single) and '"Tainted Records" England'. I can't find a single hit. Article contains zero references. Reads like a vanity page, lack of any google hits almost suggests a WP:HOAX. If notability of the AC/DC tribute band can be proven, this article should still be deleted to clear out the history. -Verdatum (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a hoax, but even if not, it is unreferenced, and my attempt to find any sources in Google News archives and in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles led to nothing. Delete. (By the way, the AC/DC tribute act has had articles about it deleted in the past because of insufficient demonstration of notability, but that's a side issue.) --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Officious intermeddler

Article offers nothing beyond a definition. Has been transwikied to Wiktionary and thus this article should be deleted. Asing89 (talk) 05:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This stub begins at the beginning, defining a legal term. It is sourced to the Restatement (Second) of Contracts, which suggests that it is indeed susceptible of expansion, and there is no deadline. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to be a fairly basic concept in contract law. Needs expansion. --Dhartung | Talk 22:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's a perfectly good legal stub. Bearian (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A dictionary definition wouldn't offer any information about the state of the law, or doctors' transaction costs. The article should however clarify which legal jurisdiction(s) it is talking about. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Chetblong^{T C} 05:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford University Engineering Society

No claim of notability for this campus society. Speedy declined, citing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. OK, it is Oxford, but I still don't think it's notable. Jfire (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possibly some such societies can be notable at universities like Oxford, but there is nothing here at all to show it. Nor is there anything much on the web site to write an adequate article from.DGG (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As an Oxford graduate, I entirely agree with DGG. There are lots of Oxford Societies that are notable, but this is not one of them from the evidence before us. If it is notable, someone can start again. --Bduke (talk) 10:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like an advertisement not an article. I would expect an article to demonstrate notability e.g. by showing how former members used the society for key steps in their career. More likely with dramatic, musical and literary societies than one such as this.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a particularly old society, not a first of..., not one who have had a string of notables chair/preside. Sorry can't think of a reason to keep this.--Alf ^melmac 14:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ramlow Infoshop

According to the article, the subject was a short-lived little-known infoshop in a small American city. After an unpromising search for sources, I am nominating this because I suspect it fails WP:N скоморохъ 12:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been listed as an Anarchism Task Force article for deletion. скоморохъ 20:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sadly, but doesn't APPEAR notable. Murderbike (talk) 20:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even the author eludes that it is non-notable ("short-lived...little-known"). Fails notability and WP:ORG. Also has no attempt at referencing or third-party verification. Easily Speedy-Deletable.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 19:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carioca (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Seuke

Fails Wikipedia:BIO#Athletes as has never played in a professional team or in a fully-professional league. EJF (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 19:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GiantSnowman (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Now this is an article which really needs to be deleted, clearly not a professional footballer. John Hayes^talk 00:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Struway2 (talk) 09:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. BanRay 11:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails WP:ATHLETE. robwingfield ^«T•C» 09:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -Djsasso (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fisnik Papuqi

A Notable footballer? He did not played in Albanian 1st divison nor Albanian internationals, and yet no source for Kosovar internationals. And Kosovar liga is a professional liga? i think not. Matthew_hk t c 17:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there is not enough here to establish notability. Punkmorten (talk) 22:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've checked the club's official website and it seems he is yet to make an appearance there BanRay 11:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails WP:ATHLETE. robwingfield ^«T•C» 09:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alexf⁴² 13:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW, per consensus below, WP:NEO, and borderline nonsense. Malinaccier (talk) 01:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poo brown

While this appears to be a good-faith attempt to create an article on the particular colour of human excrement, it is nonetheless not an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia. —Random832 17:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to brown. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that like Fade To Grey? 203.194.15.162 (talk) 01:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I still think this looks like vandalism and the term is a neoglism at best. Not widely used. Not a real shade of paint unless you count a mention in South Park way back in season six. Does not even merit a merge I think. Redfarmer (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I was being kind... - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know you were Tony. :) Redfarmer (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have speedily deleted the page twice, asking the user not to re-create it, with the following message:
The page wasn't encyclopedic in the least; it just consisted of random facts added together. The color of human excrement is, surprisingly, covered in Human feces; in addition, feces are listed in the article Brown in a list of items of that color. In addition, the page title was inappropriate (see the naming conventions).
I consider this debate a process for the sake of process, but in any case, delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Mike Rosoft. Not an actual color name. Blog and forum messages aren't proper references. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 17:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It appears Random832 got here before me - I undeleted the page due to the above concerns, per WP:ATWV, and as speedy deletion should not be controversial. Note that the user who created this page has been blocked for two days for disruption by Mike Rosoft (talk · contribs). However, the page is not really that encyclopaedic so I suggest deleting it or redirecting to Brown. Camaron | Chris (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I just reduced the user's block from indefinite to 2 days; the original block was imposed by Nlu (talk · contribs). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, nonsense. Nakon 17:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can see it does not meet WP:CSD#G1, as it does not meet the definition of WP:Patent nonsense, it may be unencyclopedic, but I can make sense of it. Camaron | Chris (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - neologism. If there was any requirement for this page (log for original version), it probably would have been merged or redirected already. Rudget . 17:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete mainly per Redfarmer—secondarily, it's nonsense. — $PЯINGεrαgђ 18:33 18 February, 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. WP:NONSENSE is unsalvagely incoherent gibberish, not a good faith effort, albeit this being a naïve and childish one. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not patent nonsense, but certainly regular nonsense. No encyclopedic value, childish and sophomoric, and created by a highly-disruptive user too. Despite the fact that such things only raise questions that can't be answered (as to the user's intention, etc.), it's still totally unencyclopedic. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Luckily, you'll never find this one in the Crayola box. Mandsford (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless you are the subject of a terrible practical joke. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Cleanup and expand. Ex Kree Meant (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this is quite obviously a block-evading-sockpuppet/SPA created in relation to this article/AfD. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No no, I am just a humble poo enthusiast. Ex Kree Meant (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user has been blocked indefinitely as a blatant sock puppet account attempting to evade a block. Camaron | Chris (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Naughty word in title. Georgia guy (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NEO and original research - besides, since when is excrement a consistent color? - Chardish (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-encyclopedic. Non-notable as a color name, checked some dictionaries of color names and this name does not appear. Even if it was a notable color name it would be no more then a dictionary definition. The RGB values for the coordinate box are non-sourced. PaleAqua (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Awesome. 203.194.15.162 (talk) 00:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Chetblong^{T C} 05:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to Deep Space and Time

This is original research with obvious references to existing theories. The creator has removed the prod. Cenarium (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to Deletion. This is unoriginal research, just an attempted regurgitation of first General relativity and now Time dilation. A waste of both space and time. Clarityfiend (talk) 16:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as well as The Laws of Deep Space and Time which was the same article but now redirects. as WP:OR and no outside referencesGtstricky^{Talk or C} 18:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More of the Wikibooks style of material; however, there's nothing in there worth salvaging. Delete - Chardish (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I just had to read the introduction. Original or unoriginal research, this is obviously an essay and not an encyclopedia article. So while I believe the author was legitimately trying to improve others' knowledge, this is not the way to do it. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As noted above, there are other articles already covering this material in better fashion. While this may be a good article somewhere else (perhaps the original editor's own website?), Wikipedia is not the venue. —C.Fred (talk) 02:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Salix alba (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Völund Smed

Non notable band. Fails WP:MUSIC. No third party sources or notable label. Delete Undeath (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found a passing mention[21], but yes, they're not that notable outside the white power genre. // Liftarn (talk)

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 13:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, and fails every aspect of WP:BAND, no references, third-party verification, nothing. --Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 19:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hel (band)

Fails WP:MUSIC. No third party sources to confirm any shred of notability. No notable record label. Delete Undeath (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found two articles in their local newspaper.[22][23] Sounds like it's copied from a press release or something. // Liftarn (talk)

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 13:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability of WP:BAND on every level. Created from another non-notable band with non-notable members. No references, third-party verification. Should've been speedied before it made it to the AfD.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 19:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Chetblong^{T C} 05:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Tyler Hammons

Per WP:BIO "Just being an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability." Per WP:N "Notability is not temporary. A short burst of news reports about a topic does not necessarily constitute evidence of long-term notability." Per WP:BIO1E "When a person is associated with only one event, such as standing for governmental election, then a separate biography may be unwarranted." WP is not a crystal ball. If this candidate wins election, he will be notable. Until then, he is not. Sbowers3 (talk) 16:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete WP:N followed by a quick WP:SNOW. Get Elected and try again. Mstuczynski (talk) 06:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unelected politician -- Whpq (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Anyone can be a candidate - the question is who cares? andy (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —86.149.53.196 (talk) 10:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. —86.149.53.196 (talk) 10:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Panasonic Lumix DMC-L1

{{prod}} removed with a long explanation on the talk page. The article remains almost completely unreferenced, and reads like an advertisement. There's no claim to notability in the article itself, and the article itself mentions none of the points raised on the talk page. Wikipedia is not a digital camera catalog, and Wikipedia is not a catalog of Panasonic products. Mikeblas (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the WikiProject Photography talk page. — Becksguy (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge + redirect to Lumix - merging would be the best option. I don't think however that it was a PRODable article as the deletion of these articles are fairly controversial. I do believe that the notability of products such as digital cameras and mobile phones should be taken to policy-level, rather than ad hoc AfDs. EJF (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and object to procedure. The article was tagged with {{prod}} on 12 Feb. 2008. The {{prod}} tag specifies, "... You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to its deletion for any reason. To avoid confusion, it helps to explain why you object to the deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page." (My emphasis) On 15 Feb. 2008 I did just that, I removed the {{prod}} tag and I wrote a detailed explanation why I thought the article should not be deleted. I even requested to be notified if it was really necessary for me to work on the article to avoid its deletion. Instead, the article was nominated for deletion on 18 Feb., and my following the rules is now ridiculed as "... {{prod}} removed with a long explanation on the talk page...". Hope it can be understood that this is not appreciated by an editor who is trying to improve Wikipedia. I would like to suggest that this AfD be canceled, and I'll do what I can to improve the article, OK? Thanks. --RenniePet (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is a highly notable camera for several reasons. One of the first Four Thirds System cameras on the market, the first from Panasonic, first DSLR camera from Panasonic, one of the first live preview cameras (which was copied by others, as RenniePet pointed out on the talk page), and the first from Panasonic, and a long anticipated camera release in this semi-professional class. I have been following this camera from it's first pre-production press leak several years ago until now. Lens is by Leica, the legendary and famous German camera maker, as commented on in some reviews. The New York Times mentions the camera in an article on DSLR cameras [24]. I added that and another ref from NYT to article, as well as a couple of reviews. It clearly passes WP:N with the refs. The fact that comments that support notability are in the talk page but have not yet been incorporated in the article does not justify deletion, as that's an issue for improvement by editing. For the billionth time, AfD is not clean up. Those articles that can be improved are not canidates for deletion, per WP:DP policy. However, I will agree with EJF that not every camera or cell phone is a notable product, per se. Something needs to make them notable, and that notability has been shown for this camera as a defining camera. I wouldn't make the same arguments for the DMC-L10, for example, as it's a successor to the DMC-L1, and is not defining. — Becksguy (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't see how being associated with a particular lens system makes this camera notable. Improving this article won't make it's subject more notable, and won't change Wikipedia's policies about product cataloging. -- Mikeblas (talk) 04:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It all depends on what turns you on, I suppose. For a camera enthousiast it's product details like this that makes life worth living. :-)

Anyway, for what it's worth I've just used about 1 1/2 hours rewriting and expanding the article. So I sure hope I haven't wasted my valuable time. --RenniePet (talk) 07:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable commercial product for which a lot of sources exist. Nomination is a boilerplate nomination showing no consideration of the merits of the specific article. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I completely agree with Matthew Brown's comment about boilerplate nominations. The New York Times article (ref above) on three new dSLR cameras devotes about 36% (514 words) of the article to the DMC-L1 and David Pogue used the word "startling" (as in, according to one definition: "so remarkably different or sudden as to cause momentary shock or alarm") to describe the camera. From his article: And Panasonic, intent on claiming some of the exploding S.L.R. market for itself, will introduce its first model: the startling Lumix L1, which will cost $2,000 with Leica’s first image-stabilizing lens. In terms of notability, from WP:N: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. That NYT ref, together with the reviews and other refs, makes the DMC-L1 camera highly notable based on reliable, independent, and significant coverage. The DMC-L1 camera is a defining camera, with several firsts in a new camera class, and has received significant coverage. And as such it is notable, not just because it's "associated with a particular lens system". And product cataloging does not apply here. I am not arguing that all Panasonic Lumix cameras (about 42 models listed in the Lumix article) each deserve articles, since I haven't looked at each of them, but this one very obviously and clearly does. I might also suggest that editors with appropriate expert knowledge may be in a better position to judge the merits of this kind of article. The excellent rework of the article by RenniePet also completely solidifies the camera's notability, per WP:HEY. I added some refs also. — Becksguy (talk) 10:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is now referenced; camera is notable as it's the subject of multiple independent sources. Also, it's the first digital SLR from Panasonic. Spacepotato (talk) 06:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fram (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Black Embrace

Per failure of WP:MUSIC, no reliable sources. Cenarium (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gary King (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. non-notable. -RiverHockey (talk) 22:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close as duplicate nomination. --Dhartung | Talk 22:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simple notecase

AfDs for this article:

Not notable - asserts only the most tenuous claim to notability, and it's a competition for pretending to be a band. Should have been speedied per A7 and probably G11. Dethme0w (talk) 15:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fram (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simple notecase

Not notable - asserts only the most tenuous claim to notability, and it's a competition for *pretending* to be a band. Should have been speedied per A7 and probably G11. Dethme0w (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSIC, the award mentioned is not notable and there is no other claim to notability. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 19:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 13:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete CSD A7. Pegasus «C¦T» 15:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M. S. Many

Contested prod, non-notable individual. Roleplayer (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a valid stub. The Nom appears to have been made in good faith. Bearian (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myringomycosis

Transwikied dictionary definition. TexasAndroid (talk) 15:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. And shouldn't it be Myringomycosis aspergillina anyway? Anjouli (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Gary King (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We could have a decent article on this disease some day if TexasAndroid weren't busy stomping on the first shoots of spring as they tentatively poke through the ground, and the "per nom" sheep voters weren't following him around, with their hobnail boots on to ensure that any potential re-growth is squashed flat before it begins. After all, James Paterson Cassells and Rober Wreden wrote about Myringomycosis at some length. (One has to ask: If you know the full name of the disease, why are you supporting Wikipedia not having an article about it? Do you not actually want Wikipedia to be an encyclopaedia?) This is one of a whole load of bad deletion nominations by TexasAndroid, who seems to be under the impression that we delete stubs by the sneaky back door route of copying them to Wiktionary and then repeatedly nominating them for deletion by whatever means necessary. He has already managed to remove the stub that we had on royal progresses, that could one day have included what Thomas Babington Macaulay had to write on the subject if it had been left to grow. He now wants to get rid of our perfectly servicable stubs on barbed broaches (an instrument used in dentistry that we could have a detailed article on), breviloquence (a much discussed aspect of Biblical Greek grammar), registration (organ) (a subject about which various organists have written entire books, such as Everett Ellsworth Truette's Organ Registration or Gordon Balch Nevin's Primer of Organ Registration), implicit cognition (a subject in psychology that, similarly, has entire books devoted to it), stowage (which, for example, has books with glaringly obvious titles such as On the stowage of ships and their cargoes written about it), and the axon reflex (something which a physiologist could come to Wikipedia write about at length were TexasAndroid not so happily nominating the stub about it for deletion — and some people foolishly wonder why Wikipedia has such a problem with the people who would actually sit down and write articles being driven away by cluelessness!). And those are just a few of the articles that he's nominated for deletion in one day alone. Goodness knows how many more good stubs will disappear if other editors don't take action to stop this. Please help to save Wikipedia from this wanton destruction! None of the three editors above are doing Wikipedia any good by what they are doing. 86.20.169.102 (talk) 00:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My goodness. Where to begin?

I base these deletion nominations on what is in the article, not on what could be in the article. And what is there in each of these is a dictionary definition of the term. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Dictionary definition articles simply do not belong on the project. And that is what these nominations are about.

And nothing in the earlier PROD or current AFD nominations will do what you so "doom and gloom" portray they will do. You lament the loss of speculative future encyclopedic articles on these subjects. But the deletion of dictionary articles at these spots will in no way prevent or preclude the future writing of such quality articles. Again, these nominations are against the current contents of these articles, not against better future contents.

You say I remove these by "whatever means necessary", but that's simply not true. There is one final "means" that I have not and will not use on these articles, but that I would be perfectly within my rights to use. I'm an admin, and thus can hit the delete button myself. Transwikied dictionary definition articles qualify for A5 speedy deletion. If all I wanted was for these all to be gone, gone, gone, I would have been perfectly within my rights to delete most of them myself under A5. I've even had people gripe at me before because, instead of A5ing these things, I toss them up for PROD deletion in general.

But I toss them up for PROD because PROD allows for other people to second-guess me. To contest the PRODs, and give me reasons why these should not be deleted. Once the PRODs are contested, I then can either accept the reasons for contesting, or desagree and take them to AFD. In the case of a lot of the current AFDs, the PRODs were removed without useful reasons given for contesting them. And while that is perfectly within the bounds of PROD, if I see a PROD removed with no useful reasoning given, then it is well within my rights to move on to AFD and force the person contesting to give reasons why they should not be deleted. If the person contesting has good reasons, then they will persuade others to their viewpoint, and the AFDs will end in Keep. Phil Bridger has responded to several of my AFDs with Keeps. A couple of my AFDs are already overwhelmingly looking like Keeps. So be it. I may disagree with Phil, but the results are the results.

If you have reasons for these articles to not be deleted, then instead of ranting about my posting them to AFD, your time would be far better spent in posting Keep responses on them, detailing exactly why in each case you think the article should remain. I suspect your arguments will be more stuff along the lines of what could be at each one, instead of addressing the problems that there are with what is there now. I disagree with these arguments in general. But in the end, it's not me that you need to persuade, but rather the other editors who come across these AFDs and, ultimately, whatever admin comes through to close them.

Enough for now. I suspect that this debate is far from over, but that's enough of a response for now. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, AfD has always been about the topics and what the articles could be. Not about the current state of the articles. AfD is not cleanup. --Itub (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A valid stub capable of being expanded on an encyclopedic subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a stub with potential, I don't see the hurry to delete it. --Itub (talk) 14:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's only marginally more than a dicdef, but it is more than a dicdef. Dethme0w (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid stub. AndyJones (talk) 17:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in spite of 86.20.169.102's lengthy ad hominem. Seems to be a generally recognized condition. (Whether TexasAndroid has made thousands of other inappropriate AFDs is not relevant to whether this article should be deleted. 86.20.169.102, you won't convince anyone with arguments like those.) Chuck (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed my mind to redirect to otomycosis. No references in PubMed. Dorland's Medical Dictionary defines it as "otomycosis of the membrana tympani" [eardrum]. Nearby entries in Dorland's suggests myringo- is a prefix referring to the eardrum, but is less common today than tympano-. However, no PubMed entries were found for tympanomycosis either. Chuck (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For what it's worth, the single ref for the definition actually dates from 1876. (The given date is that of a reprint.) Tim Ross·^talk 00:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Length (horse racing)

Transwikied dictionary definition. TexasAndroid (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest keep or merge (but where?). There are about 70 links to this article. Pburka (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but refactor as an article about all such measurements. Already includes "neck" and "nose". --Dhartung | Talk 22:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but the merge/refactor suggestions above are good ones. Is there a wikiproject on horse racing that could be persuaded to merge this kind of thing into a "terminology" article or similar? AndyJones (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just because it has an entry in Wiktionary it doesn't mean that there can't be an encyclopedia article. I would suggest renaming it to Length (sport) so that it can include other sporting uses - greyhound racing and rowing come to mind, but I'm sure there are others. There must be information available about historic uses of the term, official definitions (which must exist because lengths are included in published statistics and bets are accepted by bookmakers on numbers of lengths in winning margins) etc. This is a fine stub for an article which belongs in an encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Syngnathia

Transwikied dictionary definition. TexasAndroid (talk) 15:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a stub with potential, I don't see the hurry to delete it. --Itub (talk) 14:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as valid stub. Anyone who objects to the length of the article can expand it from sources such as these and these. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Over 20 references in medical journals listed in PubMed. Chuck (talk) 04:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per discussion below. Non-admin close. --jonny-m t 13:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shirring

Transwikied dictionary definition. TexasAndroid (talk) 15:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If you object to the current content of the article then why not try to improve it with some encyclopedic information from these sources? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Expand, and then keep, per Phil above. This is a perfectly reasonable article subject: our coverage of textile industry/garment design/fashion topics is currently notoriously poor. -- The Anome (talk) 14:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per discussion below. As an aside, similar discussions in the future should be approached with the points raised by User:Dhartung in mind. Non-admin close. --jonny-m t 13:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stowage

Transwikied dictionary definition. TexasAndroid (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wiktionary Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but Wiktionary is. Only a definition and doesn't have any encyclopedic material. --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 15:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Transwikied" means it has already been moved. This is a cleanup afd. --Dhartung | Talk 09:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No it isn't. It's a bad AFD. Make no mistake. This is a bad nomination from a person who has nominated a whole load of articles on a vast range of subjects (a few of which are listed here), for utterly specious reasons, who hasn't put in any effort, and who is just serially going from one deletion process to the next, even when presented with the knowledge that there is potential for an article to be written on these subjects, if only people like him would sit down and actually write. The only actual cleanup that anyone has done here was me. That Wikipedia is going to have a subject about which entire books have been written deleted, simply because TexasAndroid wants to take the no-effort route of nominating stubs for deletion instead of expanding them, is a crying shame. How has Wikipedia got into the invidious position where people think that deleting stubs is "cleanup"? How is repeatedly nominating things for deletion, even after one has been told that an article could be written, anything other than simple wanton destruction of Wikipedia? 40% of Wikipedia was still at stub status, last I heard. How should we regard those who want to delete the foundations of the unwritten two-fifths of the encyclopaedia rather than do any work at all towards writing any of it? Do such people benefit Wikipedia in any way? 86.20.169.102 (talk) 10:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I expressed no opinion on the goodness or badness of the AFD. I simply noted that the material had already been transwikied. TexasAndroid followed procedure by bringing these to AFD after that was complete. Your personal attack is unwarranted and uncivil. --Dhartung | Talk 10:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect/merge. There's more that can be said than a dicdef since, as 86.20.169.102 said elsewhere, there have been books written about the topic. --Itub (talk) 14:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not aware of any change of policy that doesn't allow stubs to exist any more. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per discussion below. Non-admin close. --jonny-m t 13:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prodelision

Transwikied dictionary definition. TexasAndroid (talk) 15:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a stub with potential, I don't see the hurry to delete it. --Itub (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Take a look here and you'll find plenty of encyclopedic information that you can use to do something constructive and improve the article, rather than spending your time on nominating articles on obviously encyclopedic subjects for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Angelo (talk) 09:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xavier Balc

Yet to make an appearance in a fully-professional league GiantSnowman (talk) 15:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO#Athletes. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gary King (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ridiculous AFDs, ugh. michfan2123 (talk) 01:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. BanRay 11:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails WP:ATHLETE. robwingfield ^«T•C» 09:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alexf⁴² 13:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:HOAX. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Jake Smith

Article is apparently about a GTA character (this is an assumption per information on creater's page, User:Jsalm7; article does not provide any context to know for certain - speedy A1?) Per WP:FICT, "articles on a work of fiction should demonstrate real-world notability from reliable sources". No mention of real-world notability, context, or sources provided. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Character isn't a part of any GTA series, the Grand Theft Auto: Hillton City Stories mentioned on the user's page is made up. More than likely along with this character. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 20:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Axon reflex

Transwikied dictionary definition. TexasAndroid (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a stub with potential, I don't see the hurry to delete it. --Itub (talk) 14:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The example given takes it beyond a dictionary definition. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stong keep. Over 500 medical journal references in PubMed, with nearly 100 with "axon reflex" in the article title. Chuck (talk) 04:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per discussion below. Non-admin close. --jonny-m t 13:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barbed broach

Transwikied dictionary definition. TexasAndroid (talk) 14:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Stub with plenty of room for expansion. Who invented it? Is there any research about their use? Variations in design? Pburka (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I really can't believe what's going on with Wikipedia at the moment. We have an an injunction from on high that articles about minor characters who appear in single episodes of trashy TV series can't be deleted, but obviously encyclopedic subjects like this are supposed to be seriously considered for deletion. This one has even had a racehorse named after it. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Breviloquence

Transwikied dictionary definition. TexasAndroid (talk) 14:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no encyclopedic potential here. --Dhartung | Talk 09:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a subject in Biblical Greek grammar that can be discussed at length, nominated for deletion by a serial deletion nominator who hasn't supplied a single good reason for deletion anywhere and who is taking the no-effort no-writing use-every-deletion-process-until-one-sticks approach to dealing with stubs. Don't help him to stomp on the shoots and saplings before they grow! Help to stop this wanton destruction of Wikipedia! 40% of the encyclopaedia is still stubs. People who go around nominating that two-fifths of the encyclopaedia for deletion, instead of writing it, are actively destroying Wikipedia, not making it better. 86.20.169.102 (talk) 10:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Basic searches show that this is an important concept used by scholars in New Testament studies. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless cleaned up. If its a subject in Biblical Greek grammar and is used by scholars in New Testament studies, the article needs to be expanded to show that, and reliable sources added. In its current state, the article looks like it's about a neologism or nonce form. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's not a very "neo-" neologism if it was first used in 1656. And AfD is not cleanup. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails everything about notability. Maybe can be transwikied somewhere.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 20:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Where on earth did that horrible {{DeleteVote}} template come from? This isn't supposed to be a vote, and it only really serves to make it more visible that you obviously haven't even read the nomination. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm. okay. I guess I am not allowed to disagree with you (or agree and stick up for you which I have also done).--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 20:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't questioning your right to agree or disagree with me; it's just that I think that symbol is ugly and distracting, and the name of the template is not in accordance with the way AfD is supposed to work. My main point was that the nominator said that this has already been transwikied, which you seemed not to notice. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The graphic delete/keep templates are in wide use on Wikipedias other than en. I don't think Sallicio made them up. --MCB (talk) 08:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I thought my comment about "basic searches" was pretty self-explanatory, but it seems not, so I'll spoon-feed you with these links which show that this is a technical concept used by scholars of Ancient and Koine Greek, particularly in New Testament studies. I don't have the necessary expertise to expand the article myself, but I am capable of recognising that this is a notable encyclopedic subject. Just because it takes a bit more expertise to expand than an article about some minor character who made a fleeting appearance in an episode of whatever trashy TV series the tabloids are talking about today it doesn't mean that this should be deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 into Compadre. Non-admin close on a clear consensus. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 22:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compadrazgo

Transwikied dictionary definition. TexasAndroid (talk) 14:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. The three referenced articles for this "dictionary definition" suggest that this anthropological term for a specific sort of extended kinship can indeed be potentially expanded; as such this is just a stub that begins at the obvious place. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should have searched before. The article compadre seems to be about similar institutions, and is a much more familiar term in English, and that article also mentions this name. Merge and redirect this there; the references if nothing else may be useful. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect into compadre. --Itub (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge as suggested above. The compadre article shows that this is a subject that can be expanded beyond a dictionary definition. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - into the American version. Seems notable, just not by itself.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 20:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, with no prejudice about merging or redirecting (that'sa talk page issue, as Phil Bridger suggests). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dessiatina

Transwikied dictionary definition. TexasAndroid (talk) 14:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Obsolete Russian units of measurement, although that article perhaps should move to a less POV title such as traditional Russian units of measurement; the only reason why any of these traditional measures are obsolete is because of the bureaucratic imposition of high modernism under Soviet communism. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's no reason why this subject should be considered any less encyclopedic that hectare or acre. The reason why it became obsolete is encyclopedic information that can go into the article. Merging/redirection can be considered by discussion on the talk page - deletion would prevent that. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep hmm, assuming that the author isn't making words up (as there isn't an ounce of verifiability in the article) the subject is keepable but still needs MASSIVE wikification.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 20:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete, so default to keep. Article has been expanded and sourced since nomination. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Efference copy

Transwikied dictionary definition. TexasAndroid (talk) 14:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wiktionary Fails WP:NOT#DICT. States that, "Although articles should begin with a definition and description of a subject, they should provide other types of information about that subject as well." In this case, the article provides no other information, just a definition. --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 15:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The very first Google hit for this phenomenon shows that it helps to answer one of those awkward questions that all children ask. Isn't this precisely what an encyclopedia is for? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- response - nope, it certainly isn't!
Strong delete - per nom. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Then what is an encyclopedia for? I have expanded the article, using one of the many sources available from a couple of quick searches, to add encyclopedic information which goes well beyond a dictionary definition. So how can you say "per nom" when the "nom" said that it should be deleted as a dictionary definition. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment. And, if you are in any doubt that this an encyclopedic subject capable of further expansion, Google finds 3190 scolarly articles and 629 books which you can consult to do so. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm usually a pretty tough cookie to break when it comes to keeping articles; however, I agree with Phil. This is an article that needs cleaning not deletion. As it stands, it is still within WP guidelines. --Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 20:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tiddly-Tom 07:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Implicit cognition

Transwikied dictionary definition. TexasAndroid (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is about a concept, not a word, so it is not a dictionary definition. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep despite the fact that the article's reference is an author from (EEK!) Berkeley (J/K!), it does fall (barely) within WP guidelines for inclusion. Another article that needs expansion, not deletion.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 20:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper

Delete The article in its present state is original research, based on only one reference, which is an apparently unpublished essay. Even if the writer is from an illustrious college, her interesting paper about cognitive psychology and the history of thought about consciousness is not on its face a reliable source. Evidence is needed that the concept is supported by reliable sources. The term and its definition here do not appear to add materially to related older notions in cognitive psychology. A different article with this title could be written based on some of the published sources available in psychology literature, so there should be no objection to later creation of such an article. Edison (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The concept of implicit cognition is itself notable, and it should have an article on Wikipedia. However, right now the article is poor quality. It is a simple stub with a simple definition. With more information, this could be a good article. I think we should keep the stub for someone to expand it. Dgf32 (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's pretty obvious from Google scholar and Google book searches that this is a notable concept. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While it's currently a one sentence article stub, its stats include 14,400 ghits and 44 articles/books at WorldCat. The article needs expansion, not deletion; I left a message at WikiProject Psychology in this regard. Coffee4me (talk) 01:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Google Scholar and Google Book searches above have loads of hits, including a book titled "Implicit Cognition". There seems little doubt that it is a notable concept with plenty of available references. Therefore, since the article as it exists is not harmful in any way, it's a surmountable problem. All this article needs is someone interested in it to come along and do the research with those easily-findable sources. Come on, it's a stub that needs to be expanded. AfD is not cleanup. --Ig8887 (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have now added a direct reference for the definition, and provided two book references for anyone interested in additional editing. As the article stands now, there are sufficient sources mentioned to dispel any notability doubts. We just need a psychology clean-up crew now. --Ig8887 (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. That's clinched it. A reference to an article of exactly the same name in an academic encyclopedia plus two books with it in the title, all from highly reputable publishers? Stick an {{expand further}} above them and let's close this. Qwfp (talk) 19:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per discussion below. Non-admin close. --jonny-m t 13:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hepatization

Transwikied Dictionary definition. TexasAndroid (talk) 14:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a stub with potential, I don't see the hurry to delete it. --Itub (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is about a concept, not a word, so it is not a dictionary definition. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Scabs

Fails WP:MUSIC. No third party sources to confirm any shred of notability. Delete Undeath (talk) 14:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Undeath. Doesn't assert notability. --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 15:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely notable - no references to assert notability. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 16:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above Gary King (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per discussion below. Non-admin close. --jonny-m t 13:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heads of agreement (law)

Transwikied dictionary definition. TexasAndroid (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is about a concept, not a word, so it is not a dictionary definition. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is only a stub, but worth expanding. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sprouted bread

Transwikied dictionary definition TexasAndroid (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Lots of room to write about the religious background of this bread in Ezekiel. Pburka (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care, as the original creator of the article. "You have thirty minutes to move your cube," AnteaterZot (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is about a concept, not a word, so it is not a dictionary definition. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per discussion below and further expansion of the article. The nomination was made in good faith. Non-admin close. --jonny-m t 03:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Registration (organ)

Transwikied dictionary definition TexasAndroid (talk) 14:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strongly oppose~~ Strong keep. Organ registration is an enormous topic spanning almost five centuries and two continents. Dissertations could (and have been) written on the subject. In time, it could be an article with branch articles such as French classical organ registration, Iberian Renaissance organ registration, American symphonic organ registration, et al. This article is only a couple weeks old and WikiProject PipeOrgan has not yet begun to expand it. If it is necessary for the article to be expanded in order to ensure that it is not deleted, we'll get to work on it right away. —Cor anglais 16 04:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For some of the other bad serial deletion nominations by TexasAndroid, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myringomycosis. Please help to save Wikipedia from this wanton destruction! 86.20.169.102 (talk) 10:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is about a concept, not a word, so it is not a dictionary definition. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Update. I have expanded the article with a more descriptive lead and some basic information on pitch (necessary for an understanding of organ registration) from Organ stop. I have also created a rudimentary section outline. —Cor anglais 16 16:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per discussion below. Non-admin close. --jonny-m t 13:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Territorial matrix

Transwikied Dictionary sefinition TexasAndroid (talk) 14:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The second sentence of the article goes beyond a dictionary definition and provides encyclopedic information. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Over 90 references in PubMed. Chuck (talk) 05:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 we occasionally like to allow collaborative editing here. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 05:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Urogenital papilla

Transwikied dictionary definition TexasAndroid (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a valid stub capable of being expanded way beyond a dictionary definition. For starters there are about 1000 sources here and here which someone who understands the subject could use to expand the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If it's kept, it needs serious revision--Phil Bridger's own links shows a) it's not limited to pigs; mention in fish is very common, probably even outnumbering mention in all mammals combined; b) when mentioned in mammals, it's generally in the context of determining the sex of fetal animals (including pigs, rabbits, and rats); it's not immediately clear that it's present in adult mammals. Chuck (talk) 05:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Yes, it needs revision, but that can't happen if it's deleted. AfD is not cleanup. If I had concentrated a bit more in my school biology classes then I would be able to have a go at fixing it, but I'd rather leave that to someone who knows a little more about the subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 23:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey Fisher

Advert, cailms lot of associations to well known names, no sourced Nate1481(^t/_c) 14:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate1481(^t/_c) 14:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless claims are backed up by RS. JJL (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless notability is sourced properly. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like original research, no assertion of notability is made. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 16:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 passing WP:V and WP:N. More cites need to be added from the ones found. Bearian (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Washington Lewis

Delete not independently notable per WP:BIO. Veritas (talk) 14:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There used to be profiles of her in old books like this but she was just a wife and mother. She's known to historians through her correspondence with her brother and Kenmore House, but not for herself. --Dhartung | Talk 23:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung's ref & similar. If she was discussed in any detail in history books she's notable. The immediate family of presidents usually is considered so, for the good reason that people typically want to know something about them--which is why they are in fact covered in history books, and that coverage is our definition of notability. DGG (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage is not substantial and is not independent of her relationship to her family. She accomplished nothing of any note in her life. Although I do find the logic of arguing inherited notability for its own sake to be interesting. People in a country who fought a revolution to throw off the titles of aristocracy seem to be quite quick to embrace the institution. --Veritas (talk) 01:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I tried to be generous; I read the whole thing, and it is substantial -- there's just no there there. "She kept the home fires burning" seems to be the theme, perhaps as an inspiration to patriotic wives in the next war. Possibly it's some sort of reactionary thing at the height of the suffrage movement. I'm just guessing. But the only thing she really did of any significance was sewing socks for the troops. --Dhartung | Talk 07:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. John254 00:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I note that per the general notability guideline

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

a standard which appears to be satisfied here by substantial coverage in history texts as described above. Per WP:NOT#CENSORED, we don't delete articles because we disagree with the manner in which their subjects' notability has been achieved. John254 00:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point - there is no significant coverage, only brief mentioning. --Veritas (talk) 02:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the coverage is significant, as even supporters of deletion acknowledge. "The Pioneer Mothers of America", for example, devotes 6 and 1/2 pages to Betty Washington Lewis -- see pages 72 through 78. John254 03:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, significance in quality not quantity lest we set our standards so low. Hell, it's barely significant in quantity (6 or 7 pages might be a lot for a middle school paper, but not a manuscript). Mind you, it's a subsection of a chapter in a book that doesn't even cite its sources! WP:CENSOR has absolutely nothing do with this. The reality is that, in this situation, notability comes through the individual's relations with a notable individual. Notability, however, is not inherited. While she might be of minor importance in a notable person's life clearly does not qualify her for notability herself. She is merely an unimportant sidenote. Moreover, there is no way to expand this article outside of stub status due to the availability of so few sources. And, why are there so few sources? Oh, right, because she's not notable... --Veritas (talk) 04:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the book doesn't cite its sources -- it is a source. If we required that every source itself cite sources, then required that each source cited in the source cited in the article cite additional sources, etc, then we obviously would never be able to find any acceptable sources. Furthermore, I contend that articles should not be deleted on the basis of purely subjective assertions of non-notability, such as the claim that an individual is notable only in the context of another notable person. John254 05:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The book is a work of history, a secondary source, which - in the historical field - must cite its sources (primary) in order to considered reliable thus establishing provenance. This source itself could never be included in the article because it is not reliable. I never said that an individual is notable in the context of another individual. In fact, I said the exact opposite. The only way this supposed "source" even mentions her is because she is related to a notable person. This is why I am saying she is not notable herself. Hence why my nomination stated, "not independently notable." --Veritas (talk) 05:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While it would be nice if every secondary source we employed cited relevant primary sources, this is required neither by Wikipedia:Reliable sources nor by actual practice. For instance, we generally accept articles in respectable newspapers as reliable sources, notwithstanding the fact that the original notes and tape-recordings of interviews employed to assemble those articles may never be published. We're not going to hold this article to a higher standard of sourcing than would be employed anywhere else on Wikipedia, merely because some users would like to have the article deleted. John254 06:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll give you that Wiki has low standards in some areas, but even if its usage were permitted it still doesn't begin to establish notability per my comments above. --Veritas (talk) 06:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Still a relevant figure in Americana, apparently. And I'm sure that enough information can be culled from various reliable sources to make a decent article out of this. For example, Kenmore and the Lewises probably provides some good biographical information. Zagalejo^^^ 06:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Veritas's cogent arguments. -- BPMullins | Talk 17:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't regard misrepresenting both the availability of source material and the requirements of Wikipedia:Reliable sources to be a "cogent argument". Opinions appear to differ with respect to that question, however. As described above, Betty Washington Lewis is the subject of extensive coverage in "The Pioneer Mothers of America" -- see pages 72 through 78, in Kenmore and the Lewises, and is even mentioned in contemporary news coverage. Veritas appears to be arguing that

(1) Wikipedia:Reliable sources requires that secondary sources cite primary sources to establish reliability, a requirement that exists nowhere either in the policy itself or in actual practice -- indeed, as described above, we consider sources such as newspapers, which rarely cite primary sources, to constitute reliable secondary sources.

(2) There isn't substantial coverage of Betty Washington Lewis in reliable sources, which has been shown to be blatantly false, hence number 3:

(3) He doesn't personally believe that the coverage of Betty Washington Lewis is high-quality, which amounts to a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument.

(4) He doesn't think that personally believe that Betty Washington Lewis is really that important, another WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument.

Note that per Wikipedia:Verifiability,

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

If third-party reliable sources endorse the importance of the subject of an article by providing substantial coverage of it, we should not determine the subject to be non-notable anyway on the basis of an original research reassessment. John254 19:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'comment why historians think a subject worth discussing is not our concern--it is enough that they do. To the extent that precedent matters, we have always considered the immediate family of heads of state notable--in our time, there is always sufficient coverage, and this goes for the earlier centuries also to the extent there is material. The assumption is that knowing about someone's parents, spouse and children gives some information about one's life and character---and that for sufficiently important people, this is worth the knowing. DGG (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The present article is a stub, and needs expanding. From what is said above about her correspondence, I assume that this is a significant historical source (though possibly a minor one). That would certainly be enough to make her notable. I agree with the principle that relatives of notable people are not necessarily notable, but from what is set out above, it seems to me that her notability is widely accepted. Mind you, I know little directly of the subject, but hope that enables me to offer a more objective opinion. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The only question is whether there is significant coverage in reliable sources. There is. Whether she did anything notable is irrelevant. Whether the sources should have covered her is irrelevant. The coverage does not have to be "independent of her relationship to her family", merely independent of the subject. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there isn't "significant" coverage in sources. --Veritas (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, objectively passes the PNC, but this is pretty weak tea. Every reference I find to her is just as "Betty Washington, sister of George" or "mistress of Kenmore" or "wife of Fielding Lewis". Some epistolary companions become notable, sure, but her correspondence is only studied for hints about George. The only thing saving her, I guess, is a tradition well into the 19th century of honoring her as a distaff Founding Father. For what, exactly, I still can't figure out. Biology is destiny and, well, we do have Line of succession to the British throne, and we may elect the wife of a president to follow the son of a president, but now I'm treading on the grounds of personal prejudice or ideology. --Dhartung | Talk 09:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and expand, tagged as such. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vasoarrhythmia

Transwikied dictionary definition TexasAndroid (talk) 14:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a valid stub on an encyclopedic subject which is perfectly capable of being expanded beyond a dictionary definition - in fact I've just done so even this is way outside any of my fields of expertise. I'm sure someone who knows about the subject with access to the academic sources could write plenty more. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable by the reference provided. A notable stub, and should belong in an encyclopedia. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 16:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only two references in PubMed (one of which is the original of the one currently cited by the article, which is itself a reprint), both by the same author. It doesn't appear to be a well-established term, or phenomenon, in the medical community. No other articles appear to have picked up the term, despite the fact that these two articles were published over a decade ago. Chuck (talk) 05:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems notable stub per WP:N. It does need expansion, however.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 20:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vian State Bank

contested prod. Impossible to make much sense of this article - it's basically just a dump of some random material on the author's personal archive site. It consists of an out of date news item about a bank name change eleven years ago, some irrelevant info about other banks and an irrelevant link to a minor court case in 1931. Not speediable but it fails every measure of notability I can think of and is useless as an encyclopedia article. andy (talk) 14:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~See also this afd.~~ andy (talk) 14:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable and fairly nonsensical as well. Alberon (talk) 14:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I might reconsider if the article received a complete rewrite during the AfD period. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, but given the author's attitude to problems with previous articles that's pretty unlikely. Anyway there are pretty few ghits for the subject and none of them look like evidence of notability. andy (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the author has made a huge number of recent edits in response to this afd and many, many comments on his talk page, but I can't see anything that changes my opinion about the grounds for deletion. andy (talk) 21:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 16:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see no evidence of notability. -- BPMullins | Talk 17:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all 7. Fram (talk) 13:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Simpson (footballer)

Player(s) do(does) not meet WP:FOOTY/Notability GauchoDude (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because players do not meet WP:FOOTY/Notability:

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all plus recommend fellow Newport players Jacob Giles, ~~Craig Hughes~~, Lee John and Paul Cochlin for the same reason. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentIf it can be shown that Barry Town were fully professional in the 1990s there could be grounds for keeping Craig Hughes. None of the others seem to meet WP:FOOTY/Notability and should be deleted. King of the NorthEast 10:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. This BBC article suggests that they turned professional in 1995, and this one shows that they still were in 2003. I have denominated Hughes as a result. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Paul Cochlin's article says he played for Carmarthen Town in the UEFA Cup. That would imply a first team appearance as well as Carmarthen Town being the top of the Welch Premier League. I will nominate the remaining two players. GauchoDude (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Carmarthen have never finished higher that 4th [25], and aren't fully pro (they only qualified for UEFA as runners-up in the Welsh Cup. Cochlin's article should be deleted. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have now added him. GauchoDude (talk) 09:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and number 57. John Hayes^talk 19:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above. Punkmorten (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be confused with Orenthal James Simpson. Mandsford (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure no one is making that mistake. However, yes, this is not O.J. Simpson, lol. I'm pretty sure the decision was a resounding delete, not sure why this is up here again, but it's still a delete in my book since I proposed it in the first place. GauchoDude (talk) 10:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom BanRay 20:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nakon 16:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Birds of a Feather (computing)

This phrase for an informal meeting of computing practitioners does not rise to the high standard for neologisms required for inclusion in Wikipedia. Midwest Peace (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—This is now standard practice at most computer conferences. Some non-computer-related conferences also follow the practice. "BoF session" gets 68,100 ghits.—RJH (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Rami R 19:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is essentially a dictionary definition. -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep - plenty of links out there, but it would be better if there were a major, non-press-release article about this phenomenon somewhere. Ron Duvall (talk) 06:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -These responses do not address the need for the notability of the term as a neologism. Midwest Peace (talk) 11:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment This appears to me to be an article primarily on the meetings themselves rather than the name for the meeting. More emphasis is placed on the characteristics and instances of these meetings rather than the origin of the term, for instance. Ron Duvall (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Both the term and the practice are in common use, and have made it into the Jargon File. That's notable enough for me. --Itub (talk) 15:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 on strength, not length, of arguments. Fram (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Patriot Party

AfDs for this article:

Previously nominated in 2005, at which time there was no consensus. There are few Google news archive hits for "American Patriot Party", none of which look to be promising sources for an encyclopedia article. There are Google books hits for this phrase, but these refer to the "patriot party" of the American Revolutionary period and not to this modern group. It's difficult to see how an NPOV article on a minor political party could be based solely on that party's own announcements. As it was in 2005, this article is an unverifiable and non-neutral advertisement. In case anyone should be misled by the link from United States Senate elections, 1994, and conclude that this party has run candidates for the US Senate elections, these in fact refer to the predecessor of the Reform Party of the United States of America and not to this group. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be Richard Taylor's political philosophy, and Richard doesn't appear to be running for anything. There are no other names mentioned on the party's website, other than candidates from other parties whom he endorses. No candidates, no address, no publications, no indication that it's registered anywhere as a party --- but (surprise) it's got a platform. If you want to know where Richard Taylor stands on the issues, this is the gateway, I guess. Mandsford (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only is this a horrible article, wikipediacally speaking, but it is blatant advertising with no citations. I believe this should be deleted and that the few links that point to it should be eliminated. It is barely notable. A great argument for this deletion came from the first nomination: A search of 600+ American newspaper archives from 2003 to present shows 3 results. 2 are in passing reference as part of a list of third parties. 1 cites the website for historical info on the revolutionary war. There is no evidence of campaigning or any political activities. Probably 1 man and a P.O. box.. The article should not have made it past that AfD. Timneu22 (talk) 10:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This actually doesn't appear to be a "one-man" operation. In the article itself, it notes that two others (Party Chairman Bryon K. Pulliam and Party founder/National Secretary Brian Nichols) have left the party. Granted, not a great sign of health for a party, but still, indicative of at least a THREE-man party. Also, on the party Website's State Parties" page, 14 states show state chairs, and some have co-chairs. All are different names. So we're up to at least 15 names involved. And no offense, but whether or not this party has been successful in getting its name in the paper (or, to be accurate, getting its name in ONLINE papers that can be searched) it is actively seeking support. Wikipedians need to understand that getting ONLINE mentions does not equal "notability." Having said all that, the article could be improved, but that requires a "could be improved" tag, not a deletion. - Nhprman 21:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even if we overcome WP:N problems (which I feel exist) this article is completely unreferenced. Even if someone did a complete rewrite (which is necessary) there do not appear to be any reliable sources to use to bring this into compliance. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having viewed the deletion tag on the American Patriot Party I had to present a formal protest to the unfounded statements made here. The American Patriot Party has numerous State Chairs and organizers. Since the start of reorganization of the party, the party is gaining in interest and popularity. Removing a article from Wikipedia of an established party, whether or not it has acquired state recognition which takes thousands of signatures in each state to accomplish, it remains a viable political party and one that is unique in its devotion to the principles set by the founders. It is true there is not many major articles written on the party, but this should not devaluate its existence. I will direct those to view Wiki's statements with regard to articles which indicates one "should not tear the house down, before it is built"; As Chair of the American Patriot Party, starting with being invited to the party by the Ohio State Chair in 2004 and accepted to Chair for the state of Oregon by Brian Nichols who was the founder and secretary for national, it has taken time and diligence by those involved to both maintain and reestablish a party that fell to one state at the time the national stepped away. Three states Chairs returned back to the party of the original states due to our clarifying our party stands and goals, and in one year (2007) added 10 new states and Chair persons. Note that it took 10 years for the Libertarian Party to be even noticed at all; Reorganization of this party is a little over a year. One may view not very many news articles, as not a bad thing. If one views our "what people are saying about the American Patriot Party" link you can find a very positive and receptive public. Should a writer wish a news story, the struggles prior to reorganization can be viewed at: http://thirdpartywatch.com/2006/01/24/american-patriot-party-officially-done - aside from two flamed responses to our continuing the party, the letter posted by THIRD PARTY WATCH sent to them by the Chair of the APP National at that time establishes the condition of the party at that time. The Letter reads: Notice: "The National Office of the American Patriot Party has closed. Lack of funds and increasing struggles with changing membership has forced this action. We gave it a good try, but in the end the personalities of those involved in Third Party politics has convinced us that this project was doomed from the start. Most of the members, including the National leadership, has moved back to the Republican Party with some of the membership bolting to the Constitution Party. The few bright spots organizationally and in numbers were seen in Illinois, >Oregon<, and Ohio. In the end though the forward progress in these states was not enough to keep the party moving in the right direction. Thank you to all of our members and supporters, and God Bless you all. Regards in Liberty, Bryon K. Pulliam, Ex- National Chairman, American Patriot Party." The clarifications as to goals and principles of our party changed the direction of the party so to not allow for the membership interpretations and problems that arose in the prior structuring of the party. I would hope that those considering deletion can find it advantageous to dig a little deeper, or at least be a little more patient in a political arena that historically takes decades to develop with regard to political parties. I have listed references to the Way Back Machine that shows the web site in 2003 of the prior party and to our 2008 platform - though our Platform may not be written as one would like, it being what the party stand, is hard to expand upon by opinion elsewhere. Note that recently the party has been in frequent contact with the Ron Paul 2008 Champaign and from which an endorsement was established by the American Patriot Party; Though national news stories may not have covered this, it is still noteworthy, as is our party growth; I am sure many in the republican and democratic parties would like Ron Paul to go away but the message being an important one is hard to ignore; A message that our party also promotes through education of the important foundations that establish true freedom. There are those that wish as much for our party to go away; With that I will ask that this article remain as a foundation for further development on WIKI so that others can review and contribute as the party continues to establish itself. Richard Taylor, Chair, American Patriot Party.CC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Taylor APP (talk • contribs) 00:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely, this party has received local newspaper coverage (even if the newspapers don't have an online Web presence - something that is NOT necessary to establish notability, IMO.) If so, notation of them in the article, referencing facts in the article backed up by these news stories (in reference format) would be helpful in establishing notability. I'm amazed nothing is on the official site to this effect, either. As to your point about being patient, I agree, and would urge people to let this be a "stub" for a while. But you have to understand there's a strong tendency here on Wikipedia to delete every stub and every topic that hasn't made a huge media splash. That's not what an encyclopedia is, or should be. Nhprman 01:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment. On past party activity, I can direct others to at least two past party members who have ran for office prior to the party reconstruction. These are Patricia Saye, Nevada APP Chair and Western States Coordinator who ran as Republican for the 41st District Assembly in Nevada - See Review Journal - http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2004/Nov-04-Thu-2004/news/25166677.html where she captured 35% of the votes (having ran as independent in 2002); And Joe Bellis, APP party organizer and Kansas Chair who ran as a presidential candidate in 2000 and Libertarian candidate for Kansas Third Congressional District seat in the U. S. House of Representatives in 2004 - http://joebellis.com/bio.htm This further establishes that those wishing to delete this page simply have not reviewed the facts with regard to a party that, not unlike the Ron Paul campaign, has an underlying membership and supporters that is not easily detected by the national or web presence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Taylor APP (talk • contribs) 22:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not only must we correct Angus McLellan, a English speaking wiki user who resides in Belgium of all places, that there was, as has been shown, party members that in fact have ran for office; I must also respectfully respond further to the statements made by users Mandsford and Timneu22; First to their remark that the article as being poorly written; A statement made after someone has removed all the Founders quotes from the article; Such a statement after this has occurred is completely uncalled for. The stands presented within our issues page possess these quotes for a purpose, and that is to establish that the stands are in line with the founders intents. Would one take the Republican stands on issues, remove sections out of it and either leave it undone, make minimal edits or rewrite a established document to someone else's satisfaction then proclaim it as the Republican stand on Issues ... and proclaim it as a poorly written one at that? This is not a sports story or an opinion article, but a factual record of the party stands. Would one, after all of the Founders and historical quotes have been removed from this article that establish our party positions as Jeffersonian, as has been done by someone who did not even care to review that the founders quotes were part of the party's position on issues, to then make a statement that the philosophy is entirely one person's? Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, George Mason and many other founders established their philosophy strongly on John Locke; and John Locke based his on Richard Hooker and Richard Hooker on Thomas Aquinas and Thomas Aquinas on Albertus Magnus and Albertus Magnus and all these men upon the teachings of God and Christ with some basic societal observations of Aristotle; One would have to either have no knowledge of history or be void of all reason to make a statement that this is one person's philosophy; Or possibly, though I hope this not the case, dislike the parties positions so much that he would take steps to remove it from public view. The fact is the party exists and its Philosophy is by all accounts Jeffersonian and Natural Law principled which is established by those works the party promotes of noted philosophers and theologians that have established the meaning of freedom; That there may be some innovative positions, this is true, but those positions are all founded in forwarding the philosophies of those who established the laws of freedom. To make such wide sweeping unfounded statements as have been made by those who wish to delete the article, after someone had depleted the historical and factual substance of the article, is at the very least far reaching; and for a suspected purpose to remove it for other reasons, certainly not of those that have been posed unless they had not reviewed the earlier changes. in any case, if one does not understand history, one should not scribble upon it and throw it out in frustration simply because it doesn't sound right them; If the information on philosophies I have given here is not understood, go here: http://www.pacificwestcom.com/americanpatriotpartynewsletter/APP_2007/app_2007.html read all the links on the page and in the graph; making sure to read the Rights of the Colonists, The Constitutional Debate presented and John Locke on Civil Government; and then edit the article with at least some historical background. If the persons wishing to delete or make statements to that effect are not willing to study these philosophies, they should not be editing or judging them. I suggest the article be reverted to present those founders quotes, with references given, making the article whole again before further editing takes place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Taylor APP (talk • contribs) 18:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All the blabbering in the world doesn't change my opinion; the article should be deleted. Timneu22 (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Chetblong^{T C} 05:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gregson Lane Wanderers

Delete as per WP:NOTE. This is not a professional football club as article itself says - GREGSON LANE WANDERERS F.C are an English amateur football club located in the Gregson Lane area of the city of Preston, Lancashire. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 13:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable amateur team. I checked the English football league system article, and I can't find a "Lancashire Evening Post Sunday Football League", but there is a West Lancashire Football League whose premier division only is considered to be more than regional in scope. Since these guys are third tier, and possibly not even in the league system proper, I think they fail WP:N. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 13:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no mention of this league on the English football league system page because Sunday leagues aren't in the system. Nor is there any connection whatsoever between this league and the West Lancashire Football League.... ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I had wondered if this was a Sunday league - I couldn't tell if it was sponsored by a Sunday Paper, or a Paper sponsoring a Sunday league. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very non-notable amateur kick-about team ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely NN. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a few Sunday league sides would be notable in my opinion, but this isn't one of them. - fchd (talk) 14:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. GiantSnowman (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely non-notable team. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 16:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable amateur team. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More fans at a game than your average Scottish league side - even ones that are a league way from the SPL, a genuine football club if only amateur. In newspapers on a weekly basis, Lancashire evening post is a largely published newspaper and stories on us have appeared in this newspaper and sister newspapers. See link: http://www.wigantoday.net/weird-world/Thieves-steal-football-club-goalposts.3704202.jp Sincere entry and more worthy than some on this great website in my opinion. Thank you anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.46.150.205 (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "More fans at a game than your average Scottish league side - even ones that are a league way from the SPL" So far this season the worst-supported team in the Scottish First Division has averaged a gate of 1,312, I find it hard to believe that a Sunday league team could attract (or even accommodate) 1,300+ paying fans, although I'm prepared to stand corrected if a source can be provided.... ChrisTheDude (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I stand corrected however it is more than some clubs in the second (Cowdenbeath, Berwick, Brechin) and all the third division clubs have had for some games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.46.150.205 (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume this refers to the 400 the club had for a cup final on a neutral ground. This can hardly be taken as representative, and I'm sure all the Scottish Football League sides would have way more in the same circumstances. What is the regular attendance for Gregson Lane Wanderers? - fchd (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BanRay 11:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Gregson Lane is on wiki as a genuine entry, therefore I can only assume of notable standing. Therefore why not not the football team I suppose? stu77

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.46.150.205 (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

- Just because a village has its own WP article, that does not mean that every club, society, shop, amenity, etc which happens to be in that village gets a "free pass" onto WP. Maybe the club could be mentioned in the article on the village, probably with a sentence or two at most, but it certainly doesn't merit its own stand-alone article. And neither do the Black Horse or the sub post office ;-) ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, but reduce to stub. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Law of Remains

Delete. It looks like a research paper and I could not find a suitable scope to nominate it for speedy though it should be! Well, clearly falls under WP:NOR. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 13:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was in the process of Prodding this when WP:TW screwed things up. I can't tell that it's a copyright violation of anything on the internet, but it certainly looks like one. Either way, it suffers from WP:NPOV, likely WP:OR, a lack of WP:RS, and a host of other issues. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 13:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I type in Mona Lisa, will I not get a topic that deals with speculation on subject? Well this can't possibly be fact, thus how is what I've written any different? I clearly state at the beginning of the article that this is meant to open up Abdoh's play, to simply expose people to an important artist's work, that nothing is definitive.. I've used one source, the only published book I could find on the man, and if you want page numbers for the quotes in the body of the work I will provide them. I put this up online as quickly as possible, so making it slightly more presentable is in order. But I can't really comprehend claiming this is original research if you're going to turn around and allow anything on Mayans, Aztecs, Catholocism, etc, to be written as fact. There's no such thing. Those topics are much more debatable than mine. Anything written about any of those topics can only deal with one (maybe more, but not some sort of total) viewpoint, nothing is set in stone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goatart (talk • contribs) 13:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, I understand now, my piece is in need of editing. I'll get to it.

Delete. It's not even clear what this is supposed to be about. --Itub (talk) 15:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Clearly a notable play, but the article is rubbish. Writer and others may improve it. If not, we can always relist for deletion later. Not convinced that content is a reason for deletion if subject is notable. Can always be stripped down and stubified. There used to be a saying "don't bite the noobs" - never hear it these days on WP. This guy seems keen and knows the subject, but doesn't understand how WP works (yet). Let's give him a chance.Anjouli (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I didn't have an intention to WP:BITE him but it really looks like a research paper kind of stuff. I didn't tag it as per WP:NOTE as it completely fails even to give a clear idea on the subject matter itself. But, I do completely agree with your point to help this author whatever the way we can. Cheers. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 16:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A mostly favorable New York Times review shows it is notable, but it needs to be completely revamped. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has also caught the attention of the Los Angeles Times and le Monde [26] so is definitely notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Bridger (talk • contribs) 10:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strip down to a stub and start a new article, without this speculative paper (totally non-encyclopedic content; sorry, Goatart). --Orange Mike | Talk 17:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT, seems the author put alot of work into this. I will assume good faith and a lack of wiki-understanding. I have given the author a suggestion on his/her talk page to clean it up. Seems like it could be a good article.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 20:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Stub - There's a ridiculous amount of information here that doesn't need to be, but the play is notable. matt91486 (talk) 09:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shirahadasha (talk) 07:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Squarian digits

Unsourced triviality. By the rules of modular arithmetic it is clear that if you take a number x whose iterated digit sum is 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 (corresponding to a remainder of 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,0 after division by 9), then the digit sum of x-squared will by 1,4,9,7,7,9,4,1,9. The very model of a minor general (talk) 13:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article itself says outright that this is original research. The fact that the digital roots of squares repeat with this sequence is known: (sequence A056992 in the OEIS) but with no name or real references there either. It would be a mistake to copy everything from OEIS to here, and even more to keep an article in this form. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Praise for Wickiflicki, who was not the first, but who reached this independently; and to Eppstein, who took the time to cite some references for the author. Perhaps a (sourced) note about this pattern can be added somewhere in the article about digit sums. I'd point out that although the pattern is interesting, there are more practical ways of finding that if 30² is 900, then 31² is 961. Think of 961 as 900+30+31; you'll see that 32² is 961+31+32. The algebra for (n+1)²-n² will lead you to 2n+1. Mandsford (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete to both square numbers and to Digital_root#Some_properties_of_digital_roots. Interesting factoid, but the not worth an article in itself, plus the article title is something made up in school one day. (But let me award this the prize for the most interesting/intelligent MUISOD article.)Bm gub (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - self-admitted OR; as the article says: "The sequence itself is up for deliberation on whether it should be added to mathematic reference literature at a date currently unknown". Gandalf61 (talk) 10:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article keeps saying "digit route". What does that mean? Does it mean the sum of the digits? Michael Hardy (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Digit route" appears to mean digital root. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fails notability requirements. -Djsasso (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kahtmayan

AfDs for this article:

(View AfD)

Also included:

Exir (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article fails WP:MUSIC. Band has had one release and is now disbanded. Welt^anschaunng 12:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Last AfD closed with no consensus, two weak keeps, one delete, and a bunch of questions. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 13:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MUSIC requires two albums, and I don't believe the 2004 and 2006 albums qualify toward that - they appear to be either demo albums, and otherwise don't seem to be attached to a label. They fail all other criteria. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 13:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Request to include in nomination Exir (album), the band's sole album. This article was grouped in the last AfD as well. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 13:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article now included, by request of nominator on my talk page. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 13:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Most of the non-cited text in the band's article is copied from the band's website: [27]. Welt^anschaunng 17:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 13:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —86.149.53.196 (talk) 10:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —86.149.53.196 (talk) 10:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete by East718. Non-admin closure. Icestorm815 • Talk 05:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capacity Development

The first words of one state of the article said it all "this site is created by United Nations Development Programme". Wikipedia is not a free host. We already have the United Nations Development Programme article. We do not need this. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it appears to be being used as a free host? Fosnez (talk) 10:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, the United Nations must be having some budget problems. Mandsford (talk) 12:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Capacity Development reflects a paradigm shift which is also highlighted in the Paris Declaration (also in wikipedia) - this is a shift that is reflected in all development agencies, not just in UNDP, including but not limited to ADB, the World Bank, AusAID, NZAid, USAID, JICA, KOICA, etc. Heidi.han (talk) 11:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - most if not all of it is a copyvio. Even if not a copyvio, no refs RS to verify notability. Sbowers3 (talk) 02:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: article was in fact speedily deleted as a blatant copyright violation, but has been recreated - also with blatant copyvio. Sbowers3 (talk) 04:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied again for copyvio. Sbowers3 (talk) 12:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the contents on the article are written by those who are creating the article - how to overcome being judged as copyvio? This is a question for clarificationHeidi.han (talk) 11:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC
- Simple - DO NOT copy and paste from anyplace. Don't even copy words that you yourself have written before. Start from the beginning and write in your own words. Secondly, find independent, third-party sources such as newspapers or magazines that have described the subject. After every paragraph you write, add a footnote saying the source of your information. Sbowers3 (talk) 12:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MeeMix

non notable website Asod123123 (talk) 13:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In this case, I think the references are enough to demonstrate notability. It sounds interesting, too. --Eastmain (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will the closing admin please also note that the nominator's contributions show him/her to be a single-purpose account user, using it solely to nominate stuff for deletion.--Vox Humana 8' 00:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:WEB. It may be interesting, but it ain't notable yet. External links to online press releases ain't reliable sources! --Orange Mike | Talk 17:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I found this from Fox Business about one of their new releases and there seems to be a lot of buzz but I don't think it meets WP:WEB just yet. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Eastmain. Aardvarkvarkvark (talk) 20:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability. Of the references cited, only the interview might count towards notability, and is still a bit dubious. TechCrunch is a blog. And The only stuff I could find are press releases. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whpq (talk • contribs) 18:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough here to meet WP:WEB. TerriersFan (talk) 19:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete, which defaults to keep. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simplicity PHP framework

non notable website Asod123123 (talk) 13:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will the closing admin please also note that the nominator's contributions show him/her to be a single-purpose account user, using it solely to nominate stuff for deletion.--Vox Humana 8' 00:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - although indeed an SPA, I don't see any evidence from reviewing their edit history that Asod123123's previous AFD nominations have been malicious or in bad faith. --SJK (talk) 09:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I edit with my enwiki account I'll probably get caught in a massive flame war, so I'll stick to anon here. The article in question is about a dubious PHP framework with an unprofessional website. The question is of PHP frameworks and the website behind this one; the PHP framework is in itself entirely non-notable, and the website even worse. Of "1700" search results for "Simplicity PHP Framework" (I myself get 10K...) the second is this article. *. and wiki. simplicityframework.com have no pagerank (that's null, not 0). Every man and his dog has a PHP framework; I've got three, and even mine have PR0. On the other hand, however, the website is well established, trac is not exactly easy to setup and a lot of work has gone into the code. It's a valid framework, even if it's not terribly famous. Would the closing sysop/bcrat therefore please note that the result of this AfD will most likely make or break the project. The question, then, is whether we let an inexperienced user (MOS somewhat lacking) create an article for a non-notable project backed by a non-notable website on the grounds that it has the potential to be succesful in future. All PHP frameworks seem to serve their niche purpose, and while they may not be terribly famous, people will appreciate a central information page for them. It also gives the framework a place in various comparison tables here on enwiki. So, I'm voting Keep on the grounds that this isn't a doomed article and we might as well build up the database. --118.208.57.103 (talk) 12:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Me again. It's actually quite developed and much discussed. Definite keep. --118.208.51.174 (talk) 06:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't believe this PHP framework is in any way particularly notable. I mean, it's not like Zend for example. If it gets bigger and more notable, well, then I think the article could be justifiably recreated in those circumstances --SJK (talk) 09:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'justifiably recreated'? The whole point of the AFD process is to get rid of articles that have no future and should not be on Wikipedia. The fact that you suggest this possibility demonstrates the potential. --121.45.241.228 (talk) 12:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Quite a bit of mainstream coverage, 3.9k ghits, not the most famous framework in the world, but not totally obscure. Anjouli (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And a comment. Whether the project succeeds or fails should not influence the matter, nor whether the nom has a 'deletion only' account. We should judge the article. My own criterion is 'is this factual and would this be useful in an encyclopedia so someone could look it up'. Call it notability if you like. I'd say this just passes the test. Anjouli (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Input Web Wizard

non notable website Asod123123 (talk) 13:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will the closing admin please also note that the nominator's contributions show him/her to be a single-purpose account user, using it solely to nominate stuff for deletion.--Vox Humana 8' 00:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the nominator is clearly a SPA, they don't seem to be maliciously so. This nomination appears to be in good faith, as the article doesn't really establish why the software is notable and suffers from some advertising issues besides. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 13:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:WEB. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to fail WP:WEB and is a bit spammy for my taste.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 00:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete, which defaults to keep. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vitamin S

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

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

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

No assertion of notability nor sources given. Probably qualifies for CSD A7, but I don't want any doubt. Also, if this debate ends with deletion, the page Vitamin S (disambiguation) needs to be moved back to Vitamin S. Charles Stewart (talk) 09:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the page is a massive copyright violation from [28]. Charles Stewart (talk) 09:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to #External Sources, they are simply event guides which most local newspapers have. A good thing to find would be a feature piece on the group from a magazine or newspaper. Blogs aren't considered reliable either. Charles Stewart (talk) 22:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Few, if any, newspapers have events guides for non-existent regular events. Those were listed to provide evidence of longevity. One of the external sources is a pdf of government grants for the arts. It is non-trivial to obtain government and local body funding, and the government is, one would assume, considered a reliable source of information. I would note that Vitamin S is not a 'group' or 'band'. Dinobass (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you read up on WP:NOTE. The shear fact that this group (or organization, etc. The page doesn't classify them) has been around for X amount of years, of gets money from the government doesn't make it worthy of inclusion. For instance, i they're a community group (which I'm now inclined to think they are), then Wikipedia:ORG governs the rule of notability. It reads that "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." Thanks, Charles Stewart (talk) 03:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to www.vitamin-s.co.nz before deleting the page. Just because you know of know "notability" nor "source" doesn't mean there is none. A google search would have shown you that Vitamin S is exactly as the page in question asserted. Urlygrrl (talk) 09:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Charles, please be WP:CIVIL. Urlygrrl, welcome to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the Vitamin S website is not the only information we need. Wikipedia requires secondary sources that are independent of the subject itself, so we need to see things like press coverage or something like that. And you cannot simply copy information from the Vitamin-S website, that's plagiarism and a copyright violation. If you can rewrite this page within a few days to address these concerns then the article can stay, otherwise we will have to delete the article. -- RoninBK _{T C} 10:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. (And where was Charles Stewart being uncivil?) --ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. The nice try line was about the about the Urllygirl account being created 5 minutes after I nominated this page for deletion. And "her" first edit was to this talkpage. Charles Stewart (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External Sources

It has been brought to my notice that external sources other than the vitamin s website are required. I can provide plenty such references, although I'm not entirely sure how many of them should be on the article page itself, or the appropriate places to put them. I will replicate the list below on the Vitamin S talk page.

A print media publication "what's on this week" page from 2003 - which should help to establish longevity. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/6/story.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=3506832 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/6/story.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=2047756

Creative New Zealand government arts funding grants for 2005-2006. This should also help to prove legitimacy. http://www.creativenz.govt.nz/files/05-06-2.pdf

Published preview from another print media publication http://www.nzmusician.co.nz/index.php/ps_pagename/newsitem/pi_newsitemid/2747

Story from nz herald about alternative music which mentions Vitamin S http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=200&objectid=10453800

Article about the current festival programme. http://www.eventfinder.co.nz/2008/feb/auckland/punish-reward-k5k.html

Blog entry from 2005 http://etnobofin.blogspot.com/2005/02/vitamin-s-odeon-monday-7th-february.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinobass (talk • contribs) 21:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of these qualify as reliable sources necessary to fulfill our notability guidelines. (corrected link to WP:MUSIC)) Need more than just trivial mention. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ZimZalaBim, why do you feel that The New Zealand Herald, one of the largest (if not the largest) New Zealand newspapers, is not a reliable source for information about a New Zealand organization?

I don't see anything relevant in your cite to WP:BAND. Did you actually mean to cite to WP:MUSIC? That seems to be focused on notability standards for a band, and this organization, as described in the article, is not a band. It's a collective that hosts workshops, puts together random trios of players who have never before played together, etc. It's not a band. I think we're doing the article a disservice by treating it like a band. TJRC (talk) 10:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry, I meant WP:MUSIC. The problem with their appearance in the NZ Herald is that it is merely trivial mention (ie, listing in an "upcoming events" section, and passing mention in a brief article). That doesn't satisfy WP:MUSIC nor WP:N in general, if you think that our music guidelines don't apply to this "collective". --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having read WP:BAND and WP:MUSIC Vitamin S doesn't fall within the band criteria at all well, or even within WP:MUSIC - both of which are focussed on individuals or ensembles with long term existence creating a body of recorded work. The ensembles which form a core part of Vitamin S are, by design, rarely if ever the same twice. Improvisation is a performance art form which is by its very nature ephemeral. This was part of my original rationale for creating the page, Vitamin S is, as far as I can tell, a unique beast even within the genre of improvisation. It is also notable in terms of the New Zealand musical scene in terms of what it enables - the regular events (sporadic) and festivals (around 2 a year) and the bands it has spawned etc. It certainly isn't a group or ensemble in that regard (the nearest to that would be '10 acre bloc' or 'the dominion centenary brass band' - neither of which are 'Vitamin S' as such).

The issue I'm personally having in providing citations for WP:N is as follows. The main print media in New Zealand who have a web presence don't archive everything they print - and particularly not reviews and previews. I am aware of this, so for my own projects I take care to archive such references, however this is a project I'm only peripherally involved with and was not involved in creating - therefore I don't have chapter and verse in hand.

This is not to say such material don't exist or can't be found, just that I don't personally have them to hand. Furthermore at this point in time the people who are likely to have such material are currently involved in a 2 week long improvisation festival. I provided the gig guide listings not because they were particularly notable in and of themselves, but to provide evidence of longevity.

In the 'This Page in a nutshell' for WP:MUSIC it states first that a musician or ensemble is notable if it has had some recognition by professional organisations or music charts - as improvisation at this level is primarily a live performance art form chart success is extremely unlikely - however several members of the Vitamin S pool have, indeed, had chart success. It also states that notability is achieved if the musician has been the subject of a broadcast by a media network. My understanding is that this week several people representing Vitamin S were interviewed on TV and there has been radio coverage over the years (what's on at Vitamin S is a regular staple of one of the 'Jazz' shows) - these are, of course, particularly difficult to prove. I have found several interviews on the new zealand musician (music magazine with nationwide coverage) site were some of our busiest musicians mention their involvement with Vitamin S - I'm not sure whether to even list those or not.

When I created this page I anticipated a calm period of evolution during which such details could be found - which is clearly naivete on my part and for which I must apologise. - Dinobass (talk) 12:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note none of the above statement has been verified. Charles Stewart (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:MUSIC radio interviews with Vitamin S as the primary focus would count. Chris O'Connor [[29]] has just been interviewed on 95BfM [[30]] about the auckland improvisation scene, with Vitamin S as the main focus. Drew McMillan, one of the founders of Vitamin S is also going to be interviewed this week in relation to Vitamin S and improvisation in general. 95BfM www.95bfm.co.nz has an internet broadcast stream and possibly archived podcasts. Would that count as verifiable in this regard? Dinobass (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given the cites provided by Dinobass, there is no longer any question of the organization's notability. TJRC (talk) 10:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but keep working on the page. A little Googling shows these guys have been around and performing for quite a while: We're not dealing with Wayne and Garth in the basement here. PhGustaf (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I don't think anyone doubts their existence, just whether their notability can be verified by reliable sources. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:MUSIC because of some of the references (not the gig guides) that Dinobass provided. Now all they need to do is be in the article, not in this discussion. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read WP:MUSIC#C1 Which reads:

It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.^[1]
- This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, and television documentaries^[2] except for the following:
  - Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves, and advertising for the musician/ensemble.
  - Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report performance dates or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.
  - An article in a school or university newspaper (or similar) would generally be considered trivial but should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

While Dinabass has provided multiple independent sources, all the sources are simply trivial according to WP:MUSIC since they simply report performance dates.

~Charles Stewart (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, thanks Charles, funny how missing a small word like except changes things. Article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did that too at first, its probably the italics. Charles Stewart (talk) 03:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Please note, neither WP:MUSIC or WP:BAND are particularly appropriate to Vitamin S which is neither a band nor an ensemble or, indeed, limited to music as a form of expression. It does include a collection of ensembles and there are plenty of reviews on-line of ensembles related to vitamin s, such as 10 Acre Bloc, New Pacific Music Ensemble, Dominion Centenary Brass Band etc. None of these are, however, Vitamin S. There are also plenty of articles where members of the Vitamin S pool mention the collective. Furthermore, not *all* of the articles cited were in the list of exceptions. Although not listed under WP:BAND or WP:MUSIC, grants from national and local body funding are surely evidence of notability for an artists collective such as Vitamin S. Finding evidence of notability that fits the limits set by Wikipedia seems like a difficult task right at the moment, but it's small beer indeed compared to the Herculean task of getting Creative New Zealand to part with tax payers money (and rightly so - I'd like to thank Creative New Zealand for their fine work, even though they've never given me anything). Dinobass (talk) 03:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If neither WP:BAND nor WP:MUSIC apply, what does? Does WP:ORG apply since they're an organization? If it does apply, Vitamin S is far too local to be considered notable. If WP:ORG doesn't apply, what does? I don't know how many times you've said policy X or Policy Z don't apply, but I've never heard you say which one does. Perhaps you won't commit to a single policy since Vitamin S isn't considered notable under policy? Charles Stewart (talk) 03:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already said, given a little more time than this rather premature deletion notice would allow for, citations able to satisfy the criteria for WP:N can be provided - in fact, having supplied links to government documents, interviews, and radio interviews talking about the subject matter, such citations should already have done. So why should I commit to more restrictive guidelines that don't apply? The available guidelines are Academics, Books, Films, Music, Numbers, Organizations & companies, People and Web Content. This list seems somewhat restrictive in an age of multi-disciplinary performance art. However, if we assume notability under WP:ORG - the note on that page says: "Hewlett-Packard satisfies this criterion for, amongst other things, being covered in a feature article in the Palo Alto Weekly.". Vitamin S has been covered in a feature article in 'The Central Leader', an equivalent publication, as well as features on radio and television. The issue here isn't that evidence for notability in this regard don't exist, more that they don't exist in the on-line version of dead tree publications for easy confirmation or rejection by people half way around the world.

We wouldn't be in this situation if Charles Stewart hadn't chosen to vandalise the first attempts to create the Vitamin S page, then go against the spirit of WP:DELETE by calling for deletion without prior discussion or suggestions for improvement, as well as continually removing the rescue tags placed (and replaced) by the kindness of complete strangers. Most people are only reading the discussion here and have probably not read the original page blanking by Charles Stewart with the comment (rmv crap). This can be found on the history page of Vitamin_S_(disambiguation). I restored what appeared to me as simple vandalism. At that point, without starting a discussion on the talk page, or following any of the guidelines suggested on WP:Delete, Charles Stewart added the afd tag.

It clearly states on WP:DELETE that:

- Deletion and undeletion are performed by administrators based on policy and guidelines, not personal likes and dislikes

It also states on WP:DELETE that:

- Pages that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion
- The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an administrator, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum.

None of this was done prior to the deletion notice. I certainly appreciate, and will implement, the advice on improvement from other editors subsequent to the deletion notice being placed. However, given that I am working to the 5 day constraints of a deletion notice that was created for reasons other than the spirit of WP:DELETE, and that the dead tree citations required will take longer than that to compile, is it at all surprising that I do not feel any desire to commit to inappropriate and more restrictive notability guidelines? Dinobass (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(←) When you go to create an article, "# Before creating an article, please read Wikipedia:Your first article. Did you do this? If you had read it, you'd have seen the part where it tells you (thrice actually) to gather reliable sources, and to list them in the article. Did you list reliable sources in the article? No. And, it tells you to be careful about local-interest articles.

Also, when you created it, you improperly moved Vitamin S to Vitamin S (disambiguation) then made an article at Vitamin S. You're not supposed to do that.
~Charles Stewart (talk) 03:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please take this discussion to the talk page. (And perhaps if this energy could be channeled to improving articles, we'd improve the encyclopedia). --ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, a message was left on the talk page imploring folks to take the discussion here. As a newcomer to this entire aspect of Wikipedia I took that as an indication of procedure. I have added radio/TV interviews and dates to the talk page - adding them to the article itself seems too much like self-aggrandisement (even though I'm not personally involved in any of the articles or interviews). Dinobass (talk) 10:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of reading, Charles Stewart, have you read WP:BITE? TJRC (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure have. I don't feel bitten though, so don't worry. Afterall, he has been here longer than me. Charles Stewart (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think reading that as "it's okay to bite non-newcomers," or "it's okay for newcomers to bite" is quite the right spirit. TJRC (talk) 18:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this page is for discussing the deletion of this article. If you have issues with a particular editor's behavior, take it up on that person's own talk page (or other appropriate venues). Thanks. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is tricky, because it's still not clear which, if any policies apply. There's no WP:Nonprofit Artistic Collectives. But the original author, and others, have I think greatly improved this page, and I think it's reasonable to give him a few more days to get more references sorted out. The government grants to the group are in themselves significant arguments for notability. PhGustaf (talk) 06:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Wikipedia:HEY, and Notiblity has been estabilished Gnevin (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete, which defaults to keep. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Levinsohn

I don't think the person is notable. I get very few independent Google hits. He has been the CEO for a few companies, but those ones don't seem to be major . Anthony Nolan O'Nymous (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Falls short of being notable. Pburka (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was the CEO of three publicly quoted corporations in South Africa, and one of the youngest, if not the youngest CEO of a public corporation on the Johannebsurg Stock Exchange in 1998. He has significant investments in USA coporations which are developing innovative mobile marketing solutions. He is recognised as a an international expert in mobile marketing solutions and CRM programs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Attiwa (talk • contribs) 03:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User:Attiwa (the article's creator) has expanded the article with more assertions, so I have asked Attiwa to provide refs/sources.--Anthony Nolan O'Nymous (talk) 03:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. --86.151.19.135 (talk) 10:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. I spent some time trying to fix the article up, providing references. Everything I found was in conjunction with other non-notable organizations. The article presents itself a little better for my efforts and maybe someone will hit the jackpot and be able to prevent mine from becoming a wasted effort, however as it stands, Michael Levinsohn appears to be non-notable. — X S G 10:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This article just needs some cleaning up, now. The correlation with Makeba and the production of a grammy award-nominated album in combination with being CEO of this and that are enough to demonstrate a weak but present notability. — X S G 08:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I've just dropped an hour of time wiki-izing the article, checking facts, and organizing the article. I'm actually proud of my work, here. I hope everyone gets to appreciate it... :) — X S G 04:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. —Anthony Nolan O'Nymous (talk) 13:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment: Thanks XSG for the cleaning and digging you've done - I do hope it's not all in vain. I (as the nominator for deletion) am now a little less certain whether it should be deleted. What still bothers me is that pretty well everything about Levinsohn seems to come from press releases, and most of the entities he's associated with appear themselves to be non-notable judging by the number of redlinks. The announcement of his appointment to MOBICOMM appears on a variety of business-related websites but these seem to have been based on one (or just a few) press releases (some publications and websites will publish almost anything that's handed to them). The assertion that many articles by Levinsohn have been published by leading Southa African journals is backed up by...a press release from Sterling Trust of which Levinsohn was the MD. Also, I can't find anything outside Wikipedia to confirm the association with the Miriam Makeba album, and I don't think involvement in the financing of a Rick Wakeman album is a notable fact. So sorry, but my position is still to delete.--Anthony Nolan O'Nymous (talk) 13:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Corrections: Sorry, have to correct myself in the above! First, I realise now that the Sterling Trust "press release" I referred to appears to be a copy of an article in some external publication (I can't discover which one though as I get zero Google hits). Nevertheless, if Levinsohn has written many article in leading journals, why are none of them apparently online? Second correction: I have found one Google hit associating Levinsohn with Makuba's album. However, it describes him as being involved in the financing, so like Rick Wakeman, this is not a notable fact.--Anthony Nolan O'Nymous (talk) 13:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per XSG's saves. Also rm some foreign phrasing and redlinks.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 02:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -Djsasso (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skate perception

Forum site without a solid claim of notability. Jfire (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 17:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable website; fails WP:WEB --Orange Mike | Talk 17:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

To Whom it may concern. Editor's Note on Deletion Discussion: User:Gbelknap is a suspected sockpuppet of User:MooshiePorkFace, a pay for hire wikipedia editor. User:Gbelknap looks like an WP:SPI in any event or a meat puppet for the subject of the article. Only contributions are this single article and some marketing fluff on Deep Packet Capture.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Darkspots (talk) 01:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solera networks

non notable company Excariver (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn - No WP:RS so fails WP:ORG. Sting au Buzz Me... 23:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Updated with notable secondary sources as per WP:ORG, also included products and services. Gbelknap (talk) 03:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if Networkworld.com and ISP-Planet actually stack up to WP:RS as far as, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." goes? Anything from the mainstream media? Because I couldn't find anything, so if not reliable fails WP:V. Also the products and services you supposedly added are all red links. Sting au Buzz Me... 04:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Networkword and ISP-Planet may not be CBS or the New York Times but they are members of the mainstream media for the Networking industry. These are legitimate secondary sources and are not: "Press releases; autobiographies; advertising for the company, corporation, organization, or group; and other works where the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people. Self-published material or published at the direction of the subject of the article would be a primary source and falls under a different policy." or "Works carrying merely trivial coverage; such as (for examples) newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories., as required per WP:ORG. These are publications that meet with WP:RS's requirement: Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made. and thus passes WP:V. Gbelknap (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've also corrected the product list to eliminate red links. Gbelknap (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Connect magazine is a bit dubious, but Network World and ISP-Planet are industry specific trade magazines. Satisifies notability with multiple articles from reliable sources independent from the subject. -- Whpq (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Network World isn't automatically a reliable source, since at least some of their content is taken directly from press releases, but the cited article looks like it passes muster. -- BPMullins | Talk 18:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Gbelknap. Rigby27 Talk 00:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Neıl ☎ 15:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exopack Advanced Coatings

non notable company Excariver (talk) 19:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment'. Being a manufacturer of "unique specialty films" is a claim to notability, and the references and external links seem to demonstrate at least a bit of notability. --Eastmain (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

agree with eastmain, when readers looking for information or reference to the field or industry, will find it useful, esp. most of the related terms used links to further explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.98.201.6 (talk) 10:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article has been improved. --Eastmain (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are no reliable sources to demonstrate notability outside of the company or its products. It might be improved, but it still promotional in tone and content, and so fails WP:SPAM.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Chetblong^{T C} 05:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mar-Kov Computer Systems

non notable company Excariver (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does not seem right that a company, no matter the size, have its entry deleted when its direct competitors have entries. As far as I am concerned, it should be all or nothing.Akoves

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Gavin Collins (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find press releases, but I cannot find indepedent reliable sources about this company. -- Whpq (talk) 18:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tech businesses need strong indicia of notability from the get-go. This has no references except to its own internal website. Claiming that products are solutions is execrable English, and a per se violation of neutrality. That other articles exist on similar subjects doesn't necessarily mean that this one should; perhaps they also fail as well. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have proposed deletion of Mar-Kov CMS, which is a related article. Suggest that whatever the outcome of this discussion, the two articles should meet a shared fate. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computers-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question/comment. (meant non-contfrontationally) I'm curious as to what you mean by the comment that tech companies need strong indicia. Are you saying the standard should be different for tech than other companies? I only partly agree with your comment about "solutions." Yes, using an otherwise wonderful word in that way as marketing speak is a pox on the language. But if one swallows that, I don't think it's POV. It's just a synonym for "software that addresses a business or process function." It's only by insisting that "solutions" retain its primary meaning, that a problem is successfully and fully resolved, that it becomes POV.Wikidemo (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - couldn't see any notability here. The fairness argument that a company should be included if its competitors are has appeal but I don't agree. We're here to foster knowledge in the world, not to create a marketplace. There's a close cousin to that argument that does work...if we cover 90% of a subject we ought to cover the other 10% because otherwise the gap is unencyclopedic. It really depends on the nature and shape of a business. If there is a small number of companies in a field, and if the field is such that really understanding the field requires us to know each of the competitors, it makes sense to describe them all one way or another. If there are an indefinite number, or if a complete list isn't really essential, no reason to do it just out of fairness.Wikidemo (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikidemo. GreenJoe 12:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Appears to be advertising with no sources. -Djsasso (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teasme

non notable company Excariver (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —Sting au Buzz Me... 23:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fortney & Scott, LLC

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Fortney & Scott, LLC

non notable company Excariver (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The company seems to abbreviate its name to FortneyScott sometimes. Some references on Google News at http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Fortney+%26+Scott%22&btnG=Search+Archives&hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8 and on Google at http://www.google.com/search?q=FortneyScott and http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Fortney+%26+Scott%22 suggest that the firm is well-known in certain circles, but I'm not sure that the evidence adds up to notability. --Eastmain (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems a sufficiently important law firm.DGG (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable as far as I can see, only the author has contributed and originally written very much as an advert. Paste (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but only after I removed the cruft! Bearian (talk) 00:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lombardi Software

non notable Excariver (talk) 19:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've already had the deletion tag removed when this page was created. Lombardi is notable because it is one of the last remain "Pure Play" vendors in BPM. It is also the first to create an enterprise 2.0 / web 2.0 product. This is significant in the BPM industry and shapes the future of BPM and what it may become. not sure why another deletion tag was placed when one was already removed. The admin that was ok with the removal was User:Redfarmer Palaks (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The user is referring to when I tagged the page for speedy deletion. The page was subsequently cleaned up to where it met WP:CSD. Whether it is notable or not will be seen from this discussion. P.S. For the record, I'm not an admin but I'm flattered people think I am. Redfarmer (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article does not meet WP:CORP or other guides. Vegaswikian (talk) 09:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- they have a product in the Gartner's Leaders Quadrant for BPMS 2007. I would say any company with a product in the Leader's Quadrant for their market segment is ipso facto notable--SJK (talk) 08:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, most of the sources I could find simply appeared to be republished press releases issued by the company. I'm not sure they meet WP:CORP. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tech businesses marketing non-consumer products need to have fairly obvious indicia of notability from the beginning. This article has no references or external links other than to the company's own website. The description of the business is vague and buzzword laden too: if you asked someone for their job description, and they told you they "manage processes", would you be satisfied with that description? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

Miltons Fine Foods

non notable company Excariver (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Gavin Collins (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, would not appear to meet the notability criteria in WP:CORP. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete No independent sources in article to demonstrate notability, nor could I easily find any. I did find this[31], a press release mentioning an $8.5 debt financing, and regional or national Trader Joe's distribution is no small thing and goes to notability. So it's no neighborhood bake shop. If any reliable sources could be found (and perhaps they're out there somewhere) that might change it to a weak keep. Incidentally, I think the reason there was so little comment on many of these articles is that User:Excariver nominated a whole bunch at the same time, with very little explanation, and it probably exceeded everyone's bandwidth. It's not required to do more than that, but next time if you have a whole bunch of articles to nominate perhaps you could space them out over several days to give people a chance to keep up.Wikidemo (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:CORP --Orange Mike | Talk 17:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -Djsasso (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aquasyn

non notable Excariver (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Gavin Collins (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, despite the oddly stunted in the nom, this company doesn't appear to meet WP:CORP. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, delete - notability not supported by article itself or a quick google search. Company is real and article appears legit, just doesn't establish notability.Wikidemo (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wilderness of tigers

Non-notable theatre company. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep --MacRusgail (talk) 14:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete this page. Wilderness of Tigers is pushing the boundaries of what theatre can be in Glasgow and in it's short life has gained much attention from the Scottish theatre industry and the people of Glasgow. I am currently working to create articles on all of the theatre companies, based on research in the Scottish Theatre Archive, as details of the industry are currently perilously sparse on wikipedia. Throwoutyourarms (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this discussion going to progress? [[[Special:Contributions/86.160.70.184|86.160.70.184]] (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)][reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:N - the only real secondary source provided, an article in the Sunday Herald, doesn't even mention the group, at least not by name. No hits for ("Wilderness of Tigers" Glasgow) on Nexis. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - without prejudice, but simply fails notability check. Good luck to 'em. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Varsalone

Contested CSD with notability concerns. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 05:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep book and chapters seem a significant contribution. Article in need of much work. JJL (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JJL - I rewote the article because you said it needed a lot of work. Does it look better now or is it still in need of more work. - Jesse —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fastriser (talk • contribs) 01:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it still isn't really in article form--it's more like a resume. It should be readable, like an encyclopedia article. As below, WP:COI is a concern too. JJL (talk) 03:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Self-promotion and fails WP:BIO and WP:N. No independent sources referenced. --Sc straker (talk) 03:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the absence of some indications that the study guides and the like which he wrote are significant.DGG (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1videoConference

Open source software of marginal notability. Currently appears to fail WP:N as the only third-party coverage is a write up on the techcrunch blog. Prod removed with comment "Don't delete because (a) multipoint video is coming of age, and (b) this is going into live beta as 'vmutki' shortly." Jfire (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 36,000 Google hits, more third-party coverage than nominator describes. --Oldak Quill 01:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to withdraw the nomination if you can provide some examples of substantial third party coverage. Ghits are not a reliable measure of notability. Jfire (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I spent a while looking for sources to add but I really couldn't find much - despite having a lot of google hits, they all seem to be forum/blog posts, or links and mirrors of the techcrunch article. PirateMink 12:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As proder, I couldn't find any sources. BJ^Talk 11:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless it is already in widespread use, it is not notable. Shootthedevgru (talk) 11:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another "this is gonna be big soon, man!" with no "sources" but techcrunch - --Orange Mike | Talk 17:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nom in favour of merging. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Mastel

Contested prod. No assertion of notability beyond status as nominated candidate in provincial election, which falls short of standard in WP:BIO. No evidence of coverage in reliable third party sources. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Liberal Party candidates, 2008 Alberta provincial election per standard practice for unelected candidates. Bearcat (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know we did that at the provincial level. There being no apparent objections, I withdraw my nom. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nominator is a banned user. Raul654 (talk) 08:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Project Steve

NCSE publicity stunt with COI edits. About might (talk) 07:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Non-notable publicity stunt tended by COI/NCSE members. About might (talk) 07:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blindingly obvious speedy KEEP. "Project Steve" may or may not be a publicity stunt, but the WP article about it most certainly isn't. It's a notable topic. End of story. Snalwibma (talk) 08:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP COI edits are no reason for deletion? The article is important. Teapotgeorge (talk) 08:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~wow you guys have a lot of meat puppets.~~ About might (talk) 08:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; well-cited article passes WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Lara

Unpublished philosopher. The article claims he is running for congress, but there is no independent confirmation of that, so he is unlikely to be a major-party candidate. Chick Bowen 06:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; a professorship at a community college seems to be his greatest claim to fame, and that doesn't pass WP:PROF.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not yet notable as a professor or a politician.DGG (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very non-notable, possibly vanity. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. A Ph.D. and a community college teaching post are not enough for WP:PROF. As for the congress run: it's Dana Rohrabacher's district, Rohrbacher should win re-election easily, and it seems that his challenger will be Huntington Beach mayor Debbie Cook. So, whatever stage Lara's campaign reached, it's less than either of those two and not enough for notability either. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Neıl ☎ 15:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Nissim

Conflict of interest - initial/main contributor appears to also be the subject, notability outside local area highly questionable. Dethme0w (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Lunch Club is well known in Boston, London and Dublin, aside from NYC, and there are several major news articles to prove that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.51.87 (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. References in the article show notability. If there are issues with COI they should be fixed by editing, not deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to keep. I met my wife at a Lunch Club event. While it is not a dating club, it makes it easy to get to know people when you move to a new city (as I did when moving to New York in 2002). I appreciate what Jared and his organization have done, and suggest the entry stay. - James Kotchold, NYC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.133.25 (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If "the Lunch Club" is the notable subject (which both "keep" editors are asserting, the article should be titled The Lunch Club. Have either "the Lunch Club", or for that matter, the founder Jared Nissim been the subject of verifiable, independent reliable sources?. I can't find any. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Why not start by looking at the links in the article? They are from verifiable, independent reliable sources and discuss Jared Nissim's founding of two different enterprises, so it would be wrong to move the article to just one of those. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nissim isn't mentioned in several of those articles, but he's discussed extensively in others. Those that don't mention him do document the notability of his enterprises. As Phil Bridger notes, the individual seems to be known for two things and so moving this to "Lunch Club" would be inappropriate. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 below. No deletion opinions were raised. Non-admin close. --jonny-m t 13:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kirari

Does not seem to meet WP:MUSIC sufficiently to have a separate article. No sources. Barely any content for that matter. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 05:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My blood's "A" too. Does that excite you? No, I didn't think it would. ~~Delete~~. -- Hoary (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC) ..... Correction: no, simple redirect to OICETS. Hoary (talk) 23:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does not seem to pass WP:MUSIC (the Japanese wikipedia article lists a couple more songs, but I can't tell if any have charted). However, she might be borderline notable as an actor: she's had at least a handful of roles in live TV dramas plus a movie, though none of them seem to have been lead, and hosted a radio show, and if English language sources are to be believed (these aren't mention on ja:wiki), she's done voice acting for hentai anime. And that's as far as I can get -- someone who reads Japanese will have to take over tracking down sources. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also, if the decision is to delete, the article should be replaced with a redirect to OICETS. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:MUSIC. Her cover of Toy Soldiers charted in Japan. Oricon's website is far from the easiest to navigate, but hopefully this link will work for anyone. (she's number 18). Neier (talk) 12:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would clinch it: keep, passes WP:MUSIC 2. If you could add that to the article, with the source, that would be most useful. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn - Can't blame me for nominating this though. :-) —Torc. ^(Talk.) 20:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No blame at all -- definitely a good-faith nomination, given the state of the article and information available in English. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely no blame here – I'm not even sure if any google search could have turned up that nugget of info. I only remembered her because the confusion that formed in my head since the group Kiroro was popular at the same time her song came out (it was the theme for a tv series, which is how I heard it); combined with the fact that I knew I'd heard the song long ago in English... Neier (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -Djsasso (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P'yatyhatky, Vynohrad

Yes, it's written like a travelog, but that's not the issue here. If it were, I'd fix it. The issue is that it's a 'part of a neighborhood'. Not a neighborhood, or anything larger and I don't think a part of a neighborhood is notable even by the strongest of inclusionist interpretation. If it were notable during Soviet time, there'd be some Google coverage, no matter what language. There's a wiki mirror farm in English and fewer results when searching all languages. Google Maps doesn't know it and no evidence of RS coverage. Travellingcari (talk) 05:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm all for keeping articles on small villages and significant neighbourhoods, but this seems to be just a field or two with a dirt track running through it. It's already perfectly well covered in the Vynohrad article. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete; despite the hilarity value, articles on "the corner where I waited for a bus once" are taking things a bit far. --Paularblaster (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tikiwont (talk) 11:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pallonji's

Brought this here since it doesn't appear A7 applies to products, even those that aren't widely available and most people haven't heard of. Shockingly enough google doesn't appear to have either and there's no evidence of notability for this drink created ~150 years ago. Travellingcari (talk) 04:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article doesn't exactly stand up for itself - "...many people living in Mumbai have never heard of it." Only reference is not reliable, and while this search appears to yield a couple results, none of those are reliable either, and the search quickly drops off into irrelevant land. These searches are even less useful. Non-notable, and no way to prove notability. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article even asserts that it is unknown locally. All I found was a few blog/forum posts.[32][33] [34] Although the Pallonji name is connected with an historically notable hotel and some 20th century business interests this drink doesn't seem notable. --Dhartung | Talk 04:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep all per discussion below. Any potential copyvio issues may be taken up in the proper channels. Non-admin close. --jonny-m t 12:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ultratop 40 number-one hits of 2002

Also included in nomination:

Ultratop 40 number-one hits of 2003 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ultratop 40 number-one hits of 2004 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ultratop 40 number-one hits of 2005 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ultratop 40 number-one hits of 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ultratop 40 number-one hits of 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Procedural nomination - the 2002 list was a contested WP:PROD by the author. Wikipedia is not a collection of statistics, and these pages are essentially a simplified duplication of the table at the sole reference, the Ultratop website. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It appears to be a summary of what songs were rated as #1 in Belgium during particular years, which is no less relevant than the Billboard Top 40 American songs. What music sells best is an indicator of national culture. The presentation could use some reform-- do we really need 52 entries for 11 songs? Mandsford (talk) 13:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : as per Mandsford. No good reason given for the deletion. Europe22 (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, the Billboard lists (such as Top 10 Billboard Hot 100 singles of 2005) provide a bit more information as well as more songs - the peak position reached, number of weeks in the Top 10 - information which is not immediately available in one place on the Billboard site. The Ultratop lists nominated are listing only the very top hit, without providing any additional information. Were this an article and not a list, I'd put it up for copyvio. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio ? There is no list of # 1 on the site that was used as reference. Europe22 (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let me clear this up... Belgium is divided in two "cultural regions", Flanders and Wallonia. As they are culturally different; Ultratop created two different album and singles chart for the regions. The list of number-one singles of Flanders article was already created, and everybody were using it as if they were the real number-one hit of Belgium, but it was wrong... So I completed the "List of number-one hits (Belgium)" section and added the Wallonia number-one singles. I included the references later because I forgot... That's it folks! Do whatever you think it's rightMcMare's (talk) 03:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Canley (talk) 01:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Parker

The book exists but the publisher is a vanity press. I find no coverage other than a calendar listing and no evidence this author passes WP:BIO Travellingcari (talk) 03:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article could have been speedied; it doesn't even make a claim of notability. Jfire (talk) 01:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Michael White^T·C 18:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom, could have also used CSD A7. --Veritas (talk) 13:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)d[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. Despite one "delete", a clear consensus of keeping is clearly shown, regardless of the fact that this was a possibly disruptive nomination. Any issues regarding the article's sources can be fixed easily. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bow High School

AfDs for this article:

Article's deletion was ended by a non-admin last time NHWrestler103 (talk) 03:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep For the second time, above and beyond the general consensus on the WP:Inherent notability of high schools, this article provides ample, independent reliable and verifiable sources to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete My school, a rival of Bow High School, had its article deleted for notability reasons. Our school is of similar notability to Bow High School, and I feel some consistency is in order. NHWrestler103 (talk) 03:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleting articles out of spite or revenge is generally not considered within Wikipedia policy. I will be more than happy to recreate the article for your school, but I don't see any such article deleted via AfD. Given the ample reliable and verifiable sources available for high schools it's hard to understand why this or any other such article should be considered for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 03:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete High schools are NOT inherently notable, and no guideline or policy says that. This article is sourced, but nothing about this school says that it is notable. So it may pass WP:V, but it fails WP:N. TJ Spyke 03:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - actually there is something notable - the out of the ordinary number of state championships. BTW though the figure of 27 is uncited, 25 of them can be sourced - I'm looking for the other 2! TerriersFan (talk) 04:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep ...again. Notable with sources. Your school's article being deleted is not a reason to delete this one. --Onorem♠Dil 03:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a reason. It is an example of Wikipedia's precedent for such cases. You may want to familiarize yourself with the situation before hastily casting a vote. NHWrestler103 (talk) 03:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as nomination by single purpose account only involved with previous AfD only just closed today and most likely sock puppet of blocked user. Otherwise article survives WP:N as it has plenty of WP:RS.Sting au Buzz Me... 03:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a sock puppet and do not accuse me of being a sock puppet. You should remember to assume good faith. NHWrestler103 (talk) 03:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should also note that the previous AfD was closed by a non-admin. I would have posted my views in that AfD but was unable to because of that non-admin. NHWrestler103 (talk) 03:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked this user as a likely sockpuppet of User:Dimension31 who is currently blocked for the 3RR violations on the article. Metros (talk) 03:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although there there may not be a formal policy/guidline for this, there is WP:Articles_for_deletion/Common outcomes#Education which does point to most schools as having WP:N--Pmedema (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Sting au Buzz Me... 03:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I took a quick scan through Google News and found numerous references to the school. Notability would be easy to establish, even if you assume that it hasn't already been established in the article. At best this is a case of a notable topic in need of some development. At worst it looks like a highly questionable nomination. Bilby (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (neither strongly nor speedily nor snowily). There are certainly sources out there to write this article in an encyclopedic fashion [35]. The ones cited in the article are hardly "ample, independent reliable and verifiable"; #1 is a directory entry, #2-5, #8-9, and #11, are self-published, #6 is from the parent organisation, #7, #11, and #13 are from the local paper in a town of 7000 people, and #12 and #14 are trivial mentions. However, that's an editing issue. cab (talk) 03:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I go to this school and our school is not especially notable. We're pretty much the same as another other New England public school. Hrseydrssg93 (talk) 04:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Account was created six minutes ago [36] and immediately starts messing with User:NHWrestler103's user page [37][38]. cab (talk) 04:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as a WP:POINT violation. I am the user who closed the last AfD 2 hours ago, which was clearly a snowball keep. The nomination here does not provide an adequate reason to delete, the nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet SPA, the discussion here and last time both established sufficient reason not to delete the article, and the article easily meets the general notability guideline as well as the proposed guideline for schools. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - multiple sources and an exceptional range of state championships so the article easily meets WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 04:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and the nominator will cease wasting our time. If you thought that the last nom was closed improperly you should have brought your case to WP:DRV. But please read non-admin closure first. --Dhartung | Talk 04:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -Djsasso (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patel Conservatory Youth Orchestra (PCYO)

No evidence of notability of the orchestra and ghits are primarily performance dates. Per WP:CORP, "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found." Travellingcari (talk) 03:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC) adding the following for the same reason:[reply]

Both articles created by the same account although there's no obvious COI. Travellingcari (talk) 06:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both: I saw these pages early on, and was considering prodding them, but ended up just putting notability tags in hopes that they might be improved, or somehow referenced. I ended up forgetting about them, and since then the tags have been removed by anonymous IPs, and the articles are still the same. These articles fail to explain the importance of their subjects, and with a quick look around I cannot find any good references or media coverage on the subject. Danski14^(talk) 02:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Hardly assess any importance, the only coverage I found relates to The Florida Orchestra that seems to be awarding scholarships to their members.--Tikiwont (talk) 11:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yacøpsæ

Overall, I believe it fails WP:MUSIC. Google seaches do yield some hits, but most of them are to the wkipedia article or the band's homepage/other pages. The article was, in the beginning, copied and pasted directly from the bio section on the website. That was cleaned up a bit, but there are still good chunks of copied material. Also, this page is very, very poorly written.(see the album section) I cannot find sites that review this band. I can find some sites that sell their music, but that does not constitute notability. Delete Undeath (talk) 03:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cleaned it up a lot when it was first created, but I don't think it's notable. It's a little harder to tell with foreign bands, but I still think it fails WP:MUSIC. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 14:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MUSIC --Orange Mike | Talk 17:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The discussion below notes sources sufficient to satisfy the notability requirements and additional expansion since the start of the AfD. Non-admin close. --jonny-m t 12:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Panasonic Lumix DMC-L10

{{prod}} removed with a long explanation on the talk page. The article remains almost completely unreferenced, and reads like an advertisement. There's no claim to notabiltiy in the article itself, and the article itself mentions none of the points raised on the talk page. Wikipedia is not a digital camera catalog, and Wikipedia is not a catalog of Panasonic products. Mikeblas (talk) 03:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the WikiProject Photography talk page. — Becksguy (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any useable content to Lumix. Although that article is in need of some attention, it seems a logical home for the product listings. Travellingcari (talk) 03:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Claims notability and has sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or preferably merge + redirect to Lumix - it is one of the better sourced digicam articles. Merging would be the best option and deletion would be harsh. I don't think however that it was a PRODable article as the deletion of these articles are fairly controversial. EJF (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm not sure what set of articles is in "these articles", but many have been deleted without being contested. -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I am referring to articles such as those on, for example, digital cameras and mobile phones, as these often would be considered controversial deletions; a probable reason that many have not been contested is that they have not been given the 'publicity' of an AfD process. EJF (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and object to procedure. The article was tagged with {{prod}} on 12 Feb. 2008. The {{prod}} tag specifies, "... You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to its deletion for any reason. To avoid confusion, it helps to explain why you object to the deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page." (My emphasis) On 15 Feb. 2008 I did just that, I removed the {{prod}} tag and I wrote a detailed explanation why I thought the article should not be deleted. I even requested to be notified if it was really necessary for me to work on the article to avoid its deletion. Instead, the article was nominated for deletion on 18 Feb., and my following the rules is now ridiculed as "... {{prod}} removed with a long explanation on the talk page...". Hope it can be understood that this is not appreciated by an editor who is trying to improve Wikipedia. I would like to suggest that this AfD be canceled, and I'll do what I can to improve the article, OK? Thanks. --RenniePet (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If you object to the AfD procedure, I think the best place to start is the Wikipedia Village Pump. I don't think the processes is likely to change. The article is up for AfD because it's not your opinion alone that prevents it from being deleted. The sentence you quote is written as a plain statement of fact, and includes a link so others can read your explanation. The decision to interpret it negatively is entirely your own. -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. At first I was going to let this drop, but I find that after several days I'm still very irritated, so here goes. When I say "object to procedure", what I (obviously?) mean is that I object to the specific procedure used in this AfD, and the parallel one for the Panasonic Lumix DMC-L1. The editor who placed {{prod}} tags on these two articles apparently did so in bad faith, as he then moved on to AfD irrespective of input generated by the {{prod}} tagging. If this was the intention then it would have been better to simply AfD the article from the start. I find it very difficult to believe that this way of doing things can be consistent with Wikipedia policy, as it is quite counter-productive for good faith editors who are trying to improve Wikipedia, in which category I would like to place myself, and would hope that my profile and history confirms. Thanks. --RenniePet (talk) 20:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. According to WP:DP, the procedure followed here is correct. {{prod}} is for deletions that aren't contested. I didn't anticipate any contest as many other articles about cameras have been deleted without contest. Once the prod was contested, I tagged the article for discussion about deletion, which is AfD. That processes lets both sides be heard. -- Mikeblas (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment. OK, now that I've (finally) read WP:DP I will offer an apology.
      - I do have one suggestion though. I think the text displayed by the {{prod}} tag should be changed. The current text implies that by objecting to the deletion you avoid the article being AfD'd, while in fact the opposite is the case! --RenniePet (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment. I'm glad you've calmed down. I'm not in control of the messages in the templates. If ou'd like them to change, you might start at Wikipedia:Village pump or at the talk page for the template, Template talk:Prod. -- Mikeblas (talk) 04:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a major product with sufficient product reviews available for sourcing. DGG (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Using reviews as sources, we'll never be able to write an article that itself isn't a review. -- Mikeblas (talk) 04:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. And? Like, reviews can be fascinating and contain insightful information that determines what it's all about. A review is a source of information, and if you want you can consider any reference work to be a review. A history book is a review of a period of history.

If it makes a difference to the outcome of this AfD, I can spend another 1 1/2 hours rewriting and expanding this article, like I did with Panasonic Lumix DMC-L1. But I really don't see why it should be necessary (and I really don't have the time). --RenniePet (talk) 07:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment. And, Wikipedia is not a directory. If all that can be written is a review, the product is not notable enough to have its own article. -- Mikeblas (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I've now done a rewrite of the article. Hope this helps. (More references would be nice.) --RenniePet (talk) 16:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I see no problem with the article. Notable product with references added. --Tone 17:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has been nicely expanded by RenniePet and additional references added. And there is a news reference here. Satisfies notability per sufficient reliable sources. The nominator's directory argument does not apply, as anyone and anything is a entry in a directory of some kind and WP:NOT#DIR applies to entries with absolutely no other significance. As an example of a misapplication of that concept, all articles on cars, such as the famous Ford Mustang or the Model T should be deleted because Wikipedia is not a directory of automobiles. Reviews are perfectly good sources as they, per WP:N provide ...significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and they are used in other articles. And other camera articles got deleted under the radar. — Becksguy (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Defense of Global Capitalism

Author's subject biography is nominated for deletion, on the basis of failing to meet criteria of notability. Further, as far as this particular article is concerned, a Timbro publication -- or any think tank publication, for that matter -- generally doesn't merit its own article as it's essentially a privately-funded publication, not an academic or even a commercial publication. This article exists as an artificial way to manufacture notability for the book. J.R. Hercules (talk) 03:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable publication on a notable think tank. The think tank itself has notable authors under it as well. Undeath (talk) 03:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although we should have better documentation of the awards and reception. Like it or not this book is all the rage in the libertarian/economic-conservative community and it's trivial to find coverage. --Dhartung | Talk 05:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, definitely notable book that has been the subject of much debate and awards. /Slarre (talk) 06:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability is established. Janm67 (talk) 09:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There appear from the books website to be reviews, but they need to be cited from the original publications involved. Awards are mentioned--but what are they? DGG (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per Snow/Speedy Keep - Non-Admin Closure . Fosnez (talk) 10:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Norberg

Non-notable person whose subject article here is an artificial attempt to manufacture notability. This is essentially a vanity bio. Fails the criteria detailed in WP:Prof, as the "honors" awarded to the subject were handed out simply by his think-tank colleagues and/or employers and publisher, NOT by independent academics or authorities. J.R. Hercules (talk) 02:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has recieved an award for a published work. That constitutes notability. Undeath (talk) 03:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Only if the award and publications are notable. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 03:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The awards and and publication are notable. Undeath (talk) 05:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A bit of due diligence on the part of the nominator would have turned up multiple articles in multiple English-language publications setting aside whatever Swedish-language notability he has. --Dhartung | Talk 05:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ample news on him, scholarly articles referencing him and books referring to his work - Peripitus (Talk) 06:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep This has got to be one of the most preposterous nominations I've seen in a long time. Johan Norberg is today probobly the most recognized Swedish political writer internationally, and a well known advocate of capitalism and liberalism. Please do at least some basic research before nominating an article like this. /Slarre (talk) 07:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep What Slarre said. Janm67 (talk) 08:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a reasonable fork. As editors said, the main article section that this was split from needs to be shortened, but that is just a matter for editing. This title seems to be a well-sourced and accurate name for the article, given its content. It was not split off to create a different POV space, as the nom says it is word-for-word (aka faithful) reproduction of it's parent equivalent. And yes, the closing admin can read rather than count, but in this case the result was the same either way. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet repressions of Polish citizens (1939-1946)

The article is a word for word verbatim copy/paste of the section from the Treatment of Polish citizens under Soviet occupation of the Occupation of Poland (1939–1945) article, thus nothing but a blatant POV-fork pasted exactly word for word from another article under a more POVed title. Irpen 02:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject is obviously notable; there is a pl wiki equivalent; the article is well referenced. As I explained on article's talk it has been created per WP:SUMMARY; the occupaton article needs to be shortened, and this one expanded even further. The above nom is a sad case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, unfortunately.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, how can anybody ever come up with an idea of deleting such an important and factual article? There were Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles, just like there were Soviet repressions of Polish citizens (I would even rename this article into Soviet crimes against ethnic Poles). History cannot be changed according to some individual biases. Tymek (talk) 04:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Nazi article is split since we have Holocaust in Poland concentrating on Jews, and Nazi crimes deals with genocide of ethnic Poles. Soviets did not distinguish by race as much and many Jews, Ukrainians and Belorusians, former Polish citizens, suffered at their hand as well. Soviets concentrated on class (rich suffered, poor not so much).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Officially they did not distinguish by the race, but all data shows that Poles suffered much more in the Polish Eastern Borderlands than other nationalities. Tymek (talk) 04:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disputing that, but it was not as clear as in the case of Germans. The Soviets did not want to eliminate ethnic Slavs or ethnic Poles; they were more into eliminating Polish culture and assimilating Poles into the Soviet state. For Nazis, a good Pole was a dead Pole. For Soviets, transforming them into homo sovieticus would do. Granted; there was a major shift into less anti-Polish policies after Sikorski-Mayski agreement of 1941 (see Amnesty for Polish citizens in USSR), and later, after in 1944 Stalin decided to create a Polish puppet state; the policies of 1939-1941 were probably the hardest (vide Katyn massacre and so on).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, checking sources about Soviet occupation of eastern Poland between 1939 and 1941 I would say that their task, in cooperation with the Germans, was to eliminate ethnic Poles completely. After 1944 it was different, they wanted to keep Poland as a puppet state, this is true. Anyway, we are deviating from the subject. Tymek (talk) 06:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Tymek here, scholars studying the problem do point that that ethnic extermination of Polish nation stopped only in 1941 with Nazi invasion and the need to exploit Polish population as resource during the war. I would rename the article Soviet crimes against ethnic Poles, as Polish minority was repressed before 1939 in Soviet Union and after 1946.--Molobo (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can see nothing wrong with the plan Piotrus has laid out. It is an extremely notable and important article, and Piotrus has created it in line with WP:SUMMARY. However, If someone can show me how the current title violates WP:UE or WP:NCGN, then of course it should be deleted immediately, and Piotrus should be blocked forever! Ostap 05:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is well sourced, and subject is notable (as notable as this one). Moreover, the article exists on Polish wikipedia. Puark (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the votes above. I am not saying that the article discusses an non-notable info. Neither that it is unreferenced. The problem is its being a classical POV fork - an exact text pasted from an existing article under a more POVed title. If someone pastes a half of History of Jews in Poland into a new article and titles in Polish Antisemitism that new article would also be "referenced", present valid content and "sourced". Still it would be a POV-fork. --Irpen 21:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of labeling editorial actions "classic" this or that which you don't approve of and passing summary judgement, consider giving things some time to develop. I certainly agree that one should not have a verbatim copy of content in two places--but the difference is that I don't immediately take that as being the intent and end product and then act on a basis of assuming POV-pushing. Perhaps we can yet agree on a less combative 2008? —PētersV (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Expand and Rename Valid article, expand on attempts to destroy Polish minority in Soviet Union after 1920 till 1939, and repressions against Poles after 1946. Rename to Soviet crimes against ethnic Poles, just as Nazi crimes against ethnic Pols article.--Molobo (talk) 22:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see this as a POV fork but as expansion. I am not 100% happy with the title but "repression" seems to be a more neutral word than "crimes" (particularly in the absence of any legal framework for labeling them as such). It would seem necessary to show what exactly is POV about the topic, and I don't see that it is or that it veers away from the parent article in a significant fashion. We're not paper -- we can expand and calve articles as long as there are sources to guide us. --Dhartung | Talk 23:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perhaps we could allow editors some time to move and adjust content and summarize the original in the parent before we go around pouncing and nominating stuff for deletion? This sort of chewing up of editors' time to respond to yet another thing somewhere instead of working on content doesn't contribute to WP. Just a thought. —PētersV (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. To Irpen: It took you less than 24 hours after the initial article creation for you to nominate for deletion. And you nominated it for deletion a mere minute after you posted your first comment to the article's talk page. That would lead an impartial observer to conclude that you're monitoring Piotrus' editing and, more to the point, that you had no intent to actually discuss anything on the talk page (as in, await an explanation), you were merely rendering your verdict (of bad faith). I was rather hoping for a more positive 2008. —PētersV (talk) 02:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC) It's not too late, you can always withdraw the AfD. —PētersV (talk) 02:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to respond to this vicious attack by Vecrumba unleashed despite I said publicly many times that I am not monitoring Piotrus' editing. As a matter of principle I never click on his contributions link. Never! While he follows my edits everywhere adding whatever he can find to his diffs-dump, which he maintains to this day, I do not reciprocate this favor. Here is one of the places where I went on record on my approach to these matters. Last time when the issue of stalking was resurrected by Piotrus himself, even he was satisfied with the answer. Here the situation is exactly the same. The new article got linked by Piotrus himself to an article of which I was one of the major editors both at its current location and at the location of its mother article. There is nothing more to add to that except Vecrumba may want to apologize for accusing me of stalking and plain bad faith. As for the article, I only nominated it because it is a classical POV-fork not because it is "unimportant", or "sourced" as some here assert. --Irpen 04:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, Irpen! I was explaining what it looks like. That you nominate for deletion a minute after posting your first comment can lead one to believe you seek conflict, not consensus. You say you were not following, that is fine. I just don't nominate for deletion without first engaging in a meaningful discussion. Please put the sabre away. I have no desire to spend 2008 the way we spent 2007. The choice is yours.
"Vicious attack by Vecrumba?" You might examine whether you're rather taking this personally as opposed to a mere observation. You might consider what I stated more dispassionately. Again, I stated how it appears, not how it is. You clearly feel you are being personally set upon. Pretend the comment didn't come from me and consider the timings of your editorial choices and what their rather pointed absence of dialog imply. What we are having here is not dialog, discussions on AfD are already conflict resolution. This is not a substitute for discussing article worthiness on a talk page. —PētersV (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or rename to more trendy idiom such as: Red Holocaust Rising (Poland under Soviet occupation 1939-1946) if not satisfied with the article title. The content is thoroughly notable and unpretentious in comparison to the Jewish paranoia regarding such wording as "holocaust", "apartheid", "anti-semitism", etc. greg park avenue (talk) 03:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have to agree with PētersV. Martintg (talk) 06:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absolutely no chance of having this being deleted of course, as most of the people attracted to voting here will wish its content to be retained. Well, it'd be retained anyway, as it already exists in another article, where it is not flagged in the same POV-way. But I guess having it in one place in a semi-neutral manner isn't enough! Another lamb of neutrality sacrificed on the wikipedia altar to the nationalist god of victimhood. Everyone these days wants to be a victim of something; for Eastern Europe more than anywhere perhaps, victimhood is being cultivated on wikipedia by people with no or little direct experience of it claiming it through the constructed medium of national identity, with no regard for WP:NPOV, WP:SYN or POV-forking. Most of the eastern European articles of this type promote victimhood or visions of a larger state (e.g. Partitions of Poland articles, Polish minorities in areas that "used to be [and ought to be?] Polish", etc), and that's not just Polish articles. Sad for me is that I love Poland and Polish history, but all I'll get for this vote is dislike from many Polish users. For what it's worth, I'd be just as against British repressions of Scottish Highlanders or British repressions of the Irish. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Everyone these days wants to be a victim of something - what a ridicuous remark, written by an otherwise experienced editor. Let me remind you this is about facts, not about wishes. Hundreds of thousands of Poles died in Soviet hands, and nobody is promoting victimhood. These events need a description. How about deleting Holocaust-related articles? Why don't you give it a try? In this context, your alleged love of Poland is really dubious Tymek (talk) 20:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I don't get your point. The material already exists on wikipedia! And what a surprise the Holocaust is brought up, the Jules Rimet Trophy of ethnic victimhood ... and of course perfect affirmation of Godwin's law. Yeah, you've really made my comments look ridiculous! ;) Along with the Holocaust comes Holocaust Denial, or H. D., also standing for Holodomor denial on wikipedia since a few months ago; same kinda thing ... you see it's not just Polish articles where this kind of thing comes up, so don't feel too persecuted! And I refer you to my previous comments, I'd be just as against British repressions of Scottish Highlanders or British repressions of the Irish. The articles we have about the Holocaust of course aren't in violation of WP:OR, WP:SYN, WP:NPOV, and WP:POV-forking, and as that's the case I don't see what your point is. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you are getting this ethnic angle from, the article under discussion is about repression of Polish citizens, i.e. a political/legal concept. Recall Felix Dzerzhinsky, the founder of the NKVD, the tool of Soviet repression, was an ethnic Pole. The repression was politically based, not ethnic. Martintg (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as my own comments are concerned, I don't see why any of that matters ... Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Martintg, let me just remind you that Dzerzhinsky died in 1926, and this article describes later events. Deacon of Pndapetzim - your theoretical speculations are very interesting, but as articles British repressions of Scottish Highlanders and British repressions of the Irish do not exist, get to work and delete this [39]. Also, your remark Polish minorities in areas that "used to be [and ought to be?] Polish" was very helpful, so please delete British Empire, as this is about areas that used to be British. Thank you. Tymek (talk) 17:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A notable and encyclopedic subject. The article is nicely sourced and illustrated. Such articles should be written about all countries occupied by the Soviet Union. This can not be compared with British repressions because Soviet Union was a totalitarian country. I invite everyone to improve a more general article called Soviet political repressions. Biophys (talk) 05:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it would be a good idea ... imagining when we have all the Soviet repression articles ... to have a "Soviet Repressions" template like the current "Soviet Occupations" template? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking at the Category:Political repression in the Soviet Union, I think that would be a number of different templates. Templates are generally helpful, no matter what is their subject. They facilitate navigation in WP and look nice.Biophys (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take it that's a yes. Do you think Oppressions by the Soviet Union needs a different template from Oppressions in the Soviet Union? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a proper place to discuss templates. Soviet political repressions include repressions within the country and abroad, such as those conducted by SMERSH at the occupied territories. If you have any specific questions, you are welcome to discuss them at my talk page.Biophys (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this place is any more proper a place to invite everyone to improve a more general article called Soviet political repressions, yet that's what you did. But two wrongs don't make a right ... I was just wanting to establish how far you were prepared to go along that line of thinking. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To reflect the old joke, I do hope that the closing admin can read rather than count. Relata refero (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All that had to happen is some meaningful dialog before the AfD was launched. But no, we jumped right into an AfD which was bound to run along party lines, rehash the same dialog regarding Soviet repressions, and not move opposing viewpoints any closer to consensus, just more time wasted on needless conflict. —PētersV (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And not meaningful dialogue before the article was created? Relata refero (talk) 08:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that before or after works as long as there's a discussion somewhere along the way. I do not believe that submitting an article to AfD immediately after posting one's first comment to said article qualifies as a discussion. —PētersV (talk) 05:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the closing admin has to do is to close it per WP:SNOW. Simple story.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The participants here seemed uncertain what to do with this article. This suggested a no consensus close was appropriate. But I decided to be bold and rename it, to replace the awkward "editor-in-chief" from the name with just "editor", as seems to be the convention. As part of that process, while updating all the wikilinks for the places where he is wikilinked from, it seemed kinda obvious to me that he has some level of notability, just from the sheer volume of mentions in other articles. So the "on the fence" nature of this argument along with my own "hunch" leaned me from no-consensus all the way over to keep. (It really did not matter, though, as both are technically keep outcomes). Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Green (editor)

Notability is neither asserted nor extant for this magazine editor and podcaster. JFlav (talk) 02:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not go far enough to establish notability (insufficient references); notability is not inhereted from magazine associated with this person (editorship of a notable magazine does not automatically convey notability). If this person is notable, references must bear it out. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 03:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Wikipedia newbie who listens to video game podcasts and keeps up with the video game community through video game websites, magazines, podcasts, and forums, and I think that Jeff Green is popular within that community. What steps can I take to keep this article from being deleted? Modul8r (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, this article should only exist if Jeff Green is considered notable by Wikipedia's definition of notability. I sympathize with your position; I listen to the Brodio and I like Jeff Green. But being popular within a subculture isn't enough to make someone notable. That's why I put this article up for deletion. On the other hand, the whole point of going through the AfD process and gaining consensus about an article's fate is to figure out if this article does or does not fit Wikipedia's policies. By putting this article on AfD, I assert that I think Jeff Green isn't notable enough to have an article, but if you think he is notable and you can pull together independent, verifiable sources about him, then you'll always win. So to answer your question directly, to keep this article from being deleted you have to demonstrate that Jeff Green is actually notable in accordance with WP:N. If you can find good, verifiable, independent sources and put them into the article, it stays. JFlav (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Djsasso (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—It does appear that he is at least mentioned in quite a few independent sources although it is difficult to gauge if there is enough there, without accessing the full text of the articles. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A lot of those sources look like they're about Games for Windows, and just mentioning Jeff Green as the EIC. Others are articles in Computer Gaming World, another name for GFW, so hardly independent. To be fair, though, there are a couple links that may be worthwhile—this one from ABC News, for instance, quotes Green. Others are unclear: is a Gamasutra podcast interview enough for notability? JFlav (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found the following sources:

http://www.armchairempire.com/Interviews/jeff_green.htm http://www.armchairempire.com/Interviews/jeff_greenII.htm http://www.armchairempire.com/Interviews/jeff_greenIII.htm http://www.armchairempire.com/Interviews/jeff-green-4.htm http://www.armchairempire.com/Interviews/jeff-green-5.htm

http://www.gamerdad.com/detail.cfm?itemID=2278 (called "an industry veteran")

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/interviews/1216-Game-Magazines-Have-Sucked-for-Forever-GFW-s-Jeff-Green-on-the-F

http://www.gdcradio.net/2006/09/gdc_radio_presents_gamasutra_p_4.html

Modul8r (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm honestly not sure what to do. We have news articles that solicited Green for quotes (ABC news, Red Herring, and The Arizona Republic), and several interviews listed above. However, those interviews are all from enthusiast press, i.e. websites about videogames. Is that enough to meet the notability criteria? I'm stumped. JFlav (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -Djsasso (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Hall Monitors

Name does not exist Whistlesgowhoo (talk) 02:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC) The student section has not been formally named "The Hall Monitors." Nothing in Assembly Hall has ever referred to the students as that name, and the closest name on the page that has been used is the "Crimson Crew."[reply]

Additionally, the article does not cite anything except a webpage intent on having the student section called "The Hall Monitors.Whistlesgowhoo (talk) 02:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

I completely agree. At games the student section is NEVER referred to as The Hall Monitors.156.56.200.115 (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable source is offered to show the use of 'The Hall Monitors' name to refer to the members of the student section. All that is provided is a web page at http://iuplanet.com/hall_monitors, an unofficial site that seems to be promoting the use of the name. EdJohnston (talk) 05:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 20:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Get Polson

Movie does not appear to have seen any offline distribution. While it did have an article written about it in a paper,[40] it seems unlikely this film will be remembered in a couple of years time: Many hundreds of films are rejected by Tropfest every year. -- Mark Chovain 02:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless notability is asserted with verifiable reliable sources (not just a link to YouTube). Billscottbob (talk) 02:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above Zarboki (talk) 03:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is of course no way that any of you could have known this, but the film was referenced by John Polson in a recent Triple J interview, and an audio segment will be posted shortly. There are also soon to be negotiations about having the film screened at Tropfest prior to the finalists' entries each year as a nod to all those who were not successful. The film is also being advertised in a major weekend paper on the 24th February (2008) which will boost the film's profile (has already achieved over 1,000 hits on Youtube).

Onlyadamantium (talk) 13:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per notability as indicated by the discussion below. Non-admin close. --jonny-m t 13:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patinoarul Artificial

While I have no doubt that language is an issue, I find no evidence this rink is in any way notable. It doesn't appear that a professional team uses this venue either. Travellingcari (talk) 02:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep; news.google.com doesn't have any Romanian papers. I suspect that just about every American arena that sits 5000 people has an article, with sources that detail who's been there and who plays there, and I'm sure if we had a good index to Romanian papers, we could do the same thing here. An arena that seats 5000 is generally notable, even if we're having trouble finding sources.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Apart from the other uses of this arena it is the home of HCM Galaţi[41] who play at the top level of Romanian ice hockey[42] (select the Romanian league from the drop down menu). Phil Bridger (talk) 11:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Chetblong^{T C} 05:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agency 2.0

AfDs for this article:

First nomination was closed for lack of quorum, with only delete votes. This AfD should instead have been relisted. My initial nom read as follows: This is a neologism that was coined some two weeks ago. I initially tagged this one for speedy, but I had second thoughts. Still, Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 02:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of WP:N and no WP:RS; article itself suggests it's WP:NEO/WP:CRYSTAL. JJL (talk) 02:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced neologism. Don't know why it wasn't automatically re-listed for consensus rather than closed. Travellingcari (talk) 02:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete does not establish notability (insuff. independent references); new, unseasoned neologism. Also smells like a subtle marketing jab for Tri-Media Marketing Technologies, quote: "Becoming an 'agency 2.0' requires a typical advertising agency to move beyond standard offline media offerings and adapt the new technologies needed to address today’s media and Internet-savvy audience who demand faster, more personalized and even more relevant communications. . ." and so may be little more than clever WP:Spam --Pgagnon999 (talk) 03:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Thinly veiled attempt at spamming Wikipedia using a new "industry buzzword". Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. As I read the opening sentence:

The term Agency 2.0 refers to the next generation of advertising and marketing agencies, and more specifically, to the new skill sets and business models that they must adopt in order to provide their clients with interactive marketing communications programs in today's more Internet savvy world.

I began to laugh out loud. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. and I don't understand why it was originally closed for "lack of quorom". Why wasn't just relisted like other afd's that don't get attention the first time around?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - A5. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Royal progress

A page that has never been more than a definition and has been transwikied to the Wikitionary, but had it's prod objected to for no reason whatsoever by an anon IP. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; It's been transwikied and is just a dicdef. <3 bunny —Preceding comment was added at 02:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dicdef. Personally, I don't see how it could be made an article; I'll watch for improvement over the next 5 days. JJL (talk) 02:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A5, page has been transwikied and author info recorded. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -Djsasso (talk) 05:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ridin' (Mýa song)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ridin' (Mýa song)

Fails WP:MUSIC with a dash of WP:CRYSTAL. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Liberation (Mýa album), the album this song is from. Bláthnaid 15:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jj137 (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL. The Redirect would be pointless because it's a non-searchable term. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is insane! We know that the album will someday be released and that this will be chosen at that time as the second single? No. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mere pertinent information and delete per above. Mr Senseless (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~The result was Delete Happy Editing, Dusti^{talk to me} 18:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Non admin closure is not available with a delete result. Relisting to garner further consensus as it is not unanimous.

Delete I think this is a little too soon for a song on an unreleased and unannounced album. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Sox!} 16:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Reverend X (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, leave redirects. Neıl ☎ 15:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cali Untouchable Radio

The prod was contested. Mixtapes are not notable per WP:MUSIC. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 06:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related articles:

Every Hoods the Same, Vol. 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 06:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I think the contesting at the prod must have been formulaic. Mixtapes are out. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: I guess mixtapes are not allowed on wikipedia, so I say redirect to the artist, Ice Cube. Live and Die 4 Hip Hop (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. These don't qualify under WP:MUSIC, but the artist is notable enough that I think redirect may be an appropriate handling. Alternatively, I'd !vote for deletion. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snowball hoax --Haemo (talk) 05:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandria's Genesis

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Alexandria's Genesis

Alexandria's Genesis is a hoax, and was written by a Daria fanfic writer. Simple Google searching will prove that this isn't true. <3 bunny 01:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as total hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JJL (talk) 02:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

East Papago Traffic Interchange

Interchange is not named this; has no name at all Rko202 (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G7. Author requested deletion (nom is page's author), so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -Djsasso (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calgary Independent Film Festival

Not notable, seems to have been created as an advertisement.The Dominator (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. --The Dominator (talk) 01:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are many festivals, but not all of them are encyclopedic. Calgary certainly could host a major one, but the $100 Super8 film festival for locals? Toronto Film Festival, it ain't. The article does not offer any rationale for significance or notability. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as leftover (due to fixed double redirect) from previous RfD Wikipedia:Redirects_for_deletion/Redirect_Archives/December_2005#December_27 Tikiwont (talk) 12:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pol Pot of Eelam

This is a redirect page that uses derogatory term to redirect to a WP:BLP. As it's a direct violation of WP:BLP this needs to be deletedWatchdogb (talk) 01:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just so people know, a similar article Pol Pot of Tamil Eelam, was VfD'd for basically the same reasons a while back. --Haemo (talk) 05:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: As obvious attack page. RGTraynor 11:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bow High School

Article does not establish notability for school itself and lacks sufficient references. Dimension31 (talk) 01:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Above and beyond the general consensus on the WP:Inherent notability of high schools, this article provides ample, independent reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - an exceptional number of state championships coupled with multiple sources shows clear meeting of WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and trout-slap nominator. All high Schools are notable. But if there was all of a sudden some mad rush to save server space and the office said we can only keep the real standouts, this one would still be kept. Article has ample, independent reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Quick Google search shows there;'s oodles more that could be added. Get your warm jackets out, there's Snow in the forecast. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- Sorry to snow on your parade... SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 01:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Africa time

Neologism; no reliable sources re WP:NEO Yamara ✉ 01:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not just a colloquialism[43][44] [45] but it is one that has entered politics and broader social discussions about modernization.[46][47] There are Google Books and Google Scholar hits showing that it has cultural or even linguistic roots (literally "no concept of time") and even an entire book on a somewhat broader topic that has extensive discussion. It's more commonly known as African time, though, so a move is advised. (Please use a search engine next time.) --Dhartung | Talk 05:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly used a search engine, and the first several dozen hits are to blogs and travel sites. As my comments on the talk page made clear, I have long been well aware there are unique aspects to the understanding of time in Africa. The collegian's travelogue and the American restaurant review you list would not meet the notability standards. The Telegraph reiterates the Reuters story the article is based on. The Zambia Times and Global Politician cites are very new, and did not appear when I searched on the 12th, though neither give much insight beyond using the colloquialism. Most interesting is the 1994 Adjaye book you cite, which relates the term "Colored People's Time" to "African-time" (p. 208) CPT is "not an inherent disrespect for punctuality". This is in contradiction to the use found in the article and certain of your Google finds. A new meaning is therefore a neologism. At the very least, the article is sufficiently flawed to be incorrect. Perhaps the article creators could please use the search engine themselves. —Yamara ✉ 06:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for suspecting you did no searching at all, but by (only just now) pointing me to your talk page comment there seems to be a large dollop of WP:IDONTLIKEIT: you say you're suspicious of any "positive" aspects of this phrase, but an encyclopedia doesn't care if it's positive or negative; we just document what secondary sources tell us. You also cite good old fashioned racial prejudice, although this does not begin to explain why Africans are using the phrase among themselves or in political campaigns to improve their productivity (or at least perceived productivity; see also similar campaigns in Spain and Mexico against the siesta). As for the Adjaye discussion, it is substantive and scholarly, providing a foundation for a full-fledged article. I have no idea why the fact that it contradicts something in the article means that the article should not exist -- this is clearly an editing and attribution issue. And it's good that you resorted to tags first, rather than AFD, but you only waited a few days. Do you really find that articles are fixed that quickly when you tag them? This seems unrealistic. --Dhartung | Talk 09:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My comment is followed by a larger dollop of NPOV: this doesn't mean the phrase isn't used, or can't be the subject of [an] article, but it has to have more depth than an Encyclopedia Dramatica entry. I presented a neologism here for WP:PROVEIT ("removed aggressively"), not repeated questions as to my capacities and motivations (which address nothing). I've just been involved in throwing a current Canadian politician's article off Wikipedia for lack of notability (and copyvio), so a neologism from a 4-month-old Ivorian campaign seemed questionable on that basis. "Africa time"—without the "n"—remains a questionable English neologism, (unlike the centuries-old Spanish noun la siesta). BTW, it's all well and good that you have begun to build acceptable cites for "African time" in the article; I'm pointing this out, so no one is taken by surprise before making any judgments ~~they~~ on this entry. —Yamara ✉ 15:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC) Odd word struck out--Yamara ✉ 15:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good faith nomination granted (I still think it was a pretty short time to wait, though). I really don't know where your idea that this term is just four months old comes from, especially since you say you did some searching. As for this petty distinction you're making between "Africa time" and "African time", please do consider my recommendation for a move. WP:SOFIXIT. --Dhartung | Talk 23:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Should the article survive the AfD, I will insist upon a move, thank you. —Yamara ✉ 01:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a valid topic for inclusion in an encyclopedia. John Reaves 07:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "[A]n encyclopedia doesn't care if it's positive or negative" This is not true we has the WP:NPOV. Zginder^{(talk) (Contrib)} 13:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So we can't write about subjects where there's any sort of bias? How does the article violate NPOV? Please be specific. --Dhartung | Talk 23:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is not what I said. What I said was that all reputable encyclopedias care if the writing is positive or negative. Zginder^{(talk) (Contrib)} 00:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and I certainly did not imply that our writing should violate neutrality. The question was whether a term having (for example) only negative connotations belongs. Even if that were true of this, it would still belong because it is discussed in reliable sources. --Dhartung | Talk 09:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nom describes it as a neologism. It's not. Very widely used in Africa when I was there as a girl MANY years ago in the 1950s. It's a real and common phrase - perhaps not in North America, but certainly in Africa. 128,000 ghits. Some fair references in the article and it was used on Sky News just this moment! Anjouli (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. sources establish term's notability. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Africa is a continent, not a country. The vague, slightly patronizing, "Africa time" can gain a dictionary definition, but not in any sense an encyclopedia article. The latter would require a discussion of culture and such, and that cannot be done with a continent. I could write about Native Alaskan tribes and particular attitudes toward time in them, but I would be an idiot to try to make that "indigenous peoples of North America." That's what's going on here. Impossible. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How does this meditation relate to whether the article meets Wikipedia standards? --Dhartung | Talk 23:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a real phenomenon, with both some negative (esp. in the business world) and some positive (esp. on the personal level) associations. Sources are in place for both negative and positive connotations, even if links to blog posts have been removed. The first sentence is modified to be a more neutral description on the relaxed attitude to time, so that the article doesn't start with a negative tone. Geographically, this phenomenon seems to apply to several cultures in several parts of Africa (at least West and East Africa). While this does not mean every person, nor every culture, or even every country, it doesn't seem out of place to associate a term loosely to a continent. (A move to "African time" might be appropriate, though - I don't have an opinion on that.) Ingvald (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There were never any blog posts used as references in the article; I only mentioned them in my AFD comments. I would agree there are opportunities to change the wording. --Dhartung | Talk 23:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please consult the history. There were six blogs/forums quoted up to 9 October 2007 by the creator of the article (externally linked, posted as "Quotations"; there were no "References".) These were all removed by another editor. —Yamara ✉ 01:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I stand corrected. --Dhartung | Talk 11:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as sufficiently documented. DGG (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evoke engine

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Salix alba (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evoke engine

Non-notable software, no claims of notability. Corvus cornix_talk 01:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This engine is a work in progress and the article is going to reveal more information about it as it devolops. The article should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eclectus (talk • contribs) — Eclectus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

"A work in progress" does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. It should have already been the subject of multiple reliable sources. Corvus cornix_talk 01:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:CRYSTAL violation. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not only by WP:CRYSTAL per Hersford, but as a borderline ad. JFlav (talk) 02:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; lacks context and references necessary to establish WP:Notability. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 03:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Above and beyond the fact that it is WP:CRYSTAL, once created, it still won't satisfy WP:N as it will be one among many of it's kind.--Pmedema (talk) 04:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to violate WP:CRYSTAL (as mentioned by Hersfold). --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 04:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't appear to exist as a released product, and no information is available other than the author's web page and blog. Zetawoof_(ζ) 10:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- This is not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL ! The Evoke Engine does exist as proven by the screenshot that I've added to the page, and the sourcecode is going to be released into the public Domain. I'm doing this because I feel that other programmers may benefit from it, and modify it. Neither is it a violation of ad as this is an Open Source engine that I am making available for the benifit of the video gaming community. If you can you should give me advice on how to save this article from deletion, it's a valued part of the Wikipedia! It will continue to grow and improve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eclectus (talk • contribs) 08:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note Disclosure per afd etiquette: User:Eclectus is the primary editor/originator of Evoke engine. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 13:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - my advice for you is to read notability guidelines to have an article in Wikipedia and then continue to what Wikipedia is not. If you can show that the subject is notable enough, and that is easily done by providing independent and reliable secondary sources for instances full coverage reviews about the subject, then the article stays. It's very simple. My observation to the subject at the moment is that it is far away from being notable, because you just created it. Perhaps Wikipedia is not the correct media to promote your new product. You can get a free blog for example to do that. Dekisugi (talk) 09:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Comment - If there was a public location where the source was being hosted (say source forge) and there was an existing comunity of people working on and using the engine (beyond yourself) and the article had been created / edited by someone other than yourself and the article only included information about what the engine currently does, not what it might do in the future, then you would have a solid argument for the article not being removed. KalevTait (talk) 11:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this article should be given more time to grow, before being considered for deletion. What is there so far looks promising.213.199.128.148 (talk) 13:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why should it be given time to grow? It is currently not notable. Based on the remarks by the editor of this article, I also have concerns about WP:Conflict of interest; this article may be promoting a product created by that user; if so, regardless if profit is gained from the product or not, it may still be WP:Spam as it seems to exist for the sake of promoting something. Note that editor indicates that the "sourcecode is going to be released into the public Domain. . ." which indicates that it is indeed WP:Crystal--Pgagnon999 (talk) 14:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note For disclosure, Eclectus, the author of Evoke engine, has been leaving messages on user pages, possibly canvassing. See his/her user talk page for discussion. JFlav (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note It seems that he is new to Wkipedia and doesn't quite understand how things work here; I've explained the policy to him. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mel-O-Toons#Sparky's Magic Echo. This meets the delete and redirect suggestions, as well as provide a useful link to the Wikipedia material on Sparky's Magic Echo for any reader. Non-admin close SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 16:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sparky's Magic Echo

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Sparky's Magic Echo

This article is not notable; there are no citations or sources; and the article does not meet Wikipedia standards FeldBum (talk) 13:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SorryGuy Talk 00:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it appears to be one of the few Mel-O-Toons not based on previous stories. The synopsis section needs cleanup though. --Pixelface (talk) 03:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Mel-O-Toons. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was quick delete. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 06:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Blackout Tour

Looks like a hoax. No references...I've been checking the dates and the facilities...so far I've been able to find that the Bell Centre in Montreal is already booked for another event on the day of the "concert"...I also find it highly implausible that she would play in arenas all over the world, but only in a night club in Toronto...and play in Portugal a day and a half after playing in Quebec... Smashville^BONK! 00:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the way the news has been going these days...I would think Britney going on tour would be front page CNN news... --Smashville^BONK! 00:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - people have been attempting to add this to the main Blackout article all week. There has been no announcement and no sources are ever provided. Delete until confirmed by her management. - eo (talk) 01:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Password16 (talk · contribs), the hoaxer responsible for Mexican Hot 100, has been making a series of edits to this page which include removing the afd tag and adding a self-made image with a link to a page which does not support the image. Corvus cornix_talk 02:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per utter failure of WP:V, and block contributor if at all possible at this point. --Dhartung | Talk 05:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, almost certainly a hoax. I checked a bunch of the websites of venues listed in this article: American Airlines Arena (Miami, FL), Phoenix Concert Theatre (Toronto, ON) and O2 Arena (London) all have absolutely no mention of this tour. Centre Bell (Montreal, QB), however, has something different listed for 2008-05-30, the alleged date of this tour stopping there: see [48]. So does Manchester Evening News Arena on 2008-06-21: see [49]. Given these facts, given the lack of references, and given User:Password16's history of unreliable edits and flat-out hoaxes, this has got to be deleted. --Stormie (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax. Maxa megalon 2000 06:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wasn't this on AfD a day or two ago? Either we've got rapid recreation or just a hoax that's still there. (I wonder if she plans to black out at every venue?) Utgard Loki (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment...it's also been brought up on the talk page that Britney has no management...which you kind of need to set up a tour for you... --Smashville^BONK! 21:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Scooter (stand-up), this meets both the delete and redirect suggestions, as well as provide a useful link to the Wikipedia material on Evo Powerboards for any reader. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 16:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evo Powerboards

non notable company Excariver (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SorryGuy Talk 00:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not establish WP:Notability ~~for a company~~ via reliable, independent references.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 03:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "Powerboard" is used in about a million contexts. In this, it's supposed to be a skate board (why would they make boards out of fish?). However, there is no evidence that the "revolutionary" and "fastest" claims are backed up by market position at this point. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge notable non-advert info into Scooter (stand-up). --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Djsasso (talk) 05:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was userfy to let them post it to Tamil wiki. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

வாழ வழிகாட்டும் வள்ளலார் Vadalur Vallal Peruman

Needs to be translated in english.
Appears to be a not notable article. Thebluesharpdude (talk) 08:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pending translation.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 08:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- i should have posted it in tamillanguage, if we can move this to tamil sections will be nice instead of deleting, dont delete pls move it to tamil — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thamizan (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:CSD#g1

Make your own money

Seems to be an article of a story or just a made-up conversation that is not notable. Thebluesharpdude (talk) 08:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD A1, no context. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CJ Sayre

Nonsense Thebluesharpdude (talk) 08:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Apparently a stub which is not in itself a reason for deleting, merging or redirecting it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upper Orakzai

Not a notable place. Thebluesharpdude (talk) 08:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Orakzai Agency. This article has little use.EJF (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Delete. It has little relevance. If anything at all, redirect as EFJ said. Shapiros10 (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - no context provided. -- Mark Chovain 02:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Shapiros10. Redirect if desired. --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 04:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hate to melt the snow, but this appears to be a constituency in the National Assembly of Pakistan.[50] As such it would seem automatically notable. --Dhartung | Talk 05:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry Dhartung, but we should just redirect to the better article. Shapiros10 (talk) 13:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A geographic area which just has to be cleaned up and wikified. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Orakzai Agency, the better article! Shapiros10 (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Would we delete an article on a US congressional district? A UK parliamentary constituency? Of course not. So why treat this differently? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a better article with more information. It's not deleting an article on a section of Pakistan, we're deleting the content of this page and redirecting to the article with more information. Shapiros10 (talk) 18:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Perhaps WP:POKEMON applies. This is a district for the primary national legislative body in a major heavily populated country. As mentioned above, this is equivalent to any United States congressional district which consensus have long considered notable. --Oakshade (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Orakzai_Agency#Upper_Orakzai. The main content is there. This keeps the material safe and allows it to grow in context until there is enough to break it out into a standalone article in WP:Summary style. It's a win win situation. Most of these merge situations should be merged directly rather than being brought here to AfD. If the merge is challenged, then that is the time for a wider discussion. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 15:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletion under category G1. -- Denelson 83 10:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beach Day Out

Pure nonsense. Thebluesharpdude (talk) 08:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. This article doesn't belong here. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 08:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radar Ray and the Creekbusters

Wikipedia isn't looking for a band who releases demos.
If anyone is going to create an article about a band at least include a biography and some notable info. Thebluesharpdude (talk) 08:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Addhoc (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Fails WP:MUSIC miserably. Thoroughly non-notable. Precious Roy (talk) 14:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree, could find no information on the group. Shoessss | Chat 00:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability issues, and it's written as a promotional page. Shapiros10 (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete The only attempt to justify notability is the discography, but with two self-confessed demos, it's an invalid assertion. No notability. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carioca (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent record studios

Non notable record label.
Needs clean-up as well. Thebluesharpdude (talk) 07:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Addhoc (talk) 13:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable Alexf⁴² 13:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable small-time recording studio. Fails WP:CORP. Precious Roy (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No information to establish notability. However, did find information on, Evil Empire Studios, not very flattering, [51] Shoessss | Chat 00:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-A local recording agency that isn't notable enough for Wikipedia. Shapiros10 (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Chetblong^{T C} 05:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Narukami

Not a notable fictional character, but if somehow this page is kept, at least clean it up. Thebluesharpdude (talk) 07:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have removed the ArbCom warning because, as the article makes clear, this is not a character from a television show, but someone's character from unpublished fiction and a role-playing game. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
... and as such, should be deleted as non-notable. Once the stories are published and the character makes a splash in the world, then we can revisit having an article about 'em. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Quasirandom. JuJube (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Avatarcruft. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Quasirandom. Shapiros10 (talk) 13:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to establish real-world notability. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gary Gygax's RPG characters might be notable, this person's is not. Edward321 (talk) 03:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was protected redirect to Y-chromosomal Aaron. I have left the history of the article behind the redirect should any merging take place, although both this and the target article appear to suffer from original research issues at present. Neıl ☎ 15:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cohen Modal Cluster Haplotype

I have refactored longer comments to the talk page to aid readability and make it easier to browse today's deletion discussions. That is not an assertion about the quality of the comments, merely the length. Stifle (talk) 11:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Unnecessary fork. The topic of the CMH is already treated at Y-chromosomal Aaron, to which Cohen Modal Haplotype already points. That is the natural (indeed, inevitable) place for a full and detailed presentation of the CMH. This is an ill-concieved fork.
2. Bad science. The assertions made in the article, some of which are garbled from an early 1998 paper, do not reflect current scientific understanding of the topic. -- Jheald (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure I am in content dispute with the creator of this article, at Talk:Y-chromosomal_Aaron#Recent_edits. People looking at this AFD might also like to look over that discussion. Jheald (talk) 00:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Content errors (refactored to talk page)
Delete. Discussion on all these points would be much better consolidated in one single article, namely the existing article Y-chromosomal Aaron. Jheald (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I agree – Why not merge and let the individuals with the knowledge to discuss this information work – it – out rather than a delete. Shoessss | Chat 00:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, content fork by inexperienced editor. JFW | T@lk 23:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – this is better resolved at WP:Arbitration than here. The subject matter is way over the head of the average Wikipedia editor. As such, I say the article stays, until resolved by individuals with professional experience in this matter. Shoessss | Chat 00:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This is not better resolved at Arbitration, if for no other reason than that the ArbCom would not accept the matter as it is a content dispute. Stifle (talk) 11:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(long comment by Chriscohen refactored to talk page)

*Comment – Gentlemen/Gentlewomen – First, I will say again, this is not the proper format to resolve this issue. I would ask that further discussions be moved to the discussion page, were I have copied all comments over to. Please leave this page for the Delete or Keep opinions, with reasonable explanations of that opinion. Further in-depth discussions can be viewed on the discussion page. Thanks. Shoessss | Chat 01:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The Y-chromosomal Aaron article is where Cohen Modal Cluster Haplotype should be redirected to. The Cohen Modal Cluster Haplotype article is indeed a POV fork. However, both articles have loads of Original Research and Synthesis in them. Chriscohen (who has a genetic COI, heh heh) should not have created the POV fork article, because it reduces his leverage in his content dispute. By the way, Arbcom is not for content disputes. Both editors should work together to reduce the Original Research in Y-chromosomal Aaron, keeping in mind that Wikipedia is not the place to have this discussion; it should be held in scientific journals. For the moment, the only way to proceed is to have every single statement in the article possess a citation from the peer-reviewed scientific literature that backs it up. Please understand that Wikipedia articles are supposed to be encyclopedic, not exhaustive. Only a tiny handful of people in the world care about the details of the science involved. They are already "in the know" enough to not need the Wikipedia article, so please rewrite the article to be much shorter, for the average user. Avoid giving undue weight to any one source or research group. Blast Ulna (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, the article got over 3,500 hits in January [52] -- well over 100 hits per day. That puts it well above the average Wikipedia article in terms of interest. And partly, that's because a lot of people desperately do want a credible article that competently reviews our current state of knowledge on this topic -- because there's a lot of muddle about the subject elsewhere on the net; something ChrisCohen's misunderstandings unfortunately bear witness to. Jheald (talk) 10:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the more reason to make it a better article... Blast Ulna (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(further long comment refactored to talk page)

Merge -- more precisely, make sure all views of the significance are expressed in the main article, which is Y-chromosomal_Aaron. The main question at issue is to what extent the science supports the postulated historical significance. The final article must explain the science --perhaps a little more clearly than the present--and must explain all the various historical or religious positions being taken. I don;t think at this point any of them can be ignored as splinter. (I believe the religious question is whether the science is sufficiently sound to be used as the basis for denying or accepting priestly descent, instead of or in addition to the traditional necessarily genealogical approach) The article seems to have been separated because of the feeling that its conclusion was not being given sufficient weight. However, the present article can not stand by its own, because the references are non-specific--they are only the basic review in Nature, various unspecified communications, and a single book from a particular religious viewpoint. I think there may be a basis for separating into two articles--one emphasizing the interpretations, but this is not the way to do it. DGG (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research and a POV fork from Y-chromosomal Aaron, an edit war at which has got User:Chriscohen blocked for edit warring. Optionally recreate a redirect to that article and recommend protection. Do not merge - this article is entirely OR. Stifle (talk) 11:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Kubigula (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darren J. Prior

The article is autobigraphical and appears to fail WP:BIO, WP:COI, WP:N and WP:V Lozleader (talk) 00:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All links provided are in Gaelic and there's nothing to show that they immediately relate to this person anyway. Delete as non-notable. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Activist/activism with an attempt to raise profile, so that's very like advertising. The cause probably has adherents, but most causes do. It's a question of whether or not he has an effect on the world, not whether or not he has a desire to affect it. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete It's hal Gaelic, and definetly and autobiography and/or advertising. Shapiros10 (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

25Gs

Not having an IMDB entry is a red flag in terms of non-notability. Google isn't productive either. It's also unsourced vanispamcruftisement, see WP:COIN#25Gs. MER-C 00:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:I was the one that brought this up at WP:COIN#25Gs. I wanted to give this a chance so I went over Google, trying the various names of the people involved. Wasn't able to get very far. The best was a few database entries for Steve Garry at various sites. So I have to vote delete as not notable. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 01:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete vanispam. -IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete presumably advertising. JJL (talk) 02:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Looks like home made or undistributed. I do hope that folks are listing all the internal links, too, as this appears to be a hoax in a list of them. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Multiple problems, and not notable. Shapiros10 (talk) 13:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC) Check the history, and it even says that the user who created the page wrote the script! Shapiros10 (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. For details, please see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Charlie Don't Surf (song). Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Don't Surf (song)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Charlie Don't Surf (song)

The Clash has many notable and important songs, but this is not one of them. While the guidelines for songs seem somewhat uncertain, this song does not meet some of the basics. It was not a single, it is not one of their more popular songs (regardless of he POV insistence it is one of their "best", based solely on one review by a minor critic), it was never on a Greatest Hits album (it wasn't even included on the box set Clash on Broadway, 3 discs of almost all of their significant songs), it wasn't even on Rolling Stone's top 50 greatest Clash songs (checking for verification on that). There's no video for it, and there's little to be said about it, other than that it's been performed live (most songs have been) and it's on some bootlegs, which is hardly remarkable. The only significant fact about it is that it takes its name from a line in Apocalypse Now, which is hardly worth an article. Most Clash songs do not have articles, and I fail to see why this should be an exception. I've been a Clash fan for 20 years, and have not known this song as anything other than filler for their triple album. R. fiend (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Song does not meet WP:MUSIC in any way, and given the song's obscurity, a redirect/merge wouldn't serve much purpose. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I will admit I was skeptical at first, but the nominator convinced me. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 21:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per R. fiend. If it's not even on the Rolling Stone Top 50, get it off of Wikipedia. Shapiros10 (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Filler? It's one of their best songs. Nevertheless it is not significant enough for an article. --John (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
UNDELETE!!! The article was created today (so this is a sort of speedy deletion without using the appropriate criteria for a speedy deletion)! Before listing an article for deletion, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate. For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately (he didn't!!!). The only problem was that I reverted one of his edit because he considered a POV the Sandinista! review made by Stephen Thomas Erlewine: “Amid all the dub experiments, backward tracks, unfinished songs, and instrumentals, there are a number of classic Clash songs that rank among the band's best, including "Police on My Back," "The Call Up," "Somebody Got Murdered," "Charlie Don't Surf," "Hitsville U.K.," and "Lightning Strikes (Not Once but Twice)," yet it's difficult for anyone but the most dedicated listeners to find them.” Important note: Failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion. Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted. Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; permanent stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album (AND NOT DELETED!!!). Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines: Ask the article's creator for advice on where to look for sources (he didn't). Put the {{notability}} tag on the article to alert other editors (he didn't). To place a dated tag, put a {{subst:dated|notability}} tag (he didn't). If the article is about a specialized field, use the {{expert-subject}} tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online (he didn't). THE ARTICLE WAS CREATED TODAY!!! In the Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs there are currently no specific guidelines for the notability of songs. The song is one of the greatest political songs in the whole music history. Just a line from that song that should be useful one of these days (did you know that Pentagon plans to shoot down disabled spy satellite???): "Satellites will make space burn"! —PJoe F. (talk • contribs) 23:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep your pants on. This isn't speedy deletion (it's not even a prod), it's a regular AFD. Regardless of the state of the article, the song is not going to get any more notable in the next few days, so there is little point in waiting. Better it's deleted before you waste a lot of time adding every radio station that's ever played the song or whatnot. As for other options, I tried to redirect, and got reverted, I tried to at least remove POV, and was reverted. A redirect is useless here anyway, as no one is going to search for Charlie Don't Surf (song), they'll search for Charlie Don't Surf, and get a Veronica Mrs episode (if that bothers you, take it up over there). Just because the guidelines on songs are not concrete, doesn't mean anything goes. Why does this song warrant an article more than so many others? Or are we going to have articles on every song ever published (I sure hope not). "One of the greatest political songs in the whole music history"? Come on! It's not even one of the greatest songs on side 5 of Sandinista (yes, that's merely my opinion; the other is merely yours). As for the comments below, we have two links: a blog, and one that merely uses a line from the song to illustrate a point bout politics, and an article that merely mentions that the song exists. We knew that already. Neither establish it being particularly well known, or influential (to anyone except random blogger Jonathan Diamond). The best that can be said about the song's notability is that it was covered by an unknown band on an out of print album almost no one's heard of (I only know it exits because I bought a copy 15 years ago). -R. fiend (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well-known, influential song - [53]. [54] Corvus cornix_talk 23:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In short, it isn't notable enough. And Corvus, who is it well known to? Die-hard Clash fans? I'm sorry, but this article is simply not important enough for Wikipedia. Shapiros10 (talk) 01:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm not a die-hard Clash fan, not even really much of a punk fan, and I know it. Corvus cornix_talk 02:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite it being one of my favorite Clash songs, it isn't even a notable song on The triple album from where it appears. Never released as a single, nor a notable album track (unfortunately) Doc Strange (talk) 07:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I tagged the article with the {{Underconstruction}} template before R. fiend tagged it with the {{AfDM}}. See the revision history of Charlie Don't Surf (song)! I added some info and sources to the article. The article has one day of life and just a couple of hours of work! —PJoe F. (talk • contribs) 14:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You've already "voted" once, for one, and what's been added to the article is trivial information which merely emphasizes the point that there is nothing significant to be said about the song. Furthermore, the article violates NPOV by stating some journalists' opinions as fact, and including words like "best", "beautiful", and "great", and again, citing blogs. List of concerts where the song has been performed? Since when do Wikipedia articles include such irrelevant (and uncited) information? It's pretty clear that what you've done is google the song and band, and include the results in the article. What does a random T-shirt with phrase on it have to do with anything? It seems to reference the line from Apocalypse Now as much or more than the song (check the label). This information belongs on a fan site. Maybe Wikia deals with this sort of thing? I don't know. -R. fiend (talk) 15:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Oops! Sorry for that but I'm new to this procedure. IMO, all the human knowledge must be saved and organized on Wikipedia, and if a reader want to search for that song, he must be able to find something about it and not the episode 4x2c of season Y of a television crap. What's this, an unreferenced advertising service??? The first statement in the Wikipedia main page is: Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. 2,239,761 articles in English. Right now, there are 742,894 stubs articles, 294,961 unassessed articles, 966,339 unassessed importance articles and 265,850 low importance articles on Wikipedia! A 26 years old well–known influential song is a poetry (especially when it was written by Joe Strummer). A song without its own article could be not categorized; if an user wants to know more about a song, to find those information on the relative album/artist article is not a good choice; if someone wants to add some information about a song, its own article is the right place to do that; there are a lot of stubs on Wikipedia and the majority of songs do not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines! Anyway, if (unfortunately) the article must be deleted, it is better to use the {{R from song}} instead of deleting the article. Did you know that "Charlie Don't Surf" was performed live many many times and every time in a different way??? It is an influential song and (IMO) deserves to be on Wikipedia! Please, contribute and add additional information to that article. "Charlie don't surf and we think he should/Charlie don't surf and you know that it ain't no good"! —PJoe F. (talk • contribs) 13:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - This article is turning more and more into a fansite entry. I think the information would be ideal here, but it really isn't for Wikipedia. -R. fiend (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Also, Pjoef, most of your argument is mostly accusations that other stuff exists. Also the fact that it is A Rock & Roll Hall of Fame inducted, legendary rock band that wrote and performed the song (and not say, Ted's Garage Band), but one of the guidelines of WP:MUSIC is that usually the only songs that get articles are either singles or notable album tracks. For instance "Train in Vain", The Clash's breakthrough single in America, is notable according to WP:MUSIC because not only was it issued as a single, but also hit the Billboard Hot 100 (despite the fact that the song was never listed on the back of London Calling), non-notable album tracks usually redirect to the album itself (a notable album track would be a popular song never issued as a single, like "Stairway to Heaven" - an extreme example, but an example nonetheless.) By bringing it to AfD we're not contesting the quality of the song or the band, as at least two Clash fans (including myself) have voted to delete. The fact is is that the song fails WP:MUSIC. Doc Strange (talk) 14:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment: "Stairway to Heaven"??? Probably, you are referring to Zeppelin's "Baby Come on Home", "Going to California", "Houses of the Holy (song)", "I Can't Quit You Baby" or "Achilles Last Stand". Check them out! Doc Strange, there are 15254 stubs, 9094 unassessed and 25876 with no importance articles on songs. "Charlie" is the main character of Sandinista!'s side five (IMO, the greatest album of all time and I listen all the music on this earth from Josquin des Prez to The Mars Volta). The song is also an anti-war song and its lyrics are pure poetry. Peace! —PJoe F. (talk • contribs) 15:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all of those Zeppelin songs are examples of notable album tracks. Your proclamation that "Charlie" is the main charecter of side five is debatable. most of what you say is opinion. I mentioned "Stairway" as an example of a notable album track (a popular song never issued as a single). Doc Strange (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Doc Strange, it is NOT DEBATABLE bacause I've the source for that (it's in one of their bibliographies)! "Yes, all of those Zeppelin songs are examples of notable album tracks" is debatable and most of what I read in this discussion are opinions! "Baby Come on Home" was recorded in 1969, rejected, released in 1993 and never performed live! "Going to California", from Led Zeppelin IV is a notable track if you exclude all other 7 tracks! My opinion is precedeed by an IMO and (IMO), all the human knowledge must be saved and organized on Wikipedia!!! I can find thousands of song articles on Wikipedia that are not compliant with WP:MUSIC. Just another verse from that amazing song "Everybody wants to rule the world/Must be something we get from birth"! And, BE BOLD!!! —PJoe F. (talk • contribs) 21:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article would be better off on the Clash wikia. Just saying. Shapiros10 (talk) 13:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did a major edit, removed the long list of concerts and more. I worked on it for few days and I think/hope it should be keeped. IMO, the song meets WP:MUSIC because it is an anti-war, anti-racism song that involves so important themes like the Vietnam War, veterans, the Strategic Defense Initiative and many more. This song (IMO) is too important to leave Wikipedia for Mickey Mouse. I haven't created the article. I just tried to save it from delection and I worked on it just few days. I know that (currently) it does not meet the Wikipedia criteria, that it is a stub but (IMO) it should become a well-written, comprehensive articles. I ask the leniency of the court. —PJoe F. (talk • contribs) 11:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article flatters to deceive by the amount of referencing and content, but when I started to edit the article to tidy it up I realized that there isn't actually a lot there. Some of the "references" are duplicate web pages, and some of the sources do not support what the article is saying. The more I studied the article and the sources the more I realized that the song is not worthy of an article. The article as it stands is full of bluster which distorts the reality of the song's standing. The aim of an encyclopedia is to reflect the truth - the summation of the human experience - it is not about creating a distorted and inaccurate picture which favours the enthusiasm of one individual. Terminate with extreme prejudice. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 12:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the musician, ensemble, composer, or lyricist. (See Wikipedia:Attribution#Self-published sources for details about the reliability of self-published sources, and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for treatment of promotional, vanity material.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the musician, ensemble, composer, or lyricist notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. The rationale for this is easy to see -- someone simply talking about themselves in their own personal blog, website, book publisher, etc. does not automatically mean they have sufficient attention in the world at large to be called notable. If that was so then everyone could have an article. Wikipedia is not a directory.
^ What constitutes a "published work" is deliberately broad.

[selfpromo-1] Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the musician, ensemble, composer, or lyricist. (See Wikipedia:Attribution#Self-published sources for details about the reliability of self-published sources, and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for treatment of promotional, vanity material.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the musician, ensemble, composer, or lyricist notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. The rationale for this is easy to see -- someone simply talking about themselves in their own personal blog, website, book publisher, etc. does not automatically mean they have sufficient attention in the world at large to be called notable. If that was so then everyone could have an article. Wikipedia is not a directory.

[published-2] What constitutes a "published work" is deliberately broad.

[1]

[2]