Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 July 21

< July 20	July 22 >

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 deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/iTalkBB by Davewild. Non-admin closure. Gr1st (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

iTalkBB

Non notable. Most of the content promotes the company (the criticism section, though providing some neutrality, does not add to the companies notability) Ernestvoice (talk) 13:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this still here? The article has been deleted... -- ErnestVoice ^{(User) (Talk)} 19:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. chaser - t 21:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Glypta

Fails WP:BIO. Tagged with notability since August 2007. 128 ghits. Only potentially notable ones are [1], [2] and [3]. Her connection with "Leeds Pride" is documented [4] [5] [6], but doesn't make her notable. I cannot find any connection to the "Lucky Bitch Radio" show [7] [8]. Since none of the above links come close to significant coverage I say it fails WP:BIO. Amalthea (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Can be deleted in my opinion. Channel ® 23:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My first reaction was to google better. I googled well. I found nothing. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Sean Whitton / 13:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Morgan State University Athletic Hall of Fame

This is a list of student athletes who are in that school's hall of fame. No sources outside the university are provided. Violates WP:NOT#DIR. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a question of sourcing,or oOR, Rather, NOT DIRECTORY. they have a website for this already. DGG (talk) 01:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is no different that articles for major white american universities like University of Iowa Athletics Hall of Fame, University of Michigan Athletic Hall of Honor, Towson University Athletic Hall of Fame or Ohio State Varsity O Hall of Fame. Why is there an Afd for the lone African American university? So far 20 of the athletes on Morgan's list have their own pages, with 4 being in the NFL Hall of Fame and an Olympic gold medal winner.--«Marylandstater» ^«^reply^» 02:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Agree with DGG that this article is solely a directory. Marylandstater: all the articles you gave have additional information about the halls of fame, such as what makes them notable, history, context, etc. This article does not. It may well be that such an article can be written for the subject; willing to change my opinion if my concerns are addressed. -FrankTobia (talk) 05:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My concerns have been addressed. Article looks better now. -FrankTobia (talk) 03:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Iowa one has a building of its own. The other ones are also troubling. One has an article AND a list. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-- consists solely of a list/directory of individually non-notable people. It's a well compiled list and the sourcing could be worse, but I just don't think it has a place here. For the record, I hold essentially the same opinion about the other articles listed by Marylandstater, remember- the existence of other examples of something does not justify that something's existence. Furthermore, I rather resent the subtle implications of racism in Marylandstater's post. Frankly, I think most people haven't even heard of Morgan State University (I hadn't) and thus would not know that it is or isn't an African American college (I didn't). Let's try to keep that sort of misplaced sentiment out of this discussion, as I've found it tends to discourage honest dialogue and encourage needless drama. L'Aquatique[review] 06:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although I did not intend my post to imply any sort of racism, subtle or otherwise, I apologize. But L'Aquatique's other remark goes more to what I intended to discuss: The history of these major institutions are better documented in the traditional ways so that we have heard of them. African American colleges and universities, like Negro league baseball, went largely unnoticed, and unreported, during the first half of the last century. We have only heard of Josh Gibson or Satchel Paige because of efforts, in the last 20 years, by historical activist to keep their contributions alive for generations of those who had not heard of them. Yes, the Morgan article contains many "non-notables" as we might define them here and now. But in the last month I have found some very notable aspects of people on that list that I did not know before. see: Edward P. Hurt, Joe Black, Rosey Brown. I would like to see the stories of others on that list included in Wikipedia as well. I'd like to discuss more, but I got to get to work (at my job which actually pays me money).--«Marylandstater» ^«^reply^» 11:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - per Marylandstater's observation that several other lists of this nature exist and those lists contain both notable (they have WP articles) and non-notable (no WP article) entries. I would submit that all these lists should be restricted to notable entries (a WP article or explicit sourcing for inclusion if no WP article exists). But, I cannot come up with any logical rationale, guideline or policy that says one of these lists is OK but the other isn't. Either WP contains lists of notable entries organized around a common theme or it doesn't.--Mike Cline (talk) 14:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep similar articles exist; but should include an explanation regarding Marylandstater's comment or in Morgan State article itself Deanlaw (talk) 03:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The issue is whether or not the Hall of Fame is notable as an entity. By definition it will have famed people on its rolls. But there is no physical location, as far as I can tell. In fact, "Athletic Hall of Fame" returns no Google hits when confined to morgan.edu. How do you explain that? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 11:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - An official hall of fame established by any major university such as Morgan State is notable. The potential to help develop new articles on the history of African-American athletics in the days of segregation, as noted by Marylandstater, makes this one especially valuable.Cbl62 (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strangely, the Hall of Fame does not appear on the university's web pages, so how can it be official? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 15:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Phlegm Rooster - I just read the concept of Official and nowhere did I find a requirement that something wasn't official if it didn't have a webpage from a higher authority that bestowed the official status. Is this a new WP guideline I am unaware of? Indeed this Hall of Fame may not have some official status, but the absence of webpage hardly establishes that.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I respond to the argument; a claim is made that it is official. I note that the university's own website doesn't mention it, which causes me to doubt the validity of this claim. You could just as well has made your comment to Cb162; what does official status have to do with notability? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 15:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks for clairfying your position. I was not really commenting of the actual officialness or notability of this entity but the specific statement you made: the Hall of Fame does not appear on the university's web pages, so how can it be official? which I believe can be interpreted very clearly as No webpage = Not Official, ie it reads like a guideline. Had you phrased your doubt something like this: the Hall of Fame does not appear on the university's web pages, so where is the evidence to show its official?, the need to explain your position a second time would not have been neccesary. Precision language is very important to reasoned consensus.--Mike Cline (talk) 17:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not trying to create a guideline, just musing that it is odd that the university doesn't make any mention of the Hall of Fame. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The fact remains that although some of the coaches and athletes in the Hall of Fame are notable, the Hall of Fame itself is not. None of the sources provided on the page address this fact; they are either not independent of the Hall, or they don't mention the Hall at all. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 15:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per DGG, who nails it on the head once again. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As mentioned, Wikipedia is not a directory, as to the other similar pages, they probably suffer for the same reason. Nuttah (talk) 07:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diacosmetism

Article describes a purportedly new painting technique developed by a young prodigy (16 years old), but the first exposition of this method has yet to take place (planned for August 2008, according to a previous version of the article). Creator has removed prod without sufficient explanation, no independent sources establishing notability. Hence I am proposing this for deletion Crusio (talk) 23:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The artist isn't notable, no exposition of his work has taken place, and (despite the claim in the article) the painting style itself isn't new or innovative. Showing objects by 'suggesting' their shapes with patterns has been done many times before. Channel ® 23:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 05:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 07:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perhaps Aristea Rellou will be the next Van Gogh, albeit with two ears; perhaps, but not today. Unfortunately, this article about a style of painting is unillustrated, and no example can be found even Google Images. Rellou's own name does not return any results outside of this article. I guess she's real famous, but nobody knows it. Mandsford (talk) 11:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Did you google with latin or Greek letters ? There may be 1000s of refs in Greek! just a thought. --triwbe (talk) 04:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, Triwbe. I checked. There aren't, except for one to Mrellos' own site. Channel ® 00:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. The style is really new, bright and innovative in a terrible era of spiritual stalemate where artists either look at the past or become famous by painting with their blood or by using dead animals... Perhaps someone else in the past has painted forms as repeating patterns, but repeating patterns is only a small portion of diacosmetism. Considering the simultaneous usage of the specific different materials on canvas and the many co-existing aspects and plurality of the forms, as seen in its totality, the style is new and innovative. It has a special ideological content described and published in the newspaper METRO (with the bigger circulation in Athens) in the form of a manifest. The press has focused in the paintings of Aristea Rellou, especially the tv. One may see pictures of diacosmetistic paintings in the internet in the painter's web site and elsewhere. If it was not summer, time of holiday for me, I could mention much more references. And if I knew how to add pictures to wikipedia, I would add some pictures of diacosmetistic paintings and then I am certain that there could be a loud consensus on behalf of the article.Mrellos (talk) 09:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mrellos, when you post a comment on a talk page, you should sign it (there's a signature icon above the edit window, otherwise just type four tildes ~). The link you just added to the article is dead, can you correct it? Adding pictures would be nice, but would have no influence at all on the deletion debate. Articles on Wikipedia have to demonstrate notability by citing independent and verifiable sources. Please read the policies that I have linked here, they will either help you to show notability for this article or to understand why it cannot be kept. --Crusio (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of notability in Wikipedia has to do with the inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded.". Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular" - although not irrelevant - is secondary. So, as far it concerns diacosmetism, we must focus on the encyclopedic suitability and the importance of a real new -ism in painting. We must not only focus in finding a great number of references, which exist in Greek press, not in books yet, but it is very difficult to find the sources and the citations within the Greek newspapers and magazines and publish them inside the article. Most of the existing citations are in written press, not in the Internet. The difficulty is greater because of it is vacation time for me. In September I would have the chance to find out many more references and citations in Greek written sources. Anyway, I see a problem caused by the talks, especially by the well-respected gentlemen Mandsford and Chanell. Their comments are either unfounded or ironic and this may constitute an illegal libel against myself or the painter. It is easy to write - without proof - that the painting style itself isn't new or innovative. Showing objects by 'suggesting' their shapes with patterns has been done many times before. But when you do not explain who has painted in this manner in order to compare, the conclusion is intentional bad fame for the painter. It is easy to make ironies mentioning Van Gong's one ear etc., but it is not descent to undermine a new style, that is original, even in the making. This is what an on-line encyclopedia is all about. Since these disturbing talks and ironic comments by the above gentlemen stay in the Internet and are not totally erased, unless these gentlemen decide to erase them by themselves,it would be wise for me to ask the administrator to delete all the article and the talking in the next days to save time for us all... mrellos

Comment It's nice that you'll be on vacation until September(!!). Somehow.... I get the feeling that Miss Rellou hasn't become prominent enough to attract the attention of art critics. If you're that upset over the comments made by Chanell and by me (which really are criticisms of your advertisement-like article, rather than of her artwork) then one can only imagine how you'll react the first time an unfavorable review is published in a book, magazine, etc. If your plan is to accuse naysayers of "illegal libel", you'll learn that the only thing in the art world that's worse than being criticized is to be ignored. When Miss Rellou becomes world famous (and I wish her all the best), I will be honored that I was one of the first two people in the world to have made a critical comment. Stay on vacation. Mandsford (talk) 13:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nice to be called a gentleman for a change. And the name is Channel R, by the way. Not so nice to be accused of "illegal libel" (whatever that may be). Examples? Sure. Check out Abstract Expressionism, Collages, Maori paintings, Jugendstill and Art Nouveau. You'll come across some very familiar things. More importantly, there's no reason why references in the Greek press (to which I happen to have daily access, believe it or not) can not be added to the article. I haven't seen them yet, but feel free to let me know when Miss Rellou has major articles in Eleftheros Typos, Ta Nea, and other national Greek newspapers. Right now she's simply not notable enough, as explained above. Yassas, Channel ® 00:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentFirst. There is not any similarity or familiarity between a) diacosmetism and b) Abstract Expressionism, Collages, Maori paintings, Jugendstill and Art Nouveau. I have long studied the history of art and seen thousands of paintings myself and the combination of the specific mixed technique on canvas plus the ideological content is unique. In order to compare the above Channel R's argument, he should indicate specific paintings of Maori paintings, Jugendstill, etc, of which I am unaware or ignorant. Please enlight me. The only thing familiar between these styles is that they all use some paints...
Second.That's why I argue for the originality of the style and because of its originality I think it must be in wikipedia even so soon, before its first public exhibition. As I wrote above, notability in wikipedia is "worthy of notice"; Something that is significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention. Publicity or fame is not irrelevant, but a second criterion if the first does not exit.
Most of Greek press is not on-line in the Internet. The newspaper APOGEVMATINI wrote a great article with color photos on diacosmetism and Aristea and kept it there, as always, for two days. Anyway, in September I would be able to find many citations.
By the way, the newspaper TA NEA has asked for an interview and a full look at the paintings.
Third. I did not accuse anyone for illegal libel. I argued that it may be considered as such, if someone reads the comments and concludes that the painter makes a false claim on originality in a new style that is not true, since members of the respected on-line community of wikipedia decline the argument. I am certain that the intentions of the above gentlemen were not malevolent and had to do more with British humor, with which I feel very familiar. No accusations for illegal libel should be expected.
Fourth. I am certain that if Mr. Mandsford and Mr. Chanel R. were to be in Mykonos for the exhibition of the first diacosmetistic paintings, they wouldn't talk about advertisement or familiarity examples and they would be the first to write an article in wikipedia. Unless I have persuaded them with these logical arguments, I do not think that an article in wikipedia that comes with a mountain of Deletion Tags on top, make any sense. Concerning that it is a new style of a young artist, this article - mountain with deletion tags on the top is a libel by itself. That's why, if the above two gentlemen, who made me the honor to discuss my article so much, becoming unwillingly experts in diacosmetism, do not wish to change their mind and propose a Keep until their next comment on this talk, I officially ask the administrator of wikipedia to immediately erase the article including all the discussion and history of the discussion from any public view. In this case the above gentlemen perhaps will feel obliged to write the article by themselves when they think it is appropriate.Mrellos (talk) 05:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - 1) I'm not going to turn this page into an art forum, sorry. 2) Please understand that being "interesting" is not the same as being notable. "Interesting" is a personal opinion, notability can be verified. I agree that the painter appears to be talented, given her age, but that's simply not enough. 3) I think you give WP more power than it actually has. 4) Sorry, but I would never write an article based on one exhibition, even if I loved the work to bits. KInd regards, Channel ® 09:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Atmitted this is not a "fast growing", "increasingly popular" band, but the same alarmbells go off, and I can't find anything to counter those bells in independent reliable sources with siginificant coverage. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monte Carlo Universal

No independent, published sources to show that this methodology is notable Gwernol 13:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- WilliamH (talk) 14:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Publicity stunt, un-notable project. I doubt one in ten thousand numerical analysts has ever heard of it. Ray Yang (talk) 21:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a set of software. This paper is the only one using it, but one of the authors is from the Kurchatov Institute, so it is not an independent source. ~~By the look of it, its developers are the only ones using the software/methology.~~ There are a few dozen users of the software [9]. Narayanese (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gets three relevant hits in Google Scholar. Is that enough for notability? Beats me.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:06, 21 July 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 ǀ 76 23:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Three Google Scholar hits is an excellent indication that this is not notable. --Crusio (talk) 23:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Monte Carlo method QuantumShadow (talk) 12:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the project does not appear to be notable. Google scholar results would seem to indicate that not much notice has been taken with this project. Oppose merge as a non-notable project that uses the method isn't suitable merge material. -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 without prejudice per WP:CRYSTAL. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Target

Article has already been deleted twice, though there has been no discussion (not eligible for CSD G4) so bringing it here. Fails WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL as a film not in production yet.. ascidian | talk-to-me 22:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obviously. The thing doesn't even exist yet. If ever. Channel ® 23:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:NFF. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Explicity fails WP:NFF. PC78 (talk) 07:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - film is in pre-production, and there is no coverage of it in reliable sources that could provide for notability. Furthermore, the article content is primarily unsubstantiated rumour so fails WP:V -- Whpq (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that this article ought to be deleted it is a real film and the cast of Helena Bonham Carter and Bill Nighy make it notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.250.123.141 (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. When there is a greater and better sourced interest showing the film as IN production, bring it on back. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 03:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arguments to keep here are mainly WP:ITSUSEFULL, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and an opinion that notability shouldn't be a reason for deletion. Unforunately, there is no indication of notability, as there are no independent reliable sources that offer significant coverage. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USAintern, LLC

Contested speedy: after the article creator was warned for removing a speedy tag a newly created user account continued editing the article, and removed the tag again. Article lacking citations about a non-notable company that hosts non-notable websites. Written like an advert. Speedy Delete. Ros0709 (talk) 22:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, indeed. It's just an ad. Channel ® 23:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in reliable sources. A search in Google news produced zero results; not even a press release (not that press releases count toward notability) -- Whpq (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I used this site at my college. It's well known on the campuses and it deserves to be here. It's the only site that actually helps students to find local internships. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JMC777143 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC) — JMC777143 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Just because you can't find a news release doesn't mean it's not a legitimate company. A lot of organizations start using Wikipedia in order to become notable. The fact that anyone, regardless of background or experience, can add to Wikipedia is one of its strengths. Give them an opportunity to get their legs. Offer feedback, don't make it your mission to show them the door. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrFSinatra (talk • contribs) 19:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC) — MrFSinatra (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I am a student that goes to school in California, but I am from New Jersey. I thought it would be very difficult finding an internship being so far away from home. However, USAIntern is the only site that helped me find a summer internship. Because of this site I now have an internship that allows me to network with people in my field. There is no reason why this site should not be included on Wikipedia. It is very helpful for both students and employers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepp88 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC) — Pepp88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This is the only site of its kind and helped me find both of my internships this summer. My friends used it to find internships at their home towns, which they never would have been able to do since they live at school so far away. I will continue to use this site through my whole college career and it has helped me make connections in my field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.247.166.31 (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 merge as editors please in the normal merging process. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Microtrol

Reads like an advert, but I don't believe this is speedyable. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I reworked the article and removed the WP:ADVERT, a google scholarly shows that it meets WP:N and WP:V, particularly important in the drug Adderall I have re-worked the article to stub status. Medicellis (talk) 01:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a rather basic delivery mechanism used in many pharmaceuticals. Can & should be expand dfurther. DGG (talk) 02:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, verifiable and cannot easily be merged. Please merge if a good candidate can be found (e.g. a more general article on slow-release delivery systems like used for nifedipine). JFW | T@lk 08:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Sustained release, will make a good example for the more general article, but not really notable on its own. Most of the articles that mention this are about the drug formulations that use the technology, eg Carbatrol or Adderall. I'd say the drugs are notable, but there are few articles about the delivery system itself. One of the few I can find is “Gastrointestinal performance of the Microtrol extended release drug delivery technology”, P H Hirst et al., Proceed. Int'l Symp. Control. Rel. Bioact. Mater., 26(Revised Jul. 1999) Controlled Release Society, Inc. which is a particularly obscure source that I have no access to. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Tim Vickers. Good idea. NCurse _work 08:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 unanimity of respondents, with a nod to WP:SILENCE and WP:POTENTIAL. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 01:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ua Maol Dhómhnaigh

Basically unsourced OR particularly as to the name Ua Maol Dhómhnaigh where I can find nothing useful. Obviously O'Moloney is a real name but that's not exactly what this article is about. Or is it? Still needs sources. Doug Weller (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's unsourced, it's scruffy but it is relevant and encyclopedic. In fact, I'll have a go at cleaning it up and sourcing it myself here ... soon as I get a spare minute :) - Alison ^❤ 01:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is encyclopedic, and it's a notable subject. It hardly has any references, which is a fixable. So basicly, eh, keep per WP:ILIKEIT and WP:JNN. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close) RMHED (talk) 19:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Five Foot Thick

Non notable band only claim to fame I can find and reason given by admin refusing speedy is that they were signed by Eclipse Records Cant find if they charted BigDunc^Talk 17:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn to me. I looked and didn't find any notable third party sources to justify this article's existence. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 01:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability per WP:MUSIC#C5 for 2 albums on Eclipse Records. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added a couple of citations for the existence of the mentioned albums. Think, that makes the article more notable. —KetanPanchal^taLK 22:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as well as the above, spots on the Vans Warped and Jagermeister tours passes WP:BAND criterion 4. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 23:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not convinced that Eclipse Records is a significant enough label for WP:MUSIC#C5 to apply. If touring means they pass WP:BAND#C4, that information should be included in the article as quickly as possible. Bondegezou (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep. It looks like its verifiable, (though not well referenced), and 3 studio albums and a warped tour is notable enough for me. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Food for the heart

Contested prod. Movie with no asserted notability. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 21:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - incomprehensible! Deb (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article may need some serious surgery, but that's a cleanup issue, not a deletion issue. Film is also known as The Hungry Bachelors Club. IMDb, Allmovie, Rotten Tomatoes; multiple reviews ([10], [11], [12], [13]); article ([14]); based on novel ([15]). PC78 (talk) 07:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree that it is a matter for cleanup, not deletion. Reviews show a notability. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 03:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is no significant coverage in independent reliable sources that show the notability of the subject. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Money & You

No assertion of (or sources indicating) notability, apart from the unsourced list of "graduates" (an independent source of the veracity of this list would help its case). In any case, so little info this is barely more than a stub.

Article was originally PRODded; tag removed by an anon. IP. Oli Filth^(talk) 21:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an important article. Money & You utilizes a different concept on education, utilizing accellerated technologies developed by Lozanav and DePorter. This is completely different from traditional education and many individuals with entries on wiki- Tony Robbins, Robert Kiyosaki, Ben Cohen and Jack Canfield (to name a few) - have all taken this program and many have even taught it prior to developing their own programs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.227.172.221 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 15 July 2008
- Right, but none of this is sourced. There are no indication that the subject has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Please read WP:Notability. Oli Filth^(talk) 19:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - So if sources from additional parties - such as books written by graduates or references on a graduates website - would this suffice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.204.246.97 (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - If the coverage conforms to the list at WP:Notability#General notability guideline and so forth, then yes, it may suffice. Oli Filth^(talk) 20:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you for your clarification. I have added additional sources for the page, including an article by another party called Networking Times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Takacedon (talk • contribs) 22:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        As one of these is an article by Cordova, and one narrates a conversation with Cordova, they do not form independent coverage. Oli Filth^(talk) 23:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you for the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.53.124.231 (talk) 13:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources. Recreate if sources are found, this article looks like spam. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More articles have been listed citing the development of accelerated learning technologies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.204.244.157 (talk) 19:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is conspicuously lacking citations to supports its many claims. Notability has not been established. Fails to meet the primary criterion specified in WP:COMPANY. WP is not a trade directory. Dolphin51 (talk) 02:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 blatant advertising (WP:CSD#G11). PeterSymonds (talk) 01:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E-Sports Entertainment Association

This is a non-notable organization. Much of the article was written like an advertisement, but even in the case that it was not, I believe that the user base for this organization is far too small (~250,000) and inactive (<1,000) and warrants a deletion. Nothing in this article shows its significance, and I could not find any creditable sources other than the website itself that verifies its notability; please also consult reasons as to why similar organizations such as Cyberathlete Amateur League and CyberEvolution were deleted. Imhyunho (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete — Meets G11 criterion (blatant advertising). MuZemike (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per above. --.:Alex :. 10:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11. It's obviously blatant advertisement and it doesn't belong on Wikipedia because of that. Thanks, RyRy (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 R1 by Vegaswikian. Synergy 07:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevada State Industrial Insurance System (SIIS)

I believe this article may be an attempt to circumvent the earlier deletion of Employers Compensation Insurance Company. The entity mentioned in this article is a previous name of the other article. I'd say the subject violates WP:ORG and may violate WP:NOTADVOCATE. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this is notable, although the current version of the article is heavily NPOV. Newspaper articles about the privatization and demutualization ought to be available to pemit the article to be rewritten in NPOV format. This article seems particularly colorful. This Google News search lists some others, although many of them are court cases. --Eastmain (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Nevada Insurance Division, listed on the state web site as Insurance Division (Business & Industry, Dept. of)'. While the individual program may have notability issues, a rewrite and expansion to cover the function of the entire department or division should be notable. If you want roll it up one level and have the article at Nevada Department of Business & Industry and have the insurance division be a section there. Then leave a redirect from the name where the article currently resides. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I speedy deleted this as a copyvio from here. Can someone please close this discussion? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close) RMHED (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

elgooG

The idea for elgooG is a cute one, but I'm afraid it does not pass WP:WEB and thus should be deleted. RFerreira (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of this. At least one news source indicates that elgooG got a surge in traffic after China banned Google. If that ain't notable, I don't know what is. Ten Pound ~~Hammer~~ Farfel and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps)} 23:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
remmaH rep peeK The surge in China as a way to end-around censorship would make it notable. Eauhomme (talk) 04:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for its role in 2002. Hopefully, the rotartsinimdA will understand Eauhomme's message. Mandsford (talk) 11:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Does this website actually exist? I cannot find an active link for it. RFerreira (talk) 17:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try [16] Eauhomme (talk) 01:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). The case seems important for the interpretation of the Oregon's law on shoplifting. Ruslik (talk) 08:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gustafson v. Payless

This article deals with a non-notable court case over a minor charge. The article's "facts" are written in a very pro-plaintiff POV and a NPOV version of the article is unlikely to be written as the case was not an influential one. _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 21:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cases decided by the Oregon Supreme Court are automatically notable due to its effect on Oregon law. No problem with the deletion of huge chunks of the article that violate WP:NPOV. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- on the assumption that this is a case that is regarded as a significant precedent for the interpretation of Oregon state law on theft. I do not accept that all cases reaching the highest court of a nation or state are necessarily notable. Notability is probably best established by cases being cited regularly as a precedent in later cases. Being in England, I am not qulaified to judge the importance of the case. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. Is anything in this article worth keeping? -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 10:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 keep. I'm going to close this myself, thanks all. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Armitage Robinson

Listed for community review because it's clearly borderline. Does this topic meet WP:BIO? Gwen Gale (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a book about this Anglican priest (cited as a reference in the article), and so he's notable. --Eastmain (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I presume he must have been of some repute to have an article written about his death in The New York Times (especially since he was an English clergyman). Gr1st (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, same reasons. Per list of deans of westminster, position shows notability too. 800+ gbook hits.John Z (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per book on subject and NYT obit, notability seems established. John Carter (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I can't see any reason for him to be one of the few redlinks on List of Deans of Westminster. --Stormie (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. BJ^Talk 19:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turkcebilgi.com

You heard of The Turkish Star Wars? Well, here's the Turkish Wikipedia! Or an unreasonable facsimile (the English language section is rife with Internal Errors). I couldn't locate any substantial coverage of this site (not even in Hurriyet, the leading Turkish newspaper that has an English online version). Unless one of our Turkish-speaking friends can confirm notability, I would suggest this article can go. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources can be found to confirm notability. BTW this is the Turkish Wikipedia. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 20:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:N and WP:V. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Boffob (talk) 06:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tarck bike

Neologism, previously tagged for merger with Track bicycle at the end of AfD debate and since untagged without discussion. Since the merge was effectively ignored, article should be deleted. Gerta (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:N and WP:V due to lack of WP:RS. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If deleted, redirect to track bike as plausible mis-typing. No stance on actual deletion, but the lack of WP:Reliable sources (forum postings and joke news articles do not count) does not bode well. -- saberwyn 21:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would support this kind of redirect. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per User:Nihonjoe ... why does it take two successful AfDs to delete this wretched article? --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP, and for failing WP:V and WP:N - Headwes (talk) 05:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm honestly surprised it survived the first AfD without a straight-up consensus to delete it. There's nothing here worth merging, and no reliable sources that suggest this is anything other than something a few people have made up. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 11:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Synergy 07:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Engberg

Article on a real person which does not assert much, if any, notability Thomas.macmillan (talk) 12:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's been a particular target of Bernard Goldberg's books, so he's notable, the main future problem would be keeping his article neutral. 111 gbook hits.John Z (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable per coverage in secondary sources; Google brings up a number of articles about him, not just by him, though his article here should explain why he was in Goldberg's books and not just state that he was. —97198 talk 10:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cristofono Associates

Insufficiently notable subject. No evidence this company has yet been the subject of non-trivial coverage by multiple, reliable, third-party, published sources. Google News Archive search produces 0 results. Yahoo! News search produces 0 results. Lexis-Nexis News search also produces 0 results. Contested PROD, so comes here. Thank you. — Satori Son 20:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a single mention of this company to be found anywhere on the web. Gr1st (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like marketing collateral, not an encyclopedia article. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-encyclopedic.Beagel (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Voyage

Unsourced article about an unremarkable movie. Contested prod. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article should be kept. Has sufficient notoriety as a regular re-run on the Sci Fi Channel. Homotlfqa83 talk 23:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, as I said on the article's talk page. I believe that the film is as notable as any other made-for-TV movie, and deserves an article as long as it continues to be aired regularly. Certainly, it's not a great movie (and I'm being kind here), but that doesn't mean it's not notable (in my opinion, at least). -Elizabennet | talk 00:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It's a crappy TV movie. I think it deserves a crappy article =D (as in small) --mboverload @ 05:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any discussion of it in reliable sources besides trivial mentions (e.g. inclusion in TV listings, occasional 1-2 sentence reviews), and so as far as I'm concerned it fails WP:N. Scog (talk) 10:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to keep, in light of the sources found by PC78, who was obviously more successful in looking for them than I was. Scog (talk) 09:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will someone please reformate the article it looks like crapp. Homotlfqa83 (talk) 22:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I'm finding some reviews on the movie, but the article as it stands needs a complete rewrite ,and deletion would effectively be the best course of action to accomplish this. Wizardman 16:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article creator is now blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user, so won't be coming back to improve it (at least not as User:Homotlfqa83). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Film has sources ([17], [18]) and several reviews ([19], [20], [21], though these may not be professional reviews). Neither the current state of the article nor the status of the article's creator are valid reasons for deletion. PC78 (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article now includes inline citations from reliable secondary sources such as The New York Times and the Philadelphia Inquirer. Article needs work but cleanup is not a matter for AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 06:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, The New York Times article is literally a listing of "What's On Tonight" on TV. The other is not accessible but is entitled "TV today". These hardly imply notability. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ...poor as the film itself might be... it being regularly re-aired gives it some minor notability. Do agree that the article needs some work, but no point throwing baby out with bathwater. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 04:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as non-notable. —Sean Whitton / 14:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Q Squared Joe

No evidence of notability for this card game. Online searches (which, of course, need not cover all possible sources) fail to produce anything relevant that is not a mirror of Wikipedia in some form or another. This article lacks third party sources of any kind and seems to violate WP:NFT as I can't locate anything to suggest otherwise. (Attention to other editors: Please note the link at the bottom of the article to a facebook list of "People against taking this page down".) --Craw-daddy | T | 09:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 09:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 20:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of sources for Q Squared Joe or Q2J. If you search Q2J rather than Q Squared Joe, you get much more results (A few of dozen) from a variety of sites. - TriHeadedQQQ —Preceding unsigned comment added by TriHeadedQQQ (talk • contribs) 21:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC) — TriHeadedQQQ (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Then please add some of these sources, and if they are reliable I will withdraw my nomination. As is, there is nothing to demonstrate notability in the article. --Craw-daddy | T | 22:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable card game. Edward321 (talk) 00:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable game that seems to be a classic 'made up one day at school' candidate. Nuttah (talk) 08:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 blatant advertising (WP:CSD#G11). PeterSymonds (talk) 01:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manager-Mania

Nonnotable football manager game, sources don't establish notability per WP:WEB. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - poorly sourced; no concrete evidence of notability. Biruitorul ^Talk 21:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete — Again, meets G11 criterion (blatant advertising). MuZemike (talk) 23:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per above. --.:Alex :. 10:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11. Blatant advertising. Thanks, RyRy (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Sean Whitton / 14:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avenged Sevenfold's Untitled Live CD/DVD

There isn't enough information to warrant an article yet, all the infomation is just speculation and the only source that it exists is youtube, which isn't considereda reliable source. It should be recreated when more information is available... Jakisbak (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TPH's law. If it doesn't have a name yet, there's no point in even searching for notability.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER (nice to see that's getting some recognition). Seriously, if there are no sources to verify so much as the title, why bother? Ten Pound ~~Hammer~~ Farfel and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps)} 23:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER, lacking in sources, but no prejudice against recreating once we get a proper title and some WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:N, and most importantly WP:V. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I take it back. It seems roadrunner have some info about it. I spoke too soon. Jakisbak (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lawyer jokes

This article is unencyclopedic. Maybe a small paragraph in Lawyer regarding stereotypes, but a whole article is unnecessary. The article is original research, mainly humour-based and certainly biased in its tone regarding lawyers. _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 19:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An unencyclopedic collection of original research. I don't even think a a small paragraph in Lawyer regarding stereotypes is needed, as we are an encyclopedia, and I'm sure there are more than enough websites on the Internet where people can find lawyer-related humor. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Awwwww. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — The main issue is that there's nothing distinctive about lawyer jokes (as described in the article). As I pointed out in the article discussion, all the joke examples can be recast as "plumber jokes" with minor changes. The article is focused on the work of a single person, Marc Galanter, whereas there are many theories of humor available, including those of famous practitioners. Other theories cover a whole range of linguistic and social issues that aren't addressed in the article. Looking at Humor, Theories of humor, and Joke, there might be a use for one line about lawyer jokes (but not about Galanter's theory), in Jokes, in the Cycles section.

The article has been around for 2 1/2 years. In its early months, it seemed to be attempting to address the role of lawyer jokes in a broad historical context. Some interesting points were made, but unfortunately an appreciable part was original research. Next came a phase where the original research was cut out -- leaving very little in the article at all. Finally, Mikkalai decided to do what was termed "start major expansion" on April 20, 2007, which removed everything that had been done to that point. If this article is not deleted, then I'd like to see it rolled back to its state of original (but at least interesting) research, where many editors had contributed. (April 14, 2007). Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 21:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not encyclopedic -- not particularly funny, either. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR, fails WP:N and WP:V Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's worthwhile as a subject, and the article gives the subject the appropriate treatment for a description of humor. A few examples are shown, but mostly it's about why these jokes are popular, and it's sourced. For whatever reason, people enjoy telling and retelling jokes about lawyers, and even buy books with such jokes. I understand Alpha Ralpha's insight that these can be recast as plumber jokes; all I know is that I can go to a bookstore and find books of "lawyer jokes", and I've yet to see a book of plumber jokes. Finally, "not particularly funny" is actually what we look for in a Wikipedia article of this type. The rule that "Wikipedia is not a jokebook" means that this is not the place to post 200 jokes. Humor is just as much a part of culture as literature, music or painting. Mandsford (talk) 12:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What makes jokes funny doesn't change: slapstick, insults, taboo, punning etc. That a lawyer can be a target for slapstick, insult, using taboo language, punning is not much more than saying lawyers can be a target for jokes, as any profession can. The article as it stands is a social study about lawyers. (It could be retitled "Galanter's Theory of the Social Role of Lawyers in the 1980s".) It's one person's opinion on how lawyers are perceived. The article should, at least, revert to a discussion of all eras, and various joke theories.

However, even this may be barking up the wrong tree, which is why I voted to delete the article. Imagine the chaos of hundreds of articles: "British jokes", "Victorian British jokes", "Gay British jokes", "Gay British Victorian lawyer jokes", etc. The names might seem to impart significance, but in fact some jokes Shakespeare told in England 1600 are told in 21st century Siberia. The underlying theory is important, but changing wording, languages, professions, time periods doesn't change the underlying nature of why a joke is funny. Regards, Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 15:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mandsford DollyD (talk) 13:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mandsford. But I only see one author as source. How is that "multiple?"There are additional reliable sources which discuss lawyer jokes (in addition to many collections of such jokes.) See[22] , [23] , [24] , [25] , [26] , [27], as well as ""Lawyers, light bulbs and dead snakes: the lawyer joke as societal text." 42 UCLA Law Review 1069 (1995) cited at [28]. Edison (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a jokebook. User529 (talk) 23:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with a new paragraph or section in the "Lawyer" article called "Stereotype" Tezkag72 (talk) 20:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Synergy 07:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darrell L. Clarke (politician)

AfDs for this article:

Ministub with poor referenced on a non notable local politician. No room to grow. Hasn't done anything special. besides kick the boyscouts out of their 80-year leased home, but that story is already on wikinews. ^MY♥_INchile 19:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the article could use expansion and better sources, he seems to meet #2 of Wikipedia:BIO#Politicians, which says "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city." Gnews search comes up with 655 hits, so notability is very likely.

well then Prove it^MY♥_INchile 00:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep on the grounds that this passed a previous AFD only 2 months ago, which resulted in the nominator withdrawing due to compelling information provided in the discussion. I don't see how that would change in 2 months. Articles must not be renominated repeatedly in such a short period of time until a desired outcome occurs. 23skidoo (talk) 02:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That outcome never became reality, the nomination rule has to do when there has been no consensus delete or keep, not withdrawals.^MY♥_INchile 00:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weakish keep - a lot of the news coverage is fairly trivial, but some of it is more in-depth, and the sheer quantity makes his claim to notability pretty reasonable. I don't think being a member of a city council is automatic grounds for notability, but in this case the subject has received enough attention to deserve an article. Terraxos (talk) 01:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A LexisNexis search of Pennsylvania News Sources turns up a whopping 1003 results, although his article definitely needs to be expanded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminx (talk • contribs) 06:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as redundant to the better Timeline of World War II (1939). Sandstein 18:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of politics and diplomacy during World War II

Incomplete timeline that would better fit into Timeline of World War II. ~~non-notable.~~ Tavix (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, albeit with regret. I disagree with the nom regarding notability: the subject itself is certainly notable. However, the article has been on WP since 2005 but it is still in pretty bad shape (the only entries are for 1939 and no sources). More importantly, the artticle now is a content fork for better and more comprehensive Timeline of World War II. The latter article, and its subarticles, arranged by year (Timeline of World War II (1939) to Timeline of World War II (1945) already contain all the information that might concievably go into the present article. So this one is effectively functioning as a content fork now, so it should to be deleted on those grounds. Nsk92 (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that notable really isn't a good word to use, I just couldn't figure out what word to use, sorry. Tavix (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 11:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Nsk92 that this is, indeed, a "content fork" from existing chronologies of World War II. After three years, they've never gotten past the first two months of the war, and I don't see any reason that they should continue. Mandsford (talk) 12:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content with Timeline of World War II (1939) (assuming that there is anything to merge) then delete. This is (as far as it has got) a duplicate of that one. We do not need both. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guardians (novel)

The article itself declares the non-notability of the subject: it's an "unknown novel series by Stephen Thomson". No sources or evidence this even exists. Second nominated page is a related sub-page. UsaSatsui (talk) 19:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be either a hoax or, at least, doesn't pass WP:N, not even WP:V. I can't find evidence of it online, not at amazon.com or amazon.co or bestbookbuys.com, either under "Guardians" or "Stephen Thomson", the supposed author. Noroton (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Both. At worst a hoax, at best so NN the only G-hit is for the Wikipedia article. I'd speedy myself but don't want to bypass the AFD process. 23skidoo (talk) 02:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:V and WP:N - if a hoax than Speedy as vandalism (per misinformation). Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per others. Bondegezou (talk) 14:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Sean Whitton / 14:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moondwara

does not assert notability; content is vague and sounds like a tour guide is presenting it ——Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Wanna know my story?}/ _{Share yours with me!} 19:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Geographic locations like villages are inherently notable. No problem with the deletion of the huge chunks in the article that violate Wikipedia policy. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article certainly needs improvement, geographical locations are inherently notable. Edward321 (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: someone has put in a lot of effort into the article. But there is absolutely no claim of notability(famous son-of-the soil, temple , historic event etc?). There are 6.5 lakh (0.65 million) villages in India. We cant list them all unless there is something special about them. Wouldnt mind changing my vote if something good comes up. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 08:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, places are notable, but the article needs cleaning up. Nuttah (talk) 08:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 00:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clawson Toads

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}}.

This is an article about a fantasy baseball team. It does not appear to meet notability guidelines. Here is its page on ESPN: [29]. The owner of the group is identified as "Baztastik"; the creator/primary contributor to the article is User:Baztastik. That seems like a conflict of interest. NatureBoyMD (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Conflict of interest", NatureBoy? Please explain this charge. Nothing is being gained from this article except for information on the Champion Clawson Toads. The article only states facts. There is not one opinion in it.db (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually regardless of the WP:COI issues and the article "only states facts" the article fails our Notability and Verifiability policies and these are the issues that need to be discussed at this page. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The page's author blanked this AfD then replaced it with "This article is valid. It doesn't violate any rules. Please investigate NatureBoyMD. He appears to be a busybody with an axe to grind.". Ten Pound ~~Hammer~~ Farfel and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps)} 20:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eject. Google must have an ax to grind, also. 12 non-wiki ghits, none of which show the article meets WP:Notability; 0 gnews hits.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Let's not go down this road! —Wknight94 (talk) 00:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite claims on the talk page there is no sign of notability or verifiability for the articles subject. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Love 'em or hate 'em, the Toads exist. Perhaps the haters have experienced the Toads' wrath? This page is nearly two years old... why the sudden push to have it removed? Hot.genius (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC) — Hot.genius (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources as required by Wikipedia's notability guideline. BRMo (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A wonderful article honoring a fabulous organization db (talk) 05:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For clarity, the above comment was in fact added by User:Baztastik, the article's creator -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Why would this be deleted? It isn't obscene. The team is real - they are in my league. They won first place in the nation a few years ago and were even featured on CNN. Pumpus (talk) 11:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC) — Pumpus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- In what way was this team "featured on CNN"? The article says nothing about this, although it does feature a copyright-violating screencap of an unidentified person walking past in the background behind a CNN reporter seemingly wearing a T-shirt with the team's logo on - that's hardly "being featured". My dad's car was once visible in the background of a BBC reporter's piece to camera, but I'm hardly going to start an article about it...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Um, the article now includes the CNN appearance under the heading 'National Fame'. Furthermore, if you read the info on the CNN screenshot, there is no copyright violation:
    "This image is a screenshot of a copyrighted television program or station ID. As such, the copyright for it is most likely owned by the company or corporation that produced it. It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law."db (talk) 13:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - absolutely no mention in reliable sources, and nothing to confirm that this fantasy sports team was the subject of coverage by CNN (as opposed to the person behind the team happening to stroll past in the background of a news report which was almost certainly about something else entirely) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply not notable (good try with the screencap, though). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 00:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As stated above, issues with notability, RS, etc. Not a can or worms worth opening. - Masonpatriot (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Sean Whitton / 14:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of names in English with counterintuitive pronunciations

The list of names in English with counterintuitive pronunciations has a couple issues to it. The first one comes from the point of view which dictates a pronunciation to be counterintuitive or not. Also, there may be several different pronunciations for a word which makes sense. Ever heard of the phrase, "you say (pa-TAIT-o) and I say (pa-TOT-o), you say (ta-MAIT-o), I say (ta-MOT-o)? Also, I am hitting this article up for Verifiability issues. Although it is easy to find the pronunciations, can you find any sources that dictate what is counterintuitive or not? Tavix (talk) 18:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional Delete There may be some list or lists out there that not counterintuitive pronunciation (I'm sure the Language Log has posts on pronunciation sometimes). As it stands I don't see a source like that listed. I see lists of placenames and a pronunciation guide as sources and a list of pronunciation problems with placenames as an article. That is WP:SYN. I'm not prepared, however, to claim with any certainly that no such sources exist. If some sources pop up and are incorporated into the article properly, then it should be kept. However as it stands it should be deleted. Protonk (talk) 20:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly sure what type of source you mean, perhaps because you seem to have made a typo ("list or lists out there that not counterintuitive pronunciation"). There are tons of blogs out there in which people exchange and list unusually pronounced names. They don't seem like authoritative references to me, but would a few of those suffice? Is the BBC list of British place names that the unsuspecting tourist is bound to mangle not the type of source you like?

I've now read but may still misunderstand WP:SYN. The headline is "Synthesis of published material which advances a position". Which position does this list advance? That some proper names in English are oddly pronounced? That can hardly be controversial. Or does every entry advance a position? Is "I think that Trottiscliffe's pronunciation is unexpected" a synthesis? That would make me depressed. I could see that the scope, as discussed below, is subjective unless a set of rules (like a general English pronunciation guide) is followed and thereby may advance a position. Again, all lists with the words "prominent" or "notable" in the header (and many others) suffer from the same problem. Do you really think that WP:SYN exists to prevent the creation of these kind of lists? Afasmit (talk) 08:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion that is a problem with how WP:SYN is written (a clarity problem). SYN means that if you take source A which says A and not C, take source B which says B and not C and combine them into an article that says C, you have introduced an original concept by synthesis of two sources. In this case I see (in the cited references) a list of English placenames (source A) and a pronunciation guide (Source B). The article advances concept C: that there are placenames with "counterintuitive" pronunciations. That's what I mean about synthesis. Protonk (talk) 17:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bad presentation of what might be an encyclopedic subject. "Counterintuitive pronunciation" is a high-handed way of saying that the word is pronounced differently than it looks. If you can read things like "sænɪtʃ/" then you'll have no trouble understanding this article. I can't. Mandsford (talk) 12:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, but who's to say what looks correct? Tavix (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but improve The list may be silly, but who hasn’t marveled over the odd pronunciation of some English village or surname and wondered if there was a nice compilation somewhere? Wikipedia seems a perfect place for that. Its general interest is evidenced by the hundreds of people that have edited it over the years.

The submitter makes one point in two or three different ways, i.e. “counterintuitive” may be hard to define (and by the way, few if any say “ta-MOT-o”, as for the people that say tə-MAH-to "motto" and "tomato" don’t rhyme).

In the lead of the article “counterintuitive” is defined as “the pronunciation does not correspond to the spelling, or because a better-known namesake has a markedly different pronunciation”. Examples of the latter are Chili and Rio Grande, but also places or names resembling common English words like Reading, Leap, Loose and Buyer. If you didn’t know these names from somewhere else or are aware of their origin, their pronunciation could be regular. We could consider splitting these names off.

The first, much more common category is possibly definable, perhaps by a link to the IPA chart for English, and wouldn’t raise heckles if limited to indisputable ones; the pronunciations of names like MaliVai, Belvoir, Thames, Pou or Happisburgh do not correspond to their spelling ("make sense") in any dialect of English.

The problem this list does have is shared by thousands of other wikipedia lists, like almost all lists of people, namely it is hard to define the cut-off for inclusion. Indeed, the list currently contains too many names that are merely non-obvious, rather than conflict with their spelling. Some serious weeding is necessary and would make this list less controversial. Afasmit (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's still textbook SYNTH, regardless of scope. Protonk (talk) 04:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I accept that there are cases of names where more than one pronunciation might be intuitive, but I think that most of the names in the list are not in this category. "Halford" is one case that I have queried before, and you can see my comments on the talk page. Otherwise, I think that anyone who speaks English would consider the majority of the names on the list to be pronounced in an unusual manner. I agree that verifiability is a big problem. However, there is a B.B.C. Pronunciation Dictionary of Place Names. Perhaps, that could be used to verify the inclusions. I do not have a copy, and am not sure whether a small village would be included in it, but it is worth a try. Epa101 (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, ultimately as Wikipedia is not a dictionary or pronunciation guide. This list is largely useless to 99% of readers who are not literate in IPA. One will be left with the knowledge that a given name has a counterintuitive pronunciation, but little idea of how to pronounce it (I am aware of the links to the IPA pages, but I imagine the clickthrough rate is quite low). If the article is kept, I recommend using List of words of disputed pronunciation as a model of how to give a bit more description. Given the paucity of content, this material would be much better presented as as a category on Wiktionary. Setting aside the state of the article and considering its potential, this still does not pass muster; the scope is far too wide for this to be an encyclopedic topic worthy of inclusion and were it complete, it would have tens of thousands of entries. Skomorokh 01:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non encyclopaedic and original research. If the article does stay it needs to be renamed or severely trimmed, half the entries come under non-English names that English speakers find it difficult to pronounce. Nuttah (talk) 08:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ——An gr 09:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. It's not really much of an encyclopedia article, but it's exactly the sort of thing that would make sense as an Appendix at Wiktionary. —An gr 09:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All this is right now is a subjective list of place names, with no commentary or proper sourcing. The only things it references are lists of place names and lists of pronunciations, and all decisions on whether the pronunciation is counterintuitive is either original research or a synthesis of those publications to reach a new conclusion. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 10:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The concept of a counterintuitive pronunciation needs more development within the article, but the list forms a basis for further research (for example, investigating different categories of counterintuitiveness) so I think it should be here. It's the sort of list that would be very difficult to develop outside of Wikipedia. --Northernhenge (talk) 12:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Skomorokh 01:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chronological list of men's major golf champions

Argument for deletion mostly based on WP:TRIVIA. It seems very trivial to know in chronological order when so-and-so won their first major. Also, is this page really necessary when pages like these (Men's major golf championships and Golfers with most wins in men's major championships) already exist? Each individual major has a list of champions as well. How many pages need to be devoted to lists of major champions? What's next? An alphabetical list? --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 18:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Discriminate, organised, non-trivial. I see no reason to delete. TerriersFan (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Lists have different guidelines than articles. A chronological list, to me, is even more valid and more important and more useful for research and historic purposes.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TRIV says to avoid long lists of facts. Well, the golf major championship page already gives who won the majors every year. I agree that this chronological list isn't necessary. Paul, it is not nearly as important as the other two lists. No sports almanac or sports encyclopedia I know of has a list like that. If they were more important they would. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 21:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - One man's trivia is another man's meat. I am pretty confident that this well organized and styled list is manna to golf nuts. Until someone definitively says what LONG means in a long list of facts, I think this one should stay.--Mike Cline (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment see unsigned enthusiastic comment on the discussion page.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Skomorokh 01:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manic Street Preachers B-sides

Non-notable B-sides. All information is forked from respective singles. Fancruft. Please see the AfDs for Garbage B-sides and List of Coldplay's b-sides. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedia used to be good for its long tail. Francium12 (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning? Tenacious D Fan (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Long Tail - Basically this is the sort of useful article which print encyclopedias would never cover which an online encyclopedia could because of its unlimited space. Its what I liked about Wikipedia before deletionism took over. This page is in my watchlist because wanted a list of the band b-sides. If this page is deleted this resource will no longer be avalaible to the rest of wikipedia. Wuoldn't you find it annoying if you went looking for a page only to discover someone was trying to delete it! Francium12 (talk) 00:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't/shouldn't the b-side be covered in the "album" article. And just because I'm a bit out of it, what exactly is a b-side in this age of CD singles anyway? Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's an informal term coming from the days of the 7 inch vinyl singles. You make a good point. A purist would say that referring to a B-side when discussing CD singles is incorrect, and not encyclopedic. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 09:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heck, even calling them CD singles is in correct in most cases as they tend to have 2,3, or 4 tracks on them most of the time from what I've seen. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 09:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep is a useful and discriminate list. All lists are "forks" of the content, that is why they are useful.Yobmod (talk) 13:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was moot. Nominator has changed article to a redirect, which I take to be a withdrawal of the nomination. Drop me a line if there's a problem with this.Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bottle Pop

The article features no reliable sources! I think it should be deleted! Olliyeah (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - to Doll Domination per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Unreleased single which is currently non-notable. Jезка (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete due to no forthcoming sources. —Sean Whitton / 14:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neidermeyer's Mind

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Neidermeyer's Mind

Contains no reliable sources, and is purely original research, or speculation. Googled and couldn't find any pages that are considered a reliable source that provided coverage. dude527 (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or at least Merge into Korn article. This is an article on a demo tape? If the tape were released later as an album (like the Beatles BBC recordings, etc.) then maybe an individual article. -- Quartermaster (talk) 18:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I vote merge, but only if proper citations are found. If no citations are found, then I vote delete. This was never re-released as an album, it was used for getting a record deal, and never released. dude527 (talk) 18:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia has articles for tons of demo tapes. If no citations can be found like there are on the articles for other demo tapes, then merge with Korn. Tezkag72 (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:WAX? Skomorokh 02:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the article I was about to call for it to be kept. The initial argument given in the nomination was quite weak; WP:PROBLEMS such as original research or undersourcing are irrelevant to the suitability of the inclusion of a topic in the encyclopaedia. The article, though uncited, is reasonably well-written and provides basic information and context to the subject, with appropriate templates and structure. The artist, Korn, is so notable that all of their releases are deserving of their own articles, in the spirit of WP:SERIES, regardless of whether they met the general notability guideline. However, after searching Google and the music resources thoroughly, checking for possible misspelling and alternate punctuation, I could find nothing more than lyrics pages, torrent downloads and forums. No self-published original research, no comprehensive treatment in fan pages, not even cursory listings in user-contributed music databases featured prominently in the search results, not even considering the complete absence of even trivial coverage in reliable sources. So, while the topic is notable, I regretfully move to delete the article as unverifiable, without prejudice to recreation if sources were to emerge. Skomorokh 02:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Merger I have changed my mind and now support a merger, with Korn (1994 album). --KMFDM FAN ^(talk!) 21:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Klaus Armstrong-Braun

Non notable local councillor who holds no national or regional elected office and thus fails WP:BIO for politicians. Valenciano (talk) 17:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "He is the only county councillor ever elected for the Wales Green Party" is a claim to notability. --Eastmain (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If this claim is true, then it maybe significant to keep the article. Though a quick search by me hasn't easily found evidence to reference this claim. If a soruce can be found back up this claim, then I'd be happy to say keep. Evil Eye (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure how being the first person elected for a sub-branch of one of the smaller political parties to a not-that-notable local council meets wp:bio. In any case, given the fact that Plaid Cymru and the Greens sometimes endorsed each others candidates, the unsourced claim is dubious at best. Valenciano (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find 179 hits using the newsuk database, including stories in the national press (Times, Independent, Mirror etc). Definitely a Green councillor. Also this Sunday Mirror article "Last year Armstrong-Braun ended up in a court after battering a construction worker with a fence post because he thought a building site was threatening the lives of great crested newts." An interesting fact that you'd expect to find in an encylopedia. He lost his appeal against his conviction, for using excessive force. No tree-hugger he. I'd say he passes WP:POLITICIAN as Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Tassedethe (talk) 09:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 yes, I've ignored the stray delete - has no use for lack of clarity. Synergy 07:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Sears

Topic lacks notability, and google returns nothing secondary. Fails WP:N Leonard^(Bloom) 17:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - has no use!Olliyeah (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 455 well-cited (100, 95, 64 ...) gscholar hits, 168 gbook hits (publ after 1960); first few pages of each are (almost) all good hits for this Andrew Sears. Editor-in-chief of ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing, department chair.John Z (talk) 19:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Appears to be a fairly minor academic. II | (t - c) 20:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Google Scholar hits are impressive. Clearly a highly notable academic.--Michig (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Always use quotes for precision. A search for "Andrew Sears" yields ~500 hits on Google Scholar. II | (t - c) 21:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough, but I only had to look at the first couple of pages of results to decide that he is notable. Ben Shneiderman is one of the top HCI experts, and Sears gets his name ahead of him on co-authored papers, and the papers are highly-cited.--Michig (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll trust your judgment then. II | (t - c) 23:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and add information to the article about his publication record and importance; as it stands, the article doesn't assert much in the way of notability. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 17:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Editor of multiple journals, chair of a department (albeit ranked 72nd by US News). Short of getting an expert in the field to comment, I think that's the best we're going to get. A list of his publications is available on his webpage, by the way, so using Google Scholar is rather unnecessary. RayAYang (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The GoogleScholar citation results[30] are fairly impressive with top citation hits of 100, 97, 67, 51, 57. Also, he is an Editor-in-Chief of the journal "ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing"[31], which is usually a solid indicator of having high stature in the field. Nsk92 (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject's notability is confirmed, as per the previous comments -- but in fairness to the AfD nominator's concerns, the article's writing is weak and it is lacking referenced sources. I genuinely wish that people would take the extra effort to include references and links in their articles before submitting them for publication. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure), housekeeping. Protonk (talk) 04:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Hunters (Warhammer 40,000)

Strictly in-universe, and no significance outside of it. There was a recent AfD where a number of Space Marine chapters were aggregated together and deleted, and it looks like this one just got missed. Jaysweet (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. This has been copied from wikia:warhammer40k:Silent Hunters. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If speedy applies because of copyright issues between Wikia and Wikipedia then Speedy Delete. Otherwise, the usual reasons: summary of non-notable plot elements which have not received significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 23:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if the GFDL would allow us to retroactively attribute this material and avoid a copyright speedy, this article cites no reliable, independent sources which would impute notability. It fails WP:N. For that matter it fails WP:V as no sources are cited at all. Delete it. Protonk (talk) 23:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 23:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Speedy tag applied. If someone wants to recreate preserving attribution I guess that is ok but it still won't meet WP:N/V. Protonk (talk) 00:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Sean Whitton / 14:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Tilbrook

Non notable leader of minor political party who holds no elected office and thus fails WP:BIO. Valenciano (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
REdirect to English Democrats Party. This is a very minor party, but has a substantial article. Any useful information (if there is any) can be included in that. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable per criteria at WP:POLITICIAN. —97198 talk 10:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - trivial coverage, but plausible search term. PhilKnight (talk) 00:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas in Spiceworld

Non-notable 8 date UK concert tour. Fails WP:N, WP:RS and WP:V. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Spice Girls; non-notable concert tour by a notable band. Consists mainly of a list of tracks and personnel. No assertion of notability. Jезка (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Spice Girls are a very famous act in the UK, and Christmastime music has a much greater significance there than it does in most of the world. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - no one is denying that the Spice Girls are notable - the issue is whether this tour is notable. – ukexpat (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Spice Girls - non-notable tour. ukexpat (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eldar Gods (Warhammer 40,000)

Strictly in-universe, and an extremely high-level of detail. At best, a merge candidate with Eldar (Warhammer 40,000), but may be too detailed and in-universe to even salvage for that. Jaysweet (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Independent secondary sources are nonexistent. Strictly background material for the race for the most part. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as even nomination says it's a merge candidate, which would preclude outright deletion. At least relevant redirect as well to an article on Elder Gods. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nomination says "At best it is a merge candidate" (emph. added, but since I am quoting myself I think it's okay ;) ). I am still endorsing deletion, because I am not convinced any of the content is independently notable enough to be worth merging into Eldar (Warhammer 40,000). But I'm allowing that a case could be made for merging. Somebody's gotta volunteer to do it, though, and that ain't me. The ironic thing is that Allemandtando was pretty good at doing that kind of merge/trim work... heh. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has a merge discussion been tried first? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Largely because nobody is interested in doing anything constructive with this article. I'm not going to merge it. The pissed-off 4channers aren't going to merge it (all they do is whine about how they need a month to transwiki a single article). And furthermore, I would reiterate that I don't believe there is any content worth merging. I allowed in the nom for the possibility I might be wrong about that, but so far nobody has provided any evidence that I am. (Oh, and BTW, this has nothing at all to do with Elder God other than phonetic similarity. Perhaps Booger should redirect to Burger???) --Jaysweet (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still see no reason why it couldn't be redirected without AfD discussion to a disambugation page on Elder Gods or to Warhammer 40,000. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it has nothing at all to do with any sort of Elder Gods (did you read the article?) and no WH40K article covers (or should cover) this exceedingly trivial subject. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All those who saw fit to create, work on, and read the article seem to disagree. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, all those? I voted to delete, and I've made more positive contributions to said article (fixing the categories) than anyone who has thus far commented on keeping it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) I strongly oppose a redirect to Elder Gods because it has nothing to do with the other. I am not at all opposed to a redirect to Eldar (Warhammer 40,000). I'm not sure how useful such a redirect would be, but it wouldn't bother me. Should we just do that then? --Jaysweet (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The alternative suggestion seems reasonable. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just like the other 40k sub pages, this one does not cite independent, reliable sources to establish notability per WP:GNG. For the uninitiated, the Eldar are a race in 40k (Incidentally, they were ripped off by Starcraft. seriously, compare the eldar to the Protoss), a minature combat game produced by games workshop. the Gods for the aldar have little impact on the game except as a note on unit coloration in some cases (you paint the miniatures, BTW). Protonk (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmmrpblrglpharb. This is one-half made up bullshit, one half fanon, one half speculation, and 100% unsourced OR claptrap. For anyone who cares, the mythology of this particular race (one of about a half-dozen in WH40K) is hinted at here and there, with little short stories that don't really fit into any sort of continuity. What's more, it's backstory to a non-narrative tabletop game (and not story to, you know, an actual story), so most players aren't aware or aren't interested, and understanding it isn't needed even for the most hard-core players. This is the WH40K cruft at its very worst. Kill it with fire. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable. This aspect of the game has not garnered non-trivial coverage by multiple, reliable, third-party published sources. — Satori Son 20:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and delete (or maybe just delete). There are no references independent of Games Workshop to demonstrate notability. (Could this just be speedied as incomprehensible nonsense? It's pretty incomprehensible to me, as it is written.) --Craw-daddy | T | 21:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Extensive plot summary, without any sort of real-world content in the form of critical analysis, development, impact, etc, of a non-notable topic that has not recieved significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 23:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lots of original research, 95% of it could be excised without any problem and what remains belongs in Eldar (Warhammer 40,000) (which needs a serious cleanup itself). Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 23:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability via non-trivial coverage by reliable sources independent of the topic. Fails WP:NOT#PLOT, lots of original research. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mergeto a list of warhammer40k characters 70.51.8.103 (talk) 06:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
TransWiki - To wikia.--SkyWalker (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and Merge to Eldar (Warhammer 40,000). Article has refs so it can't be entirely OR/speculation/etc.--PeaceNT (talk) 06:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article takes contradictory short stories from those refs, decides some of them are canon and some aren't, and forms an arbitrary continuity. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable to anyone but fanboys, ironically evidenced by the sources themselves. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 17:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Such "fanboys" also read, contribute, and donate to our project. While I think sourcing is a legitimate reason to critique an article, as far as who's interested in is not as one could say articles on plant species are only interesting to bonatists, articles on any select song is only interesting to fans of that genre, and so on, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't cover these things. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just not notable and I own all of the source material (sad I know). --Prisongangleader (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note WP:JNN. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 merge (non-admin closure). The merge (with redirect) to Qwest seems the most appropriate solution. Ruslik (talk) 07:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Qwest Communications

Insufficient context. If the author of the article does not wish to create a full article on this company and why it is important, then it should not be here Ernestvoice (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Qwest. There's very little here; it doesn't need its own article. Ntsimp (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - to Qwest. Insufficient context for standalone article. Jезка (talk) 17:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Qwest, per above.--Boffob (talk) 06:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Sean Whitton / 14:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christina Aguilera B-sides and unreleased songs

Non-notable B-sides and unreleased songs. Per precedent, lists of these are trivial and unneccessary. All information is forked from respective singles. Fancruft. Please see the AfDs for Garbage B-sides and List of Coldplay's b-sides. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - into Christina Aguilera discography. Jезка (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B-sides and unreleased songs are discouraged in discography articles per Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Already done!!Olliyeah (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Information is useful and indiscriminate, but better in context of discogrpahy.Yobmod (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Orangemike. Non-admin closure. Jезка (talk) 10:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Edlington

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable bio. see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernard Edlington Towther (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non-admin closure. -FrankTobia (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red Apple Rest

WP:NOTABILITY KelleyCook (talk) 15:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - See, that's what I thought at first too. And then I started poking around. Preliminary Google search hints of notability, and brings up some reliable sourcing. So the subject is certainly verifiable. There is good content in New York State Route 17 that's mergeable into the article as well. -FrankTobia (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw Nomination: Article has since been expanded and reliably sourced. Thanks. -- KelleyCook (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FrankTobia. Those sources above by themselves are already sufficient to establish notability. --Polaron | Talk 18:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nom. It's the subject of secondary sources. --Oakshade (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDIED AS G4. We've had this discussion already. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pokémon moves

This article violates WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:VGSCOPE in being a guidebook for video game manuevers. The notability is also in question as there are no independent third-party references to demonstrate notability. I do not think there is any worthwhile content to be merged into another article as all of this is game guide material and should be transikied to a more appropriate place and deleted. --Craw-daddy | T | 15:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 15:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. --Craw-daddy | T | 15:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete looks like a game guide. Hobit (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#GUIDE. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pure game guide belongs on a site such as GameFAQs and is to in-world to be exceptable on an encyclopedia. Salavat (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. No independent sources establish notability and none of the content is outside the scope of a gameguide. Protonk (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and above. Too specific and non-notable. Jезка (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Sonuvafitch (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my original prod. Pagra shtak 16:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Not notable, no verifiable sources (both sources are from fansites), and is definitely strategy-guide material. MuZemike (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is verifiable in my opinion. The game exists, and thus this whole thing is verifiable. Doesn't meet WP:N and is a gameguide however. Hobit (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the verifiability standard requires third-party sources. So this fails that too, because existence is not enough. The article has no sources that meet WP:V or WP:GNG. Randomran (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong keep per WP:PERNOM and unquestionable notability and verifiability per our guidelines and policies, i.e. existence of reliable sources. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move to gaming wiki (if possible). Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and that's exactly what this is. It's not encyclopedic in the slightest, however I could see the strong value of this on a gaming wiki. --.:Alex :. 18:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - textbook failure of WP:NOT#GUIDE, WP:VGSCOPE. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 19:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious failure of WP:NOT#GUIDE. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Due to complete lack of sources. Fails notability and verifiability standards because there are no reliable, third-party sources for this article. Randomran (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ——RyanLupin • (talk) 00:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Byron Smith

Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:BIO. This guy owned a shop and was a municipal alderman. The external links only show facts for his work as an alderman, and two of them are from the same domain. -Keith (Hypergeek14)^Talk 14:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is automatically notable as a member of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, the province's parliament. The article states: "He represented York East in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as a Liberal member from 1886 to 1894." --Eastmain (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:POLITICIAN as a MPP. Stated in the lead, cited in the links,[32] and WP:verifiable. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Held provincial office. Bearcat (talk) 14:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gene93k DigitalC (talk) 06:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nomination rationale was primarily an argument against the criteria for inclusion in the list, but as the list has been removed and the article stubbed, this is no longer a rationale to delete. Jasynnash2 concedes that the concept is notable and verifiable, and their argument is thus discounted per WP:DEADLINE. The rationales of both sgeureka and User:Eusebeus seem to be instances of WP:RUBBISH and apply to the pre-stubbed version of the article. A quick search reveals abundant coverage of the topic in reliable sources. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 02:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supersoldier

Unreferenced with no clear criteria for inclusion other than editors' original research that the entries are both a) soldiers and b) super(ior) in some genetic/performance way at it. --EEMIV (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete concept is notable and verifiable and therefore should have an article but, this doesn't seem to be the one. I can't help but, wonder as well why it isn't called Super soldier as it really should be two words. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep but only pending references. This is a recurring subject in just about all forms of science fiction, and an argument for its notability could be made with further research. Perhaps treating it historically by charting the first usages of the term and concept and its further development? Sonuvafitch (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable subject. The current article may lack sufficient sources, but has potential for improvement. Jезка (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is always room for improvement. People should add ideas, references and sources in the future. In time, this page should be up to "standards". -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs 00:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep concept is certainly notable, just needs some rewriting. (and splitting off the major X-Files arc) 70.51.8.103 (talk) 06:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a notable and recurring concept in modern fiction. JuJube (talk) 05:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or stubbify (i.e. dabbify) While the concept may have some notability, this article is just bad. I arbitrarily checked what the article had to say about Stargate (since the Kull Warriors were also called "Super soldiers" in that show), and of the three Stargate entries, two are pure OR, as is the Blade Runner mention. It may be better to begin new than to cleanup what's there, since everything is unsourced and potentially OR. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as junk heap of unencyclopedic WP:OR, with healthy doeses of WP:TRIVIA thrown in for good measure. Eusebeus (talk) 18:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable and encyclopedic subject. I note that the term is used and linked in hundreds of other articles and deletion will leave the readers wondering the meaning of the concept (also failing to fully comprehend many other fiction articles on Wikipedia.) --PeaceNT (talk) 06:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is definitely notable and important enough of a subject to retain an article. 68.43.196.134 (talk) 15:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Strong keep. ——RyanLupin • (talk) 00:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Madden

article fails to assert why this radio personality is notable. Lacks 3rd party verifiable references. Rtphokie (talk) 12:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There were some references there, they were just added incorrectly, this has been fixed. I'd considered withdrawing this AFD but I'd like to get other editors opinions on this article. The references that are there are either in the local paper, are self published (in the case of the wrestling blog) or are from a sports blog. Is this radio personality known outside of Pittsburgh? Are there better references available to establish his notability?--Rtphokie (talk) 12:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The blog sources are certainly questionable, but since they only document factual information, it shouldn't be too hard to replace them. Even if he is not known outside of Pittsburgh, he can be a notable figure in Pittsburgh radio and thus warrant an article. The question is whether he has reliable articles written about him. He does have several articles, such as this little number, which are notable. Thus, I would say he's notable enough for inclusion. 83.203.183.112 (talk) 13:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not only a big name in Pittsburgh radio, but was a host on nationally broadcast ESPN radio. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment reference?--Rtphokie (talk) 15:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Seems to have well more than enough establish notability. I'm not about to ignore his off-radio jobs. SashaNein (talk) 18:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Could probably use some additional references, but they shouldn't be hard to find. National TV personality, national radio show host - they'll be out there. Mlaffs (talk) 01:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Orangemike. Jезка (talk) 10:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bhatia gotra

Wikipedia isn't a random collection of information. StaticGull Talk 12:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An apparent list of non-notable people based solely on their family name. Jезка (talk) 12:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also List of Bhatia gotras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - attached to this AfD ➨ ЯEDVEЯS has wasted eight of nine lives 12:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to both. It's just a list of surnames under the Bhatia gotra. Whatever next? Baby names? ChiragPatnaik (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:CSD#A1, insufficient context to identify the subject. So tagged. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 00:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vince Adáme

Fails WP:MUSIC. Given references don't mention him, 35 ghits for "Vince Adáme" drummer, none of which are reliable and few of which are more than name dropping. Flagged with "notability" tag since eleven months. Amalthea (talk) 12:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BIO; non-notable person with little media coverage. Jезка (talk) 12:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BAND. I had hoped the authors would improve this beyond a promo/coi/original research piece but I think enough time has passed and that's not going to happen. Katr67 (talk) 16:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. —Katr67 (talk) 18:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Beaches Metro

Delete as per other articles Past main AfD Bidgee (talk) 12:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources or references. The metro line's existence is very questionable. Contents of the article are purely imaginary. --Pikablu0530 (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A Google search shows that The Sydney Morning Herald has a few articles that mention it. I think it's just a proposal, though, and who knows if it will ever be built.--Lester 10:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. This line hasn't been approved or even seriously proposed by any government. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the article does have one source, though its citation was not correctly inserted. The creator may have intended to include a second but fialed to include the reference. Nevertheless, these are vague proposals without substance and fall within WP:CRYSTAL. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has not progressed from politicans' to-do list. WWGB (talk) 01:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this proposed rail line is not contained within the citations for the article. Was not able to find anywhere else that it was seriously being considered. Fails notability/verifiability due to lack of sources. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RyRy (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Denistone East railway station, Sydney

Delete as per other articles Past main AfD Bidgee (talk) 11:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - This is one of the stations part of North West Metro which has been officially announced and there are official sources supporting their existence and planning. This is unlike the other ones where the only source is SMH, and never confirmed officially on whether they will be built or not. --Pikablu0530 (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a different situation to the others: the others were a loose blueprint for a line which may or may not happen, and which may or may not have had stations there. The government has actually committed to building this line, though; this station will be built, and it's useful to have an article containing the information that's known about it. That's why I'm voting keep here, where I voted strong delete on those. Rebecca (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. The "Past main AfD" does not apply as this is the subject of secondary sources (mostly government) and even as "planned" it's notable. --Oakshade (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep all future railway stations that are to be built are notable!^MY♥_INchile 19:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now keep. Was Delete There are no references, so fails WP:N as there are no secondary sources to support the article. Assize (talk) 03:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, no. The policy requires that sources exist, not that they be in the article at the time. We don't delete articles on notable topics because the current text sucks. There's clearly plenty of sources on this: it's probably the most major public transport extension announced in Australia over the next decade or so, so between official sources and press coverage, there's plenty of material, both on the line and its stations. Rebecca (talk) 11:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Rebecca's interpretation above is entirely correct. The sources merely have to exist for future improvement. We delete if no future improvement is possible. Orderinchaos 09:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: From WP:N, which you refer to above, "If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable.". Hopefully this article can be improved so that we DO have reliable sources to establish its notability. - DigitalC (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Interesting interpretation. But what about "The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability." in WP:N. If there are sources, why not add them, and I'd go for a keep. Assize (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just by virtue of being a publicly funded rail station, by law, extensive government documents of proposals, budgets and administration exist. These kind of sources aren't always immediately available through internet hyperlinks. --Oakshade (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking for a hyperlink. A paper reference is fine. The information in the article must have come somewhere, otherwise it is on par with a hoax or crystalball. I suspect it is no more than a passing mention in a press release but at least that could be cited and that would warrant a keep. Assize (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But resources exist, by law. Just because you don't see them doesn't mean they don't and it's a hoax. --Oakshade (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What "law" says they must exist as I'm not aware of an Australian law that requires that. This is now sounding Original Research if you're relying on the original government documents. I've done a search for this proposed station and turned up zip. Under WP:Deletion, that on the face of it warrants a deletion. Surely this AfD is about improving the article so that somebody reading about this station be should be able to verify a reference somewhere if they want to. The argument for keep so far is "there really are bunyips, I can't show you one, but it really must be there". Assize (talk) 03:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, your argument amounts to "the article currently sucks, so I'm voting delete". And you're being told "hang on, there's actually plenty of sources for this, should someone bother to include them" - which is plenty enough to make it notable per Wikipedia policy. It's a major government project, for gods sake. Rebecca (talk) 04:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I'm not voting delete because the article "sucks". I couldn't care whether it is a stub or badly written. I'm simply saying this is an objective encyclopedia and references are necessary. I don't care whether they are paper or hyperlinks. I usually argue keep if there is some sort of reference. Assize (talk) 12:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assize, Google (or whatever search engine you used) doesn't mean everything and does not justify something's existence. Why do you need to go online to search for it when it's existence is stated clearly in the article North West Metro and has been sourced for that matter? I know the source isn't in the station's article itself, but as quoted above, "we don't delete articles on notable topics because the current text sucks." For your convenience, here's one place you could find out about it's existence. --Pikablu0530 (talk) 04:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

have added that reference to the article Murtoa (talk) 06:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Your research skills are much better than mine. Much appreciated. Assize (talk) 13:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assize, In Australia, that "law" of government disclosure is the Freedom of Information Act 1982. As you seem Australian, I'm surprised you never heard of it. In New South Wales (the state that's funding this project), the more specific state law is the Freedom of Information Act 1989. --Oakshade (talk) 04:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Quite simply, one can't spend oodles of taxpayers' money without any paper trail. Often governments will get a report prepared on something as they are not experts on the particular area, so will need expert advice on structural and technical possibilities and their likely costs. Additionally, in order for companies to tender in order to build the stations, a certain amount of information is made available in tender briefs. This is public infrastructure as well, so not only would there be the minimum to comply with the law but also a certain amount of advertising by the Government to say "look what we're doing for your community" and, closer to the time, more specific information on usability. Furthermore, once a few years go past, inevitably journals focussed on public works and/or railways mention anything that needs to be mentioned. So no shortage of possible documentation, and you will pretty much never have a station (especially a new one) without it. Orderinchaos 09:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Older Australians will remember the sports grant affair in which the record of grants was kept on a whiteboard. Politicans can and do regularly make announcements on the fly without reports. The Freedom of Information Act does not mandate that records must be kept of every major capital announcement. It determines what information that exists can be released. It doesn't mean that information does exist. All this debate, when simply a reference could have been added to make the topic notable. Assize (talk) 13:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Part II of both the federal and state acts mandate the publication of all government affairs. If they didn't require that, the acts would be close to useless. --Oakshade (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, they must publish a statement of affairs, not document their affairs. Some commentators say that the Acts are useless as a result. Assize (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The acts are much more complex than that. All discussions of government policy, all contracts, all details, and all costs must be published. --Oakshade (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plainly notable, and reliable sources exist. Current state of the article is not a justification for deletion. Orderinchaos 09:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject of secondary coverage. Would be interested to see where the information for the stuff in the infobox (number of platforms, etc) is though. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 00:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lower North Shore Metro Extension

Delete as per other articles Past main AfD Bidgee (talk) 11:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources or references. The metro line's existence is very questionable. Contents of the article are purely imaginary. --Pikablu0530 (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep will obviously be built this is cited and planned/under contruction metro lines are notable.^MY♥_INchile 19:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the line has never been officially announced nor noted in any news articles. The article contains imaginary station names that are not cited (although confusingly, it has a non-existent citation mark there). The line is not even under planning, hence it's existence is very questionable. --Pikablu0530 (talk) 00:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. This line hasn't been approved, and I've never seen it even be seriously proposed. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete some rail enthusiasts love to post an article on any proposal put forward, however nebulous. I would suggest there should be a guideline as to when such project can have an article. I would suggest that they need to be (1) funded and (2) authorised (or at least going through the authorisation process). That would mean that there is a reasonable prospect of their being completed. Until then it is mere WP:CRYSTAL. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this rail line is not mentioned in the provided references. The only ghits for this come back to Wikipedia. I'm willing to admit that there might be other sources for it, but I'm very skeptical. Will cheerfully change my mind if reliable references stating that this is being seriously proposed or considered are provided. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Green Week

AfDs for this article:

Fails WP:GNG particularly objective third party evidence, contains far too much original research. Michellecrisp (talk) 11:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability appears to be limited solely to the Monash University campus. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I really can't see the point to deleting it. The notability is wider than just the campus, many people have heard of Green Week before. There have been articles in the Herald Sun about it (using it to highlight the dangers of Binge Drinking, etc) and other lesser known media attention. I think it is well known enough to warrent inclusion into wikipedia. Disco (talk) 04:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment many people have heard of Green Week before sounds like a weasel statement! If it is well known then there should be ample reliable and verifiable sources establishing its notability. In its current form it lacks this significantly. Michellecrisp (talk) 04:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Total weasel statement. But anyway, since I haven't archieved news articles written about it, I can't back it up. The Herald Sun is the largest paper in our state, and they had an "opinion" page decidated to Green Week once, but I've spent 5 minutes googling and I can't find anything. And that is just print media - there is footage of an ABC weather report in the late 80's/early 90's where it was delivered without the weather charts becuase "some students from farm week have stolen them". Again, totally unverifiable! Disco (talk) 01:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This may be notable for folk at Monash Uni's Clayton campus, but beyond those walls the event is no more notable than similar events at presumably every university around the country. As for coverage in substantial sources, Google News archives reveal a couple of passing references only. However, I note that there are reasonable articles for similar events at Uni of WA, Adelaide Uni. I would contend that in these examples however that there is more substance and historical background as opposed to long descriptions of non-notable competitions and non-notable winners. I'd think that any worthwhile content could be contained within the Monash University, Clayton campus entry. An example of this is for Prosh Week at Melbourne Uni. Murtoa (talk) 06:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that in the Prosh articles there is more worthwhile content, and more attention needs to be made to Green Week. But is that a reason to delete or just a criticism of the article in its current form? I guess when you look at the popularity of the event, on the campus (around 8,000 I believe), I just can't see the need to delete it when people are willing to keep it maintained. But, as you can probably tell, I have no knowledge on what constitutes notibility, but I still want to keep it because I really can't see the harm in it. I have a feeling I am outvoted here though... :) Disco (talk) 01:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately WP:NOHARM is not a valid reason for keeping an article. Michellecrisp (talk) 02:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again my lack of knowledge has been shown. Okay, so as the previous link to Google News archives shows, and at least another mention shows, Green Week has been covered by reliable, verifiable and noteable sources. The actual information used needs to be linked to a Monash page, but Green Week has been mentioned by 3 news sources so I believe it passes the noteworthy status - which is what was in question? Disco (talk) 03:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These references, whose mention of Green Week is very much in passing (one is a music review, another an article about drinking), certainly establish that it exists, but don't establish the subject's notability. Ultimately I think it appropriate to mention briefly in the Clayton campus article, but I can't see how you'd find sufficient notable content to warrant its own article. Murtoa (talk) 03:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Campus-based activity, not notable beyond its clientele. WWGB (talk) 01:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. user:Disco said there are articles in The Herald Sun newspaper about it. Where are they? I searched the Herald Sun and can't find Green Week. You have to prove notability, which as yet has not been done.--Lester 04:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I admitted that I could not find them, I doubt they are still archived as it was years ago. But there are links to The Age which mentions them. Disco (talk) 04:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no significant coverage by reliable sources to indicate notability beyond a particular campus.--Boffob (talk) 06:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the coverage provided seems to be trivial at best (seriously, Urban Dictionary?). A few students having a few too many drinks and getting up to mischief does not notability make. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. BJ^Talk 19:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jcoder Java IDE Editor

The article lacks reliable sources to verify that this product meets the notability criteria. Prod removed by creator, who added sources from which the program can be downloaded, and indicated on the talk page that she believed that these sources would solve the problem. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Highly unlikely software released as a beta would be notable at this point. eaolson (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's no longer a beta version so I've changed it from beta to freeware. Also, I know that an article needs independent third-party sources which show that it's of notability and importance, so I found these links.

Editor's review: http://www.alexaboostup.com/cgi-bin/nph-pxy.pl/000010A/http/www.softpedia.com/reviews/windows/JCODER--Review-88906.shtml blogger's reviews: http://webmasterfreeware.blogspot.com/2008/06/jcoder-10-freeware.html http://www.getpack.com/archives/13816 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manycat (talk • contribs) 09:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per FisherQueen, and it also seems there's a conflict of interest with the article's author seeking to promote the software. Checking the link to the editor's review, the review is based on an unrelated calendar program, so I wouldn't trust it as a reliable source. --Gerta (talk) 19:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forever and never (band)

No evidence presented to demonstrate that this band meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for musicians and ensembles. JavaTenor (talk) 09:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BAND; no assertion of notability, little media coverage. Jезка (talk) 11:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom - also, two of the references included in the article relate to the geographic location of the band, not the band itself, the other reference isn't a reference, its a link to a wikipedia page for Wavorly, an article which makes no comment of their connection to that band. Google search shows information about a band with a similar name - Forever Never specifically - and nothing about this band. Sonuvafitch (talk) 16:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 vandalism. Kevin (talk) 11:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kleeco (game)

Unreferenced, unverifiable future video game. Probable hoax. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No Ghits [33] Creator is a vandal. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 09:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NOTE, is written in a somewhat journalistic tone, and is most likely a TMUISOD. And Google says Chris Nomril doesn't exist.[34] L337 kybldmstr (talk) 10:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indicast

it is not notable, and there are no references whatsoever ChiragPatnaik (talk) 08:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:As per nom. "One of the first" does not qualify as "first" , no mention of viewership to justify claims of popularity. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 08:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks 3rd party references. Fails to establihs notability.--Rtphokie (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - empty. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to write article

Blank page, no content Chafford (talk) 07:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy - blank pages don't need an AfD, just a speedy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ǝsoɹ uɐqɹn (talk • contribs) 07:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Purok Langis

Not-notable since it is not a subject of multiple independent reliable resources. Also, a purok is a subdivision of a barangay which is the lowest form of administrative unit in the Philippines. seav (talk) 07:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just having no references isn't a reason to bring a page to AfD. May I draw your attention to WP:SOFIXIT & WP:ATD. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 09:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not bring the article to AfD just because it has no citations/references, I brought it to AfD because you cannot find references talking about the article's subject. There's a difference there. See the article's talk page. --seav (talk) 11:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a named section of a barangay within Bacolod City, i.e. a place smaller than a city neighborhood. The containing barangay (Banago) does not even have an article. This article on a group of houses has very little hope of being expanded further. --Polaron | Talk 16:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per notability concerns and lack of reliable sources. Towns are notable but this is a section of a section of a city. Reliable sources were not found per Talk:Purok Langis. Google only gives mirrors of an older version of the article.--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A section of a barangay, or purok, is an informal geographic unit in the Philippines. Barangay is officially the country's smallest geographic unit, and not all of them have puroks especially those barangays that only consist of a neighborhood block (like in Manila). Starczamora (talk) 09:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete', a purok isn't even an official, legal political division. It's an informal name for a specific area that's too small to be considered even as a barangay, it's something like a block or two or an area near a landmark (such as a street corner). --- Tito Pao (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable settlement. And I've been there too. lolz! — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• ^Speak! 09:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mile end (band)

Someone else tagged this for AfD but didn't complete the nom. Fixing it for them FatherJack92 (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And Delete, fairly obviously doesn't pass WP:BAND. FatherJack92 (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 merge (non-admin closure). Majority of information about Taa II is already in Galactus; the merge (wiht redirect) seems the best solution. Ruslik (talk) 08:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taa II

No citations to multiple third-party reliable sources to establish notability, or even a claim of notability. Does not offer any sources to offer real-world perspective (development, critical reaction, etc.) User:TheBalance seems to have ownership issue be twice undoing redirect without offering any reliable sources or responding to underlying content issues. --EEMIV (talk) 06:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any useful info to Galactus (most of it's there already) and Redirect there. FatherJack92 (talk) 13:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My issue was your deletion of the article without discussion. You acted unilaterally even though the article does not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. TheBalance (talk) 15:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't deleted, it was redirected. A redirect keeps the article history in the database but sends the reader to a related article when they arrive at the page. A deletion removes the article from the database altogether and readers see a "create this page" message. Redirection is a vaild tool in an editor's toolbox and does not amount to deletion, therefore an article does not have to meet the criteria for speedy deletion if an editor simply wants to remove all the information from that particular page and instead redirect readers to a similar page where they believe most of the information can be found. On Wikipedia, per the editing policy, the information is what is important, not the page where it is located. Personally, it makes little difference to me where this article lies. However, it can be verified that the character exists, it is possible to write neutrally about the character and utilising primary source to do so would not infringe upon WP:OR. Notability is a subjective factor regardless of the claims the guidance page seeks to make, per WP:NOPE, and doesn't really help us in our purpose. I think if we have information on the character in an article, it perhaps should be in the article that bears that character's name, but that's just my personal preference. It seems to me that would be most advantageous for readers, and we must remember we are here for our readers. Wikipedia's purpose is to be the best reference point for all, not some. I do not see it as within an editor's remit to dictate which portions of our readership we should dictate too regarding content, so far as such content meets our foundation principle of being written from a neutral point of view. Hiding T 12:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Hiding's excellent essay (WP:NOPE), and everything he said in the last few sentences of his comment above. Failing that, I propose to restore the redirect to Galactus. BOZ (talk) 12:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is information in this article that is not on the Galactus main page. Additionally I first learned about Taa II by looking up its entry here in wikipedia, subsequently doing my own further research, and then ultimately contributing to the article itself. As has been mentioned, many people, including myself, use wikipedia to research fictional topics and content.Mobb One (talk) 07:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 00:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Hope TV

This is not a notable channel in India ChiragPatnaik (talk) 06:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable, never heard of it. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 08:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BJ^Talk 19:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whilst TV channels are generally notable, there are no independent sources to support this assertion in regard to this channel. Computerjoe 's talk 23:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g3, vandalism/hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James and the Pontoons

Has existed for a year, but is unsourced and the only Google hits for the band come from this article and its mirrors. "... Johnson went to pursue his dream of being a Curling Champion" - um, hoax? Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 06:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Can not find anything even resembling a verifiable, reliable source. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced and unverifiable. Movingboxes (talk) 07:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Sean Whitton / 15:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revolution Song

Oasis song which was only ever a demo and doesn't pass WP:MUSIC#Songs. Prod removed by author. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 05:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any important details to Standing on the Shoulder of Giants (the album it was demoed for) and delete Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Ditto to what Doc Strange said above. -- Quartermaster (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Standing on the Shoulder of Giants. I agree with the two above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tezkag72 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Synergy 07:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chorny Kofe

No indication band meets notability guidelines of WP:BAND. Tan ǀ 39 05:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep, under "has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels". This is a major band with nine professionally released albums from 1986 to 2004, and hundreds of concerts, not some garage band to be policed under WP:BAND. Its notability is, of course, mostly restricted to Russia and the former SU, no notability to the Anglosphere is implied (see also countering systemic bias). The interwiki link to the extensive ru-wiki article is a dead giveaway that this needs to be expanded, not deleted. --dab (𒁳) 06:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have created Legends of Russian Rock (needs work of course. volunteers?) -- chances are that anything listed there passes WP:BAND easily. --dab (𒁳) 07:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Part (all) of the problem is that the article does not assert this notability. As it reads now, those released albums could be garage-band type EPs, home-burnt CDs, anything. I have nothing against this article and would like to see it remain, but unless we can get some accurate Russian translations going and figure out how to demonstrate notability... Tan ǀ 39 13:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that used to be the case, but I have since added the labels, which is enough to satisfy WP:BAND. Feel free to google the labels yourself next time in the time it would take you to submit an AfD. --dab (𒁳) 21:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Editor is making honest effort and defense. I'd rather err on the side of inclusion in this case. Notability seems to be asserted in current version of article. -- Quartermaster (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Da (as they say in Moscow) Notability in the Russian media is confirmed if one does a Google search using the Cyrillic spelling of the band's name: [35]. It appears the band never played in the English-speaking world, which explains the lack of Anglophonic sources. But they appear to be popular in Russia. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
you have actually just googled "black coffee", which is drunk in Russia, too. More relevant searches would be [36] [37] :) --dab (𒁳) 13:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This was one of the mainstays of early Russian rock (aka govnorok). --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thumper (Bambi)

Unnotable fictional character. Fails WP:N, WP:FICT, WP:PLOT, WP:WAF. Thumper's role in each film is already well covered by the individual film articles. This just repeats the plots of both, with the focus on Thumper and some OR thrown in. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable fictional character. --Eastmain (talk) 05:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide evidence showing his notability, namely significant, third-party coverage. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable character but I can see that it does require citations and references. --Pmedema (talk) 07:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, as the article does not support this claim, please provide actual evidence of notability. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned in [38], has own book [39], is a collectable [40], is refered to in real life [41], has a Beanie version [42], has clothes [43] [44], has a watch [45], etc...etc... --Pmedema (talk) 08:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: clearly notable - see e.g. [46], [47], [48], [49], etc. Oh, and has also been featured on a US stamp: [50]. I agree that the article could do with being rewritten to focus more on the character's cultural impact, rather than just on regurgitating the plots of the films, but this isn't cause for deletion. Scog (talk) 10:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How many rabbits get to appear on a stamp? Nick mallory (talk) 12:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, it does need improving, but really, if you want to nominate non-notable fictional characters, I'd suggest that you start with this lot or perhaps with this little lot, rather than with this one, which is one of the rare characters that even has real-world notability!. FatherJack92 (talk) 13:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm seeing lots of references here noted above. Plus, you can figure in that the names were spoofed in Diamonds Are Forever (film)...--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references are showing that he is indeed notable, but the article could really use reworking - no reason to delete though. Sonuvafitch (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Frivolous nomination which does not comply with WP:BEFORE. Happily, Thumper likes to play in the snow. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Very notable film character. 23skidoo (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 00:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flower (Bambi)

Unnotable fictional character. Fails WP:N, WP:FICT, WP:PLOT, WP:WAF. Flower's role in each film is already well covered by the individual film articles. This is just excessive plot repetition with some OR thrown in. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with Collectonian's points ChiragPatnaik (talk) 10:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
.....whereas this one almost certainly is NN. Borderline, though. Weak delete. FatherJack92 (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N, WP:FICT, WP:PLOT, WP:WAF. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect possible search term, but the character itself is not notable like Thumper is. JuJube (talk) 05:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Flower is minor character in a much bigger movie and is already discussed on the film's page. No need for seperate article. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 04:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was — The consensus here is the same as after the first discussion, merge. Since the content has already been merged the only action that will be taken here is restoring the redirect. —[DeadEyeArrow – Talk – Contribs] 22:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations

Procedural nom, as part of a disputed merge[51] and related ANI thread.[52] So we are taking it to AfD, as one mechanism of getting wider community input. I (Elonka) have no preference on how the article is handled, but am starting the AfD on behalf of User:Zero g, who is unfamiliar with the AfD process. In short: Is Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations notable enough to have its own article? --El on ka 04:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.
Merge / ~~delete~~ redirect or delete Quotations from reviews of this book by Hamilton and Mckintosh, both FRS, were added to the article on Richard Lynn. Subsequently User:Richard001 removed a red link in the article by creating a stub for the book, later adding a partial list of academic reviews, a list of contents and his own chapter-by-chapter synopsis. No notability has so far been established for the book, although all of the 7 or 8 academic reviews agree that the data gathered in it for the first time provided a valuable resource. It appears to have been a first draft for subsequent books on eugenics by the same author, which have had a much greater public impact and which have now superseded their predecessor, no longer in print. My own feeling is that the article of Richard Lynn is the most appropriate place to discuss the book. Having the reviews in the article is the most direct way of presenting the material for wikipedia readers, who are far more likely to retain the name of the author than the complicated title. Mathsci (talk) 07:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like to thank Elonka for starting this AfD. Mathsci (talk) 07:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article meets the WP:Notability_(books) requirements, "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience." -- Reviews have been published in 9 different academic journals by different authors. The review by W. D. Hamilton (considered one of the greatest evolutionary theorists of the 20th century) was very positive. In 1996 the book was covered in The Sunday Times which served a general audience. [53] There were other mainstream articles about the book, like "You can't say that!," Antony Flew, The Salisbury Review, Spring 1998., but given the age of the book the actual text is hard to find online. Given the amount of references I don't see why the article should be deleted. --Zero g (talk) 13:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect or delete Neither the book nor the arguments in it are notable enough for an article of its own. The views expressed really are a synthesis or summary of most of Richard Lynn's work following his retirement from academia. As such I think the account of the book (and its sister book on Eugenics) is most appropriate in the article on Lynn himself, where it can easily be located in the context of his larger body of work. Finally, the views promoted in this book are fringe - Lynn is not a geneticist and he is not using "dysgenics" the way geneticists use it. Lynn himself is far more notable than this particular book (we are not talking about "Darwin" versus "On the Origin of Species" here!) and really, the main reason people know about Lynn is because he espouses the views summarized in the dysgenics book. Putting all of this stuff together does not even produce a long article, and I see no reason to separate it into two articles. To have an article on Lynn and articles on all his books seems to be nothing more than a way to rpopogate Lynn's views at Wikipedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/~~delete~~ redirect This 1996 book has become less notable with time. I count nine independent journal citations in the last seven years, less than two per year. The meager attention that Lynn's book still receives is from psychologists, educators and academics in related fields. I found no citations by biologists or geneticists. It is likely that its poor distribution in academic libraries (missing from those of Columbia, Ohio State, University of Texas at Austin, University of Washington, and Dartmouth College) and its out of print status are correlates of this disinterest.[54] Additionally, I concur with the points made by Slrubenstein and Mathsci. It is important to discuss this book, but, in my opinion, it is best discussed in the Richard Lynn article which provides the context for that discussion. Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect, since you can't merge/delete since that removes the edit history. A summary of the author's views and previous work, not really notable on its own - only two hits on Google News, one of which was a mention in passing. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - As a note, considering the clear consensus on the talkpage here I can't personally see why this AfD is necessary. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree. It's here because Elonka backed the sole dissenter, see the ANI discussion: [55] because she felt the 5 editors in favor of a merge were working together "in other areas of conflict." Is this a precedent now so that where anyone disagrees we go for an AfD? Does consensus mean unanimity now? Doug Weller (talk) 17:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, a "disputed merge" can still come to a clear consensus, as this one did. Consensus is not unanimity. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's what I thought. I worry that a sole dissenter in a future similar situation will use this as a precedent. Doug Weller (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No, this is not a precedent. Unusual admin actions do not override policies and guidelines. I'd see this as a case of Elonka applying WP:IAR in a bold and creative manner. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        OK, I understand. Thanks for the explanation. Doug Weller (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - If notability is disputed an AfD is the correct route to take instead of duking it out in a dark corner of Wikipedia. Clearly this is one of those cases where, just like the majority of mankind believes earth was created in seven days, the majority chooses to blissfully ignore the large body of available scientific evidence and believe whatever it is they've been told to believe. Apparently I have to accept that Wikipedia is unfit to neutrally deal with controversial topics. --Zero g (talk) 12:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zero g, the cases are not really comparable. First of all, I don't think a majority of mankind thinks the universe was created in 7 days (the majority is not even Christian). Second, in the present case, the vast majority of scientists who work on human and/or population genetics disagree with Lynn's conclusions, in contrast to creation/evolution where the scientific consensus is on the other side. As far as I can see, the large increases in IQ registered over the past decades (the Flynn effect) don't really fit in with Lynn's thesis either. So the "large body of available scientific evidence" is not as unequivocal as you say. However, the question here is not really whether Lynn's hypothesis is right or wrong, Wikipedia is not about The Truth, which is why you have articles on creationism as well as evolution or astrology. AfD is about notability and this particular hypothesis seems te be ignored by almost anyone, hence it is not notable. Correct/incorrect does not really enter into this. As for neutrality, nobody here is arguing for suppressing Lynn's ideas from Wikipedia, just that a whole article on this theory is not warranted. --Crusio (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jews, Christians, and Muslims (all 7 days peoples) add up to well over 3 billion. Next, more scientists have agreed (some with reservations of course) with Lynn's conclusions than disagreed, most have not expressed an opinion. But please add your source with this information to the Dysgenics article, it will save a lot of future disputes. Next the Flynn effect is phenotypic where as dysgenic research studies genotypic trends, this is explained in the dysgenics article I think.

The article provides the sources required (though barely) to meet book notability. I honestly believed the article was sufficiently sourced, had potential for growth, and would make a good encyclopedic contribution about the dysgenic hypothesis, but I respect the votes and opinions in this AfD that this isn't enough, and I apologize for all the drama and extra work this dispute has caused. --Zero g (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon, you must be kidding, each and every one of those 3 billion Jews, Christians, and Muslims is a creationist?? As for the lack of scientists making time to publish a paper disagreeing with Lynn's hypotheses, how many scientists have done that for astrology? The fact that Lynn is ignored except for a few exceptions says it all. --Crusio (talk) 17:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Delete. Per the numerous talk page and AN/I thread arguments, esp. on the notability and FRINGE-y nature of the theory, the whacked out notions of the unqualified author, and so on. Glad to offer a voice to this pointless exercise in bureaucracy which Elonka has forced on us to circumvent normal procedure, as seen on the article talk and AN/I thread. So let's reinforce normal consensus and make the statement that the normal process works, and process wonkery and manipulation will not get around the common sense decisions already reached in the normal style. ThuranX (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete . The topic isn't notable by itself, and is better handled in the context of the larger topic. As for this AfD, sometimes it's worth going through an extra bureaucratic hoop to make sure that every hurdle has been crossed. We don't do strawpolls much, so in this case an AfD is the best way to establish the views of the community definitively. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect WP:BK says this of academic books: Academic books serve a very different function and come to be published through very different processes than do books intended for the general public. They are often highly specialized, have small printing runs, and may only be available in specialized libraries and bookstores. For these reasons, the bulk of standards delineated previously for mainstream books are incompatible in the academic bailiwick. Again, common sense should prevail. In that case, notability should rely on the reputation of the academic press publishing it, how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media, how influential the book is considered to be in its specialty area and whether it is taught or required reading in a number of reputable educational institutions. I would dare say that 9 or so reviews since its publication 12 years ago, about half of which are from colleagues or fellow Pioneer Fundees, the almost utter non-existence of citations of this book outside of the author itself and a few very close associates, and the total silence about this book in more than 5 years now should speak for its lack of notability on its own. However, it would be suitable for inclusion in the article about the author, who is far more notable.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This book doesn't appear to be notable. I can imagine that the book might be used as a source in a different article, but that doesn't require a redirect. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per Tim Vickers. Of course geneticists don't cite this stuff, this kind of reasoning was debunked ages ago. Friedrich Vogel, one of the greatest (if not the greatest) postwar German human geneticists used to scoff about this kind of theories that "people don't understand what regression to the mean means". but that's OR I guess :-). Anyway, the only iteresting part about this book is that it was written by Richard Lynn, who is notable because of his wacky fringe theories. --Crusio (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. The academic world has ignored the work, and the political controversy associated with the work is more attached to the author. Summary style for a long article does not suggest that this would be a good candidate for spin-out if Richard Lynn (currently 36 kb) grows unmanageably large. - Eldereft (cont.) 01:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect, per WP:CONSENSUS in the merge discussion. No opinion as to whether deletion is necessary (or possible, under GFDL, as some information (previously) in this article has been merged), although that would be the nominal purpose of this AfD. No new arguments against the merge have been presented, no new editors have come out against the merge, and therefore there's no reason to consider the WP:CONSENSUS overturned. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: WP:SNOW, anyone???--Ramdrake (talk) 18:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response I have no objections, looks like the consensus is to redirect to the merged content on the Richard Lynn article. --Zero g (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, just let it run the whole 5 days, there is one editor that doesn't agree (Zero g) and he is making reasonable objections, so it doesn't technically apply here. Closing now wouldn't give him time to address the arguments brought forward by other editors. And, a snow closure may cause disruptive amounts of drama if/when the AFD result is challenged on the basis of bad procedure. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the creator of the article, I'm happy to see the AfD which I requested to begin with, only to find it had been merged while I was on a wikibreak. I wasn't very familiar with the guidelines for academic books, which still aren't very clear for borderline cases. It seems to meet the notability criteria for a book, but presumably that doesn't apply for an academic book. (I have modified said guidelines to reflect this, which shouldn't cause any fuss if that is the case.) However, it seems that those experienced with this procedure agree with the decision, so merging will have to be enough, even if information on the book is to be lost. By the way, liked Mathsci's comment "name is too complicated". Classic. Richard001 (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect. As per arguments already made. Minkythecat (talk) 10:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, redirect per numerous pertinnt arguments above. That's a better result for the reader, IMO. Guy (Help!) 18:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I've kind of had my change of WP:BK reverted, though I presume it was just because of a misunderstanding. It's probably going to be a controversial change, however. Thinking about it more it seems very strange that an academic book can meet the criteria for a book and still not be notable. I mean, it is a book, isn't it? Would anyone like to attempt to show how it doesn't meet the normal criteria for a book? By my reckoning, it meets them with relative ease, whereas a lot of similar book articles here seem to come up short of the mark (many don't have a single citation, though I rarely see them going in the AfD direction). I appreciate that it's pretty weak on the citations, but I think if it meets the criteria for any book as outlined it the nutshell, it should therefore be notable. Richard001 (talk) 00:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do not see how every published book merits an article. That a book is published in and of itself does not make it notable. WP:BK lists five criteria for notability and I personally do not think Lynn's book meets even one of these criteria. (I happen to agree with Richard001 that different criteria should apply to academic books; the guidelines provide three criteria and I would argue that the first is a non-critera - publication by an academic press is simply one of the things that defines the book as academic - and on the grounds of the two notability criteria that follow, I would say that this particular book is definitely not notable.) I am sure Zero G would disagree with me; notability is often not a lcear-cut issue but requires judgement. It is a little reassuring that I am not alone in reaching this judgment. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Academic books meet a different set of criteria than standard books, as outlined above, for a number of reasons: first their usually much lower volume makes some criteria less applicable; second and most importantly, notability in the scientific arena is measured differently: a book is notable if the ideas it sets forward are reprised and integrated by later researchers, and eventually taught in schools and universities. That is the hallmark of scientific notability. In the specific case of this book, it was reviewed a few times, many of the reviewers were in the same circle as Lynn (which means it doesn't really count for book notability), and apart from a citation or two from the very author of the book, didn't really get cited again. To me, that's a pretty clear-cut case of academic non-notability.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Utterly non-notable book, it's only relevance seems to be that it was written by a publicity seeking controversial retired academic. Any mention of the book on Wikipedia should therefore be included in said academic's article, if it needs to be mentioned at all. Alun (talk) 15:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with some revision, although it looks to me like it was already merged into the author's main article, with editing, and is a better presentation. Anyway, the article as written deals with a subject that sounds interesting and seems valid; I don't question the notability of the author; and it is written intelligently. However, it's a wee long - especially for a book which, according to the author's wiki article, is now out of print. That doesn't subtract from the book's validity or notability in itself, however. But the article could be shortened - a chapter-by-chapter explanation is not necessary - we need an overview, that's all. I also believe that any article on a book should give a little bit more information on the author - just a quick bit about their background and other works, not a complete biography. My only big objection is to the list of reviews at the end - unacceptable! I'd rather see at least one pos and one negative review in summary on the page itself, than a long list of dead links like that - it's just not very professional and can, at times, be deceiving. itinerant_tuna (talk) 03:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge I agree with itinerant_tuna. The book seems borderline notable, or could be merged with the article on the author. However the article is really a coatrack for presenting the author's opinions. (There is a lot of this on WP.) On the other hand, I feel that a lot of the delete voters are motivated by their dislike of the same. I could be wrong however. Maybe they would also vote to delete a coatrack article on a "politically correct" book. -Steve Dufour (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was replace with disambiguation page which I will now go and do. —Sean Whitton / 15:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Razorblade

This article should be deleted under WP:MUSIC#Songs, no references, and non-notable song. SE KinG (talk) 03:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to History for Sale no indication that it is any more notable than any of the other songs on History for Sale. Does not appear to have ever become very popular or made it high on any of the charts. - Icewedge (talk) 04:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to History for Sale, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Replace with disambiguation per FatherJack92 and Doc Strange. Nice thinking outside the box there. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to History for Sale. Notability not established. --Pmedema (talk) 07:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Razor which is what it sensibly was before someone plastered this NN song over it. Come on people, if users type "Razorblade" into Wikipedia are they really looking for an article on a band? FatherJack92 (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or alternatively... turn this page into a dab, given this. FatherJack92 (talk) 13:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Redirect to Razor and create a dab page at Razorblade (disambiguation). Song is a NN album track. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with disambiguation per FatherJack92 and Doc Strange. We can have a link to History for Sale there. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dabify per FatherJack. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Sean Whitton / 15:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Land Before Time songs

Unnotable list of songs from the various Land Before Time movies and television series -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. This list is not suitable for an encyclopedia. WP:NOTDIRECTORY AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks any form of WP:RS, looks like just a list to me. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom and AlbinoFerret's comments. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; Wikipedia is not paper. This list harms no-one and I can see it being useful to some, since it relates to a notable film series. I think it is really no different than all the many "list of franchise characters" lists that are on Wikipedia already, and it does not require "reliable sources" any more than a plot summary of a movie does. Esn (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Esn (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets the criteria for stand-alone lists. References can be added. The movies are notable; it is not necessary that all of the songs referenced in the list be notable. BRMo (talk) 04:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — There is useful information on the list, but if it is not possible to verifiy these production details and statements such as "but became a popular instrumental" - should this even exist? Even if it this possible to source such information, would it not be better to intergate the aforemention into a 'production' section in each movies' article? « ₣M₣ » 17:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea darling

Non-notable model. While the article is well-written and has a number of inline citations, the cites are to her website and various other photography web pages. 115 Google hits [56] (many to a similarly named transsexual), but none of them reliable sources; they cover just about every self-entered modeling and photography website from One Model Place to Model Mayhem to deviantART to Flickr etc. No evidence that she passes WP:BIO as a recognized name model. Fails WP:V, WP:BIO. Ravenswing 03:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per Ravenswing's excellent and well-researched reasoning. Reyk _YO! 04:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Quite clearly fails to pass notability. Well written for what it is though. -Djsasso (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.41.54.162 (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable enough. GoodDay (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete, just not that notable, and not enough for an encyclopedia. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a7, youth club, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outreach fc

Non-notable alleged soccer club, no Google presence for either the team or the players. Fails WP:ATHLETE, WP:V, WP:N and probably WP:NFT. RGTraynor 02:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acne Solution

Contested prod. Wikipedia is not a how to guide and should not give advice, especially medical advice. It appears bits and pieces of the article are copied and pasted from sites on the internet, but I couldn't find any one page that contained enough text to speedy as copyright violation. Rnb (talk) 02:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT per nom. I can find nothing here with the necessary originality and quality to salvage for a Smerge to the existing Acne article. Plutonium27 (talk) 05:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Uh... [57] seicer | talk | contribs 05:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; WP:NOT#HOWTO, copyright issues, material better covered at acne vulgaris, looks like an excuse to post lots of links to commercial sites, etc. etc. I redirected a previous incarnation of this page to acne vulgaris, but the creator doesn't seem to have taken the hint. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 20:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. LuciferMorgan (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to acne vulgaris as Iain suggests. Reyk _YO! 23:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all the problems as noted above, I'm sure this could have been speedy deleted Medicellis (talk) 00:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Acne vulgaris#Treatments. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 withdrew. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound ~~Hammer~~ Farfel and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps)} 23:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marion Rice

~~Does not assert notability;~~ (fixed) is a personal page, as explained in the edit summary. Green caterpillar (talk) 02:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Delete and recreate. Keep Now that Eastmain has fixed it. New York Times obituary [58]. The article is basically a copyvio of this obit.John Z (talk) 06:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I edited the text to make it less of a copyvio, and restored the AfD notice that someone had removed. An obituary in the New York Times is usually a strong indication of notability, and taken together with her accomplishments, is probably sufficient proof of notability. --Eastmain (talk) 15:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep in view of previous comments. The author has created several similarly-named (and similar) articles, of which at most one should survive. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, even though I was original nominator. :P Notability's been established. :) Green caterpillar (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ——RyanLupin • (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oulu International School

Elementary and middle school with no third-party sources. Fail WP:SCHOOL Steve Carlson^Talk 01:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not a garden-variety elementary and middle school, but an international school offering an International Baccalaureate curriculum. Those are both unusual features for a school. Moreover, in a quick Google search I found several additional sources, and I cited two of them in expanding the article. Among other things, I learned that the school enrolls students from 20 nationalities and it's one of just 9 schools in Finland that offer "basic education" (i.e., elementary and middle school level) in the English language. On balance, I conclude that it's notable. --Orlady (talk) 02:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 03:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions.—Orlady (talk) 03:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as an international school that contains a high school. Good work by Orlady means that it now meets WP:N. Our coverage of education in Finland is woefully thin and we shouldn't be deleting the few pages we have. This is already a nice, well-written start to an interesting article on an unusual school. TerriersFan (talk) 03:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not contain a high school - the way the article currently reads, the students transfer to another school for high school. So unless international schools are in and of themselves notable, this still does not meet WP:N. Nice work on improving it, however! Steve Carlson^Talk 07:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does contain a high school. The school website makes it quite clear that it educates to age 16 (Grade 10 in US terms). It is the diploma programme that the students move to study for at grades 11-12 (ages 16-19) - see here. TerriersFan (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable. Article well referenced and set out. A valid high school stub article.--Sting Buzz Me... 02:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

79th Street (Manhattan)

These streets in Manhattan are fairly generic and do not have any inherent notability. As an alternative, these could be merged to a range of streets or just two-way streets. -- bmitchelf•T•F 01:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Keep. nom has not provided specific reason to delete, and mentions merging but has not taken any steps toward doing so. You said it Dad (talk) 01:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My reason for nomination is that they have no notability, as the articles are just filled with famous people who live there, intersections, and famous places, which are covered in their own articles. Even more streets than these should be deleted, in my opinion, but I did not want to take the time at first only to see it wasted. -- bmitchelf•T•F 02:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These are major streets in Manhattan, with articles supported by reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 01:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep concur with above. JJL (talk) 01:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and nominate any though to really have a problem, though I think all or almost all could be supported without much difficulty. Streets are notable for what is located there--what else could they be notable for, except the details of their construction & zoning--which could in fact be fully documented for any NYC street. the inclusion of Central Park South on the list of streets called "fairly generic" shows the problem with the nomination! DGG (talk) 02:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've come here from the 116th Street article. Notability has been has been established there. Will assume the other streets have interesting histories as well. Louis Waweru Talk 02:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
nominating so many articles at once just isn't going to fly... but some of these streets don't look very notable. What's next, an article on a zip code because there's something notable in it? The principle of "notability is not inherited" would seem to rule out an article on a street just because something notable is located on it. --Rividian (talk) 02:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, streets are being added after votes have been cast, which confuses the issue. JJL (talk) 02:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not a machine. I added them as quickly as I could. -- bmitchelf•T•F 02:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Adding articles for deletion as fast as you can is a big part of the problem. Wikipedia:Deletion policy requires nominators to review articles and to consider options for improving or merging articles before a mad rush to deletion, a step that does not appear to have been taken for any of the articles list here. Alansohn (talk) 03:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List separately Some of the article does assert notability and based on what I read, like 116th street, are indeed notable. SYSS Mouse (talk) 02:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Streets are notable in cities not only for what's located on them, but as boundaries of neighborhoods and business backbones as well. Street's like 110th and 116th have songs and books written about them! Keep the stub articles, they are harmless. As far as the longer articles, I can't believe they are even nominated. Having disparate articles linked through street articles is one of the great strengths of WP. --Knulclunk (talk) 02:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think some obvious merges Central Park North + 110th, Central Park South + 59th would not be out of line though.--Knulclunk (talk) 03:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Manhattan is one of the most notable urban areas on the planet. These articles describe significant streets and are part of a larger effort to organize Wikipedia's coverage of Manhattan. --agr (talk) 02:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, how do you come up with this crap? I think 78th Street is important since I live there, but not that it should have a Wikipedia article. You can't tell me that 112th Street deserves an encyclopedia article when all it does is describe its location, which I can find on a map. Obviously, these places are more important than I knew for some reason. -- bmitchelf•T•F 02:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The current state of a Wikipedia article doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the subject deserves to have one. Bad articles can be improved. I'm sure more can be said about these streets than just the geographical location info that's there now. Reyk _YO! 03:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This bundling is overly broad. If you want to nominate streets do them individually. There are indeed some stubs and crappy articles. But I really get the impression that the nominator didn't even bother to read some of the articles. The notability of a lot of these streets is established more than a lot of the state highway articles out there. It's hard to believe the nominator would go after any of the midtown streets which is the capital corporate America. Americasroof (talk) 03:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete every last one of them These streets are not notable. They are just streets; most of them are not even "major" streets in Manhattan, and even if they are, so what? Whether they are in the center of commerce or have songs written about them is beside the point. Will Wikipedia become a repository of every song ever written next? (That's a Robert Klein comedy routine, by the way.) Someone mentioned that just because there is something notable on them does not warrant their inclusion. Well, they got that right. (Sure, got that right.) --Jgroub (talk) 03:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for now. I'm not sold on the justification for many other keep votes here, they seem to argue that these streets are notable simply because they exist or have inherited notability from the landmarks located on them. However I think the bundling here is over-broad as it includes a great many articles of various lengths, importance and notability. Some look crufty and the sort of article I'd vote delete on, but others are clearly worthy and so I can't justify voting delete. If you want to renominate a single article that you think is fairly typical of the bottom end of these street articles, I wouldn't object. If you got a consensus for delete on that discussion, then you could mass nominate more of the dodgy ones. Reyk _YO! 03:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major streets in one of the world's major cities should not be included in such a group nomination. The nomination is overly broad. Some of these streets are known for the United Nations, as venues for modern jazz, or as the home of Columbia University. A quick Google News search shows dozens of possible sources for many of them., such as this one for 27th Street [59] in which the New York Times says it holds "a smorgasbord of architectural diversity." Many of these streets are the locations of nationally or internationally known institutions, entertainment districts, or commercial districts. Edison (talk) 04:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Each article has substantiated notability. While individual streets in any particular place seem unlikely to warrant their own articles, New York City is one of the few if not only places where so many parts of it are notable. You said it Dad (talk) 04:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep most. Many should be merged into appropriate range articles such as Manhattan streets, 1-14, or a group of two or three that are contigous and were at one time renamed, should be merge, but most are notable enough to survive. Incidentally I live on one of the more dubious streets. For that matter, several Outer Boro streets are main arteries {I spent part of today dodging cars on Hylan Boulevard (Staten Island) and deserve articles. Jim.henderson (talk) 04:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Close Overbroad nomination that has had deletion candidates added to the bundle since original posting. Methinks it not a good idea to create an AfD history on all these articles by allowing this to run its course. Townlake (talk) 04:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All or procedural close as above. Merging some might be appropriate, but Manhattan has got to be the most densely notable geographical location in the USA. Jclemens (talk) 04:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Or, dear God, somebody will post an article for every street of Beijing. And every street in old Rome. And Alexandria. And Athens. And Tyre, and Nineveh, and Ctesiphon, and Instanbul. In every historical era. Wikipedia is not a street directory. The "notable facts" for this street don't even rise to the level of laughing. I don't know about all the other streets, but ... RayAYang (talk) 04:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because I don't think this should be a mass deletion... I would consider them individually. gren グレン 05:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly, there is not a consensus that streets are inheretly non-notable. These would really have to be considered individually. Maxa megalon 2000 05:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - These gigantic batch AfDs are always a waste of everyone's time as there are always variations in the specific articles as to their notabilities. Just about every street in Manhattan has historical, social and economic significance, not only to NY, but to the world. I just clicked one of these at random (66th Street (Manhattan)) and found it's the location of Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts and the headquarters for ABC News (that stretch of the street is co-named Peter Jennings Way). No good nor supported reason was given to delete by the nom and their alternative ("a range of streets or just two-way streets"?) is non-sensical. --Oakshade (talk) 05:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, all of these streets appear to have some degree of notability. Everyking (talk) 08:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. I object to a mass AFD as these likely have different characteristics, i.e. some may be notable some may be not. Please address specific issues individually. Nominator should also try working with relevant WikiProjects (e.g. WP:NYC) to address criteria for what streets should get an article rather than a mass deletion nomination. --Polaron | Talk 15:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - although generically named, every single one of these is a major urban street two miles or more in length in one of the world largest, most famous and most heavily populated cities. Many of them - such as 110th Street - have strong cultural notability. Many of them also has historical relevance as boundaries of Dutch-era settlements, courses of elevated railroad tracks, sites of famous crimes, and the like. Even that fact that many of them feature the street addressses of nationally or internationally notable buildings contributes to the argument for their retention. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is snowing... --Explodicle (T/C) 16:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - if you allow this, then you have to allow every third street of Delhi and Bombay et al. And I'm prepared to write those articles... ChiragPatnaik (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I guess a mass purge will never past muster... ChiragPatnaik (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no inherent problem in that as long as there is sufficient information that can be used to write a substantial article. Being a major city, I don't doubt that lots of interesting stuff can be said about the major streets of Delhi. --Polaron | Talk 16:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it! Wikipedia will be better off with comparable articles from other major metropolises. Alansohn (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my first proposed contribution User:ChiragPatnaik/Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg. Do comment ChiragPatnaik (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Put it in article space and add it to the other roads in Category:Streets in Delhi--agr (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delhi Roads is a more interesting category... ChiragPatnaik (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see the article is now up. I found it interesting and well sourced. Streets are a useful way of organizing information about cities. I think there are more important issues for people to spend time on than nit picking which streets should have articles.--agr (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—A significant number of these articles look astonishingly unimportant; comparable to a common store article in value. But there are a handful that are properly cited and contain interesting details. Hence I can't support a mass purge.—RJH (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. Although this is clearly a WP:SNOW situation for keeping, my preference would be to close as an overbroad nomination. New York City is one of those locations where individual streets most definitely can be individually notable but whether each of of those nominated here is notable, I couldn't say. But a blanket nom of this nature is impossible to resolve. This is just my 2 cents from a procedural perspective; I've no issue against the snowballing keep decision. 23skidoo (talk) 18:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If I recall correctly, some New York streets have been deleted as non-notable in previous AFDs, but they tended to be 2 block long residential streets. Any of these could be individually considered and might or might not survive AFD. Edison (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep stubby as most of the articles may be, most if not all of them establish some notability. Maybe, if they were all nominated individually, I would reconsider, but they cannot be mass deleted on the basis of a one sentence nomination. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist separately. Some of these streets seem to be clearly WP:50k notable - others may not be. This is in danger of becoming a trainwreck nom. Grutness...wha? 01:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Most should go, just being a street in NYC is not inherently notable, "notability is not inherited" I think applies here, but being NYC some of these streets probably are notable. Just a note as well that the creation of these articles continues even now so a re-list and a re-opening of this debate is likely anyway. Strongly suggest the nom withdraw and re-assess on an individual basis. (Did anyone actually read every single one of these articles and check all the sources because I know I sure didn't) Beeblbrox (talk) 08:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trainwreck - these needed to be reviewed and the relisted separetely to be judged on their own merit. -- Whpq (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - these are notable and contain enough content to be their own pages CoolGuy (talk) 05:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All-Star Holiday Party

Unnotable one-time niche television special. It was fun to watch, but the 2005 event has no significant coverage anywhere. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:N, fails WP:RS. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:N You said it Dad (talk) 01:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—I almost prodded this myself when it came across my Twinkle screen. I decided to give the author the benefit of the doubt, but that has run out now. No improvements to the article since creation, and probably none possible within the confines of WP:V, so preheat the oven to delete. Livitup (talk) 07:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, while some sources were found by Ben Aveling during this discussion, they were either not reliable, or did not discuss the newsgroup as their subject and only offered trivial coverage of its content. The notability and verifiability concerns were therefore unresolved. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alt.sysadmin.recovery

Just another newsgroup, no mention of why it is important. Wongm (talk) 00:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are sources but none go beyond trivial mentions. I suppose standards of inclusion for websites apply to newsgroups too. --Rividian (talk) 00:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete this is a particularly well-known newsgroup, but I still see no evidence of WP:N per Wikipedia's standards. Perhaps a WP:NEWSGROUP is needed. JJL (talk) 01:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. An interesting newsgroup, but I don't think it meets the WP:WEB criteria for notability. Incidentally, WP:WEB ought to cover newsgroups based on its provision that "Any content which is distributed solely on the Internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content." (Technically and historically, I believe some newsgroups were distributed other than by means of the Internet, but I don't know if that is the case anymore, and at any rate the non-Internet distribution of newsgroups is unlikely to be significant in contemporary times.) The most likely method by which a newsgroup could satisfy WP:WEB would be to meet criterion 1, "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." I will discuss this issue at Wikipedia talk:Notability (web). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a time when Usenet traveled via tape that was flown to some regions, but I thing that's long past. JJL (talk) 04:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unfortunately the scary devil monastery has received only trivial coverage. (Also note that WP:WEB already includes all internet-based content. WP:WEB is just the most common shortcut, and there is also WP:INTERNET.) --Dhartung | Talk 03:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not so much a currently active group, but an interesting piece of Internet (well, USENET, really) social history. References can and should be found--the article should be cleaned up, not deleted. Jclemens (talk) 04:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not just another news group. It meets WP:WEB#Criteria requirement 1 for notability, even though that isn't completely clear from the article. A google search shows how much influence the newsgroup has had. Most of the hits are talking about material covered in the newsgroup, not about the newsgroup itself, but that still counts under WEB (The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.) For a few examples that are perhaps amongst the more serious publications, see for eg [60] and some of [61] . That said, WEB also says: "Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance." This needs to be done before the article can be described as good. But the newsgroup is notable. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't seem to have any chance of meeting WP:WEB. Wednesday Next (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteI dare say it made a few sysops feel notable but is just another alt.so-what. Plutonium27 (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Ben Aveling. Robert Brockway (talk) 03:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. BJ^Talk 19:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trustafarian

AfDs for this article:

This article was already deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trustafarian and that deletion was endorsed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 September). DGG (talk · contribs) says it's not eligible for speedy deletion as a recreated deleted article, as a non-admin I couldn't really tell before I tagged it. At any rate, it was deleted the first time around for the same reason I'm asking it be deleted now... it's a dictionary definition that can't be expanded into a proper encyclopedia article... all you can really do is define it and tack on trivia. It's a term most of us in English speaking have heard of, but so are a lot of terms excluded due to the principle that we are not a dictionary. I'm not really sure why we need a second AFD to decide what consensus has already established twice, but here we are. Note that there are sources, but again, sources alone don't make it not a dictionary definition. Rividian (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Still just a dicdef (and IMO one that's past its peak popular usage at that). Impossible to see how an article of necessary standard could ever be wrung out of it. Plutonium27 (talk) 01:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Plutonium. You said it Dad (talk) 01:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment I declined the speedy , as the article was quite different, but I have no opinion one way or another on the merits of deleting it here . DGG (talk) 02:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:DICDEF with intermittent pejorative usage and little to define it (e.g. do they all have dreadlocks? or do they just wear alpaca hats?). In other words there isn't exactly a clear trustafarian subculture. At least beatniks and hippies often copped to the term and tried making it their own. Finally, I'd prefer a redirect to an appropriate article on trust fund babies as a phenomenon, but we don't really have one better than trust law and a bunch of more-specific subarticles. --Dhartung | Talk 03:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge As Dhartung says, there should be an article about people who live off a trust fund. This article seems a good a start as any and can be moved as and when we decide upon a better title. For an extensive discussion of relevant tax/legal issues please see this House of Lords debate. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do people living off trust funds deserve an article any more than people living off lottery winnings or their wages at shoe factories or what have you? People get their money in different ways and sometimes there are stereotypes about people when lumped together that way. I don't really think it makes for a notable topic. --Rividian (talk) 12:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because no-one has coined a word for people who win the lottery and then pretend to be something else. "Trustafarian" does not apply to everyone who lives off a trust fund, but only the subset who live a certain way. This is recognised cultural phenomenon, and should be documented appropriately. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's still a dicdef, and probably couldn't be anything more. FatherJack92 (talk) 14:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The very fact that a word has been coined for those who live off trust funds yet affect the trapping of a different - and often more bohemian/less overtly wealthy - lifestyle makes it notable. Google "Nathan Barley" and "Trustafarian" for a good illustration of application. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How does the fact that a TV character embodies some of the stereotypes of a term mean that we can expand the article on that term beyond a dictionary definition? At best it representes a sentence of trivia. There are lots of terms that have been coined for sorts of people... but until proven otherwise they're just terms, and better suited to a dictionary. And Wikipedia has a sister project that is a Dictionary... not everything we've ever heard of must be an encyclopedia article. --Rividian (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google News Archives has mentions going back to the late 1990s, Google Books has a large number of mentions, but no one seems to consider this anything more than another word for "trust fund baby", and I can't find a source that describes the phenomenon (there's the movie Born Rich), but we have an article on that. Wictionary already has it. When someone can find sources, it can be recreated. Noroton (talk) 01:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Sean Whitton / 15:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kill A Watt

Article does not establish notability per WP:PRODUCT, sources do not help establish notability. Manufacturer does not have own article. Steve Carlson^Talk 00:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a surprising number of sources exist: [62], [63]. I have added two to the article so far. Gadget reviews, but still... that's non-trivial coverage. Two ~500 word articles reviewing the product. Lots more seems to exist. --Rividian (talk) 01:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per steve. You said it Dad (talk) 01:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google News search shows 170 sources, many about this specific product, such as [64] , [65] [66] , [67] , [68] and [69] . Seems to satisfy notability requirements for a product. I know of no requirement that the manufacturer have an article for a product to have an article. Edison (talk) 04:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only mentioned that about the company because WP:COMPANY seems to imply that information about a product should be on the same page as the company, unless it gets too big, in which case it should be broken out into its own article. Kind of weird for a non-notable company to be making a notable product though. Steve Carlson^Talk 07:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't seem to find the relevant guideline, WP:KINDOFWIERD , which would say that notable products do not come from non-notable companies. The problem is that the articles are about the product, not the company. Edison (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's just another "usage monitor", fancy name or not - has no notability on its own. And as Steve pointed out, the manufacturer doesn't have its own article. IceUnshattered^{[ t | c ]} 19:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, the guideline you've linked to, WP:N, defines notability as non-trivial coverage by multiple sources... and that coverage has been demonstrated and is in the article now. So linking to WP:N is quite curious. --Rividian (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not just any usage monitor. Unlike many in the market that do not really work well, this one actually works, and is well liked by consumers. The P4400 has 278 reviews on Amazon as of the date of this post, which is a very high number for any product. The product's manufacturer doesn't have to have its own article for the product to be notable. --AB (talk) 03:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 14:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Mass (album)

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has been charted in many countries : #1 in Italy, ##2 in Switzerland, #4 in France, #5 in Belgium (Wallonia), #10 in Sweden and Netherlands.... Meets WP:N. Europe22 (talk) 14:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 19:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eucalypse

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 22:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:VERIFY and WP:CRYSTAL. Even the artist's official site doesn't seem to mention it yet.[70] — Satori Son 22:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- A work issued in an edition of 1000 copies is almost certainly NN. Calling it a "limited edition" is just hype. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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