Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 February 11

< February 10	February 12 >

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 weakly kept. Daniel (talk) 03:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Le-Huy[edit]

The subject does not meet WP:Notability criteria for a biographical article and the reason given by the author for its creation, "Wikipedia is a useful medium for disseminating those facts of the case that are uncontested", is contrary to WP:SOAP.JGHowes ^talk - 23:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP1E. Minor, alleged criminal. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a minor issue. This case is about western tourists that are being detained under archaic and abused laws in foreign countries. Cat Le-Huy is a prominent enough figure to attract attention from media outlets (show in links from the article and much more; google his name). He's had numerous urine tests and other tests on the .0001g hashish(actually dirt) that was found in his backpack. Do you wonder why there are no results? This information needs to be shared with the world! It's not about him, it's about the issue at hand and his part in it! Jim (talk) 03:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Jim (talk) 03:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep for now This case is continuing to get press coverage. Although it may make sense to move it to something else per WP:BLP1E maybe merge with a general article about Dubai drug enforcement and similar incidents. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep for now Regardless of my own motivations as author, I believe the "Free Diz" campaign and related press coverage makes Cat a notable enough subject while this remains an ongoing problem. Bluekieran (talk) 10:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In reply to JoshuaZ, it is, at Tourism in Dubai JGHowes ^talk - 05:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Joshuaz. The tourism article is really too general a topic. As Josh said, if there is an article on only Drug Enforcement in Dubai, merging would be a good idea. CitiCat^♫ 02:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JoshuaZ, I do believe that this is notable enough under the circumstances. Since there seems to be a consensus here, perhaps it is time we start re-evaluating WP:BLP1E and limiting its application. RFerreira (talk) 18:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BenM (talk) 04:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 15:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Matt Shelton[edit]

While there seems to be plenty of results for "Matt Shelton", there doesn't seem to be much concerning this drink (maybe a hoax?). Also, while it says what date it was created on it does not indicate which person/people invented the drink. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 23:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Delete, a newly-invented drink made up of one part hoax, one part no sources, two parts who cares, shaken, not stirred. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google searches for "Matt Shelton" +drink and "Matt Shelton" +"fruit punch" turn up nothing related, and the article itself cites no sources. We have a failure of WP:V. Deor (talk) 04:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Deor. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Matt Shelton was "created ... by three co-workers, Matt, Jerry R. and Brandon B," who apparently kept the recipe secret until 2008. Notable drinks don't stay under Google's radar. Sturm 11:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected per WP:BOLD. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 21:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wardie Parish[edit]

Delete a church parish with a redlink parish church; by-and-large, many Christian religions divide territories into parishes where those who live in a particular parish are expected to worship at the church assigned to the parish. These divisions are not inherently notable and overlap so that in the same place in England you could be in one civil parish, one Roman Catholic parish, one Anglican parish, a LDS stake, and perhaps other denominations' areas. Just not notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Rami R 13:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Rami R 13:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boldly merged and redirected to Trinity, Edinburgh, the area of that city in which it lies. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 09:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Non-admin closure. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 01:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KGRB (AM)[edit]

KGRB is a defunct radio station which is not particularly notable. While it was in operation for 35 years, a Google search only provides a single related web page by a former DJ with nothing that interesting. No important contributions to broadcasting, no notable alumni, nothing that would warrant coverage in Wikipedia Rtphokie (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All radio and television stations licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (or its counterpart in other countries) are notable. Notability does not expire; this station is still notable, even though it is defunct. --Eastmain (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Licensed radio stations are notable for their coverage, especially one with 35+ years of history (search suggests its closer to 70 years). A general ghits test works mainly for stuff that's recent. A Google News search does show WP:RS coverage available. A radio station doesn't have to be first or biggest to be notable. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability for an FCC-licensed station with 35 years of service doesn't expire due to an interruption in broadcasting any more than it would for a person who died. - Dravecky (talk) 01:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 03:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews on the Run[edit]

Tagged as unsourced and lacking in evidence of notability since September, not fixed despite numerous edits. Of the few sourced statements, one is taken from the electric playground forums. Um. Cruftbane 22:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The program is currently airing on a major Canadian television system (aka lower-tier broadcast network) and was on the largest video game channel in the United States, meeting the notability requirements. AfD is not cleanup and whatever issues there are with the article can be fixed with sourcing. Nate • (chatter) 03:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 16:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, TV programme that is being broadcast on a multiple TV channels. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Daniel (talk) 03:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of California street gangs[edit]

I can't believe that this page hasn't been deleted already. It's clearly enough of a vandalism/spam/OR/vanity magnet that it has had to be fully protected. There are six references, some of dubious reliability, for over fifty gangs, many of which are redlinked, some are not even linked at all. There is no clearly-defined inclusion criterion - there is no clear distinction as to whether extinct gangs are to remain, as the lead suggests, or be removed, as the history shows has happened regularly. All in all, this article provides precious little benefit to the encyclopedia, while tying up admin time with ludicrous {{editprotected}} requests on the talk page. Happy‑melon 22:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Los Angeles street gangs
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Melbourne gangs
Please feel free to add any more related discussions

Strong delete as listcruft; this is a pure vandalism/vanity target for sure, and probably won't ever be completed anyway. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep "Listcruft" is a meaningless term meaning one does not like a particular list; being a vandalism target is not ground or deletion--we can deal quite effectively with vandals. The presence of most of the items is documented by the information in the WP articles as for other lists; the others should be documented or removed. The content reasonable includes past gangs--notability is permanent. If people want to turn it into a list of present day gangs, the talk page is after all the place to discuss it. DGG (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I*Keep Considering that each blue link represents a gang that has its own article already, it makes perfect sense that there would be a list that separates the gangs by the nature of their membership-- African-American, Asian, Hispanic. I don't get the argument that it's vandalism or vanity; although the argument could be made that it works better as a category, I think this is preferable for navigation purposes. Mandsford (talk) 02:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis is meaningful for anyone studying youth gangs, and simply being a potential target for vandalism or vanity is not in and of itself a reason for deletion.Brian Waterman, MS, CDP (talk) 03:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's not listcruft, as the topic is notable and not trivial, and the list is useful for navigating Wikipedia articles as set forth in WP:LISTS#Navigation. See also List of Chicago street gangs. Concerning vandalism, we can't bow down to vandalism by removing pages that are likely to be vandalized - if we did, large portions of Wikipedia would disappear, including the article on George W. Bush, and quite a few user pages as well! We have hundreds of vandal fighters (maybe more) who revert vandalism and an army of admins to block vandals, and these are the correct responses to vandalism. The inclusion criteria is clearly specified in the page's title: "street gangs" of "California". Past or present are both included unless otherwise specified - the simple solution is to create a heading for former gangs. There's no requirement to keep defunct gangs on a separate page. The nom's statement that the article provides precious little benefit to the encyclopedia implies that such topics should be censored, but Wikipedia doesn't stand for that. The Transhumanist 03:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really understand how you got from "precious little benefit" to "censorship", but I assure you it is nothing of the sort. My claim of "precious little benfit" is based on the difficulty in finding a purpose for this list as a list: it does not provide, and could not easily and reliably provide, any context or content to make it preferable to have a list rather than a category or navigational template. I would not be averse to converting this list to a category, but I simply can't see how it benefits the encyclopedia to collect these articles in this fashion. Happy‑melon 09:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep is an obviously reasonable topic for a list and it has decent sources for parts. Target for vandalism is not by itself an issue. The list should be cleaned up not deleted. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Gang culture is a notable sociological phenomenon. Will be hard to keep the article unvandalized and NPOV, but that's not a reason for deletion. Jellogirl (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject is notable, but I see no advantage whatsoever to presenting this in list form. Remove this waste and let categories do their job. RFerreira (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Facts are presented as fact and there is no reason to delete facts from WP. A list is the only way to handle subjects which as yet do not have an article, yet belong in such a list. Both lists and categories are useful for different reasons. Hmains (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, redirect optional by anyone else. Daniel (talk) 03:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcast Message Server[edit]

Delete unsourced article about a part of a software package. No indication that it's separately notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced, makes this not notable. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 23:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to VUE (the software package it's part of). I originally created this stub to clear a redlink in another article; in retrospect I'd agree it's not sufficiently notable on its own to ever warrant its own article.--NapoliRoma (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete CSD G2 (clearly a test page for a user's own "opinion" about the future of the team) --Angelo (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Santos FC of the Future[edit]

Hoax. There's already a Santos FC article, none of the players with blue links on this page plays for that team. Corvus cornix_talk 22:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hervey S. Ross[edit]

Has done a lot in the local community but no evidence of general notability. Most are same name, different person. Travellingcari (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing here that would likely produce any sources showing notability. CitiCat^♫ 02:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 03:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel Universe Online[edit]

Game has been canceled. If game gets resurrected, then the article can live again, too. ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 21:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Cancelled games still fit the criteria for inclusion, provided that they are notable enough; see Category:Cancelled video games, for example. --Ixfd64 (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It still is important to have this knowledge of this gameMarioman12 (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Needs substantial cleanup and expansion. I am unsure of the basis of notability for this game. Failed MMOs are a dime a dozen. Is it merely notable for being marvel-related (arguably the most extensive western comics universe)?

Keep article up. Just because its just been cancelled does not mean that it doesnt supply useful information. There are tones of cancelled wikipedia game articles - why is this one different?Damien Russell (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a failed case of crystal ball gazing. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it was obviously in development, and well anticipated (not crystal balling). People will still likely look to the article, either to see why it was cancelled or for release information and be informed that it was. xenocidic (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 17:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not an example of a notable cancelled game. Andre (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it was a notable project, well covered in news sources, as was the cancellation. Being canceled doesn't automatically deny notability. Time might change that, but at the moment it seems to be a valid topic. Bilby (talk) 02:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I came to the encyclopedia looking for information on the project, only to see that it was being considered for deletion. 68.164.168.242 (talk) 07:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is significant because of the importance and controversy between the participants. Smeggysmeg (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - That it was canceled is important information for people seeking to learn about the game, especially since it was canned so recently. Excise (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments above Q ^{T C} 06:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even though it has been cancelled, it is still a notable (if failed) project81.77.70.222 (talk) 11:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An article's lifetime and the lifetime of a game's release do not have to be the same. Establishes notability. — brighterorange (talk) 13:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ixfd64, this is one instance where a canceled game can still be notable. RFerreira (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smoggy[edit]

Non-notable british dialect/name, page consists of original research, no online sources found on this topic. Garbage. AndreNatas (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree. No references whatsoever, too. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 02:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - genuine British regional identity which can be verified with a simple google search. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.133.201.50 (talk) 05:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sweep All[edit]

Delete unsourced article that has been tagged for a year with no indication of notability or even its existence. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Card game from East China" is hopelessly vague. Can't this be speedied for lack of context? PC78 (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, better argument against inclusion per policy than for inclusion. Daniel (talk) 03:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Eighth Hour Romance[edit]

Does not meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (music). Article claims only local club dates, with one EP released and a second EP in production. Article also announces that the group is breaking up. Donald Albury 21:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Band doesn't seem to have any notability outside of it local area. Inhumer (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete Local notability articles have a place on wikipedia as well. Consider articles on schools, theaters ,or radio stations. Group has two EPs out and has a notable fan base. Saksjn (talk) 13:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fanbase does not count toward notability.

Don't delete This band has been the subject an article in The Ledger. Has also performed at Southeastern University at an event for the Red Cross. --Mayor Coffee Bean (talk) 16:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (music), which states the criteria a musical group needs to meet to be considered notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Please address how this band meets those criteria. -- Donald Albury 20:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.
This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, and television documentaries.
The band has been featured in the articles mentioned by Mayor Coffee Bean. Saksjn (talk) 14:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Sorry, but "subject of multiple non-trivial published works" means a lot more than two paragraphs in a local music column and one sentence in coverage of an event. -- Donald Albury 19:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Listing the other band is entirely at editor's discretion. Daniel (talk) 03:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth Floor (album)[edit]

A non-notable album by a non-notable band. Polly (Parrot) 21:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Band isn't notable, therefore their album isn't. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Band has an article created by the same user at Room Noir (band). Perhaps that should also be brought to AfD? PC78 (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm reluctant to salt here, but if you disagree, feel free to file a request for protection at WP:RFPP. Daniel (talk) 03:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eboostr[edit]

I tagged this article for speedy deletion two weeks ago. Unbeknownst to me, the article was recreated later the same day, and was immediately tagged {{notability}} and {{primary sources}}. The creator removed these tags almost immediately, but there was no follow-up from the tagger. Earlier today, the creator left a note on my talk page, written in bad French, telling me that I had no business requesting the deletion of an article on a subject I know nothing about. I may not know much about cache software, but I sure know that this article is written like an ad, not to mention that the notability concerns have not been addressed. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 21:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Where are the outside sources for any of those assertions about the product? Duncan1800 (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 22:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with salt if necessary to prevent continued re-creation. Travellingcari (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am yet unfamiliar with all wiki precedure I may have made mistakes. The unfortunate first impression of perceived advertising intention may require the deletion of my article.

After the article was rewriten on a more neutral note, and after adding the context aserting the notability of this software I decided to remove the notability tag.

I must say Blanchardb claim of I using BAD french were unfortunate as I did my best to address him in his native language.

I must also agree that Improvement over microsoft readyboost was inacurate. As I am not an expert of the exact inneer functioning of neither these software. The only improved feature I am sure of is the use of multiple caching devices, A huge lack in msft readyboost that could be asserted by anyone running windows vista and not solely a Msft representative as sugested.

I have no financial interest at all even less in eBoostr, all I can say as a Semiconductor representative is that this is a key software (XP type) as the nand memory market had planned supply for higher adoption of Windows Vista and it`s readyboost funtionality requiring nand. Also that in the fist place this caching technology was even more required for older / lower end PCs that would be better of with XP`s lower memory requirement.

ADD vs AD$ ... I must also notice my immense frustration in Blanchardb admission of "may not know much about cache software, but I sure know that this article is written like an ad". That make me ask "how much else can he know about AD$ on this subject ?"

It may look like an ad to you because the wiki newly created page is important to you but to my knowledge it`s not a notable yet mainstream channel with notable advertising.

Now if I get a litle crazy : Wikipedia fundraising was blantant advertising of fiat currency symbols, and yes I added this article so it`s an AD(D) writen as such. --Transisto (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The reviews listed as references establish notability, I think. --Eastmain (talk) 00:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The only problem is, that the only references throughout the article is a non-linked document. The non-linked document is non-verifiable and the information listed cannot be determined as accurate. Third party reviews (by a computing or technology magazine, essay, or web-article, not a blog, manufacturer's website, or personal website) are needed to determine notability. The reviews should be added to the sentences they deal with. ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 00:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The POV section that I objected to has been edited out. If this software's notability can be shown (that is, if it can be shown to be a moderately serious competitor to its stated Microsoft "equivalent", not in terms of features but rather in terms of notoriety), then I will be glad to withdraw my nomination. Even something that hints to a 1% market share would be enough, considering the size of the competitor. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 01:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another effectively unreferenced article about a tech product. The references given are apparently to some group's internal notes, failing verifiability, and to Windows Vista documentation that isn't about this software. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and reformat. This software claim is not referenced and can only be by someone with Windows Xp plus an Internet connection who have 5 min to install the demo. I doubt such a person would ever be found.......

Ps: Stop criticizing reference as this is mostly a notability meter decision. You could delete the part you can't find reference on. but is this a Nand caching for Xp or not ? ... find a notable verifiable xp user reference for yourself !!! google has bout 403,000 result for eboostr . Personally I have no doubt on my memories of having tested this software...

And please for my personal interest could someone point me to some drawback other than disk space and indexing time of having article of lesser notability ?

Ebooster does have many results in Google, however, most are unusable as sources. I did a quick search earlier and could not find any that could help improve the article. Also, the references help determine the notability of the article. If the references are useless or of little help, then the notability of the article does not improve. ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 15:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The sources in the article are either primary sources or passing mentions, and don't establish notability. A quick gsearch shows lots of very short reviews of the software exist -- I am not familiar enough with the sites involved to determine if they are reliable sources that are independent of the subject. (And a note to Blanchardb - I am the tagger, and I had this article on a list to follow up on in a couple of weeks, which I am doing now.) --Fabrictramp (talk) 00:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Apodis[edit]

The result was Speedy Delete: 22:36, 11 February 2008 TimVickers (Talk | contribs) deleted "Apodis" ‎ (A7 (group): Group/band/club/company/etc; doesn't indicate importance/significance: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apodis) Non-admin closure. Kesac (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable band. No sources given, only relevant Google hits are the band's myspace page. L. Pistachio (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7, already tagged by someone else. Doesn't assert notability in any way. Note to closing admin: If this page is speedied, please see that Christian Butler (which currently has a PROD on) is speedied too, for neatness' sake. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe the phrase "They are known for music riddled with ambiguous meanings and catchy hooks" could be considered an assertion of notability, hence why I didn't tag it for speedy. --L. Pistachio (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would've said the same thing of Clint Black, myself... seriously, I don't think that's enough of an assertation of notability, so I endorse the speedy. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rothesay Park School[edit]

not notable; no useful information in the article. Enigma (talk) 21:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No useful information except 3rd party acknowledgments for excellence, now partially cited and verified. The article's boastful tone needs to be fixed, but its an okay stub otherwise. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're volunteering to improve the article, keep by all means, ;) but as it is, it's trash and no one has put any real work into it at all. Enigma (talk) 00:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks a valid stub. Sting au Buzz Me... 02:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enigma (talk) 03:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good start to an article. Profiled in Today's Parent magazine as a Top 40 school in Canada. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a 19th century school that has undergone name changes - plenty of history here that can be added. TerriersFan (talk) 05:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep per DoubleBlue and Terriers. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DoubleBlue and Terriers - seems like the good beginnings to an article.BWH76 (talk) 11:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per DoubleBlue and Terriers -- even though it's got the worst infobox I have ever laid eyes on. I will have nightmares for weeks. The "History" section shows some important local notability. Noroton (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TerriersFan, this is a perfectly valid topic for inclusion. RFerreira (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Obvious spam for forthcoming book. Black Kite 16:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two miles to Tynecastle[edit]

Self published book, no indication of notability Polly (Parrot) 21:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spam for not-yet published book. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.BWH76 (talk) 11:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Qwghlm (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertisement for forthcoming product. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 09:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 09:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BK. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Paul's Lutheran Church (Monroe, NY)[edit]

It would appear the article moved. Still violates the notability guideline for local organisations, and notability tag was removed from the article. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{it seems the winds have stopped...} 21:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it appears the article is nothing but a stub tag and the AfD notice at 22:)* Monday, Wikipedia time Travellingcari (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just some observations: The church (located in Orange County, New York was founded in 1962, which tends to suggest it doesn't have a notable history; its website also includes no info on its history or architecture. Notability could be established through non-trivial newspaper coverage, but the article has nothing of substance at the moment. MisfitToys (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just another 1960s church, no notability asserted. _contribs STYROFOAM☭1994^TALK 00:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per MisfitToys: No evidence of notability, and no indication that there's likely to be independent, reliable sources. Good job, WEBURIED in notifying the creator. Noroton (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, CSD R1 (redirect to non-existant page). Daniel (talk) 03:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Paul Lutheran Church[edit]

Violates the notability guideline for local organisations. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{it seems the winds have stopped...} 21:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Verve's fourth studio album[edit]

Contested PROD. Yet another crystal-ball rumored album without a title. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 21:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced crystall balling - why not wait until it's at least announced and given a release date before creating an article for it? --Michig (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No point in creating a page for an album that hasn't been created yet. Enigma (talk) 21:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way too soon yet; this page is currently in crystal ball mode. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. This line: "and are reportedly recording " sums it up. Lugnuts (talk) 08:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Rechcigl[edit]

No real notability; doesn't meet WP:PROF. The only assertion of notability is being the youngest center director in Florida (an unverified claim), which essentially makes him a big fish in a little pond. The rest reads like a resume of accomplishments that academics are accomplishing all over North America and beyond.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 21:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Youth seems an unlikely thing to base a claim of notability on for a 47-year-old full professor. Also, ISI finds only 91 publications, and Google scholar finds 115, contrasting to the claim in the article that he has over 300. I'll withhold judgment on whether he is notable for now but the article appears oversold. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The awards listed and the media coverage are also assertions of notability. --Eastmain (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Appears to be meet WP:PROF criterion 1. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Changing to delete per BWH's reasoning below. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As far as I can tell, the media references are about the centers at which Rechcigl has worked, studies in which he may have been a participating member (though the ones I've checked seem to not mention him), etc. - not about Rechcigl himself. For example, the article states that Rechcigl seemingly single-handedly created the Balm Research Center, although hereis an article about the Center's opening that doesn't seem to mention his role (though it does quote him as the Center's Director). Furthermore, the articles that do mention Rechcigl seem to simply be press releases/newsletter (the International Focus) from the university. I don't think that it does meet WP:PROF and I think that the article is perhaps a WP:COI as I mentioned here. Although COI isn't necessarily basis for AfD, I just don't see the notability of this subject.BWH76 (talk) 07:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non-notable Xxanthippe (talk) 11:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. High level recognition by the Soil Science Society of America or International Union of Soil Sciences would tip the balance to notability. Page should be userfied until then, if and when. --Paleorthid (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Projekti qytetar[edit]

Article about an Albanian youth project. I don't know if the organization itself is sufficiently notable but it's clear that the current content is not an encyclopedia article: it's a brochure. Most likely, English sources do not exist so it's hard for me to judge the importance of the project but unless one can certify that sufficient coverage exists in Albanian, this should be deleted. Pichpich (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For one, it doesn't make any sense (machine translation, most likely) and it doesn't appear to be notable anyway. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{it seems the winds have stopped...} 21:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You forgot to place the AfD tag on the article; I did that for you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It's all Twinkle's fault though! Pichpich (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Asafu-Adjaye[edit]

Has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails WP:BIO. robwingfield ^«T•C» 21:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. robwingfield ^«T•C» 21:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability criteria. King of the North East 21:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. recreate if he plays for Luton. Peanut4 (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete currently fails, though quite possible only a matter of time. John Hayes^talk 00:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Walker (footballer)[edit]

Has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails WP:BIO. robwingfield ^«T•C» 20:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. robwingfield ^«T•C» 20:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability criteria. King of the North East 21:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Recreate if he plays for Chester. Peanut4 (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Sc straker (talk) 03:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom unless something changes. RFerreira (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hip hop directory[edit]

Article makes some impressive claims, but I find no RS evidence that any of it is true. Copious ghits, but no evidence of independence or reliability to meet WP:WEB. Travellingcari (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ETA creator was SPA with likely COI based on name Travellingcari (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB and Travellingcari's research. I couldn't find any sources for the supposed claims made in this article or any sources at all. Doc Strange (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Gregory (footballer)[edit]

Has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails WP:BIO. robwingfield ^«T•C» 20:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. robwingfield ^«T•C» 20:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability criteria. King of the North East 21:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Entry made in haste. Peanut4 (talk) 00:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hitarth India[edit]

No RS coverage under Hitarth Consultants and trivial ghits. Hitarth India has no RS:coverage either, but a few more ghits. Nothing notable. There is one hit for Hitarth Consultancy, which is close but not exactly the company's old name for a company they worked with. Doesn't establish notability as working with an Indian company is not something as different or notable as it might have been. Travellingcari (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced article about a tech business. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me Masi And Mr Clean[edit]

A non-notable short film which fails the relevant guideline - no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. The first two links are trivial plot summary listings and the remainder don't mention the film at all. Contested prod. Euryalus (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--The Dominator (talk) 05:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grizzly Records[edit]

DELETE NN record label. Just a vehicle for label founder's band releases. Endless Dan 19:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not assert notability. John Hayes^talk 19:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; as per above. References are blogs & such.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Da Bears[edit]

DELETE. All self released albums (their record lablel is ran by a band member). Nothing establishing notablity. Fails WP:BAND & WP:Music. Endless Dan 19:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC) Deleting admin, please consider a re-direct to Bill Swerski's Superfans.[reply]

Delete Does not establish notability; references are blogs & such. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a1, a7, WP:SNOW, obvious game made up one day. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woolerball[edit]

The subject is non-notable and probably made-up; a google query results in zero hits.[1] Prod removed by creator without comment. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The game was probably made up by a group of friends. Unreferenced. Delete. (Note: It's me who has proposed the article for deletion.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The game probably was made up by a group of friends, but then agian what game wasn't? This game is becoming increasingly popular and am sure you would agree that wikipedia should be on the forefront of developments any subject matter including sports. Just becuase you have not heard of something do not assume it is irelevent, you do not know everything, there will be many people who will find this page useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by S0456769 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hexany[edit]

Weak delete: there doesn't seem to be a lot of support for the concept out there, and this article borders on original research, given that it's sourced to the main editor's website. I'm willing to withdraw if it's more widespread than it looks at the moment. uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 19:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'm not happy with the exposition in the article, but it doesn't seem to be original research; Google scholar finds several research papers by different scholars on the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of it is original research - except perhaps the demo tune. The CPS concept including the hexany was developed by Erv Wilson and is used by many composers - see the composer link for examples. My contribution is that I made a java applet to make it easy for people to explore the hexany by clicking on it in a web page. That's why I linked to my web site. I thought my hexany phrase transformations would also be of interest as a demonstration of the symmetries of the hexany - but perhaps the Gene Ward Smith transformations I use to make the tune from the initial seed phrase would count as original research by him, as I don't know if he has published them or not. Probably he hasn't. Robertinventor (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the demo tune, as I think it could be considered to be original research because of the use of the Gene Ward Smith transformations, since I don't think they are currently published anywhere. Robertinventor (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The published sources seem sufficient to support the aticle. DGG (talk) 01:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but maybe better in an article on combination product sets. -- Gabor B. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.14.254.45 (talk) 10:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps one could do that fairly easily. Since the hexany is the "first interesting" CPS as the one with least notes, after the triad, tetrad or pentad - perhaps the existing article with a bit of reworking could be an intro to CPS using the method of starting the exposition with a "typical" example of the concept. Could move it to CPS, and redirect Hexany to it, rather than vice versa. My own experience is mainly with the hexany, since I made the hexany models and have also composed a few (short demo type) pieces for it - I've also made a couple of dekany java models and a pentadekany, but not attempted the eikosany, and not attempted compositions in any of those myself. So others would be more appropriate to write anything that needs to be said about those if the article were to be expanded a bit. But I can modify the article as is to make it a starting point for a possibly more complete exposition of CPS later on. Start it something like:

"In music theory, Erv Wilson's Combination Product Sets provide a method of constructing just tonation scales with small numbers of notes with large numbers of consonant chords, and a high degree of symmetry under permutation of the factors" - then continue " The first "interesting" example of a CPS is the hexany", or something like that, probably exposition of all that could be improved - and then rest of the article much as before. Robertinventor (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep It's not "original research" if several articles by different authors have been published. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus for deletion, default to keep. Sandstein (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism[edit]

This is not a majority vote. If someone brought this page to your attention, or you brought this page to others' attention, please make a note of this fact here. While widespread participation is encouraged, the primary purpose of this page is to gauge consensus of a representative sample of Wikipedians; therefore, it's important to know whether someone is actively soliciting others from a non-neutral location to discuss. Such contributors are not prohibited from commenting, but it's important for the closing administrator or bureaucrat to know how representative the participants are of Wikipedians generally. See Wikipedia:Canvassing.

There was a minor consensus at at Chiropractic to create a split article to house the bulk of chiropractic's "Scientific inquiries into chiropractic care" section, Talk:Chiropractic#Too_long.21. This new article was aptly named: Scientific inquiries into chiropractic care. I was hesitant about this article becoming a POV Fork, but willing to proceed with it as an experiment. As the days went on, it became increasingly clear that this article was meant not just to house chiropractic research information, but also a substantial criticism section which had no direct correlation with chiropractic research, but rather just general criticism of chiropractic. Then, the article was moved and renamed several times until it became what it is today: Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism. It seems to me that the purpose of this article is to justify the inclusion of random chiropractic criticism. In my eyes, this is a clear violation of WP:POVFORK and as such, I am requesting that this article be deleted and the bulk of the research content be restored at Chiropractic. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Chiropractic is too long, and that the seemingly endless, unbroken, repetitive, and boring "scientific inquiries into chiropractic care" section was all but guaranteed to make any reader lose interest in the article. I don't care if we heavily truncate it, formally reserve an article for it (and not criticism), leave it as it is, or find some fourth solution, but moving it back into Chiropractic - which is still too long - is really no option at all. Personally? I'd have a content fork for "Scientific Inquiries into Chiropractic Care" and include a section for criticism of chiro in the Chiropractic article. --Hyperbole (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - I give a crap! ;-) I think your suggestion is a fine one and one worth undertaking. However, first - in my eyes - we need to delete "Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism" so we can start over with the "Scientific Inquiries into Chiropractic Care" article you are suggesting. Anyhow, if you are irritated, I suggest taking a WikiBreak, but I for one would hate to lose your sharp insights and helpful edits. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No need to delete if we genuinely need such an article, simply move this one and work on it IMHO.Merkinsmum 01:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I also viewed this as an experiment and wow it didn't take long to POVFORK... The majority of the article is merely cut/copy and paste from other articles so its rudundant in that regard too. I suggest delete and the science stuff cut from the chiropractic article be rewritten and added back to the chiro article.--Hughgr (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as well. It seems that a particular editor has ran with the article in question has ties to quackwatch and stephen barrett. Not only that, I find that his references are generally very poor and contain significant OR. Indeed, I can almost trace back the same passage verbatim to all the references he quotes. I think that we can truncate the scientific section as well and perhaps add a critiques section, but I would bet that tons of anti-chiropractic propanganda that is not veriable nor based on research papers would sneak its way in there and spiral out of control. I'm all for suggestions though.

PS: Hyperbole, I think you're doing a good job; but as I am on 'probation' right now I have to pick and choose my edits carefully for the next week or so. As a rookie on here sometimes I may violate things and genuinely not know it, but do want to stick around for the long run so I've got to keep my nose clean!EBDCM (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment EBDCM stated: Hyperbole, I think you're doing a good job... but now EBDCM wants to delete the good job Hyperbole did? Hyperbole did a major rewrite. It was a great job and it should be kept based on the improvements made. QuackGuru (talk) 04:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete I actually had already spotted this one. No need for a separate page, plus 'research and criticism' is a wierd name. It is actually a POV title in a way, as it implies true research about chiropractic is solely positive- if you see what I mean? Merkinsmum 00:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

myself, I interpreted the title by itself -- not necessarily the article -- to imply exactly the opposite--that any research into it would turn out to be criticism. DGG (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are all starting to understand the inherent NPOV issues with an article named as such. It is inescapable. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The main Chiropractic was too long. This new article resolved the problem. Chiropractic care is a controversial discipline and the article should remain in mainspace. There is a lot of scientific investigation into the credibility of chiropractic philosophy. Hopefully the Wikipedia community will allow a quality article to remain on Wikipedia and not create another huge main chiropractic article. The Scientific inquiries into chiropractic care section in the main article was shortened. It took up about a third of the page. We don't want a huge main article. This is easy to understand that two articles are better than one in this case. QuackGuru (talk) 01:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine, but why did you then turn the offshoot "Scientific inquiries into chiropractic care" into a "General criticisms of chiropractic" article? Again, I was weary about the "Scientific inquiries into chiropractic care" but understood your rationale about article length and therefore agreed to it. It wasn't until this article was bastardized into POV Fork on chiropractic criticism that I saw an AfD necessary. I felt like we were a victim of the old bait-and-switch routine. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - So, if the critics section was deleted you would be happy the article. That is what the talk page is for and not an AFD. QuackGuru (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I tried that deleting that section and having that discussion back when the article was called "Scientific inquiries into chiropractic care". Once it got renamed to "Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism" it became clear that an AfD was necessary. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here is another idea to consider. We can have a pure research article and a pure criticsm article. Critical views of chiropractic Perhaps we can learn something from the Citizendium community. QuackGuru (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This idea is suggested above as well. After this AfD is over, we should have that discussion. One thing at a time. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm a bit concerned about so many "usual suspects" showing up here. Is anyone else? ScienceApologist (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who and why? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a clumsy attempt to hide the fact the science, with the exception of outliers, thinks chiro is rubbish. In fact it sails close to abusing the purpose of AfD. Perhaps the article should be renamed Science and chiro. :-) Mccready (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - To state again, I (and it seems others) would welcome an article just about Scientific inquiries into Chiropractic care. That was the original intent of splitting the article (or at least that is how it was proposed). This article however quickly became a POV Fork by including criticism unrelated to Scientific inquiries into Chiropractic care. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is by definition a WP:POVFORK. I agree with QG and Hyperbole that the idea to break off a section of chiropractic and expand it in another article would be great (and therefore shorten the chiropractic article), but it too has to be NPOV. This article appears to be an attempt to avoid NPOV. How many different ways can we say "there is research, some people think it is great, others think it is crap, blah, blah, blah..." Unless you have something more important to add, a POV FORK is not the way to make your point. It just makes for a bigger battlefield. What next, add chiropractic to all the articles that concern symptoms? Let's not go there. -- Dēmatt (chat) 03:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note Levine2112, Hughgr, EBDCM, and Dēmatt are all pro-chiropractic advocates. Dematt claims to agree with me but does not. What content was forked? Claiming it was a fork without evidence is gaming the system. What is wrong with the content. It is NPOV and that is the problem with the article. The pro-chiro advocates want a POV article and leave out any critical views of chiropractics. QuackGuru (talk) 03:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, I am a chiropractor and everyone needs to keep that in their thoughts. I'm sorry QG, I thought it was you that broke off the section and created the article, but I see it was Hyperbole. I intended to help with this article, but by the time I returned, I see the name had changed and the POV editing had begun. Even Hyperbole has now left the project as a direct result. As a result, I don't see any signs of anything new. -- Dēmatt (chat) 04:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The title can be changed to anything. That would not be a reason to delete. What was the POV editng? Hyperbole did a great job of NPOV editing. Please respect Hyperbole. Take a look here. Here is an example of NPOV editing. Critical views of chiropractic QuackGuru (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment He has done well, but there is very little there that is not already in the chiropractic article except an addition of a criticism section. That is a POV fork by definition. -- Dēmatt (chat) 04:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment If I start a new article titled Critical views of chiropractic it would not be a fork unless you think Citizendium is POV. See: Critical views of chiropractic. QuackGuru (talk) 04:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment You cannot compare Wikipedia to Citizendium. They are quite obviously a different wiki with their own policies and such. And I would kindly remind you to comment on the contributions, not the contributor.[2]--Hughgr (talk) 05:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Vote Canvassing? Levine2112 has contacted people to vote in this AFD. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EBDCM&diff=next&oldid=190572894 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dematt&diff=next&oldid=190555583 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hughgr&diff=next&oldid=190574476 Regards, QuackGuru (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        NOT! Nice attempt at selective diffs... lets see who else is there? you, Orangemarlin, Jim62sch, Jim Butler, JoshuaZ, Fyslee, and Rracecarr. Please stop with the disruptions User:QuackGuru.--Hughgr (talk) 22:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay, I was going to just ignore this, but after this blatant example of hypocrisy, I'm speaking out. I received a canvassing e-mail from QuackGuru himself asking me to come here. Maybe he was doing it in response to the canvassing he saw, but he still came to post this afterwards. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 00:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        This user who was indefinitely blocked in late December 2007. He was unblocked by Adam Ceurden, and was supposed to be under his supervision. Perhaps another admin should take over that responsibility as Adam has left?[3] Anthon01 (talk) 07:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. No reasons for deletion given that satisfy WP:DELETION. This is not automatically a POV fork, and even some of its opponents in its current form seem to say that it was not one from the start. As the POV concerns may well be valid, I suggest the following solution: Rename back to "Scientific inquiries into chiropractic care"; make sure that the article content matches its title; make sure that the article conforms to WP:NPOV; make sure that it is summarized and linked to as main article per WP:SPINOUT. An article's being biased is not a reason to delete. It's a reason to edit. I share Hyperbole's frustration in seeing a proper spinout article go to AfD. Avb 16:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Automatic or not... this article is the very definition of point-of-view forking... Let's get it the fork out of here!TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete or Modify the title and separate Chiro Research from Chiro Critical. Conflating them is POV. Anthon01 (talk) 07:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A clear POV fork and POV assault, an article largely built with greatly UNDUE weight highlighting biased unreliable sources as if technically reliable, from technically unreliable sources that are known for some adversarial, unsound, unscientific and/or pseudoskeptical articles[] [QW & SRAM] two sources I primarily turn to in order to find further examples of systematic bias]pp 23, 36, 76-77 as well as economic and legal conflicts of interests(TNC or bother) and debacles - according to some authors even the overtime vestigial exhibition of the Wilk vs AMA anticompetitve deprecation of the chiropracters, a historic legal loss. I don't think this Wikipeida POV fork is the proper forum to continue to push hostile statements, recycle anticompetitive dispargement or rewrite history with highly biased sources.--I'clast (talk) 14:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article has top-tier reliable sourcing, namely peer-reviewed scientific papers in reputable journals, despite the above assertions that this is all from Quackwatch et al. For an article about scientific research into Chiro, NPOV means we fairly and proportionately represent the findings of scientific research into Chiro, not that we give equal time to "pro" and "anti" views. <eleland/talkedits> 18:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - for the sake of consensus, I would be all for renaming this article back to "Scientific inquiries into chiropractic care"; in which we can include both positive and negative research specifically about chiropractic care as well as criticism specifically about chiropractic research. My issue - and reason why I started this AfD - was that what I describe above was the original intent of the content forked article. However, the criticism which was piled into the article wasn't specifically about "chiropractic research" but rather "chiropractic in general". This went against the purpose of the article and it became POV Fork-ish. Then when the article was renamed to accommodate for the allowance of general criticism, it was clear that it had become an all out POV Fork. There does seem to be a growing movement toward a consensus to roll back this article to its original name and purpose. And even if the consensus is to delete this article, my hopes would be to restart the "Scientific inquiries into chiropractic care" article and this time keep it on topic. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (only in the sense of do not delete), possibly under the original name Scientific inquiries into chiropractic care. But even this title could easily have content which doesn't resemble a fork of Chiropractic. As an aside, if the article is deleted, the content should be merged back into Chiropractic, as a good fraction of it was removed from there. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to be a valid sub-article. And, that would include the criticism section which seems to be the main point of displeasure amongst the deleters. I became aware of this article because of a bit of edit warring that showed up on WP:3RR. It would seem that quite a few editors here are wanting the article deleted because it contains criticism of their field of interest or favorite subject. On viewing the Chiropractic main article, I see little to no critical views - and that seems odd. Perhaps the offending critical section here should be placed instead within the parent article and expanded. However, I expect howls of protest about that suggestion from the true believers here :-) Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - An article on research and criticism is needed, as there is a lot of relevant material, though it may be better under a different title. Voice-of-All 20:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as this article is a legitimate subtopic, not a pov fork. Neutrality issues with regard to the content and title of this article, if any, should be resolved editorially. John254 01:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP, although I personally find the subject matter dry and uninteresting, the article is not a pov fork, is encyclopaedic in content, and has many well-documented references and third party citations. The parent article is definately too long and was a good wiki-move.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 07:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non admin). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 10:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard James Allen[edit]

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:BIO. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to James Allen and Physical TV ---Hu12 (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable individual --Cradel 19:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some reviews and references. --Eastmain (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per edits by Eastmain. Sting au Buzz Me... 02:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Australia Dancing has an article on him. This NLA site is the key reference on dance in Australia. [4] Paul foord (talk) 10:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - would seem to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals (noting significant edits after AfD nomination) --Matilda ^talk 23:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was userfy to JoshuaZ. Daniel (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard store[edit]

There's significant evidence that Harvard Student Agencies is notable, but no evidence that the store is, although a search is problematic due to discussions of stores in Harvard. I'd have suggested a merge but no page exists for HSA and it doesn't seem appropriate for Harvard. It's been orphaned for some time, I don't think it would be missed. Travellingcari (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. What's next, an article on Harvard bathrooms? Drinking fountains? The dumpsters out back? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom . --Cradel 19:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agreed with Travellingcar. This article opens Pandora's Box and contributes nothing. --BizMgr (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
userfy to me. I'll write an article on HSA and include this material. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Media Studies at UVA[edit]

I'm not sure that we really need an article about every major at every college - or even just this major at this college. I believe this to be nothing but an advertisement for the school and its major. - Philippe | Talk 18:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable. The CS program at Carnegie Mellon? Sure. But this isn't anywhere close to that, and I can't find a single independent secondary source that passes WP:RS on this article. hateless 19:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Does not distinguish itself as an academic program remarkable for its notability independent of UVA.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, delete. Probably could have been speedied. Friday (talk) 15:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, yes. But it was sufficiently vague that I didn't want to take administrator action without wider input. - Philippe | Talk 19:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compendium (software)[edit]

Delete not all software is notable and this is not, a mention in the ACM is not the significant coverage in reliable sources that is required to attain notability, see WP:N. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. There has been an influx of artles on "mind mapping" startup software products on Wikipedia lately; like others than have been deleted, this one does not appear to have distinguished itself enough to warrant an article.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus due to improvements to the article; can be relisted if those who initially said "delete" believe it still should be deleted. Daniel (talk) 03:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkins Cookers Limited[edit]

Lots of companies make things, no evidence that this company is in any way notable. Travellingcari (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Does not establish notability. As it this is an article about a company, rather than an article about a specific product of a company, it qualifies for WP:CSD A7. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. The company is traded on the Bombay Stock Exchange. --Eastmain (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The references you added don't seem to contribute much to notability. In one, the company is very briefly mentioned; the other is a stock market profile.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 00:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added a reference to the fact that this is the largest company in its sector in India. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aceromath[edit]

Contested prod. No indication of notability, entirely written by account with the same name as the producing company. Spam. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability whatsoever, clear COI issues (if not intentional spam). --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable --Cradel 19:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless evidence of notability is supplied. -- Atlant (talk) 20:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that software is one of the few things a Google test actually tends to work on. Aceromath brings up Aceromath and User:Thenetcentinell and some sourceforge/mirror sites. "The Net Centinell" (the entity that published or created this software) brings up Aceromath and User:Thenetcentinell and a hoard of (mostly Spanish) linux/programming/etc forums. It even says it was written "for a course of engineering." Don't forget that Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. I'd say that such generally includes things you make up for your homework. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not establish notability; digging by Cheeser1 suggests WP:Or issues as well. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously (I say that rarely), Cenarium (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatant spam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.210.172 (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 07:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find no significant coverage (10 Google hits on aceromath -wikipedia, 0 on Google News, 0 on Google Blogsearch – no one's even blogging about this!), which suggests the software lacks any notability. Although I must say I was impressed by the use of the verb "to graphicate". --Sturm 10:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 04:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transatlantic International Airlines[edit]

This article references a proposed airline with an largely unrealistic business model. Also, the only citation actually redirects to another Wikipedia article. The page on Shannon Airport references the airline and only gives a start date of "starting soon." Also, one of the chief contributors, user Monbro, has a troubled history on Wikipedia with numerous other articles proposed for deletion in the past. As an aside, his user page simply says "Your mom." Aaporter 87 (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I forgot to mention: I follow the airline industry pretty intensely and I've never even heard of this supposed airline. Aaporter 87 (talk) 18:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also of note is that the links to the CEO simply redirect to the same page. Aaporter 87 (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of any news coverage, which would be present for an airline with any sense of launching. Could easily be re-created if plans move forward at some point in the future. Travellingcari (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I almost started laughing when I saw that article. The CEO obviously isn't from Ohio, as any Ohioan, such as myself, could easily predict that that airline will never get off the ground. Delete per lack of secondary sources, however, and lack of notability, and all speculation. Jd027^chat 19:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Travellingcari. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Gavin Collins (talk) 11:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as wether this is a hoax or not, it fails WP:CRYSTAL. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Clearly not a hoax (so I removed the tag), nor is it a crystal issue. It's a real company operating today that owns a number of older passenger jets that it provides out for charter and longer term leases. Reporting that it has active plans to begin scheduled service is fair. The real question is whether it's notable. I don't see any clear evidence of notability, unless there's a presumption among the airline articles that any outfit that operates multiple large passenger jets is inherently notable. That would be a fair call but I don't know if that's the case. Wikidemo (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Okay, looking through the FAA database of registered "N-numbers" (registrations), I can tell that the company does exist. However, for this article to remain it will need a serious clean-up and the speculative stuff about starting scheduled services should go away for now. Also, of the two planes they say they own, only one (N4508H) is registered to them, while the other (N708BA) is registered to some other company. So at this point it is either extensively modify and clean up, or delete due to not enough notability. Aaporter 87 (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Travellingcari. Wexcan Talk 14:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 04:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis Group[edit]

Completing nom for User:BowChickaNeowNeow, who relisted discussion from 2006. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Gavin Collins (talk) 11:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability, and the directory listing which have been cited are excluded as such.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You guys are killing me with all these deletion nominations of obviously notable companies. Business Week a reliable source I would think (though for good measure I added a second reference, a New York Sun article). Business Week devoted an entire article, not a directory listing, to this firm. A 400+ employee financial consulting firm is almost guaranteed to be notable, although litigation support isn't a glamorous or interesting field so the interest level and article count is going to be smaller than for similarly-sized consulting firms in other fields. Wikidemo (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please explain why a profile in Business Week is not considered a reliable source. As noted above, Business Week devoted an entire article, not a directory listing, to this firm. Additionally, there is a full profile of this firm on Vault.com, which is another reliable secondary source. This is a notable company with more than 400 employees. If Business Week and Vault.com are not considered legitimate secondary references, please explain specifically which references WOULD be considered legitimate. rgord01 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Wikidemo and rgord01 - this firm is notable. It is unclear to me why Business Week, New York Sun and Vault have been acknowledged as unreliable sources. Tmysko —Preceding comment was added at 22:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If you check the resources listed by Analysis Group's competitors, you will see that they are similar. Yet none of these other companies' profiles has been tagged for deletion. Cornerstone references the San Jose Business Journal, Vault.com, and its own website. LECG references its own 10-K filing from 2005. And NERA references Vault.com. rgord01 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.112.11.10 (talk) 14:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The IP address of this user upon using nslookup resolves to "Analysis_Group.demarc.cogentco.com". I suggest the closer bears in this in mind -Halo (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grudgingly weak keep - They seem to just about have enough press and their large turnover makes them notable - this is in spite of their above spamming/astroturfing and the fact the current article is pretty damn awful. -Halo (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thank you for your comments. I work for Analysis Group and have updated the article numerous times in attempts to respond to tags and comply with Wikipedia guidlines. When the article was fuller, it attracted comments that it read like an advertisement. I requested assistance through what I thought were the proper channels, but never received any replies. Regarding my comments above, they were not intended to be spam. I was under the impression that this forum was the place to state legitimate reasons for keeping the posting, and that's what I thought I was doing. I would appreciate any assistance you could offer me to ensure that this article meets guidelines and stays posted. -rgord01 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.112.11.10 (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -I'm sorry, but you're clearly violating WP:COI by contributing to the article. In fact, a look at the article's history since June of 2007 shows that you or another Analysis Group employee has been contributing to the article on a regular basis. BowChickaNeowNeow (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Daniel (talk) 04:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fatbike[edit]

Bicycle brand. I don't think one mention in the Anchorage newspaper is enough to establish encyclopedic notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ^ that and the article only has one sentence --Cradel 19:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Gavin Collins (talk) 11:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no content, context or reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notbability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google, people. I added a citation to Fox News. Presumably that's a reliable source. Incidentally, nothing wrong with a newspaper simply because it's in Alaska, and nothing wrong with a one-sentence stub. I rewrote it to be clearer, but the sentence did what a lead is supposed to do, identified the subject and said what it's all about. Short articles are there to be expanded, not deleted. Wikidemo (talk) 14:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the only sources you have cited support the statement "The bicycles are designed for use on snow" then that is a trivial reference that fails WP:CORP, no matter where it comes from. I have no idea why an experienced editor such as yourself would have created this stub. It has so little content that it would not even be included as a footnote in an article on bicycles. From where I stand, you are just timewasting. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It actually helps if you read the sources from time to time. I couldn't seem to access the Anchorage news article on the link provided, but here's another link that replicates that news story. [5] Clearly more than just a sentence that says "they're designed to be used on snow" as they talk about the competition that Wildfire faces in making/marketing these things. I'd agree with Wikidemo, seems to be enough notability to keep and expand. --Craw-daddy | T | 22:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Salomon[edit]

contested Prod. non-notable actor - very low ghits. Sbowers3 (talk) 17:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable. hateless 18:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't appear notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable individual --Cradel 19:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --PeaceNT (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calpernia Addams[edit]

Subject is a reality television star of questionable notability who does not wish inclusion in Wikipedia, whose personal safety and quality of life are negatively impacted by inclusion. Kindly acknowledging her wishes will not substantially diminish Wikipedia's usefulness. Calperniaaddams (talk) 06:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are reliable sources that cover this person but I don't know the process when a subject puts her own article for AfD. Travellingcari (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That was my issue as well - normally I'd be inclined to say keep outright (it is a good article), but maybe we could create a "protected stub" or something? I actually would NOT question the notability, but apparently the subject does. Biggest concern I have is that if we delete, it sets a precedent - couldn't anyone then ask to have their article removed? Duncan1800 (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply to comment This sort of thing has come up before with regards to Matt Sanchez See: Talk:Matt Sanchez and the related ArbCom case. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not the only example, we've had a quite a few at this point, some kept some deleted. We really don't have a very coherent process for addressing these in general at this point. See User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP some relevant info. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep for now. While I appreciate the authors concern, and per current understanding of WP:BLP, subject requested deletions of highly marginally notable people may be warranted I don't think that it should be done in this case. The subject is a willing public figure. As I have explained on earlier deletion discussions it is unreasonable for willing public figures to request that articles about them be deleted. In this case, it is even more unreasonable given that the subject has published an autobiography and has a website for self-promotion/publicity/activism at http://www.calpernia.com. The nomination also ignores the activism that the subject has taken part in which makes it much more problematic to delete than if this were simply an entertainement indivual. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. JoshuaZ is spot on. In the past, we have performed courtesy BLP deletions of marginally notable persons who have not sought publicity voluntarily. Clearly, this is not the case here: Ms. Addams is sufficiently notable and is actively promoting herself. I fully understand that Ms. Addams has privacy concerns regarding her birth name, but deletion of this article is not the answer. A post has been made at the BLP Noticeboard, and I have encouraged her to participate in that discussion. — Satori Son 22:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obvious notability (subject of documentary and television series). If there are BLP/privacy issues, let them be addressed appropriately within the article. --Dhartung | Talk 23:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is a professional activist as well as actress, which makes it difficult to see any legitimate reason to delete the article; there might however, be good reason for some editing. and re-emphasis.DGG (talk) 01:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I could have understood if, in the past, the subject had wanted to have the article about her deleted in order to maintain her privacy. But once the subject agreed to be the focus of a reality television show, the idea that she should be kept out of the encyclopedia to maintain her privacy should have gone by the wayside. See Miami Herald, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Kansas City Star. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I vote keep for the reasons above. (Everything in wikipedia is already public record. All we do here is compile it in one place.) There is also an issue as of now of this persons identity. How do we really know they are who they claim to be?--Hfarmer (talk) 04:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the subject of the article does not wish to be included (and the identity may be verified), I would vote for delete. Although we're working to be encyclopedic in documenting historical events, we can't forget that peoples' lives can and are effected by what's on the net (including Wiki entries). We should honor her request if the nominating user's identity is definitively established.BWH76 (talk) 11:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm just a single tiny person, and my article doesn't say anything bad about me, or anything that I disagree with. I'm not "demanding" deletion, which would be useless. But it's like discovering that your next door neighbor has erected an enormous dry-erase board with a detailed breakdown of your activities in the years you've lived next door, with an invitation for anyone in the neighborhood to add or change whatever they like. Legal? Maybe, but incredibly creepy. While I enjoy being an entertainer, and I was in the news for various events, and I'm on the web here and there, I'm calmly, plainly saying that I do not want to be in Wikipedia specifically. I know several Wikipedians, and I know that it becomes a pastime that they enjoy and to which they devote a lot of time. At times, I've seen it almost become an obsession, and if something like that is in play here, I hope that whomever can pull out of the conviction that every webpage must be filled with correctly sourced and formatted text enough to realize that there are consequences to this hobby. Surely, everyone began their time here as someone devoted to simply maintaining a useful resource. But when Wikipedia becomes a horde of judging, faceless strangers voting on what to do with me, who I can't fight or influence, it really disturbs me. I'm asking politely, not to remove some embarrassing exposé article on me, but just to leave me out of your project. Take down the creepy giant dry-erase board detailing my life. This isn't the Enquirer or TMZ.com, people who make a living from writing about others who'd prefer to be left out of their publications. When I was a child, one had to be dead or have their footprints on the moon to be in the encyclopedia. If Wikipedia is a benign and positive resource with intent to make the world a better place, then I would hope that my wishes to be left alone by it could be respected. If there is some other purpose for Wikipedia, such as to punish me for being on a reality show (Metropolitan90?) by denying my essentially insignificant-to-Wikipedia request, or to generally punish wrongdoers by nailing a list of their sins to the town hall door (as seems to be an argument for keeping the OJ Simpson type articles, which I won't defend or join since it's on an entirely different level), Wikipedia becomes a much more sinister seeming entity to me. I ask again, please, just leave me alone and out of it. Must I be bullied by people to the end of my days via every newly available medium? Write me at calpernia@calpernia.com if anyone doubts that I am "me". --calperniaaddams (talk) 04:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm totally confused by this attitude. Matt Sanchez I can understand - he was using his own page as advertising. Jay Brannan has problems with being called "openly" gay, (something about being a pawn of the gay agenda), and wants his page taken down apparently in retaliation. But here's someone a community has deemed "notable" by somewhat strict criteria, we have fairly stringent requirements about what can go in the article, and she wants it removed?

BTW, Calpernia, WP:UNDUE will tell you about why this isn't a dry-erase where every detail can be posted. I suspect there are fan-sites that are much more intrusive - we try to stick to information that has been published in reliable sources, things that have already appeared in the New York Times, for instance, not things that someone saw you do in the check-out line in Kroger.

Keep, for the record. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I just thought of a couple more angles to look at this from. 1.) Not only is all of the information in Wikipedia public record but it is hyperlinked to the wikipedia. The way most of us find those links...Google and Yahoo. The sum total of what's here on our "creepy whiteboard" (I am trying not to feel slighted by that by the way) could be found in a list of search results. The other angle is that if what she want's to keep secret is that she's trans. It's a little late for that. --Hfarmer (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sorry to have to vote that, but she is a notable person and the article in not attacking her. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP. --64.180.254.185 (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - How does the page violate BLP? -MBK₀₀₄ 19:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per JoshZ, et al. Wikipedia isn't a place for public attacks or defamation, but Calpernia certainly is a notable figure, both in activism & television. I am totally a fan, by the way. I'm sorry it doesn't comply with your personal wishes, but there are better motives to keep Wikipedia going than money-- hopefully, that makes us better than TMZ & suck ilk. Best. --mordicai. (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The timing of Calpernia’s AFD request, and her basis for it, are curiously ironic, since her request coincidences with the debut of a television show on the LOGO network that features her. Ms. Addams’ request implies she may be unaware that making such a request only creates yet more permanent, public, information by and about her, since the AFD process will live on permanently with the article about her, as do the historical versions of the article about her.

IMO, and with all due respect to Calpernia Addams, the article about her should be kept because Ms. Addams is notable. Writing and publishing an autobiography, appearing in DVD releases from Deep Stealth Productions, acting as production consultant in the film “Soldier’s Girl”, her appearance in “Transamerica”, at GLAAD media awards, her PR oriented personal web site, her acting and stage performances, and so on, are all the actions of a public person. A person who desired privacy would have made radically different choices after her experiences in 1999.

However, IMO, the article about Ms. Addams should be edited to remove such phrases as: “birth name unknown” at the beginning of the article; “born and raised a boy”, and any other similar phrases that she and other trans-women likely believe are dismissive of their female status and identity. I also think that the article about her should be reorganized, with separate sections that describe the phases of her life more clearly.

Since there are many articles about trans-people in Wikipedia, maybe it is time to establish a set of editorial standards for writing about trans-people. IMO, those editorial standards should include the omission of “birth names”, since inclusion of them is usually done to embarrass and diminish their current status. However, IMO, for example, it is appropriate to note in such articles that someone has received surgery, and even from whom. Information like that clarifies the physiological and legal status of the subject. Information about the surgeons, the whom, helps to clarify that people receive such surgery from reputable and highly qualify medical professionals, not in the “back alleys” often portrayed in media such as films.

75.172.50.159 (talk) 02:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm going to take advantage of the fact that I'm not logged in right now to write on somewhat of a tangent. I learned about Calpernia Addams from the LOGO site advertising her new show, and it made me think of how positive an impact she could have on others. I definitely understand the desire to be humble, but the world needs you! ~ anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.253.33 (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You do not have the right to damage another persons life, reputation, public image or anything else under any circumstance. That is the role of the courts and not the mob - no matter how well intentioned. Claiming some greater good is interesting, but the argument that there is a greater good in allowing people to have control over their public image is also significant, particularly in this day and age.The Last Heretic (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In a sense, you're right, TLH. And that's exactly what WP:BLP is about. But there's nothing in Addams' article that in any way damage's her life, reputation, public image, or anything else. Even if there were, the way to deal with those is through judicious editing and exemplary sources, not by deleting the article. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Metropolitan90, there is nothing wrong with the article and it surely meets our WP:BIO requirements and is well in line with our living person biography policy as well. RFerreira (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --PeaceNT (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashton Ryan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[OTRS Ticket#2008021010010308] - the user requests that this article be deleted. In my mind, the notability is questionable at best. I think this one fails both WP:BIO and WP:PORNBIO - the body of work is limited. - Philippe | Talk 17:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not sure about someone requesting their article be deleted per a OTRS request, but Mr. Ryan does meet WP:PORNBIO with winning a Gay AVN award. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep requested office actions do not influence AfD discussions, and vice-versa. This article meets notability requirements provided by the guideline WP:PORNBIO, as the actor has received a Gay AVN award, and has been featured in several magazines. The body of work is by no means limited. A quick look at his imdb profile will demonstrate he has significant experience as actor, as well as some as writer, cinematographer, and director. He appears as himself in a full-length movie, as well. The WP:BLP concerns have been addressed by removal of the information relative to the January 2007 Jason Sechrest interview and the related accusations of Ashton being HIV-positive and supposedly having knowingly infected other gay porn actors. This is an editing concern, and not a cause for deletion of the article. This article is by no means a WP:COATRACK, as it has stand-alone notabilty and ample encyclopedic content. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~weak keep~~ We have deleted people based on requested deletions before especially for privacy concerns and this may be an example where that might make sense. I'm conflicted in this case becuase his notability is borderline but I'm not generally in favor of deletion of willing public figures. Since Ashton Ryan is an actor he is about as much as a willing public figure as one can get. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Changing to full keep per Jerry's comment below. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well said. And he is not just an actor, but also a self-promoted public figure on several websites, including two of his namesake. He has no claim of being unduly outed or whatever. He is just understandably upset about some contentious material that appeared in his article here, and that can be handled by oversight without deleting the article. JERRY ^talk _contribs 13:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Jerry. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per all the keep rationale, but especially Jerry, whose arguments are compelling. As Wildthing61476 said, he won a GayAVN. Subjects should not dictate coverage, as long as it's sourced and neutral and doesn't violate WP:UNDUE. WP:BLP should no longer be an issue with the deletion per Jerry. Obviously notable per WP:PORNBIO. And JoshuaZ has a good point about self promotion trumping BLP. And for the billionth time, AfD is not cleanup. — Besides, Satyr !voted to keep.... So there! (lol) — Becksguy (talk) 05:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable with a GayVN award. Questionable content (and there is alot of that on the net about Ashton) must be removed per WP:BLP, but that is a quesiton of content, and does not justify the deletion of the article. Jay*Jay (talk) 12:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability whatsoever, doesn't appear to have even been released. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a Friday (film)[edit]

Not notable film "planned" for release on Youtube, apparently made up at school one day. 0 google hits. Creators are hoping for 500 youtube hits - pretty pitiful,IMHO. No sources. Camillus (talk) 16:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - utterly un-notable. JohnCD (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources. Travellingcari (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Water Closet: The Forbidden Chamber[edit]

Well, since an IP user removed the PROD template, here we are. This article has no content, and changed little since 2005, so I'm nominating this for deletion. - Master Bigode from SRK.o//(Talk) (Contribs) 16:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A3SD. No content warrants a CSD, not just AfD. Two One Six Five Five ^τ_ʃ 17:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...Yeah, I don't know what I was thinking. Nominated the article for speedy deletion. Admins, please close this AfD. - Master Bigode from SRK.o//(Talk) (Contribs) 17:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. This article does not meet the speedy deletion criteria (neither A1 nor A3). It clearly has enough context "to identify the topic". It is simply a short stub. It is quite possible that it should be deleted for lack of notability, but that's a matter for this AfD. --Itub (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Itub and have removed the csd tag. You can clearly identify the context. Woody (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The talk page includes an excerpt of a review published in New Zealand, though the English version of the game was released in the US. This suggests that other reviews can be found to establish the notablity. (The article bizarrely doesn't identify the original Japanese game creator -- odd.) —Quasirandom (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 15:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE, no attempt at notability (i.e., no refs or third-party citations).--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 19:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a1 no context, g1 nonsense, a3 empty (if all unsourced content is removed, which is all of it). NawlinWiki (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hinger[edit]

Delete no hint in google search, no verifiability. Probably WP:NEO, also possibility of hoax. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete probably something made up one day, but anyway the article is no more than dictionary definition of a neologism, plus some rambling nonsense. JohnCD (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ruroni Kenshin, merge from history possible. Sandstein (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battōsai[edit]

Blatant original research, unreferenced, and unencyclopedic. This is not a historical term, it is fictional, and exclusive perhaps only to Rurouni Kenshin. I believe it has no possible chances of primary and secondary information. Suggest deletion of this article and any redirects. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~Ruroni Kenshin~~ (or perhaps another article within that franchise). It is possible the word be searched for that purpose. Word appears to be a simple derivation of Battojutsu. Notability and even usage is not established outside of the Kenshin fictional universe. -Verdatum (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Himura Kenshin looks like a better redirect. -Verdatum (talk) 14:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All the important info of this article is in the Himura Kenshin article.Tintor2 (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that at least a redirect should be left behind -- it is a plausible search term (which in fact I once used). Withholding comments for the moment on whether to keep the article. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Himura Kenshin -- not that there's much left to merge. Secondary personas of fictional characters should be documented in the main article for the character, just as secondary personas of real people should. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (to clear unused content) and recreate as a redirect to Himura Kenshin. Pure WP:OR and fails WP:N. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. --Gwern (contribs) 20:25 15 February 2008 (GMT)
Redirect to Kenshin Himura. Better solution: keep the history of this article. Zerokitsune (talk) 02:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
REDIRECT and Merge some of the pertinant information not already in the parent article.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 19:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, both people wishing to delete, and to keep make good arguments and discussion should probably continue on the article talk page. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woking F.C. season 2007-08[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The place for this level of detail is the club's own web-site, which the Woking F.C. article points to. JohnCD (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nothing on WP:NOT#INFO forbids this article's existence. I presume you're pointing to WP:NOT#STATS; this article is not a mere collection of statistics. It certainly has the potential to improve. This team gets substantial coverage from independent secondary sources to meet WP:N. Also, they are a professional team that has been playing since 1889. Besides, one of the F.C. season articles is currently a good article, and there are plenty of other F.C. season articles. I suggest adding an {{expand}} tag instead of deleting the article. BlueAg09 (Talk) 18:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for similar reasons to those raised in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamworth F.C. season 2007-08. The difference between this and Bristol Rovers (aside from this article being purely a list of results with no context) is that Bristol Rovers are a League team and Woking are not. I think the bar for notability for season articles is similar to that for players - articles for players at non-league level are routinely deleted, and I do not think season articles should exist for non-league teams either. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Woking are not at a level of play (i.e. the Football League) which warrants this level of detail about this season. Qwghlm (talk) 00:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral There's no guidelines to say which clubs are notable enough for such entries. And no guidelines to really say delete. Peanut4 (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because there are no guidelines does not mean we cannot make a decision here. Besides, a precedent has been set, as outlined by Oldelpaso, and the reasons for that page's deletion apply here as well. Qwghlm (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please explain why non-league teams' season articles do not warrant inclusion. There has been no explanation as to WHY they are non-notable. Don't mean to cause trouble here, but I don't follow sports outside the U.S. much. BlueAg09 (Talk) 07:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and all other individual season articles across all sports. Far too much detail for a general encyclopaedia. - fchd (talk) 06:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleting all season team articles? A little extreme, don't you think? Teams that have gained notable recognition in a season should at least have an article. And since when did Wikipedia start being a "general" encyclopedia? Nothing in WP:NOT implies that. BlueAg09 (Talk) 07:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Team is notable enough to deserve own season article Me677 (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be helpful if you explained WHY the team is notable; otherwise, it would be tough to determine whether the article should be kept or deleted. BlueAg09 (Talk) 02:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because if a team is considered notable and every player in that team is considered notable then it seems difficult to justify deleted the one thing that unifies them. Me677 (talk) 01:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note: Although the players may all be notable or not - no squad details in the article itself - according to WP:BIO and WP:FOOTY criteria, they cannot be notable for playing for Woking in the 2007-08 season in the Conference. Peanut4 (talk) 01:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Precedent seems indeterminate (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Manchester_United_F.C._season_2006-07 which included many of these articles). There doesn't seem to be any clear line of when this a club isn't notable enough - plenty of them at Category:Football clubs 2007-08 season. As BlueAg09 says, Bristol Rovers F.C. season_2006-07 manages to be a Good Article, and is only one division above Woking. If in doubt, don't delete. Paulbrock (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let's assert some ground rules. Ignoring all other seasons, Woking would be notable in the Conference, but their individual players would not for the 2007-08 season alone, per existing criteria (WP:BIO and WP:FOOTY). But there's nothing to suggest why an individual entry would or would not. However the exisiting criteria does not tie them all together to be mutually notable. I'm still sitting on the fence until someone can argue with / against me on this, or expand on my points. Peanut4 (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that club notability > season notability, but not sure there's any reason why all players would have to have their own article/demonstrate notability before the corresponding season does. (Or indeed that having notable players means the season is automatically notable) Paulbrock (talk) 10:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 20:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Samuelson[edit]

Article doesn't meet requirements listed under WP:BIO BowChickaNeowNeow (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication that she's been recognized as notable by reliable independent sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Long-time CEO of a notable company (that is being simultaneously nominated for deletion), often mentioned by (reliable secondary) sources in connection with her management of and work for the company, and sometimes independently as an expert and commentator. here are your sources.Wikidemo (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the CEO of a 400+ person company. She has been cited in reliable secondary sources such as Business Week and The New York Times. If Business Week and The New York Times are not considered legitimate secondary references, please explain specifically which references WOULD be considered legitimate. rgord01 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that she has received coverage, but the sources cited only look good until you actually click through them. The top result is an obit for a different Martha Samuelson. The remaining sources aren't exactly current; with the exception of a short BusinessWeek interview from 2002, most of those contain single statements that she made in some press releases (and at least one requires paid access). I'm not an expert on WP:BIO by any means - if a mention in a NY Times article from 2005 fulfills the requirement, then so be it. However, I don't think that's in the spirit of the guideline. If we add every CEO to Wikipedia that gave a single quote to a newspaper, then we'd be overwhelmed with superfluous bio's. And some might argue that the 400 person company she's running (full disclosure: I've nominated that article for deletion as well) isn't notable, either. BowChickaNeowNeow (talk) 14:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I looked up the references cited by the competitors to this firm, and have made an entry on the Analysis Group discussion page to that effect. Their competitors in this industry list resources of similar quality, such as The San Jose Business Journal, Vault.com, a 10-K filing from 2005, and, in the case of Cornerstone, their own corporate web site. However, none of these competitors' pages has been tagged for deletion. It would seem that resources such as newspapers, magazines and Vault.com are considered reliable resources for other companies, and I believe that standard should be consistently applied for Analysis Group and for Martha Samuelson. rgord01 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.112.11.10 (talk) 15:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The IP address of this user upon using nslookup resolves to "Analysis_Group.demarc.cogentco.com" which is a Conflict of Interest. I suggest the closer bears in this in mind -Halo (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Analysis Group and WP:SALT or Delete if Analysis Group is deleted - not individually notable, no sources can be found, 969 google hits for name and the one reliable source refers to Analysis Group -Halo (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, barely notable per WP:BIO. --Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 19:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. krimpet ✽ 18:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Round Table[edit]

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 a procedural renomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxford Round Table so that any closing administrator may be more able to determine the consensus. Personally, I would delete per Guy's original nomination, seen below. Will ^(talk) 16:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Round Table (ORT) is a minor business venture that involves a conference organised by an American company but convened in an Oxford college. Some Oxonians are incensed by this, and there has been a small amount of brouhaha on forums as a result, but the sources do not indicate that this is actually notable or significant, only that it exists. A short piece in the TES, for example, but that does not establish the supposed notability of the company. Most of the sources are either primary (business registration data) or not independent (the company's own website); much of the article reads as orignial research (e.g. the linking of the for-profit and non-profit companies, and the statement that they are members of the same family, which has no source; it's not an especially uncommon surname); and most of the substantive edits, including initial creation, have been made by single purpose accounts on one side or other of the external dispute, most of them heavily conflicted. Add to this a new twist: a complaint to the Foundation, discussing legal action being taken against one of the activists pushing in the direction of criticism and negative material. In my opinion, this article is more trouble than it is worth, given the marginal notability of the subject and the fact that the article itself exists, per present evidence, almost exclusively as a battleground for an off-wiki dispute. Guy (Help!) 21:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

delete non-notable conference. PouponOnToast (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Per Guy, the only clearly independent source that has been shown is the TES article (last reference) that talks about the controversy, which is a fundamentally online forum kind of controversy. Still, it got reported in a reliable source, but just once, and there's no evidence to suggest that the issue has any deeper coverage. I don't think the user behavior issue should have any impact on whether to delete the article or not, as long as we don't mistake the large numbers of participants for evidence that the subject has lasting notability. (However, if the article is kept, I think we should place it on Article probation.) Mango juice^talk 16:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to get enough coverage in mainstream media. If people are edit-warring over the article, this is hardly unusual. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:DR. The AfD was inappropriate because the problem is a content dispute. One side of that dispute is now advocating deletion, and is using sockpuppets. One outside editor, Tony Sidaway, has already created a good new start on the "controversy" section, and this article can clearly be improved (perhaps through the dispute resolution process) but certainly does not need to be deleted. The dispute thread at the Chronicle website has now been going on for over a year with over 1000 posts, the overwhelming majority of whom are academics, showing it is clearly noteworthy and controversial in academia. If you look at the archived AfD page, removing all the sockpuppets and SPAs (including me), there does not appear to be a consensus either way.Academic38 (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC) — Academic38 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Struck as an SPA identified on ANI. Any other SPA votes will be treated accordingly. Will ^(talk) 18:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just label it as a ~~sockpuppet~~ SPA, it doesnt discount the opinion. --neonwhite user page talk 19:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep There are an overwhelming amount of metions of this in reliable sources.[6][7][8][9][10][11][12] [13]Edits wars and POV issues are not a valid reason for deletion. This should never be used as a way to try and win an edit war. Consider using the talk page and other dispute resolutions. --neonwhite user page talk 17:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I don't have much patience for this reprocessing in the first place. Instead of flipping a coin, I decided to do a brief analysis using alexa:

3 month average Percent of global Internet users

oxfordroundtable.com = 0.000085%
theskulls.net = -----------0.00002% -- (online site of the 2000 feature film, the skulls, featuring Joshua Jackson and Craig T. Nelson, about a secret society.)
wikipedia.org = ----------8.558% -- (includes all languages)

8.558% divided by 2,218,000 english language articles = 0.00000385% "(figure does not include all languages)

The average english language article is visited by less than half of 0.00000385% of global internet users

0.000085% /

0.00000385%

= 22.078

conclusions

The oxford round table article is worth 4 times more than an article about a major motion picture.
The oxford round table article is worth ~22(x2) times more than the average english wikipedia article.

This may sound unbelievable, but it's worth thinking about.

For the record, I believe that this did not deserve a second nomination. DGG, and a few others made significant good arguments for this article. --BE TA 18:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really popular, or is it a bunch of people repeatedly clicking refresh? Alexa doesn't mean shit in AfDs, neither does Google results. Will ^(talk) 18:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if 95% of the hits were false, which is extremely unlikely considering: "Multiple page views of the same page made by the same user on the same day are counted only once.", that still leaves 0.00000425% of global Internet users or 110%(x2) of the value of an article on wikipedia. P.S. Re:"~~shit~~"; remember to be civil --BE TA 19:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's all irrelevant. There are multiple reliable sources and that is all is needed to be considered notable. As i said before, i suggest this is closed and the dispute is dealt with in a proper manner. --neonwhite user page talk 19:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - per my reasoning last time. There are not sufficient reliable sources for the notability of the company/conference. That participants are notable is lovely, doesn't help the company/conference. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided 8 reliable media sources and there are countless other sources available. The notability of it's attendees does add to it's notabily. --neonwhite user page talk 20:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please cite guideline or policy for this? I am under the impression that notable people attend non-notable stuff all the time. -Verdatum (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. which is what you are suggesting. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is common sense if many renouned people attend a conference then this would obviously add to it's notability compared to a conference involving nobodies. --neonwhite user page talk 22:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, my common sense says that WP:NOTINHERITED applies here. Then again, I've always believed that there is no common sense. -Verdatum (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the conference is a conference of notable people, why are only three of the dozen or so attendees listed folks with en.wikipedia articles? The usual guideline for inclusion of folks on a list like that is that they be notable enough for a wikipedia article. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ the most notable reference I can find is the article saying that they are involved in a lawsuit. Google News gives 4 hits, all of which only mention the organization in passing. So it seems to fail WP:CORP. A decent news article describing the group and it's signifigance added, preferably towards the beginning of the article could change my opinion, but I don't expect it. The reasoning that DGG is using is extremely alarming. -Verdatum (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Apologies, I seem to have searched improperly somehow. The above link to a Google news search reveals multiple accounts in a decent variety of news articles. This indeed appears to satisfy WP:CORP. The article needs additional cleanup and further incorporation of secondary sources, but I see no reason for deletion. -Verdatum (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing the reliable sources that establish the notability of the company. I'm seeing press releases in regional/local news outlets (ordinarily reliable sources) about notable and non-notable folks who are planning to attend the ORT conferences. Please add the reliable sources that establish notability of the SUBJECT of the article to the article! I would love to be able to change my position. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These articles assert the notability [14][15][16][17][18], the conference is the subject of each article and mentioned in several headlines. --neonwhite user page talk 22:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The Oxford Round Table met for the first time in 1989 to discuss contemporary educational policy with the goal of promoting human advancement and understanding through the improvement of education." is the extent of the information on the company/conference in ref [19]. I didn't check the others. Are these references in the article? Do they actually say anything about the company/conference? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reiterating a point made on the previous discussion: the articles are about the participation of the individuals in the conference. The reason these individuals are considered worth writing about (by reporters/editors) is that participation in the conference is considered significant. This says more about the conference than about the individuals. Acknowledged "SPA" here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I only saw about 4 hits on google news for the whole phrase searched in quotes- and those articles were only mentioning in passing that the people the articles were really about happened to be speaking there. Acknowledged non-SPA here. :) Merkinsmum 00:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to policy a subject does not have to me the exclusive subject of a published article, it can be about anything as long as there is significant info about this.

The THE source is obviously about the controversy surrounding the event, so no need to explain that.
The Auburn Plainsman articles is about an attendee and headlines with Dean of students to participate in Oxford Round Table discussion. It goes on to state The Round Table has been meeting since 1989 and comprises of people from across the globe. This year there will be 45 participants from all over the world. “Most of our participants are sent invitations on the nomination basis,” Karen Price, assistant coordinator for the Oxford Round Table, said. “After every session of the Round Table we ask our participants who have attended that year to nominate others in their field or outside their field. We will send (the nominee) an invitation if we are doing something that fits that field of interest.” and Price said the idea for the Oxford Round Table was Kern Alexander, director of the Oxford Round Table. “We are the Oxford Round Table and we’re not officially affiliated with the University of Oxford; however, we have a wonderful relationship with the university, and we stay at a number of colleges each spring and summer for our different Round Tables,” Price said. “Our director and founder attended Oxford and thought it would be a wonderful place to get people together and talk about very current issues.” Price said the alumni of the Round Tables are active in the nomination process. “We have a pretty large alum that are active in nominating others,” Price said. “There are repeat visitors to the round table as well.”
The Arlington Heights Daily Herald headlines with COD professor invited to Oxford round table, more may be available but requires subscription.
The NY Daily Record says Matthew J. Fusco, Esq., a partner at Chamberlain D'Amanda Oppenheimer & Greenfield, has been invited to attend the renowned Oxford Round Table in Oxford, England from March 24-29, 2002. He will be one of 40 invitees to attend the discussion, which will focus on civil rights and employment discrimination. and The Oxford Round Table first met in 1989 to promote human advancement and understanding through the improvement of education. Over the past 12 years, the sessions have expanded to include topics beyond education. Prominent leaders from the public and private sectors gather together in a think-tank environment to share their ideas and concerns regarding the designated theme. Past participants include ministers of education, legislators, governors, business leaders, university presidents and professors, lawyers and other professionals from countries across the globe.
Salt Lake City's Desert News says The Oxford Round Table met for the first time in 1989 to discuss contemporary educational policy with the goal of promoting human advancement and understanding through the improvement of education.

All these can be used in the article, even if it is to be reduced to only the notable points it still is notable. --neonwhite user page talk 17:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

speakers go where they will get paid or receive publicity or a sales opportunity for their latest book, or fancy a day out, is what I usually say in AfD's when people try to say speakers confer notability. Merkinsmum 00:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Merkinsmum, when you see only 4 hits you need to go on to click "all dates," then you get 130-odd hits. I am not sure I agree that the conference is notable because of the more famous people who attended, but simply by the huge volume of academic attenders (25 conferences this year, with planned 35 participants each, @$2940, which would produce about $2.5 million revenue).Academic38 (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the record, keep, and edit from a NPOV ignoring the POV-ridden previous discussions. DGG (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT extremely tenuous claims to notability, and no realistic prospect of a NPOV version of the article ever existing. WP:BATTLE applies here. Significant risk that the SPA accounts that are overwhelming this discussion will recreate, so SALT as well. Mayalld (talk) 08:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment the version as last edited by me of course lol, and even immediately before that, is not all that POV, it seems neutral-ish although obviously it's one that might need an eye kept on it. Merkinsmum 12:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think that some of the comments above are missing the point about the Google News hits. It's not that notability is being claimed as inherited from notable invitees, it's that many newspaper editors have considered as newsworthy the fact that people (who may or may not themselves be notable) have attended, or been invited to attend, these conferences. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point for notability is whether a newspaper article is about oxford round table itself, or if it is merely mentioned in passing. Which is what is actually happening in most of the articles. Almost all of the articles are not substantially about ORT. Merkinsmum 16:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect. Please take the time to read notability policy and the articles in question. The articles clearly give significant address to the Oxford Round Table. See Above. We can extract much relevant information from the articles without resorting to original research or synthesis. This makes them non-trivial. --neonwhite user page talk 19:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect. As far as I am aware, only one article in a reputable source is actually about ORT. You do not need me to say that source's opinion of it :) As such, having only one source is usually questionable at an AfD, and this is only a critical one at that. Merkinsmum 22:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are multiple sources (detailed above for your convenience) these include THE, Arlington Heights Daily Herald, NY Record, Salt Lake City Desert News. Add this the multitude of university sources we have a pretty wide variety of sources. --neonwhite user page talk 01:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is part of an article in The Times of November 1, 1993. I think it provides a second strong article:

Russia is not alone in recognising the importance of links between business and education. Recently, more than 30 policy makers and experts from countries as diverse as South Africa, Norway, Ethiopia and the Philippines met to pool their experience of education-business links. The 1993 Oxford Round Table on Education Policy was attended by education ministers, academics, state government representatives from America, agencies such as the World Bank and the Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum, as well as multinationals, including the Apple Corporation, Boeing, BP and Honeywell.

The strongest theme of the conference was the recognition that the central issue confronting all nations is how to respond to the new global economy. Inevitably, countries start from different points. America is a role model and pioneer, where the place of business in the classroom is regarded as natural.

However, representatives from developed nations were markedly less optimistic about the future than those from the developing world. The confidence and vitality at the forum of countries such as the Congo and the Philippines was founded on the recognition that the creation of a well-educated workforce is the key to leaping forward.

Dr Dneprov described the system in the former Soviet Union as having been grey and black. His task now was to introduce colour to the map. He regards the international business community as a vital resource on his palette.

The author [Richard Margrave] was a participant in the 1993 Oxford Round Table. He is head of press and public relations for the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, and a former shadow cabinet adviser on education policy.Academic38 (talk) 04:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. Guy (Help!) 13:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep and edit mercilessly Ok, my opinion has changed from the previous AfD. I'm now convinced that there is enough sourcing that it meets WP:CORP. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stubify - I think it is quite possible that the topic is notable and a reliably sourced, verifiable article could be written. The current article shows very little evidence of this due to bad composition, largely non-independent sourcing and a lot of unsourced statements and original research. Wipe the slate clean and start again. Guest9999 (talk) 06:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete and Salt The Round Table Wikipedia is not notable with its Wikipedia entry. The only 'source' is an article written based on a forum posting. Forum postings and blogs are not to be used as sources. I have been following this page and there are nothing but individuals treating this like a forum or blog. It undermines Wikipedia and the subject at hand. Please delete. TwoLove (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— TwoLove (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Suspected Sock puppet. --neonwhite user page talk 17:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stubbify - a conference where academic papers are first presented is notable in my mind, and as per Category:Conferences, but the whole thiing reads like an advert. MickMacNee (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When professors, preachers, lawyers, etc. attend the Oxford Round Table, this is frequently considered newsworthy: newspapers publish stories about their participation (not about the individuals per se, but about their participation in the conference). This does not appear to be the case for, say, the West Chester University Poetry Conference or the Plantation Crops Symposium. In both relative and absolute terms, notability is really not a problem here. Sure, notability is not inherited - but if it were, the participants would inherit the notability of the conference (not the other way around). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe only mentioned that they've gone because it's quite rare for anyone in the establishment to attend/controversial? Not that I'd know. Merkinsmum 02:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete as a form of spam for a conference with a name which could mislead- or alternatively as an attack page due to the only in-depth coverage being criticism. Merkinsmum 02:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to agree with Guy and Mango above. It is just a minor business venture. Undeath (talk) 02:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:CORP, but needs some vigorous editing. Neıl ☎ 16:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Merkinsmum. Stifle (talk) 15:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. —Reedy Boy 16:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki[edit]

I see no third-party sources showing notability. No evidence of coverage in the media or anywhere else. Charles Stewart (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: There are third-party sources out there. Just need to add them to the article. 400 Google news hits and 116 million google hits indicate some sort of notability is present. Just needs some work, not deletion. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin). Gary King (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Herndon[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. No third party sources and lack of search information yields no notable information. Delete Undeath (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep How deep was your search for additional materials? Her work has appeared on a nationally syndicated radio program. The album In the Attic is available for purchase and digital download on amazon.com [20]. Agreed, article needs to be better sourced. As a start, the actual NPR source clip from All Songs Considered could be used as third party source. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It now has one third party source and uses that source to make an assertion of notability. I'm in the process of improving it :). Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 00:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Tulsa source is hardly a third party source. It's a local "whats going on" type of thing. It's a local online deal just like most cities have. The amazon source is nothing special either. Just because a site sells the cd's does not make the band notable. For one, it needs a review from a third party source. Preferably, a source outside of Oklahoma. Undeath (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I know the sources may be local, but I am doing my best to improve it! :) Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 00:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is no "may be" about it. The tulsa world is a local article. I've searched for notable attributes about this singer and can find nothing. She has not toured the U.S. She is not signed to a big label. She has no reviews. She only has albums for sale. That does not constitute notability. Undeath (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Urban Tulsa site is just like the tulsa world. It does not assert notability. Undeath (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - What about All Songs Considered? Does that not count as a third party source? (User talk:wolfmantheo) 07:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to meet WP:MUSIC. Give it another 24 hours per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 21:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rulez[edit]

Not Notable and is already covered under leetspeak and Internet slang FeldBum (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it does implicitly cite references, but none of them are secondary sources. I fail to see much potential for an article here per WP:NEO. Covered by leetspeak, but not particularly deserving of a redirect. -Verdatum (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please valuate this Opel Corsa print advert (in a popular magazine, paper circulation 200 000+) in terms of WP:NEO? (the bigger caption reads "FUNtastic Opel Corsa RULEZZZZ...!") --ssr (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#DICT and WP:NEO. JohnCD (talk) 08:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When this becomes a name for Hungarian, Polish and Korean musicians, it's no longer covered solely by "leetspeak" and "Internet slang". --ssr (talk) 04:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adrián Gabbarini[edit]

PROD tag removed without explanation by creator, no assertion of notability, player has never played at professional level. I am also nominating several others for the same reason:

-King of the North East 19:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. King of the North East 19:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all I checked www.bdfa.com.ar and none of these individuals appear. Also, a quick review of ESPN's Soccernet site shows no evidence of any of them playing in the Argentine league. Accordingly, they fail WP:BIO as they have not yet played in a fully professional league. Jogurney (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all As per above. -- Alexf⁴² 21:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 00:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All Non notable players. No information at bdfa. Undeath (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per demonstrated notability as outlined in the discussion below. Non-admin close. --jonny-m t 07:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bush Pioneer[edit]

This article Bush Pioneer is does not meet the notability criteria for wikipedia. It should be merged into Bush's campaigns articles or deleted. Boomgaylove (talk) 02:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I really fail to see how this isn't notable (it's had a lot of coverage in past years, though not so much lately). And wasn't this nominated once before already? Duncan1800 (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Looking twice, I would say that some of the extraneous links could probably be removed, and there is a touch of bias in places (such as "Bush Pioneers involved in criminal investigations"), but that still doesn't warrant deletion by itself. Duncan1800 (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability demonstrated by sources. Seems to be an importance argument. (Disclaimer: I think I edited this a while back, not bothering to check though.) --Dhartung | Talk 23:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable due to coming up in a number of media controversies, e.g. Ken Lay as mentioned in the article. Any bio of a Bush Pioneer ought to be able to link to an article explaining exactly what that means, with context. Kalkin (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability and verifiability requirements are satisfied by the references provided in the article. Edison (talk) 03:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Black Kite 18:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diletta Rizzo Marin[edit]

Delete Although Miss. Marin is undoubtedly a highly talented individual and I am sure will eventually warrant a wikipedia article, I think this article is somewhat premature. She has not yet appeared with a major opera company, instead only at festivals. She also has only performed one major role. She has also not won any major competitions or participated in any significant Young Artist Programs. In short, she is just at the beginning of her career and has not even begun to truly establish herself in the field. At this point she is just one of many up and coming talents who may or may not achieve greatness. I'm not expecting all articles on opera singers to be on ones who are highly famous or sung at the Metropolitan Opera or recorded tons of CDs but I do think that the performer should have at least performed a role with an opera company at some point. A handful of festival appearances and a few magazine articles and a tv appearance that, lets face it, was gotten through family connections hardly seems to me to be noteworthy enough. Nrswanson (talk) 14:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although you don't explicitly use the word here, I'm assuming that you have nominated this article for deletion on the grounds that the subject is not notable. If that is the case, then it is important to separate the concept of notability as defined by Wikipedia's guidelines and other concepts such as length and breadth of career, whether or not the singer got engagements because of family connections, whether they were praised or panned by the critics. I'm going to quote here the relevant part from the notability guidelines for musicians:

A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one (my emphasis) of the following criteria:

It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.

In what way is this not the case here? Both her debut solo recital in 2004 and her role debut in La sonnambula in 2007 received multiple coverage in the main Spanish newspapers. (She was also covered in the regional Spanish press, e.g. El Diario Montañés, but I only referenced to the national 'newspapers of record' in the article.) She has also been featured on the cover of a well-known (in Italy) specialist publication - Il Corriere del Teatro. I'm sure if I had access to the main hard-copy opera publications in Spain such as Ópera Actual and Ritmo, even more reviews of her performances would be found.

Note that in past deletion discussions for singers at the start of their careers, such as this one and this one, the primary issue was the complete absence of "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable". In the absence of that, the other facts you've mentioned, e.g. won a major competition, has sung in a notable opera house or festival or with a notable orchestra, recordings with a major record company, etc. were looked at and in those cases were also found to be lacking. In other words they were alternative criteria to be used if the multiple independent coverage one could not be met. They weren't (and aren't) requirements that must be met in addition to multiple independent coverage. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Diletta Rizzo Marin has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published articles and reviews, albeit all in Spain and Italy. See the references provided in the article. The Festival Santander is a prominent music festival in Spain. The fact that she debuted so young in a major role (Amina in La sonnambula) was sufficiently notable to generate coverage both before the prima and in reviews afterwards in the Spanish national press, e.g. ABC, El Mundo, El País. Likewise she has appeared on the cover [21] of the October 2007 issue of Il Corriere del Teatro, which is a long established and respected specialist print publication in Italy. In addition to her solo recording (on a minor Italian label), the concert in which she sang with her father at the 2005 Festival Santander was broadcast by RTVE and issued by them as a CD. Obviously, she's not as notable as Joan Sutherland, but in my view, she's notable enough for an article here. Voceditenore (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know that her article in the German Wikipedia was deleted on 21 January 2008, but I don't know in what shape it was then, and I can't find any discussion on its deletion. However, in my opinion, Marin has sufficient notability to be included in Wikipedia. The article is well written and sourced; there's nothing to be gained by deleting that article. On the other hand, I'm not happy about her inclusion in the Coloratura soprano and Bel canto pages, and in many similar pages in other language-Wikipedias (e.g. sh:Soprani, gd:Neach-seinn àirde, sl:Sopran, sv:Sopran, fr:Soprano, es:Soprano, etc; I trust these will be removed in due course. However, disagreeing with overly excited fans like Bhangy (talk · contribs) is no reason to delete the article. Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Voceditenore and Michael Bednarek. - Kleinzach (talk) 00:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Les Productions Rivard[edit]

Nomination. This page should be deleted, because it has not produced anything notable. Article is also written in a spammy style. --eskimospy (talk) 07:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Content added with references. WP:N and WP:V satisfied. --Pmedema (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There appears to be some notability. Sources from independent third party sources in English language publications would strengthen the article. --Stormbay (talk) 03:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otis AFB F-94C Disappearance[edit]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly written account of a seemingly fictitious event. Roregan (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the writing shouldn't really enter into it, many things can be copyedited and rewritten if necessary. But this article concerns me in that its been written in the style of an actual factual crash, but when you look closely you see that there isn't really any persuasive evidence. Only referenced to one source, a conspiracy theory style UFO website. I think it seems to be trying to claim that it must have happened because the evidence has been so well hidden. I can't answer for that, but the lack of verifiability means it should remain in the pages of the conspiracy theory journals and not on wikipedia. Benea (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the same reason given Benea. There aren't any google hits outside of this Wikipedia article and the aforementioned conspiracy websites. Parsecboy (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I could've edited it more and I might after seeing this but the site that I referenced is more or less a site that believes in UFO's. My only question is why would the History Channel put something on their show with only one or two sources of information with which to back up their information. Clearly they know something that I probably do not. I might contact them if anyone else thinks that it is a good idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktr101 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find anything on the History Channel website about this. Neither could I find anything in the research database at OSU, which is quite large. Until some verifiable sources can be found, this article fails WP:V, and should be deleted. Parsecboy (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails on many levels. The notion that the History Channel might know something that the rest of us do not is pretty silly. There are lots of programs that mine the odd paranormal notions to hook viewers. I understand Wikipedia's standards to be higher than that. If only on the issue of WP:V, as noted by parsecboy. Roregan (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. and Benea. JohnCD (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see what others think but Parsecboy does have a point. My only question is did he spend his research on the net or in the archives. If it was in the archives, then he's right. I know some things aren't always on the internat that the actual archives has. Kevin Rutherford 21:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktr101 (talk • contribs) [reply]

I searched both; Google, Google Scholar, and Google Books, as well as the rather extensive Ohio State library, and there were no references to the event in any of them. Parsecboy (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is actually discussed in ISBN 1933648384, but I could find no other sources. Seems minor even in UFO community terms. --Dhartung | Talk 23:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That actually changes this here. We've found a reliable source, this book by Timothy Good. If someone has this book, and can add some appropriate in-line citations, this article could be kept. Also, to address Dhartung's reservations about the subject's notability, that a secondary source has been published that discusses the incident, that seems to me to pass WP:N. Striking my previous vote, I think this article should be ~~Kept~~. Parsecboy (talk) 00:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you examine the sources he uses carefully (notes 15-20, end of chapter), they do not inspire confidence. One is from Exposition-Banner, an imprint of a well-known vanity press.[22] Another is to a personal website. Only part of the section is sourced to a major imprint work, and that is a separate incident entirely. This is little better than hearsay from a biased source (i.e. in favor of UFO-style explanations). --Dhartung | Talk 04:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had a feeling I might've been jumping the gun in changing my mind :) I don't have the book myself, so I can't check the references used by the author. So, strike my previous striking, turns out this source isn't all that reliable after all. Parsecboy (talk) 04:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2 local libraries have the book and I could get it.Kevin Rutherford 20:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktr101 (talk • contribs)

Comment Where are we here? I do think consensus to delete has been achieved, regardless of the author's disagreement. If anyone does find a reliable source for this alleged incident, the article can always be recreated. Given the problems with verifiability, I think this article can at this point be safely deleted. Parsecboy (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question on re-creation. Could I upload the text of a database or would I have to re-type it all again?Kevin Rutherford 21:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with copying the text to your computer and working on it there. One suggestion I might make would be to, after you've found reliable sources, copy the article to a user sub-page, something like User:Ktr101/Sandbox or the like, before recreating the mainspace page. You could then ask any of the editors here who have weighed in on the AfD to check it over and see if the sources you find are reliable. Parsecboy (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ProductSifter[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Kept last time because of "no consensus", but not a single other user cast an opinion except the nominator and the AFD-closer. Montchav (talk) 11:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There appears to be some notability but, as the nominator points out, no interest by other editors. Treat the "weak keep" as a "delete" if no one steps up on this one. --Stormbay (talk) 01:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC) Delete as above. --Stormbay (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lots of ghits, but almost none that aren't just backlinks. Out of the external links in the article, only the piece in the timesonline even mentions the site. It's a for-profit venture that doesn't seem to be particularly notable. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - Nomination withdrawn (non-admin close). —Travis ^talk 18:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shenyang J-XX[edit]

Completely unsourced speculation. Jane's Defence Weekly is appealed to, but no actual citation is provided. As it stands, it looks like "J-XX" is a programme whose existence has been merely inferred from reports of the development of various advanced aircraft subsystems. Rlandmann (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - now that we have a reliable source that presents the project as more than vapourware. Will somebody please speedy close? --Rlandmann (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What happened that changed your vote? What reliable source was found that is so big?--Lan Di (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. - BillCJ (talk) 04:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Provided "actual citation" to Jane's Defence Weekly. Made reference for 2015 PLAAF service entry date(sinodefence.com). The best analysis I saw so far of J-XX program is http://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2007-12-21/4_5gen.html - but unfortunately it written by Russian expert in Russian language. There is no doubt that program is real. TestPilot 06:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TestPilot is right the Russian publication mentions Project J-XX as a (english translaton from babelfish) "program of the creation of the destroyer of the 5th generation" but as such it talks about merely a program to develop it. The plane does not even exist on paper yet. It's basically a plan and a statement that China intends to build an advanced fighter capable of taking on American 5th gen fighters. Can they do it, who knows but it is nowhere near being close to ready to take form. Why have an article on something that is not even in the development stage yet?--Downtrip (talk) 06:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you actually read russian article (or another sources) - you will see that J-XX is not "n a plan and a statement", but actual development program with multiple mocks-ups created so for wind tonels/cross-section tests. With dozens research institutions working on it under AVIC I. And, as to should we have an article on development program, look at Ares V, it is also "is nowhere near being close to ready to take form". TestPilot 14:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: the problem here is not that there is no finalised design; the problem is the lack of verifiable, reliable sources that say anything substantial about it. One article (itself mostly speculative) in JDW five years ago hardly counts, and the New Scientist article simply rehashes it. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 03:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apparently there is a full scale mockup, from a page I found http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/2590/19bh1.jpg that shows this plane is real, and that there is more to the story than meets the eye. There is also the story of this plane, but I haven't read it yet on that page.--Lan Di (talk) 18:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete all three related pages. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Visoki napon[edit]

Serbian rock band, does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. There are a few mentions on Google for a film of the same name, and some trivial coverage for what appears to be the band. As a full disclaimer, I cannot read Serbian, so if someone who can digs anything up, I will cheerfully withdraw this. Lankiveil ^(complaints) 12:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to expand the nom to include the following pages, related to this band:

Lankiveil ^(complaints) 12:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question - does this band have a page on the Serbian language Wikipedia?BWH76 (talk) 11:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply, not that I can find. However, Serbian wikipedia uses Cyrillic letters, not Latin, and I'm not sure how to translate the band name into what it would be in Serbian. Lankiveil ^(complaints) 11:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Extra Reply, I have left a message with the embassy user over at the Serbian wiki, hopefully they will be able to shed some light on this. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Update, a kind soul from the Serbian Wikipedia has left his two cents on my talk page. You can see here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete all per nom and per comments from the Serbian Wikipedia contributor; does not appear to be a notable band. Jfire (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom and per the comments on Lankiveil's talk page. Travellingcari (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Least_squares#weighted_least_squares. Black Kite 18:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weighted least squares[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The contents of this article are now covered in least squares, linear least squares and non-linear least squares, so there is no need for a separate article. Petergans (talk) 09:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete / merge. Can also be covered under regression analysis. Shyamal (talk) 03:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This can be handled using the merge templates ({{merge}}) and talk pages, no need for AfD. --Itub (talk) 12:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~strong keep~~ weighted least squares is a very common technique in statistics, with about half a milloin google hits. This page provides a handy place for people to look for information on this specific topic. In the other articles the mention of weighting is slight and hidden in the text. The other articles present a move universal framework which WLS is part of. As WLS is such a well used technique it deserves its own article to concentrate on that particular aspect. --Salix alba (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

redirect a redirect to the new least squares#weighted least squares section seems fine. --Salix alba (talk) 13:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep This should be handled as a merge suggestion, not a deletion. If the content is no longer needed, then the page should become a redirect or something analogous to a disambiguation page. A deletion would destroy the page history. The topic of this article is inherently notable, and the current content is good. As far as the merge proposal goes, I would vote merge since the current content is completely subsumed in the other articles, but I am open to the current article being expanded and the material in the other articles merged INTO this one, and the other articles using the {{main}} article template. JackSchmidt (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ where it is and improve. While the article on nonlinear least squares and others do have some information on weighted least squares, the topic is important enough to have its own article rather than forcing the reader to read bits and pieces through other articles. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that Petergans wrote Least_squares#Weighted_least_squares, I think this article can be redirected there as this one is not so well written. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge to least squares. The weighting is not mathematically or statistically "significant". (Sorry about the pun, but not very.) Perhaps a different article could discuss the choice of weighting factors, if that discussion would make least squares too long. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Just to clarify my proposal: I did intend that the page become a redirect to least squares. WP-inexperienced! Petergans (talk) 11:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone actually wants the article "deleted", so this AfD could possibly be closed. I don't see anything which shouldn't be in least squares, though, and it's not that big. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added a section on weighted least squares to least squares. This contains all the information that is currently in weighted least squares and more. That article is now redundant and can be made into a redirect. OK? Petergans (talk) 12:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be consensus for redirect to least squares. Administrator action needed. Petergans (talk) 08:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not so fast. :) You need to wait for 5 days, then an administrator will decide what to do. There should be more information at WP:AfD on policy. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And if redirect were consensus, which is not clear, it would be done by normal editing, not requiring admin intervention. The only thing we would need one for is to delete the article at weighted least squares, which should not be done: we should at least have the redirect. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and do not merge. The detailed treatment of WLS, and its statistical justification, is better spun out in a separate article like this one, than jammed into already overloaded articles on unweighted least squares. Better to keep as a spin off, linked from a short summary and a {{main}} in the more general articles. Jheald (talk) 14:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Non-admin closure. скоморохъ 14:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ethics of decompilation[edit]

Unreferenced and largely unquantifiable discussion in violation of WP:OR and WP:NOT a publisher of personal essays. Decompiler already covers the issue of legality. I don't think the nominated article adds anything useful to that discussion, so I vote Delete. Ham Pastrami (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think the subject of the article could become an interesting Wikipedia article. However the article would need to be completely rewritten to keep it from being an essay without any reliable sources to back up a single one of the facts. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 15:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. As Ham Pastrami says this is already covered in the main article and this is basically nothing more than an essay. It was probably created in good faith but it's just a bad idea so delete. EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Speaking as a Software Engineer, I have no reason to believe this article is anything more than original research in an essay format. The question of the ethics of decompilation may be considered interesting, but the concept is completely unable to establish nessisary notabiltiy for an article. -Verdatum (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:OR, no reliable source. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis LaTour House[edit]

Nomination withdrawn Non-notable property. Contested prod. the article was written by a prolific (and frequently speedied) editor who seems be trying to create some sort of family archive on WP. The house is on the National Register of Historic Places but that doesn't in itself confer notability - it's a vast and rather indiscriminate list. No evidence of anything special about this house and nothing of encyclopedic value in the article. andy (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

~~I'm adding ManhattanBuilding, V. R. Coss House, First Baptist Church (Muskogee, OK) and St. Thomas Primitive Baptist Church to this nomination - same author, same reason.~~ andy (talk) 14:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Delete. The main article doesn't have any sources what so ever to back up its notability or verifiability. This article was also obviously written by a biased author. "The LaTour House was the home of Alexis Étienne Grasset LaTour and Catherine Doucet, my third great-uncle." Who's third great-uncle? The author's? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 15:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC) The rewrite is much better. The NRIS registration is more than adequate (I had a very hard time trying to get a link directly to the NRIS entry for the house). Great work, Dsmdgold. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, I would argue that listing on the NRHP does confer notability. The list is vast, but it is not indiscriminate. There are rather specific criteria that must met before aproperty can be listed. Listing on the NRHP requires extensive documentation and is vetted by preservation officials at the state and national level. Reliable sources that are independent of the subject do exist. Dsmdgold (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If kept, I would certainly tag this article with {{Request edit}} and ask for a re-write, however I agree with Dsmdgold that NRHP weighs heavily, of not fulfills, WP:N. Assuming the editor is not also a member of the NRHP selection committee, other people have also judged this property historically noteworthy. Let's keep the article for now and put out a request for a re-write and additional citations. --BizMgr (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - inclusion in the NRHP doesn't necessarily meet the criteria for notability at WP:NN. There's a requirement "that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content" - most NRHP entries are so skimpy as to be virtually useless. Also "number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred" - NRHP is a poor quality source. NRHP selection criteria have been heavily criticised and certainly seem to be loose, indiscriminate and often partisan. For example the entry for V. R. Coss House simply states that it was "built for a locally prominent businessman" - i.e. quite possibly someone who isn't notable enough for a WP article! So NRHP can certainly imply notability but it doesn't of itself confer it. andy (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - alright, I'll agree with that. I still think NRHP should weight heavily enough to request additional citation before an AfD Nom. I'll see what I can find on the property before I have to get to work. I completely agree with you that the editor must discontinue authoring or editing articles in which he has clear COI. --BizMgr (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - HERE is the LA state review board's assessment of the historical significance of the house. It cites NRHP reason as being "locally significant in the area of architecture within the context of Evangeline Parish", then expounds. I know the next argument will be that local significance does not notability make, so I'll see if I can find any media or print coverage. --BizMgr (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I have rewritten ManhattanBuilding, First Baptist Church (Muskogee, OK) and St. Thomas Primitive Baptist Church using the Oklahoma State Historical Preservation Office entries for each building as a reference. I have trimmed the V. R. Coss House article so that it only discusses the house and added the Oklahoma SHPO entry as a reference. I will see later what I can do about the Alexis LaTour House article. Also note, that if ManhattanBuilding is kept it will need to be moved to Manhattan Building (Muskogee, Oklahoma). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsmdgold (talk • contribs) 17:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - alright, most current coverage of LaTour house comes from its status as a NRHP. It became a NRHP property in 1987, though, and little of Louisiana's backmedia has been added to the web. I suspect someone with access to the Parish or state archives, or books on the state, would be able to support this article. I do not believe the lack of online coverage is a sure-sign of NN. That said, the article as written is a white-hot mess, complete with COI statements right in the article, imagery of questionable copyright, and plaigerism from the review board link above. So if the subject is kept, the article cannot remain as-is. I have also tagged the author's page requesting he abide by WP:COI. --BizMgr (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point. The house could be notable, as many NRHP properties are, but there's no evidence of it. And don't forget that the notable NRHP properties aren't notable because they're on the register - they're on the register because they're notable. andy (talk) 08:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been unable to find any additional coverage beyond mentioning the NRHP status. So I am changing my opinion to delete unless or until someone can provide additional citation, at which time this article can be revisited (with the aforementioned overhaul). --BizMgr (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I'm getting really frustrated with the author's continued editing of these articles, even after being warned to please refrain. See Special:Contributions/Harrisonlatour. --BizMgr (talk) 21:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's still at it. I've given him a level 2 warning. He just doesn't seem to understand how WP works. andy (talk) 08:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable. And he's completely belligerent about it to boot. --BizMgr (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have now rewritten Alexis LaTour House based on the source mentioned above by BizMgr. Since the majority of the discussion here has been on the LaTour house, I would like more comment on the current condition of the four Oklahoma articles. I will be spending a few hours in the main Tulsa Public library on Thursday and feel that I probably can find additinal sources for those buildings. I doubt that the Tulsa library has much on Creole architecture, but I will look. I will also do a bibliography search and see what I can find on Creole architecture and Louisiana's hisorical buildings, that I might borrow via Inter-Library loan, but that will take several weeks. I would be very shocked if a building this old has recieved no coverage in other sources. I would like to also say that I have found this editor's behaivor frustrating, but I would like to see the articles evaluated on their current merits, not on their original author's actions. Dsmdgold (talk) 03:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be open to leaving the article to see what you can find on it, if you're willing to do that leg-work. Might partner with the WikiProject:Louisiana and see what resources they have available, too. Good luck.--BizMgr (talk) 04:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the the Tulsa Libray does have Creole houses: traditional homes of Old Louisiana by Steve Gross and Sue Daley, which seemed to be the most likely title in the Library of Congress catalog. I have reserved it and will pick it up Thursday. If that fails, I will do a more thorough search on WorldCat and see what I can find. I also may contact Louisiana Historical Preservation Office and get a copy of the NRHP application. Those have a bibliogrpahy, which I could follow. I will also see what the good people at WikiProject:Louisiana can come up with. Dsmdgold (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The National Register of Historic Places has much higher inclusion standards than WP. Everything they consider is heavily researched, scrutinized and fact checked to ensure that these are stand-out important and unique places. If it's notable there, it most certainly is notable here. --Oakshade (talk) 05:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As it has been rewritten. The original version should have been deleted. Concur with Oakshade on the issue of it being a NRHP property. This is touched on in the essay Wikipedia:Inherent notability (Of course it's not a guideline). Also, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry F. Miller House & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abbeville Opera House are among a few notable prior AfD discussions on NRHP articles. Altairisfar _talk 05:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I added some material from on-line NRHP Muptiple Property Submission documents to the First Baptist Church (Muskogee, OK) article and to the ManhattanBuilding article. For each of the four, like for all other NRHP sites, there exists a National Register of Historic Places "Inventory/Nomination" or "Registration" document, with accompanying photos, that consists of an inventory of the property, a description of its significance, a summary of history of persons associated with the site, and so on, which is often a 20-30 page document. These are usually written by professional historians and edited by National Park Service NRHP staff. For these 4 sites, the documents are not on-line (the ones I added are different NRHP MPS documents) but may be obtained by request from the NRHP. Any NRHP is notable and its notability can be verified by these documents. Per Oakshade, notability standard for NRHP is high. doncram (talk) 12:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn because of the rewrites. I'm totally unconvinced by the argument that NRHP=notability, but I bow to collective opinion. IMHO notability has something to do with being talked about by people whose opinion matters, and that's just not true of most of these properties. But whatever. Just promise me you'll keep a close eye on Harrisonlatour, whose main aim seems to be to dump every factoid he can find into WP articles. andy (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mapco[edit]

A plastic company written entirely by the Chief Marketing Officer with no reliable sources that verify its notability. The article was speedied twice as blatant advertising. There is a section about the author of the article (see also the section on his father). The author has also written a separate auto-biography and a separate article about his father. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 14:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, weakly. I looked through this article expecting to find vague promotional adspeak to make fun of, and I didn't find anything blatant enough to be worthwhile. Conflict of interest matters can be forgiven if the subject truly is notable. This business might be so. But as it stands now, it is still unreferenced to verifiable third party sources, and the only external links are to business directories or to the business's own websites. The article itself suggests that news coverage is out there, though. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found a website for the Plastics Hall of Fame (mentioned in this article) at http://plastichalloffame.com/ , but the site is under construction. There is also a Plastics Academy Hall of Fame at http://www.plasticshalloffame.com/ , but a search for Mapco or Babar there does not provide any results. --Eastmain (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I think you mean Plastic Hall of Fame. Thanks for reminding me though. I was going to include a link to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plastic Hall of Fame (same author, closed early) from January 2008. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 15:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, please note that "Plastics Academy Hall of Fame" is not the same thing as the "Plastic Hall of Fame". ~a (user • talk • contribs) 00:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 15:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are refrences found on news sites and B2B magazine sites. There is also a lot of refrence found on Search Engines. It is the number one search result on Google, If you search Mapco Plastic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Safirbabar (talk • contribs) 01:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding these references. Can you please add these references inline into the article in the format included here: WP:FOOT. I would appreciate it. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 01:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is a lot of refrence avalable. the article is note worthy, but poorly written. I suggest keeping and re-writting. trust me you will not find anyone out there with more info then me on the subject Matter 142.55.208.200 (talk)Prof. Hugh Deekan - Sheridan College142.55.208.200 (talk). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.55.208.200 (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you also add said references inline into the article in the format included here: WP:FOOT. Thank you. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 01:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is A lot of Work but i can deffinatly try. I found theis statement on the talk page and i think this belongs here "Well Sir. I have read this article, I feel it is of encyclopedic significance if not the world then atleast Pakistan. I researched this compnay on Google. I found a lot of hits for this article. but mainly on pakistani websites such as, giving money to hospitals, being the first plastic company in Lahore Pakistan and the 2nd plastic company in the all of Pakistan. I also found that it was the first Pakistani Companiy which was corporatized in Canada and follows most canadian laws icluding Human resource laws, health and saftey laws and more." 142.55.208.200 (talk)Prof. Hugh Deekan - Sheridan College142.55.208.200 (talk)

You found that statement? Don't you mean that you wrote that statement? I'm having a hard time understanding if you are quoting yourself or someone else. Thank you. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 02:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails WP:SPAM and there are no reliable secondary sources (which exclude commercial directories) to demonstrate the notability of this company, its subsidiaries or its products. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are sevral reliable secondary sources, you need to find them. The article is extremly noteworthy, it is the biggest plastic compay in Pakistan. But i must admit that the article is infact poorly written. and i think there is a lot that can be done on the matter to improve it. Article Must Remain 99.230.127.165 (talk) Joey Chetcuti 99.230.127.165 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you also add said references inline into the article in the format included here: WP:FOOT. Thank you for your time. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 23:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia is one of the best sources for students of any field. It is a remarkable achivement of the Information age. My students always use this resource. I wanted to know how long will this tag, that is presented on the top of the page take. The reason Behind that is that one of my students wish to cite the article, and he is not allowed to cite it until the issue is resolved. Although i will make an excption in this case i wanted to know how long will this tag be placed for on the top of the article. And as far as the article is concerned everything stated is true, it is encyclopedic, but it needs to be amended or rewritten the problems presented, Keep therefore i must insist to keep it. 142.55.211.200 (talk) Prof. James Deekan - Sheridan College 142.55.211.200 (talk)

Keep I have no relation to Hugh Deekan he is a coworker. 142.55.211.200 (talk) Prof. James Deekan - Sheridan College 142.55.211.200 (talk)

I'd like to politely call you on that one. Most people try to !vote once, you have now !voted four times. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 00:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usually the discussions last at least five days. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 23:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The problems are many. The article may have COI issues. It reads like self promotion for the company and several individuals. It is not clear that it passes any notability or sourcing guidelines. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Phua[edit]

Non-notable bass player who, no doubt, is good at her trade just doesn't have what's necessary to meet WP:MUSIC. WebHamster 14:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems to be well on the way to becoming notable, but is still not there - yet. I was the one who first deleted this page and although some references have been added, none of them are detailed descriptions of this person herself (as opposed to descriptions of the band she was formerly a member of). For instance, the editor who created this page sourced the part about Gibson sponsoring her to a page on Gibson's own website - which is far from a independent reliable source for this info. And all the other references are like this one. Pegasus «C¦T» 16:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if this page is deleted, the related page Between Here And Then (EP) should vanish as well. Pegasus «C¦T» 17:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All in all, fails WP:MUSIC. Undeath (talk) 03:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dear administrators, I am behind the writing of the said article Wendy Phua and understand there are laws governing contents on the wikipedia as according to WP:MUSIC in this case. However I am confused as to why then, are article like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.P.I.C and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_Problem allowed to stay up on wikipedia. They are like Wendy Phua a Singaporean band, and in fact these two bands are not even performing as regularly as Wendy Phua. I would appreciate if someone can be so kind as to enlighten me on this matter. Thanks for your time and consideration. User:Mohd.mnor —Preceding comment was added at 08:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply (I'm not an admin). Those articlse can be subjected to a deletion debate. For this case, let's talk about the current subject. Please avoid argument such as: "What about article X?". Now, the solution is simple. Just provide non-trivial independent and reliable secondary sources that cover the subject, for instances, reviews or interviews. You should read our verifiability policy. Dekisugi (talk) 08:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dear Dekisugi, it is to my knowledge that Wendy will be having an interview with an online music portal in Singapore regarding her EP and performances very soon. Would that comply with article 1 in WP:MUSIC under Criteria for musicians and ensembles where Wendy Phua is subject of non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable? Pardon my questions but this is my first article and I'm trying to get along in understanding the various exact rules.Mohd.mnor (talk) 09:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)User:Mohd.mnor[reply]
- Reply - yes, if you can proof everybody can verify that. Since you said "she will be interviewed", then it isn't yet. Maybe you should wait when the interview is ready. For now, you can provide any sources available for the article to stay in Wikipedia (that's the rule here). Note: I've improved citation formats in the article. Some of the sources I found reliable enough, but I don't know if they are enough to support the notability issues that the other editors brought it up here. Dekisugi (talk) 09:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dear Dekisugi, Thank you very much for your help. I will definitely continue updating the article with better reliable sources in the future, and will include the up-coming interview ASAP. Thanks Mohd.mnor (talk) 09:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This article has improved since first being nominated for deletion. There is some evidence of coverage by outside sources, although there is perhaps more evidence that her former band Zhen would make for a notable article. Bondegezou (talk) 11:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin). Gary King (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Urus-Martan ambush[edit]

Notability, small skirmish deserves an article? There were an every-day occurrence TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is sourced to at least two published sources, China Daily and the BBC. I don't know of any any notability guidelines that make any particular military engagement so inconsequential as to deny coverage even if it is verifiable. Note also that this is part of a template on the Second Chechen War, and also that we have another article about a second skirmish at Urus-Martan, where a helicopter crashed, apparently after coming under fire. The detail of coverage of minor incidents in Chechnya may be the result of ethno-political axegrinding; I don't know. But so long as the articles themselves are reasonably objective and verifiable, I don't care. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOT#NEWS. 2005 Urus-Martan Mi-8 crash (aka "2nd Urus-Martan") is equally unnotable, as are most if not all of the other engagements listed under the Second Chechen War. More Afd's should be forthcoming. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all sub-sub articles (such as this one) in Guerrilla phase of the Second Chechen War to appropriate year articles like Guerrilla phase of the Second Chechen War (2004). These incidents do not merit separate articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~delete A minor skirmish in a large war isn't notable in isolation. Can this be merged into something? --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already merged into Guerrilla phase of the Second Chechen War (2004). See May 17--TheFEARgod (Ч) 00:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've just upped my vote to delete. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Agree completely with Nick. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do you mean 'weak delete' rather than 'weak keep' then? --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge to Second Chechen War~~ Never going to develop, borderline notability....merge the content into the main article, only needs a sentence or too, I think. Narson (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And now that has been done...Delete Narson (talk) 08:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. With regard to Clarityfriend, something is not news just because it's covered by the news. With regard to Smerdis, I completely agree that the mainstream coverage of this battle (by name) is sufficient to WP:N. I think the article itself needs to be edited to make its notability more prevelent, or could be merged into another article, as suggested by Narson, and would strongly support either. However, I can't support Delete on grounds of Notability, which is this AfD, when Notability has been sufficiently established. --BizMgr (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Now that's it's been rolled into the other article, I'm ambivelent about keeping it. It meets the letter of WP:N, but I do think it's better as a merged article than a free-standing one. --BizMgr (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Second Chechen War per Clarityfiend. BusterD (talk) 14:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no! to Guerrilla phase of the Second Chechen War (2004)--TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 21:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Fast Life[edit]

Seemingly crystal ballin' article on future album. In place since April '07, in which time it has not changed since yesterday when i prodded it and then an IP swiftly showed up, switched some titles round and un-prodded it. Still no confirmation of existence, titles, reliable sources etc. tomasz. 14:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per WP:CRYSTAL --Pmedema (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just speculation at this point, see WP:CRYSTAL. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very definite crystal-ball. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No concensus (default keep) based on discussion about notability. If the subject of the article has valid complaints about libel and vandalism, he should go to OTRS or request office action via the WMF email channels. We can't be expected to determine the right course of action, from hearsay without specifics, in this AfD. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Winset[edit]

WP:BIO1E One newsworthy incident, and other than tha, no assertion of sufficient notability over and above any college professor, which fails WP:BIO. Avi (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Merge I agree on the WP:BIO1E, but I wonder a stripped down version of the controversy might have a home in the article for the college. Does seem like a somewhat noteworthy event and there seem to be solid references.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Originally this was on Emmanuel College's page, but IP addresses from the college kept removing it completely after a series of flames back and forth. Likewise, this article keeps getting vandalized; I've tried cleaning it up repeatedly, but someone seems to have a vendetta against the Professor. Probably best just to delete it, sadly, at least for the time being. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.136.137 (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as a notable controversy. To start deleting articles because people vandalize them is feeding the vandals. DGG (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I tend to agree with the substance of DGG's comment. If it's kept or merged is one thing, but once we delete because it's too hard to keep it un-vandalized, then we've lost the war.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note: Subject has complained about libel and Vandalism to the Wikimedia foundation. -- Avi (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Late Show with David Letterman (R.E.M.)[edit]

NOTE - This article has been moved to List of R.E.M. appearances on David Letterman. Torc2 (talk) 02:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

192.138.214.102 (talk) added the AfD template to the article and has given no reason on the article's talk page as to why he/she is considering this article for deletion. Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 13:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as no reason was given by the nominator who added the AfD template to the article page. Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 13:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Six vastly seperated appearances on a late night talk show is not that notable, and there are no sources to prove this is notable. The fact that they debuted on television on the show can easily be mentioned at the REM page. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so they appeared on a late-night TV show to perform and promote themselves. And...? Delete as almost-sub-trivial. --Calton | Talk 15:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Scorpion and Calton. JohnCD (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Interesting, but way beyond trivial - belongs on a fan site or in a book, perhaps, not on WP. Duncan1800 (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Keeping track of which band was on what late-night show when just isn't a job for an encyclopedia, especially not in an article all its own. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - REM's relationship with the Late Show is very notable and important within the band history. This is essentially content that should go in the main REM article, but won't fit and would be stylistically awkward. It should just be tagged with the {{subArticle}} tag and left alone. Torc2 (talk) 00:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any sources to prove that their six appearances over 20 years are notable? There are much more notable group-TV show relationships, like the Beatles and the Ed Sullivan show and yet there is no The Ed Sullivan Show (The Beatles) article. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article asserts that the group made their international TV debut on Letterman, which began the relationship. Beyond that, the bulk of this article is covered by WP:NNC. The Beatles/Sullivan connection is flawed WP:OTHERSTUFF logic - the Beatles appeared fewer times and the Sullivan show ran for far less time than Letterman's shows. Torc2 (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The only thing that is really notable on the page is that the group made their debut on the show and that could easily be mentioned at the main REM article. The rest is just overdetailing about their six performances. I don't see why it needs its own entire article. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't see why the information should be dumped just because you don't find it interesting. I don't find it overdetailed at all. The information is quite basic, actually; it's just laid out in a way that takes up room to make it easily readable (like information should be laid out). Torc2 (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You still haven't found any sources to prove that it is important information worthy of its own article. They just appear to be normal promotional appearances and nothing really notable, other than their debut, occured. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not really looking. That it was their TV debut means it's notable. I also consider the article just to be part of the main R.E.M. article that doesn't fit into the main article, and is separated out due to size and style restrictions. Like any other List of whatever articles, it's not supposed to be in total isolation. Torc2 (talk) 01:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        So are you saying that an article for the debut television appearance of every single notable band should be made? Bexause you're basic argument seems to be "it's a notable band on a notable show" and you seem to be forgetting that Notability is not inherited. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I'm saying the TV network debut from this band is notable and that the relationship and information about their subsequent performances is appropriate material for the R.E.M. article, which this is essentially part of, and thus covered by WP:NNC even if you don't agree it's notable. Basically this is no different than any other album article, which are generally broken out only due to style considerations, and mostly inherit notability from their band. What policy are you referring to when you say notability is not inherited? The notion that WP:NOTINHERITED is an absolute rule is a myth.Torc2 (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivia in the extreme. - fchd (talk) 06:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not trivia. Torc2 (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is to me. Any such list that relates to content of this nature has no real meaning in the outside world. So they've played half a dozen times on one particular TV show, what's notable about that? - fchd (talk) 05:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pertinent information should be merged with R.E.M.. — Music Maker 5376 00:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The most notable information contained in this article is already included in R.E.M. (a Featured Article, by the way). Everything else is unnecessary. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. seresin | wasn't he just...? 21:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stabenfeldt[edit]

File:Ponybookclub.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Part of an organized campaign to spam "Pony Book Club" across the internet, see [23]. And besides, the publishing company, Stabenfeldt, is just not notable - there's only one source in the 13 ghits. MER-C 12:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - advertising. JohnCD (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but allow recreation if a good, well-sourced article can be written. This is pretty clearly part of a spam campaign, and whoever is in charge of PONY/Stabenfeldt's online marketing needs a good stern talking-to. That said, I do think both the company and club are notable enough (especially if the 200K membership number can be sourced) and could probably be a pretty decent article if written by someone without a COI. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination.Henry Merrivale (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. seresin | wasn't he just...? 21:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Silvera[edit]

Seems to fail WP:MUSIC. The links provided take you to either a brief mention that she was played on a regional BBC radio station, and the roster of what appears to be a local company that provides live music for events. I wish her all the best, but I just don't think she's notable enough yet. Lankiveil ^(complaints) 12:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep mentions in Time Out and features at subba-cultcha.com [24] and drownedinsound.com [25] indicate a base line of coverage. Catchpole (talk) 12:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, that DIS one looks a lot like a reprint of a PR release. Lankiveil ^(complaints) 11:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - doesent seem to be very notable --Cradel 13:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avanglion (talk • contribs) [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi Guys - have updated the page to include detailed discography, plus interviews. I think this justifies inclusion now? Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gracewhite (talk • contribs) 12:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rosetta Translation Ltd[edit]

non notable company and wp:auto Cloudir sky (talk) 12:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this article has no content, context, analyis or reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources present; no sources found.--Tikiwont (talk) 11:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; spam. Bearian (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 05:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Mercedes (Philippine remake)[edit]

Hoax article and violates WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a crystal ball). There has been no official announcement from ABS-CBN that this show will air or will be produced by the network. -Danngarcia (talk) 11:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hoax. --Howard the Duck 11:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as probable hoax, unless WP:RS can be provided in the meantime showing that it's real. Lankiveil ^(complaints) 12:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as per Lankiveil. Poeloq (talk) 13:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems that there are no reliable hits on Google. Most sources that I found are either rumors or fan requests--Lenticel ^(talk) 09:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've seen this in some forums. It's merely a fan request. Starczamora (talk) 10:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), withdrawn by nom. BusterD (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yolanda Morazzo[edit]

Only one book; can't find significant coverage in reliable sources on Google or Google Scholar. Mentioned occasionally, but only in passing. I believe she therefore fails WP:BIO. Lea (talk) 11:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears non-notable, most third-party mentions are trivial at best. Lankiveil ^(complaints) 12:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - No point in losing this. I added some more to the bio and some references from Google Books. This from a history of Cape Verdes is relevant: "Generally there is a paucity of prominent Cape Verdean women writers, although Vera Duarte, Yolanda Morazzo, Orlanda Amarilis, and Maria Nunes stand as important exceptions."[26]--Wageless (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, with (now) two books on top of that, notability seems to be given. Withdrawn. -- Lea (talk) 22:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. --PeaceNT (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Novi Meadows Elementary School[edit]

No significant coverage in secondary sources; the only thing I could dig up is [27], which only mentions it peripherally. I believe it therefore fails WP:SCL. Lea (talk) 11:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to district (or, failing that, delete). CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Novi Community School District. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Reminder to self: Delink red links in Novi Community School District when this article is deleted or becomes a redirect. -- Lea (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Redirect to Novi Community School District.Sting au Buzz Me... 02:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Novi Community School District. It is a shame this is not done automatically in cases like this. RFerreira (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Canley (talk) 11:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stranger Things (podcast)[edit]

NN Podcast. Failed to win Parsec award. Although the involvement of author Scott Sigler (in one episode) is interesting it's already mentioned on his own page. Foghate (talk) 07:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,--Foghate (talk) 10:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to fail WP:WEB. Lankiveil ^(complaints) 12:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete a 4-episode podcast that didn't win any major awards...several google searches came up empty for anything remotely useful to meet WP:N. — Scientizzle 17:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Ryan Postlethwaite 16:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brüno (film)[edit]

The notability guidelines for future films stipulate that a stand-alone article for a film should not be created until a project enters production. This is because many factors such as budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with the project. This film is a case in point; the article reports that shooting was scheduled for late last year, but it is still not under way. The article can be recreated without prejudice when principal photography is confirmed to have begun. Steve ^{T • C} 10:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Steve ^{T • C} 10:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, eyh, given that this is a rather high-profile film project, and there are already sources available, I'd be inclined to WP:IAR here with regards to the notability guidelines for future films. Lankiveil ^(complaints) 12:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- I'm not entirely sure what evidence there is to suggest that this film warrants exception; higher profile projects than this have been successfully deleted or merged with a parent article. And unlike some of those, there's no real feeling that this film will go ahead at all; the script hasn't been written and even Baron Cohen seems to be going cool on the project. Steve ^{T • C} 12:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until it can be verified that principal photography has begun. The Variety article did not explicitly state that shooting had begun, and IMDb's status (treating it as a "rule of thumb" here) indicates that filming has not begun. (IMDb's presented release years are mere estimates and will update themselves if they prove to be wrong, though.) There is not much concrete information here that can't be added to Sacha Baron Cohen's article for now, considering the likelihood that this article could remain perpetually stubby. Lankiveil, WP:NFF is generally in place to avoid this stubby nature as it can't be guaranteed that the article will go on to be a full-fledged film article. Some projects like Justice League can be highly touted by ultimately not get to production right away. My opinion is that if a project gets media coverage, there is usually some previous degree of importance to it. Very few are going to cover a no-name film by a no-name director about a conventional premise. However, the source material or the director or writer or actor are prominent enough so a project is mentioned. That's why mentions and merges are encouraged in the future films department's process. Obviously, if filming can be shown to have begun, the article can be revived. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Userfy~~ Can always be recreated after filming starts.--The Dominator (talk) 05:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So that's a delete, right? Just so we're clear. I'd also suggest that userfication is probably unnecessary in this case; there isn't a lot of information in there. Still, if anyone wants to do that, then they're obviously more than welcome. Steve ^{T • C} 08:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, but there are some refs that can be kept even though they'll quite possibly become obsolete after filming starts and more sources are available.--The Dominator (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep-this film is obviously notable it's from a major studio and will have a wide release, more sources are findable and even more will be available. people will look for this article on here. its obviously going to be sucessful too. its counterproductive, as it will be recreated when it comes out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomgaylove (talk • contribs) 22:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's made, which is by no means certain. We've seen so many projects fall by the wayside due to all kinds of mishaps. Scripting issues, financing issues, casting issues. If the film doesn't go ahead, the available information on the film will likely become a mere footnote (metaphorical, not literal) in Baron Cohen's article as he carves out a useful career for himself over the next couple of decades. How notable would a film production which never went ahead be then? The explicit purpose of the notability guideline for future films is to keep a lid on things like this which might not, ultimately, warrant a separate article under the general notability guideline. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 23:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. It's a how-to. Black Kite 18:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Card Spring[edit]

Substub (lead) plus howto; orphaned page. Notability does not seem established (though I'm not sure which guidelines apply, if any apart from the general WP:N), no sources since Sep 2006. Lea (talk) 22:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 10:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's a how-to. In the event that sources can be provided showing that "Card Spring" is a term in wide use amongst magicians, then it will need a good cleanup. Lankiveil ^(complaints) 12:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion that this company is notable, all listed artists are redlinks (or unrelated blue links). Also note that nominator for AFD was also article author. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rigorous Entertainment[edit]

Information is false and is not verified Lucky1988 (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 10:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to be a non-notable record company, not even sure that they've actually released anything yet based on their "Releases" section. Lankiveil ^(complaints) 12:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kiwi (band)[edit]

A band with one album out, not much indication of notability. Seems to fail WP:MUSIC Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:55, 11 February 2008

(UTC)

Speedy Delete per CSD:A7. No notability asserted, fails WP:MUSIC badly. Poeloq (talk) 13:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep Ryan Postlethwaite 16:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Macgregor[edit]

N.n. businessman - no notability asserted. Not to be confused with Sir Ian Kinloch MacGregor. Has been around since 20 December 2006 without cites and orphaned. Cutler (talk) 09:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being an investment executive who oversaw growth on that scale is notable. See http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Ian+Macgregor%22+Wellcome for a Google search. --Eastmain (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added a reference from the Financial Times web site that confirms his record at Wellcome. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 10:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tianna Melnyk[edit]

Prod removed without explaination. Fails the notability criteria at WP:BIO#Politicians. JD554 (talk) 08:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable individual --Cradel 16:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable candidate with nothing exceptional in her background. Repost if she wins. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:BIO. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Want Pussy[edit]

Non-notable song that fails WP:MUSIC. The article consists mainly of original research and whatever real information there is can easily be merged. Most GHits are either references to this article or simple track listings. So, delete per WP:MUSIC and WP:OR. EconomicsGuy (talk) 08:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. If this track was released as a single it might be a different story. (jarbarf) (talk) 08:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jj137 (talk) 22:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:OR. JFlav (talk) 02:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 11:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Arbor (nonexistent person)[edit]

Limited evidence of notability of the concept, seems to largely be original research. TeaDrinker (talk) 07:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Har har. Delete. A specific instance of indexing screw-ups, with no sign of notability, impact, sources, or even uniqueness. --Calton | Talk 07:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. WP:HOAX even, why not? Xdenizen (talk) 07:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there's a secondary source somewhere. Perhaps mention in mountweazel? Apropos of nothing, I have actually met a person named Ann Arbor.[28] --Dhartung | Talk 11:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~Hoax~~, found nothing Google searching. ~~Until I see secondary sources, I'm willing to say this is a hoax~~ Doc Strange (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, not a hoax, but it's still not notable enough for Wikipeida Doc Strange (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It clearly isn't a hoax; it's trivially verifiable. J.T. Hoff, for example, was based in Ann Arbor[29], so the "Arbor A" co-credit is some kind of OCR or human transcription error. But it's only verifiable through original research, and due to the lack of secondary sources, is unnotable. --Dhartung | Talk 22:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict w/ above] Comment. While the example papers suggest this is not a hoax, the concept is only notable enough for Wikipedia if someone somewhere else has already written about it. Regarding the personification of Ms. A. Arbor, one might do better to investigate the jeer of U. Mich. rivals, "Ann Arbor is a whore."[30][31][32] I doubt this idea should be a high priority for the encyclopeida either. -MrFizyx (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we need an article on this, though I am not sure of the title. This has in fact been cited--its one of the well-known examples that can be seen in any citation index. "False citations" perhaps, but I need to see if there is in fact a standard term--it will be in one of Garfield's many essays. The point is that it is not a transcription error in the ordinary sense--its an error from transcribing blindly without thinking about what the references actually is, and therefore evidence of total authorial and editorial carelessness. DGG (talk) 05:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC) DGG (talk) 05:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The phenomenon described could be covered in an article. However, it does not appear feasible to rework this one. Let's delete and someone like DGG may produce a definitive article on the more general subject. --Stormbay (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. krimpet ✽ 18:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bokononism[edit]

Fictional religion, and a non-notable one at that. Beyond the notability issue, problems with the article range from extensive quotations from a science fiction novel still covered by U.S. copyright (WP:COPYVIO), a bulleted list of trivial quotes (WP:TRIVIA) and a vocabulary guide of sorts (WP:NOT#DICTIONARY). At best, the copyright violations need to be deleted from the history, as soon as possible. (jarbarf) (talk) 07:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Bokononism was frequently mentioned in mainstream obituaries of Vonnegut, including those in the New York Times, The Economist, and The Telegraph, establishing its notability. The other objections may be good reasons to revise the article, but are not good reasons to delete the article. Chuck (talk) 05:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Bokononism isn't a fake religion; it is component of a classic American novel. The other criticisms are valid. Perhaps just have a link to another Wikipedia article for the novel, Cat's Cradle, as it is a better article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat's_Cradle - The other objections may be good reasons to revise the article, but are not good reasons to delete the article. bohappa —Preceding comment was added at 14:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This fundamentally excellent article is a credit to wikipedia. No way should it be deleted!Benny the wayfarer (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore it seems possible that the proposed deletion is really motivated by an editor, who spends alot of time combatting vandalism, being offended by the comments of another concerning their earlier attempt to delete quoted material, that they are a vandal. I strongly feel that this is an abuse of procedure. It is certain that there is no question about notability.Benny the wayfarer (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article may need revising, but not deletion. GABaker (talk) 02:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Bokononism is a vital part of Vonnegut's masterpiece Cat's Cradle. It is extremely well known and very vital to literature. 70.116.18.139 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly delete and restart from scratch. The claims that copyright violations exist in the edit history need to be taken very seriously, and must be removed per the law, Wikipedia policies aside. RFerreira (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Cat's Cradle - the term/"religion" has no notability beyond its treatment in the book, to my knowledge. If I'm wrong, great - but I do think this is what would have to be shown in order to warrant a separate article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and merge Duprass and Granfalloon into this article. —Keenan Pepper 14:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, an important and valuable invention of Vonnegut's, and certainly something that should be available to the public. Edit as necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.202.139.168 (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Black Kite 18:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chodankar[edit]

Mere dictionary definition. Lea (talk) 05:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:NOT a genealogical dictionary. Kamek (talk) 08:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It may work better as a disambiguation page, although no one as of now is named that on Wikipedia. For now, delete per WP:NOT. Jd027^chat 22:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Omikron: The Nomad Soul. Black Kite 18:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomad Soul: Exodus[edit]

Cancelled game, never was notable, doesnt assert notability RogueNinja_talk 01:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Omikron: The Nomad Soul as it doesn't meet notability but deserves to be mentioned in passing. --Sin Harvest (talk) 11:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 10:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Omikron: The Nomad Soul. The original game's article already mentions the canned sequel and there isn't much else in the sequel's article that could be merged. Kamek (talk) 08:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per Kamek. Found very little (in English at least) relating to the project. Someone another 15:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. No apparent notability. Black Kite 18:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Leikert[edit]

Same author as the AfD submitted just below. Non-notable venture-capitalist. No reliable third-party coverage. Pichpich (talk) 06:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - non-notable --Deadly∀ssassin^(talk) 09:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - non-notable. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. No apparent notability. Black Kite 18:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Axel Leimer[edit]

No reliable third-party coverage of any significance. The article is just a resume and serves little purpose other than the glorification of the subject. Pichpich (talk) 06:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no reliable third-party coverage of this individual that I can find after checking Google News, Google Scholar and Google Books. Based on this, I do not believe the subject has met notability requirements. (Mind meal (talk) 07:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Keep He seems to be an inportant and prominant chemist.Johnpacklambert (talk) 04:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be? I can't find any source to back up that claim. You'd expect that an important, prominent chemist would have a PhD and/or a long list of peer-reviewed publications. Pichpich (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. Black Kite 18:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Sweet Alice[edit]

Band that does not meet any requirements for notability. Supporting a couple notable groups does not establish one's own notability. Halloween jack (talk) 05:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't seem to fit notability under WP:MUSIC.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 07:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, would not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 11:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was expedited delete. No evidence of notability. WP:BLP concerns outweigh the desire for a stronger consensus. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Rangel[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. Minor local politician without significant press coverage. Also, since most of the article and relevant sources are about the subject's legal troubles, it seems WP:BLP1E is relevant. Bellhalla (talk) 05:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, almost could be interpreted as an attack page, given that it focuses heavily on this persons alleged drink driving problems. Either way, WP:BLP1E. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 11:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

QuestionHow is this a "drinking problem"? Twice the official endangered the lives of innocent persons while getting behind the wheel drunk. Billy Hathorn (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Billy, I don't know, but I suspect that Lankiveil is not trying to be dismissive of the charges against Rangel. I interpret his point as being the notability of Rangel, given that his drunk driving arrests seem to be the only thing hinting in the direction of notability. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. jj137 (talk) 04:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

African American World[edit]

Although a search is difficult due to other topics that encompass this phrase "AA World Studies Program" and "AA WWII Vets" to name just two, there is nothing that asserts notability of this website as defined in WP:WEB Travellingcari (talk) 02:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think that the website could be referenced in appropriate Wikipedia articles, but don't think it is notable enough for an article of its own. Are we now going to make articles about every reference on Wikipedia? Sf46 (talk) 03:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. unnotable (and its Wikipedia's competition ;-). --brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that it doesn't need its own article. --Stormbay (talk) 17:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~. I'm not quite convinced that this site doesn't meet the notability guidelines. There's a "resource" cited in the article that may be a reference. I also found a piece about it on the Dallas Morning News site[33] and it was previously selected as one of the best free reference website by one source.[34]--Kubigula (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked some more and kind find any other decent sources. At this point, I have to agree that WP:WEB is not met.--Kubigula (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is one part of the website belonging to PBS. We don't even have an article on the pbs.org website overall, and I don't think one is necessary. Many websites have special sections for various demographic groups and while I found a couple of short blurbs about this one, that really doesn't seem to be enough for notability. --Dhartung | Talk 05:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB, although I could be persuaded to change my mind if more references were provided. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 11:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - I looked pretty thoroughly but I couldn't find anything that asserted notability per WP:WEB. As far as the award for the best free reference website, I can think of a far better one, if anyone gets my drift. Jd027^chat 19:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of object-relational mapping software[edit]

Article fails WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, WP:SPAM Hu12 (talk) 09:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the list mixes together traditional O-R mapping software with convenience libraries for object oriented languages (e.g. DTL or SOCI for C++). Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep – There is no need to remove this article. We have lists of operating systems, lists of programming languages (no, that’s not a typo), lists of actors, and other lists and lists of lists. This is also a highly ranked page at Google, which while not showing notability, shows that it is popularly linked to and well-regarded. In fact, when I was looking for OR software just now myself, it was the very first hit. If this list is fit for deletion, then there are a great many lists on WP which should be deleted for the same reasons listed in the rationale for this AfD, if those are the criteria for lists (very few, if any lists would pass all of those criteria). —Michael B. Trausch • Talk to me 17:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's my opinion that all list entries in a list article should be internal links, thereby living or dying by their own notability. It's certainly true that this list has become a spam magnet, yet the list itself is not doing the spamming. It's a valid topic for a list. I would say prune the external and red links to clean it up, but that's just me. What the list really needs is a dedicated maintainer or two. But in the meantime, it's probably preventing a lot of spam from reaching the main article. Ham Pastrami (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the reasons posed by nom do not apply, as the list meets all 3 of the main purposes of lists: valuable information source, navigation (the list provides blue-links), and development (the list has redlinks). The Transhumanist 19:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radcliffe Killam[edit]

Memorial for NN individual. Seems like a generous and probably well-liked individual, but not notable Bellhalla (talk) 05:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, a director or involved with what looks like several notable organisations. I agree that the article reads like an obituary though, so it probably needs cleaning up. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 11:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Strong Keep. The third sentence of the article established notability: "In 1997, Worth magazine cited the Killam family as one of the largest landowners in the United States." I believe that only Dolph Briscoe, former governor of Uvalde, has more (or as much in) land holdings.65.116.31.254 (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the above anon IP seems to have a lot to do with articles created and/or maintained by this article’s main creator/contributor, Billy Hathorn (talk · contribs) — Bellhalla (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid Keep Unquestionably notable as he was a " member of the Oklahoma State Senate," which is one of our accepted guidelines. In spammy articles like this, perhaps nobody actually reads them through, but this was in the lede paragraph. I did get that far. DGG (talk) 03:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That was his father, O. W. Killam, who was an Oklahoma State Senator. And for clarity, that fact appears not in the lead, but in the first paragraph of the section entitled "Early years, education, military". — Bellhalla (talk) 04:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- There is certainly notability with plenty of sources, but the article needs some organization to it.Rigby27 (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect to Ben Franklin Stores. --MCB (talk) 05:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duke & Ayres[edit]

If this were a notable store when the chain was bought out, it would have made the news. It doesn't appear to have been the case. Travellingcari (talk) 03:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - you wouldn't expect to find too many online references to a chain store that went out of business almost forty years ago. But the fact that it was apparently established in 1895, existed for some 75 years, and still gets a few hits in Texas newspapers would seem to indicate notability to me. Gatoclass (talk) 03:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - on second thoughts, without additional references there's really nothing to establish notability now, and the article's been around for a year, so there's been plenty of time for someone to add some more sourcing. Gatoclass (talk) 04:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment actually the major cities' newspapers archives are often online now so it depends on the topic really. Sure not every article is online but the Google News archives are pretty good. That said, two of the hits were interviews with/articles about people who mentioned having worked there, nothing about the chain itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travellingcari (talk • contribs) 03:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are several archive hits from the Dallas Morning News that don't appear at Google News. However, you can't get a free preview of any of them. Zagalejo^^^ 04:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that link might not work. But if you search for "Duke & Ayres", you'll see. Some articles appear to be primarily about the chain. Zagalejo^^^ 18:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but if not, Merge into Ben Franklin Stores - the store that bought them out. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Ben Franklin Stores. They were a largish regional retailer at one time, but there don't appear to be enough sources available for an article. --Dhartung | Talk 05:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spebi 06:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Little German Band and Dancers[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. Plus, it's been orphaned for nearly 2 years. No notable sources. Delete Undeath (talk) 06:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Notability, lack of updates, and orphaned. -- Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 07:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:MUSIC. No reliable sources available that attest to notability. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 11:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 10:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rommel Zamora[edit]

Some minor news coverage of this person in 2002, but does not appear to satisfy the notability guidelines. Carom (talk) 04:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:ONEEVENT states that people who achieved limited fame through a single event generally shouldn't have articles. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nick Dowling (Mind meal (talk) 07:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 11:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete, utter nonsense. Nakon 04:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bahaderism[edit]

Sounds like a hoax to me. Searching for Bahaderism on Google turns up only this page. If it's a political system, it's a minor one. Also shades of WP:OR and WP:ESSAY in here. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 04:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per WP:OR and WP:NPOV -Ravichandar 04:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus - Just counting "votes", I come up with around 11 - 9 Keep vs. redirect. (Since so few suggested delete, counting those who said redirect as second option.) While WP:CRYSTAL is true, and WP:AADD#CRYSTAL may normally be valid, enough external notice has been given the the Spider-Man: One More Day/Spider-Man: Brand New Day storylines that I don't think "notability" is arbitrarily being applied in this case. I decided on "no consensus" over "keep", because this leans the closure more in the direction of possible re-nomination if, after the initial arc has ended, the character turns out to be one which should be merged/redirected as noted in the discussion below. - jc37 03:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Negative[edit]

As the article points out, not much is known about him... New character, not notable outside the fantasy world yet. Pharmboy (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I hate to AFD so quickly, but it seem apparent that notibility will not be able to be established on a brand new character, even if given another week. Pharmboy (talk) 01:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, i rewrote the article to bring it too comic project standard. A major character in the Spider-Man's Brand New Day retcon, and (before you say it i know its not a valid argument but i thought id mention it) there a many, many, Marvel characters profiles on wikipedia for new and under exposed characters. --- Paulley (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment Not to be a pain, but saying "What about $x article" is a non-argument. I would vote delete/merge on all these minor characters, from any comic/show/book/cartoon/etc. If they dont have any notability outside of that comic/venue, they don't earn an article outside of that comics article, from how I understand the WP:Notability guidelines. Some characters DO become notable outside their single use, but not new ones, not yet anyway. Pharmboy (talk) 01:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment, If List of Spider-Man enemies was split into sections for each villain with the more well-known/popular ones being linked off as sub articles, i would gladly merge this character into a single section along with a few other little known characters the list mentions. But as it stands there is no where to merge it too and it would seem he is going to be a long standing character in this chapter of Spider-man's comic history so deleting it would seem pointless at this juncture if he's gonna keep popping up every month (or three times a month). -- Paulley (talk) 13:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)][reply]

Comment List of Spider-Man enemies sounds like exactly the article it should be merged to. The matter of formatting of that particular article can be changed. That has no bearing on the issue at hand, that he isn't yet notable enough to warrant his own article. The fact that the merged to article 'needs work' isn't a valid keep argument. Pharmboy (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment id truly like to do that... if we can get some help changing the list of enemies article into something manageable id merge this in there along with the likes of Spidercide (comics), Iguana (comics), Batwing (comics), and Coldheart. I am just saying wait.. what's the point in losing the information provided right now by deleting it when you can wait a week and move it to the right place. --- Paulley (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked into the List of Spider-Man enemies page and i am going to do a rewrite and see if i can get the article upto a position to start merging things. --- Paulley (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now Redirect to List of Spider-Man enemies --- Paulley (talk) 13:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mister Negative is an important villain in the Brand New Day story and is certainly notable. Just because he doesn't exist outside of comics (at the moment) doesn't mean he's not notable. --Maestro25 (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your comment that: because he doesn't exist outside of comics is the defacto definition of not notable. Only being known in the comic and not written about in independent sources is exactly what notability is about. I think the merge is the best and likely solution, and it appears that Paulley is working hard on that now (along with several other characters). *If* he becomes notable in the following years, then it won't be an issue to start an article, but most characters do not make it to notable. Until then, they are better served in a singular article that lists ALL the enemies, and have redirects when proper. That is pretty standard policy. Pharmboy (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Spider-Man enemies as by the looks of it the merge has been done. Sting au Buzz Me... 02:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per User:Sting au.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP There are articles that are very much shorter than this article that are still around. This one is only being nominated for deletion because it's a mildly short article that is new. He is a notable villain (see recent updates to the article) and more than long enough to constitute keeping it around. -Freak104 (talk) 18:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If notability outside the comic book world were required for an article to exist than you better be prepared to delete hundreds of comic book articles on Wikipedia that fit that bill. Furthermore, there are lots of television show episodes and characters that have their own pages (without risk of deletion) that hardly anyone knows about. Freak104 (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does mean deleting a lot of articles about comic book trivia. Thanks for the reminder. - JasonAQuest (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Why should this article be deleted when other articles much shorter than it are still around? 144.92.58.223 (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per those who voted that way (although see below), or Redirect to List of Spider-Man enemies until the character's notability has borne out. I will admit that I have never heard of this character before, but then he is brand new so that has something to do with it. There is something to be said for not biting the newbies, and there is also something to be said for giving a new topic some time before pulling the trigger. Yes, recentism should be avoided on Wikipedia, which is why Redirecting for now might be the better option. With that in mind, be aware that recent Featured Article Through the Looking Glass (Lost) went to AFD when it was first submitted. As far as "there are there are hundreds just like it", this is not only an argument to avoid using in AFD, but it's a bad idea in general because you might unintentionally attract ambitious deletionists to your favorite articles by making statements like that. BOZ (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Spider-Man enemies. The fact that he's so new is why he doesn't need an article (at least not yet). - JasonAQuest (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are some articles (like your Silver Racer) that probably should be deleted, but Wikipedia being able to have articles about so many characters is why it is so widely used as a resource. Don't degrade Wikipedia by needlessly deleting articles, help Wikipedia grow into a useful internet entity by letting these articles survive. But your basis for the redirect only on how new he is has no support either. There are characters with significant articles that only had a few appearances but aren't considered for redirect because those issues are old. -Freak104 (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that removing trivia from Wikipedia degrades it. This character is not notable, and the fact that it is new is why. If an older character featured in an article isn't notable either, then that article should be deleted as well. The problem is that if we give this villain of the month an article, someone will use the same argument you're using now to justify articles about some other villain of the month, making Wikipedia look like The Obsessive-Compulsive Handbook of the Marvel Universe. - JasonAQuest (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing trivia helps Wikipedia. This isn't trivia. Wikipedia is useful only because it has comprehensive articles of lesser known characters. Characters who make one single appearance and have an article should have their articles deleted, but this character already has notable appearances and they have said he will appear in the future. If we delete this articles and others similar to it, Wikipedia will lose what usefulness it once had. -Freak104 (talk) 00:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of Spider-Man enemies, as there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside the Spider-Man comics.Notability to come.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. No independent notability. Eusebeus (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Can i just say that i believe some people are taking this attempt to redirect the article completely out of context. We are NOT deleting all the information here, it is just being moved to another more suited place. Everything that is written, and that will be continually added as his appearances come up, will still exist on wikipedia but just on a different page. I have already merged 12 articles into List of Spider-Man enemies without a single word against or an attempted to revert.. the fact of the matter is, if this character had not been in a comic book in the last two months most of you putting keep would not have not cared enough to enter into this discussion. To be truly honest i fall in that category, as you can see at the top, my first instinct was to keep, but if you take time to actually think about it you would soon realize that putting this information in a collective article is far better for a character with no out of universe context. When the time comes and Mister Negative gets recognition in TV shows, computer games, novels or has some significant effect on the Marvel U then it is a simple process to move the article out once again. --- Paulley (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC) (#stepping down from soapbox#)[reply]

I see what you're saying, which is why I said what I said above. :) BOZ (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well good.. i just think some people dont understand that redirecting, and converting list articles to allow this type of merging, is being done to save this article (and others like it) from deletion. As Martin Prince would say "individually we are weak, like a single twig. But as a bundle we form a mighty faggot" lol! --- Paulley (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, merge and redirect is a legitimate way of saving the information in an article, and if we want to keep the content it's better than letting it get deleted. :) I had to learn that the hard way. I'd personally rather keep in most cases, but let's be realistic. ;) BOZ (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Hiding T 16:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's the first time I've seen WP:NPOV cited as a keep reason. Could you explicate a little on the connection there? —Quasirandom (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explicate a little more on your confusion? I am unclear as to what needs developing further. Hiding T 18:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does having a neutral point of view have to do with whether an article is notable enough to keep? —Quasirandom (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking me how an encyclopedia written from a neutral point of view determines inclusion standards? And when did a deletion debate become focussed on whether an article was notable enough to keep? I thought it was whether it was within our domain as an encyclopedia. Is this a suitable topic for an encyclopedia? Would this charcater be covered in any encyclopedia? A comics encyclopedia? If the answer is yes, then we should cover the topic. And the answer is yes. This character is likely to be covered in some form of encyclkopedia, and since Wikipedia is not paper that means we do not have to limit ourselves to regurgitating Britannica. I know Wikipedia is not an indiscrimate collection of information, but the intention of that is that we do not cover topics which would not be covered encyclopedically, for example travel reports, plot summaries, dictionary definitions and so on and so forth. It does not apply to anything which contradicts our main purpose, which is being an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This article improves that encyclopedia. Therefore we should keep it. Some people may not like it. Some people may not find it to their taste. Some people may point to guidelines which support their view. Others will point to policies which support theirs. There is a reason WP:N is a guideline and not a policy. It does not have the wide community support of a policy. It is not a fundamental principle in the way that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia is. It is simply a guide as to what to write about, aimed at new editors. It is not a rulebook since Wikipedia has no rules. I hope that helps. Hiding T 18:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the page should stay. He could become more recurring like the upcoming Menace villain. Rtkat3 (talk) 9:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Menace (comics) is an example of another villain that should be merge the fact that they may become a recurring bad guy still does not justify the need for a separate article. --- Paulley (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference between a list entry and an article? Hiding T 18:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a guidebook; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept/character in the Marvel Universe. These pages, at this point in time, are very short and are unlikely to be expanded after their adjoining story arcs, it makes sense to merge them with a list page that covers the broader topic. --- Paulley (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't address my point. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We are not paper. Therefore, what does it matter that some encyclopedic articles are shorter than others? What is the benefit to us as an encyclopedia to gather short articles into a list since we are not made of paper and therefore do not have publication demands made of us. There is no need to limit our page count. Hiding T 18:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final comment from nominator Although Wikipedia isn't paper, it still has guidelines for inclusion. Why not an article on me? Or you? Or why isn't there an article called List of left handed Latino people who don't like yams? Yam, Latinos and Leftys are all notable. It isn't about running out of room, it is about a quality standard to be "an encyclopedia". That is the whole idea on inclusion: if it isn't notable as a stand alone article (in this case, clearly too new to be 'notable') then include it in a more general article, such as the newly created List of Spider-Man enemies. As the nom, I agree with the MERGE and think several people have worked hard on it to allow inclusion of all these enemies, while preventing more AFDs in the future. Until a character is notable enough for their own article, this groups them together very nicely. PHARMBOY (TALK) 18:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not an article on you? Have you read WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV? They should illustrate why we cannot have an article on you, and also why we should have an article here. We cannot have an article on you because we cannot verify any of the information about you to a reliable degree. How can we even begin to ascertain your name? However, we can ascertain many things about this published character, we can source many things, and we can write encyclopedically about the character. This is not about any perceived quality standard regarding what "an encyclopedia" is, which I assume is different to an actual encyclopedia. This is about writing to an encyclopedic standard on topics within the framework of our policies of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V. If we can do that, it matters little if that is done in a list or in a standalone article. Those are editorial choices which we should not seek to force upon each other, and nor should we suggest that one view is superior to the other. There are merits in both arguments, but for me I believe that a standalone article suits our purpose better than a list in building the encyclopedia. It allows better use of our features and better presentation of the material. Notability is a red herring. Merging is simply a choice. This debate to my mind should be closed as out of process, to be honest. If the nominator is not seeking deletion, they should simply start a merge discussion instead. This is articles for deletion, not articles for discussion. Already the very nomination of this article appears to have driven one editor away. We should not bite each other and we should act in good faith. If the nominator has no wish to see the article deleted, I do not understand how we are in good faith discussing the issue of a merge here. These decisions have consequences, and we need to examine those consequences. What is better, that we discuss matters in a collegiate manner and sometimes accept that there is no agreement and agree to disagree, accepting that at this point in time our solution is not the implemented one, or do we game the system to create the determined goal at the expense of others? Wikipedia is not a battleground. We should not bite each other. This article was created 17 days ago and not once was anything posted to the article talk page. The system appears to have failed here. Wikipedia is not a game. Hiding T 22:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is articles for deletion, which means we discuss the articles. I reserve the right to be pursueded that merging is a viable option, particularly after the merged TO article has been improved during this AFD. I would also disagree with your conclusion that the system "failed". This AFD is 17 days old, over 3x the normal length, which I personally take as a sign of great faith on the part of the administrators. As to my good faith, if you feel I nominated this article in bad faith, please take administrative action. If being open minded and willing to compromise after hearing both sides of discussion is a violation of policy, I will be happy to plead guilty as charged. PHARMBOY (TALK) 16:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At no point did I aver you listed this article in bad faith. Further than that, I don't agree with blocking people I am in dispute with. My point is this: AFD should be the last resort, not the first. This article was created and listed for deletion within 17 minutes. There's no discussion on the talk page for other approiaches, no templates applied to the article, this article simply wasn't given a chance. If you truly believe you considered all other options before you came to afd, I'll believe you. But I think that nominating an article for deletion 17 minutes after creation without posting to the talk page on other options, without discussing with the creator or without looking at other options is poor form. You happen to disagree, and that's fine. But the Wikipedia I signed up to wasn't one where deletion was the first resort for solving problems. I happen to believe that we should not bite newcomers. Hiding T 14:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; that does tend to scare them away and I mentioned the same thing above (notice how the editor who created the aritlce hasn't made any new edits in 2 weeks). BOZ (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete or redirect to list of characters. There are zero independent references to establish notability of this particular character. The only two references not to the comic books do not contain the word "Negative", even incidentally. If future developments make the character more notable, then a new article can be split off. Argyriou (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge to List of Spider-Man enemies. If he becomes a major villain on the level of Venom or The Joker, then it might make sense to give him his own page. But so far he's just a minor opponent of Spiderman. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 04:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to List of Spider-Man enemies until outside sources are found in which case the article can be safely un-redirected. No RS, no article, no drama period.--Lenticel ^(talk) 04:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You believe that building a consensus is bad for Wikipedia? Hiding T 14:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, say I. It could turn out that this villain becomes one of the biggest smash-hits of Spider-Man's career...or not. Who knows. But I say keep.SaliereTheFish (talk) 10:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this article doesn't appear to me to violate any policies. --Pixelface (talk) 12:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, mergeing into a list of enemies to one character in particluar(Spider-Man) is near impossible for Marvel Characters. All characters interact with each other and bounce from hero to villian and back again all the time. Updating which character appears on which list of another character is the most counter productive thing one could possibly suggest. -- 69.182.199.231 (talk) 08:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The thing is this character has not been seen outside the Spider-Man comics... nor the other minor characters that have been merged with the list. IF he did start appearing in other character books and started to become known outside of this one characters history then that would be a good reason to split him out of the list. --- Paulley (talk) 09:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ReplyThose merges were done by you without any discussion or attempt to build consensus. You can't set your own precedent in order to use it in at AFD discussion -- 69.182.199.231 (talk)

Reply - wrong. Merging is a normal editing action, something any editor can do, and as such does not need to be proposed and processed. If you think merging something improves the encyclopedia, you can be bold and perform the merge, as described below. Because of this, it makes little sense to object to a merge purely on procedural grounds, e.g. "you cannot do that without discussion" is not a good argument. As i have stated before there were no objection as the characters i merged were a few years old.. if this character had not been in recent comics this disscussion would not be happening. --- Paulley (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Major character in Brand New Day storyline. There is more information available than just the small amount that goes into a list, and if we give that complete information, then due to the size of massive size of the Marvel Universe and the Spider-Man supporting cast, including villains, it is infeasible to merge all Spider-Man villains together. I further add that I believe that all major villains for the most popular comic book characters (e.g. Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, X-Men, etc.) are notable. Moreover, if we merge now, this article will almost certainly be recreated within a few weeks as more information continues to be published. Mister Negative isn't a minor character in a one-shot or minor limited series; this is the featured villain of the current storyline of The Amazing Spider-Man, the longest-running and most important Spider-Man title. —Lowellian (reply) 15:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that the these pages [35], [36], [37], [38], [39] and many more like it are noteworthy and are able to be stand alone articles of work. It's not like we will be merging Doc Oct and Green Goblin into the list just these more pointless pages.. and when a character reaches a certain stage of noteworthyness it will be moved back out to its redirect. Being a character in a recent storyline isnt a valid arguement for not merging believe i know cus that was what i first siad when i wanted to keep this article. --- Paulley (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's 9 Keep, 7 Redirect, 2 Delete. Not much support for a delete, which is good, but the Keep/redirect split is close. It will probably have to go based on strength of argument on this one, which is as it should be anyway.BOZ (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Black Kite 18:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sissy nation[edit]

Contested PROD. Neologism of unclear notability, borders on soapboxing. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 03:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, horribly POV, fails WP:NEO as the term doesn't appear to be in wide use. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 04:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Save this article: From Dr. Slatner: —No neologism of unclear notability. Phrase now in common use in book as cited, also in interviews and national television C-Span, Sunday, February 10th "Book Talk" at 12 Noon. 12:00 PM 48 min Politics Sissy Nation: How America Became a Culture of Wimps & Stoopits Author: John Strausbaugh

see: http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=9080&SectionName=Politics&PlayMedia=No

John Strausbaugh argues that America has become a nation lacking courage and conviction in "Sissy Nation." Mr. Strausbaugh comments on the 2008 election and the influence of a sissified nation when choosing its political leaders.

While the quoted text mentions Strausbaugh's comments, it is the writer who is using the words "sissified nation" of his/her own accord. This is not a part of an author quote. Other words also in common use "sissification" "sissitude" "World World" and "fundadome" among others. Would it be better to add these or just stick with the more general term from which they arose, which would be "sissy nation?"

Also: There is no original research here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Isaac Slatner (talk • contribs) 04:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless thoroughly rewritten from sources as an article about the book instead of the term. There is no evidence the term itself has notability and at present the article is basically a brochure for the book. I might suggest a merge with John Strausbaugh, but the content is unsalvageable. --Dhartung | Talk 05:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Isaac Slatner: Dhartung notoriously anti-Strausbaugh. Personal issues should not interfere. Nothing to suggest a "brochure for the book." Distorted POV ought not to be permitted on these pages, especially from moderators/editors. Otherwise, Dhartung epitomizes fair play. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.59.242 (talk) 07:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never heard of Mr. Strausbaugh before today. Please refrain from personal attacks on other editors. It does not help your case. --Dhartung | Talk 11:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or at the very least a complete overhall to focus on the book as long as notability can be established. I concur that the content appears to be nothing more than an ad for the book and it's author at the moment. There does not appear to be WP:V, certainly no references to trusted sources - it is perhaps telling that the top returned links on Google are the books' own website. Fails the standards in WP:NB --Deadly∀ssassin^(talk) 09:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Save Re-written Entry, Dr. Isaac Slatner: It appears that the overhaul and "thorough rewriting" by additional identified and unidentified contributors has succeeded in making the article "about the book" and about the subject at large. Several very worthy books, including Cooper's mention of a favorite of mine, and authors are included along with sources of note. Entire entry now fits into greater context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Isaac Slatner (talk • contribs) 22:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt - A POV article and does not comply with WP:NEO. Even if it were to be written in NPOV format, it still would fail WP:NEO and it would be non-notable. Jd027^chat 22:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, I think salting is a bit extreme for the time being. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 01:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete but not salt -- its a 2008 book, so it might possibly become notable. DGG (talk) 03:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this utterly non-encyclopedic, POV article. I agree books might be here, but then they must be very much more commented than this one is, so for the time being rewrite is not an option. Greswik (talk) 12:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even after edit it's still POV, although the verifiability has been marginally improved. I don't think the author's blog counts as a an independent source. --Deadly∀ssassin^(talk) 04:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I have chosen not to redirect, since "Math Science Institute" is too generic. Feel free to do so if you disagree, though. seresin | wasn't he just...? 21:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Math Science Institute[edit]

Non-notable major offered at a technical highschool. Article was prodded in March 2007 with merge proposed as a compromise. Content is unsuitable for merge; Wikipedia is not a replacement for reading the degree description on the university website. Nick Penguin_(contribs) 03:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the school is WP:N but this is far too specific. Merge the info. there if it is deemed valuable. JJL (talk) 04:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete We never include such programs even cofor colleges. True, Brooklyn Tech is a famous high school, but this is still much too narrow a topic.DGG (talk) 03:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. Not notable enough on its own. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Brooklyn Technical High School#New York City specialized high schools. That section needs a better summary of the majors and a merge would help. TerriersFan (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein (talk) 11:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cains (law firm)[edit]

I've seen the discussion on Talk:Cains (law firm) re: an attempt to source but I agree with the original PROD. While I don't think it's blatant spam, there doesn't appear to be any coverage indicating that this law firm is in any way notable per WP:CORP Travellingcari (talk) 02:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm inclined to agree. Seems to be a good law firm but there are lots of good law firms which aren't inherently notable. We are not a business directory. Gatoclass (talk) 04:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I agree. Wikipedia are not a business directory. But... retain this article if neutral? OAS ^{talk to me} —Preceding comment was added at 11:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. According to Legalweek.com (a reliable source?) the firm is an "offshore heavyweight." --brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to both Brewcrewer and OAS. OAS, It's not the neutrality that's the issue but whether they're notable enough -- have they done anything worthy of inclusion? Brew, I saw that but it isn't clear what an offshore heavyweight is, at least from what I read. What's the criteria? Anyone could be called that, but there's no info on what they've done to earn that title. Make sense? Travellingcari (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Yes, but if a reliable source calls them a "heavyweight" then ipso facto they might be notable. It's not our business to decide the title's truth or merits. We are here to figure out the firm's notability.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply I agree, and perhaps I have a bias having worked in marketing (and the legal field, but not legal marketing) but that sounds like marketing speak. The article doesn't mention that "Cains is an offshore heavyweight due to its work on....." it just refers to them as such with no back-up. In my opinion, and I could be wrong, that's right up there with someone posting an article that says "Brewcrewer (or Travellingcari) is a wonderful influential person..." to that I'd flag WP-BIO if there was no assertion of what we'd done to warrant it. Make sense? Might not as I've had no sleep but that's where I'm coming from. Travellingcari (talk) 16:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply. If someone posts an article that says "Travellingcari is an influental person" and provides a reliabe source that states so in a non-trivial manner, then the article should in no way be speedily deleted. It doesn't make a difference what the basis or truthfullness is. We are dealing with notability, and substantial coverage by reliable sources makes someone notable. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, but "offshore heavyweight" is a relative term. Just how many British legal firms are "offshore"? Half a dozen? We don't know. So this doesn't seem a very impressive endorsement to me. Gatoclass (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I wasn't terribly impressed either, that's why I !voted "Weak." --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply thanks! I read comment of all of you and reconsidered it. result, not a notable this firm. I agree to deletion. done. OAS ^{talk to me} 10:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I never said it should be speedy, that's why I put it here and didn't tag it as {{db-spam}}. As I said in the nom, I don't think it's blatant spam, I just don't think it's notable because the reliable sources doesn't explain why they're a heavyweight, therefore it is trivial in my book. But that's just one opinion. Travellingcari (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Disclosure of interest - I created the article as part of a series of articles I was creating on offshore law firms (see for example Offshore magic circle, Maples and Calder, Conyers Dill & Pearman and Harney Westwood & Riegels. Offshore law firms are not more notable than any other, but they do tend to be the largest and most important law firms in their respective countries. By the same token that Spanish Town in the British Virgin Islands, a town of 2,000 souls, would be completely non-notable in a larger state, in a small country it is the second largest metropolois and things attain a larger importance only because they exert a larger (even dominant) influence over their respective coutries. These law firms play a dominant role in the economies of the offshore financial centres that they are based in. I accept that I have never developed the article beyond the initial stub. Just for the record, I don't work for Cains and never have - definitely not intended as spam. --Legis (talk - contribs) 23:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be the case that they are important to these economies, but that's not a reason to have articles about the individual companies. Rather, there should just be a line or two about the importance of these firms to the local economy in the article about the location itself. Gatoclass (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is nothing in the article to foster much confidence. It's the oldest firm on an island? Once we start that, we get to "oldest 7/11 in Northfield Minnesota." We need something more, something that indicates that the firm achieves note within the field of law practices. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Man is not exactly just an island in pertinent respects: given its freedom from UK taxes, it's a major off-shore haven and this firm is a specialist in the topic. I'd like a little more specifics than "one of the largest and oldest." It's what relative size exactly? We use market share a a factor for companies. And there should be some actual 3rd party substantial article about it somewhere. Has anyone looked for print sources? The British Legal Awards are probably significant, but 2007 is the first year they have been awarded. [40]. The sponsorship however is quite impressive. [41] DGG (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think finding them has been the issue, finding them and being substantive. I checked US databases as they're what I have access to thinking the firm would get a mention if it were that significant, but it may be too niche. Some are aware of the Isle of Man tax situation but it's not as if it's on the scale of say, Switzerland or certain island in the Caribbean where a firm would be involved in worldwide matters, if that makes sense. Travellingcari (talk) 04:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Gavin Collins (talk) 10:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article has insufficient content, context, analayis or reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. I don't think the sources cited in the article are sufficient; listings in directories and industry awards fall short of the requirements of WP:CORP where the coverage is trivial; these sources provide little to nothing about the firm, its size, turnover or notable court cases. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A law firm like that is very important to a local economy and business culture, so knowing about it is part of an encyclopedic understanding of the subject. There do seem to be a few sources out there in publications about law and the law business describing the firm's business activities, e.g. opening a London office. Wikidemo (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Black Kite 18:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nickel Bay[edit]

Non notable film per WP:NF. From the looks of it, it is a self-produced project and the article's creator is the film's creator. hateless 02:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, can I tack on Nickel Bay Soundtrack to this request as well? -Icewedge (talk) 03:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (unfortunately), the author seems to have put a lot of work into the article, however, it does not meet WP guidelines for inclusion. Sorry. Sallicio (talk) 03:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Sallicio[reply]

Delete, a self-produced film with no wide notability or release. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 04:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A Maxell recording artist. Videocam theater. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This seems to me like a hi-8 film by a group of kids, why is an AfD even necesarry?--The Dominator (talk) 05:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no CSD criteria for works of fiction, only for people, groups, and web content. hateless 06:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - But surely it can be speedy deleted under some criterion, I can't imagine anybody arguing to keep this article.--The Dominator (talk) 15:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rashad Morgan[edit]

Thoroughly nonnotable singer `'Míkka >t 02:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails to establish how the WP:MUSIC standard is met. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There does appear to really be any secondary coverage and nothing suggests that the artist meets WP:MUSIC. SorryGuy Talk 19:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 02:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, until the author (or anyone else) can establish the WP:MUSIC standard.Sallicio (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Sallicio[reply]
Delete, doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 04:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per the nomination, doesn't quite match up with WP:MUSIC at this time. (jarbarf) (talk) 08:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—I added one reference, but there will need to be more than just that for this article to be kept. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
His MySpace page showed a full-page spread in Vibe, and it does appear to be true that they featured him in at least one article. Weak keep based on that, and the brief news article. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You probably are not familiar with the usage of the term "featured" in hip-hop. Every backstage finger-shaker in the main rapper's crowd is "featuring". `'Míkka>t 06:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, yes, I am aware of that use of the term but I was not keeping it in mind when I wrote my comment. When I chose the word "featured" all I meant was that the article is about him, in contrast to an article about some other topic that mentions him. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, I was skimming over the text and missed the context. Anyway, a rapper with a single single (about which nothing better to say than "received extensive airplay on Michigan radio") fails WP:MUSIC. `'Míkka>t 15:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - No worries. That's what the Knight-Ridder story mentions, but the Vibe article says a little more that just that. I've added the reference to the article now (and also corrected the link I provided above). To be clear: my "weak keep" !vote is based on WP:MUSIC criterion #1. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regional Cadet Support Unit (Pacific)[edit]

This is non-notable, regional sub-unit of a national organization. I believe that this should be deleted as per WP:ORG. I also disclose that I am a member of RCSU (Pacific). Sancho 19:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is a sub-unit of a larger organisation. There is no indication in the article that this unit has some distinguishing characteristic that allows it to stand alone as an article. A cursory search reveals no reliable sources to identify any notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although the Canadian Army tend only to list Regiments and larger units, I think that WP:N has been satisfied in this case. This (civilian) Cadet unit bridges the gap (if I read the Article correctly) between Civilian and Military, as well as being part of the command and support structure within Canada. Seeing as WP is not paper, I believe we can spare the space to allow the forseeable 3-5 articles that will comprehensivly detail the entire command and support structure of Cadets in Canada. Furthermore, I am not convinced that treating this ORG(?) as per WP:ORG is correct, as this is far more than a local chapter with only local effects, its command is the entire 'Pacific' region (whatever that defines; thats an edit issue, not delete issue). Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 05:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — You are correct. There would only be six possible articles at this level organization (the regional level): Pacific, Prairie, Central, Eastern, Atlantic, and Northern, so this wouldn't be too bad to keep. It would describe effectively the command structure of the Canadian Forces support of the Canadian Cadet Organization other than the individual squadrons of which there are hundreds across the country. A couple of corrections though: this is a military unit, not a civilian unit, and Cadets Canada (that you link to) is just the marketing name and logo. Regardless of whether or not we treat this as WP:ORG or not, I still have not been able to find sources independent from the subject that give it significant coverage. Sancho 06:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist — requesting another re-listing to get more feedback on this. Sancho 09:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment if this article is to be kept, there should be independent reliable sources to show that this organization has notability independent of its parent. Argyriou (talk) 20:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 02:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 03:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These cadet corps cruft articles have got to stop. We have articles on the national organizations and per WP:ORG that is sufficient. We are not a directory of every subunit of the organization. --Dhartung | Talk 05:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The article is not that necessary. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 21:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Shoeman Woods Cabin[edit]

Google returns zilch. Probable hoax. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 02:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly a hoax. JJL (talk) 04:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't look too plausible to me. Belongs in a low-budget horror film, not on Wikipedia. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 04:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per all of the above. John254 00:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and recreate as redirect to Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game. seresin | wasn't he just...? 21:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gladiator's Assault[edit]

There have been many different past AfDs on YGO cardsets, and this is no different. If someone could provide the links to those, I'd appreciate it. For now, the rationale is no real-world relevance. JuJube (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Essentially, this is an overly granulated description of a single event: the issuance of a ~~disease~~ card set. The business model for all of these, since Magic, has been to continue to invent characters to sell cards, and therefore the number is set only by the continued existence of the companies. Detailing each and every set is something for a fan or collector site only. We should not want every single baseball card set described, nor every card, and we should not expect that businesses modeled on baseball card collecting to have an article per product. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all YuGiOh cruft. 70.55.85.35 (talk) 05:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. No professional appearances, thus fails WP:BIO for footballers. Black Kite 18:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Inglis[edit]

Extremely non-notable. Very few ghits and very little in the news save for him being one of 11 people signed within a 24 hour period. He never played Travellingcari (talk) 04:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO as he never made a professional appearance. Jfire (talk) 06:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 02:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, has not played at the top level, and as far as I can see he hasn't done anything else very notable. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 04:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 10:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Puttin' On The Hits Lip Sinc Talent Search[edit]

Already a "Puttin' On The Hits", same subj. Rapido (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the other article. Neither of them is sourced and some of the text is verbatim, but on the whole the other article is better. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jj137 (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A perfect example of WP:COATRACK. Note how they describe the 1984 show such an anal and overdetailed way (do we really need to know at NAPTE '84? Really, do we care which station groups picked up the show and why?), when suddenly the writer throws us a curveball...So you ask, why would a Lip Sync music variety show be successful in 2008?, which leads into a description of a revival of the show, format, sets, judges and all. No need for a merger at all because this is an advertisment for a show which right now is in a foggy ball of glass. Nate • (chatter) 02:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete useless textdump. JuJube (talk) 02:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (provisionally), the article could be good with a lot of work, references, and third-party citations. If the author (or anyone else) cares to clean it up (a lot), I would consider changing my vote! However, this or the other Puttin' on the Hits needs to be deleted. Sallicio (talk) 03:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Sallicio[reply]
Delete -- Exact copy of Puttin' On the Hits, plus miscellaneous extraneous material. -- azumanga (talk) 04:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Ryan Postlethwaite 16:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hammock activity[edit]

A subset of an Excel function, I think? Substantial ghits however they appear to be of the how-to variety and don't convey anything that passes WP:N Travellingcari (talk) 01:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This isn't really an Excel function, it's a project management entity, so including "Excel" in a Google search probably would skew the results to "how-to" pages. A search for "hammock function" by itself brings up some more project management texts. That said, I think a merge to Gantt chart would not be unreasonable, as this is basically a definition. --Canley (talk) 05:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My error, I included excel because it was the only thing that gave it any context from one of the linked articles. My first search turned up a lot to do with backyard hammocks. I'd agree with the above merge, it seems as if you're more knowledgeable on the subject. I wouldn't have had a clue wehre to propose a merge/redirect. Travellingcari (talk) 05:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A helpful explanation of an initially puzzling term from project management; more than a dictionary definition.--Wageless (talk) 14:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep suitable level of detail, not a how-to, not just an Excel function. DGG (talk) 03:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Redirecting has been suggested and this result has no prejudice on still considering it (perhaps on the articles talk page) in the future. Camaron | Chris (talk) 10:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gymnasium, Dimitrovgrad, Russia[edit]

Delete as per WP:N, WP:ORG and WP:V. It seems to be a non-notable organization (probably school though it is not clearly mentioned in the article). Note that Gymnasium is a type of school and it has a standalone article on WP. But, current nominee seems to be a school of this type at Dimitrovgrad, Russia. I tried with different keywords in Goggle but failed to find any suitable reference. There is a school named DIMITROVGRAD, MUNICIPAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OF EXTENDED EDUCATION FOR CHILDREN located at this place. I am not sure whether author tried to mean this institution or not. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 12:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Secondary schools (the article claims that it is a Grammar School) are inherently notable per the proposed notability guidelines for schools. It is reasonable to assume that the article is intended to be about the educational institution mentioned in the nom (good work tracking that one down) and should be stubified accordingly - in fact I'm off to do that right now as there seem to be just enough sources in English. If this AfD ends as 'keep' then the article should also be moved to the new name but I won't do that now as it would confuse the AfD process. nancy ^(talk) 14:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was thinking the same on this one. General consensus at the moment is that secondary schools are notable, and there's no reason to exclude such schools in non-English language speaking countries.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Of course it'll be notable if any such secondary school exists. I am actually confused about its existence. Are they same institution? If so, then we may delete/redirect this page and move its content to an appropriate one. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 16:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see there is definitely a school called The Municipal Gymnasium, Dimitrovgrad but I cannot be sure that this is the same as the Insitution that you dug up (could do with someone who speaks good Russian to confirm) so I have stubified the article by taking very basic facts from the Gymnasium's page on the Russian wiki. nancy ^(talk) 16:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Noroton (talk) 02:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have dug up a source that explains the nature of the school quite well. I have also added some figures from the Russian Wikipedia. TerriersFan (talk) 03:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nancy and TerriersFan, hopefully it will continue to be expanded. (jarbarf) (talk) 08:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The fabric is poorly maintained? Wikilinking "students?" Such a precise name is never to be found, and the contents of the article do nothing to attest to the school's place. If it's real, it's just a school, but no reason to believe it is. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TerriersFan. Looks a valid stub. If deleted redirect to town article education section. Sting au Buzz Me... 02:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TerriersFan. -- DS1953 ^talk 18:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TerriersFan and others, if over the period of several months it cannot be expanded further I see nothing wrong with a sensible merge and redirect. RFerreira (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 21:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gregersen[edit]

While a search is problematic due to it returning results that include the English word 'as', there is no evidence that this company meets WP:CORP. No evidence from the Norwegian ghits either Travellingcari (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'll be nice and refrain from calling this spam but the notability tag hasn't been on there since May 2007 without reason. I too was unable to find any sources that would make this satisfy WP:CORP so until someone is able to do that I'll support deletion. EconomicsGuy (talk) 07:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Norwegian page rank boosting. Advertising of a "reseller." Utgard Loki (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted as a copyvio. Sarah 06:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ISC CTU Prague[edit]

This is a completely Czech language article that has been around for two months. Noone has bothered to translate it. Because it is all in Czech, the information can't be verified, and the notability of the subject can't be assessed. At least part of it is a copyvio of [42]. A ecis^Brievenbus 00:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. A ecis^Brievenbus 01:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tagged it as {{notenglish}} and listed it. Maybe that will get someone to translate it. I can read some Czech but not enough to determine notability. Travellingcari (talk)
Defer pending outcome of discussion at Wikipedia:Pages_needing_translation_into_English#ISC_CTU_Prague. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 04:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Tagged for speedy copyvio confirmed by someone reading the translation page. Hasn't yet been speedied, however. Travellingcari (talk) 05:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete: As per consensus that the subject doesn't meet WP:PROF.. Sancho 18:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Ponniah[edit]

Failed notability of biography person. No independent & reliable secondary sources are given. Prod template was removed twice by an anon IP (maybe the sole author himself). The sole author violates WP:COI which forked the article to/from his user page. (Note: I'd prefer to request CSD of the page, but lately I got many rejections of nn-bio article requests by admins; so here I proposed a deletion debate). Dekisugi (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've read over WP:PROF, and the subject doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria. A COI is possible, as mentioned above. Jd027^chat 01:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't seem to meet notability criteria at WP:PROF. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 04:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as per nom. Dr. A. Salih (talk) 05:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This takes careful inspection, as notability is not apparent at first glance. However, based on his Google Books result, I see that his book Another World is Possible has been cited several times by other authors. This could be construed as denoting one being an expert in a particular field. Additionally, he has had papers published or works cited by a number of academic journals or educational institutions (see his Google Scholar results). To me, this professor is considered an expert on globalization, and as such the article should be kept. (Mind meal (talk) 07:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- True. I didn't check that. This may applies notability for the person and COI does not warrant a deletion. I tagged the article with {{coi2}}. This article needs editors to conform with WP:POLICY especially WP:COI. Dekisugi (talk) 10:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: From all indications, he will soon be a proper subject of an encyclopedia article, but, at present, he is not. Usually, people getting their advanced degrees from Harvard will go on to great things, and he's off to a good start, but not yet. There isn't enough biography to the biography. There is still "Random J. Professor" involved, although I agree that a book or two from now he'll be a major force. 13:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Utgard Loki (talk • contribs)
Delete Not yet notable, whatever may be in the future. Has written: 1 PhD thesis, 2 peer-reviewed articles, a chapter in one book, another chapter in a book he coedited ("Another World is Possible")--a book held in only 5 libraries listed in Worldcat, and what is presented as coauthorship of another book ("Unholy Trinity..."), but is really just authorship of one of the 18 articles. . Labeling him a "Theorist of Globalization and Development " is self-advertising puffery for someone who is merely a Lecturer. He's not Random J. Professor--he isnt't even a professor. DGG (talk) 03:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

he also seems to have edited a report published by a conference; Additional, he was present at a conference in Venezuela. As Chavez spoke at that conference, it was covered, and The Nation mentions in their long article on the conference what their reporter happens to have heard him say in a bar . paragraph 13 of 20 I dont think thats enough DGG (talk) 13:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He teaches Social Studies 10 and a class for writers at Harvard.[43]. (Mind meal (talk) 06:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

His rank is nonetheless instructor, not even Assistant Professor--2 beginning courses. An instructor with 2 papers and 4 miscellaneous publications is not notable, even at Harvard. DGG (talk) 13:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete per DGG. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per DGG. Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I, and a number of other people, were asked to change our votes on this one, so I want to explain about notable academic careers: State One. A good beginning PhD will usually have 2 or 3 papers and some miscellaneous publications; s/he will get a job as a post-doc or instructor. Stage Two. If s/he publishes another few peer-reviewed papers or a book, s/he'll be appointed assistant professor at a good research university, to see if s/he will amount to anything. Stage Three: If the papers are it good journals good & widely cited, or there's another good book, this will be recognized by an appointment as an Associate professor with tenure. Stage Four: If excellent publication continues, this will be recognized by the profession, & expressed by his colleagues as appointment as Full Professor, journal editorship, & awards. This stage is notable, as having achieved wide recognition as a leader in the profession. Sometimes the recognition comes at Stage Three, if the work is really important--and there will be some evidence of it, such as major grants. In rare cases it can come at State Two or even Stage One, especially if it happens to attract popular interest. We actually had an instance recently of it being recognized at State Two. This guy is at stage One. DGG (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No one was asked to change their vote. Additionally, that isn't any criteria I've ever seen in a guideline or policy, and certainly not at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). The guy teaches at Harvard, he's been published in two academic journals, his works have been cited by various others, and he has written for a widely read publication (Znet magaine). I don't know about all your stages, but he's clearly notable. I'm not sure the votes have much to do with guidelines here on notability. They seem to be tinged with a hint of extraordinary bias I've not seen often. I don't like seeing false criteria created for what establishes notability, as I don't feel it is in the correct spirit of this community. Furthermore, his work has been cited in more than 15 academic books according to Google Books. I don't think editors are looking at the facts here. This isn't about personal opinions, it is about whether or not this individual meets notability requirements. What you've mentioned, in those stages, are not even requirements. (Mind meal (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I think what DGG mentions is correct and it follows with WP:PROF. That explains what significant is in the guideline. I work in a research area. I know who is notable and who is just barely notable. The number of publications (only 3 - after I checked him/her at ISI Web of Knowledge) is really small and it can be easily achieved by a PhD student. The number of citation is only 1 from the three publications there, which means his/her h-index is only 1! It's not notable at all for an academician. Dekisugi (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 21:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Juman Kim[edit]

Non-notable interior designer. COI issues as the article is written by the subject. Only source is a Facebook page. Would speedy except for claim that his company is "most important distribution of Comtemporary(sic) Pacific Asian Interior Design style" (no ghits). Recommend Delete, Speedy if possible. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 00:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Speedy?) Delete. Clear COI, and 46 G hits - none of which seem to be relevant - strongly suggests non-notability. Even the Facebook link in the article seems to be broken. PC78 (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a speedy, since there is a claim to notability. However, it's fairly obvious that he doesn't meet the general notability criteria. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 04:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Obvious NN. --L. Pistachio (talk) 07:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some dude. Owns a store in NYC. (Official reason: Wikipedia does not advertise.) Utgard Loki (talk) 13:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable and self-promotional. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete promotional material. Pegasus «C¦T» 01:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Balsa Wars[edit]

Non notable game Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G12 as copyvio, already tagged by another user. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Er, nix that, the author of the page claims that he also owns the site this page was lifted from. So instead, how's about a Speedy delete G11 style? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep as disambiguation page. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Practice[edit]

Also included in this nomination:

Practise - redirection page.

Per talk, this is nothing more than a dicdef which is already in wiktionary. We need to decide once and for all whether or not this page belongs in WP. My instinct is no, but there is content in the article, so I've listed it here to try and generate a consensus. Guinness (talk) 14:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about making it into a disambiguation page? Might that work?--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - but what does it disambiguate exactly? Any way you look at it, it's a dicdef. Guinness (talk) 14:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possible - surely it can be stubbed and then gradually built into an encyclopedically-useful article?--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This should be a disambiguation page. Practicing medicine is different from practicing guitar, for example. (In particular, if you practice guitar, you don't have to deal with insurance companies.) I think there's salvageable content for a disambiguation page, and there are plenty of links to this article. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 05:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruct into a disambig page as suggested by User:Elkman above. At the moment its just a dicdef, but it could be a useful and legit diambiguation page. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 04:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
dabify per User:Elkman--Lenticel ^(talk) 07:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. I can't see this ever going beyond a list of dictionary definitions.--Michig (talk) 08:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Dictdef, and already covered at Wiktionary, and somewhat self-evident. Relevant matters associated with "practice" will already be at the appropriate articles. Few will look up "Practice" to find a discussion of muscle memory. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (edit - as a disambiguation page). Only those pages that can never be more than dictionary definitions should be transwikied as such. I can easily see this page being expanded with a discussion of, for example, the role of practice in learning, with more specific discussions about, say, music and sports. Google Scholar gives a whopping 1,200,000 cites for music practice, and more than half a million for sports practice, and those are only two of the more specific varieties of practice I could come up with off the top of my head. There probably ought to also be a disambiguation page for such things as law practice and medical practice, I agree. Note also the large number of incoming links to this page. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, this should be a disambiguation page, in that case. I did not know that we already had a Practice (learning method) article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation per User:Elkman. It's a common word and users might want to go to The Practice or Practice (learning method). --Explodicle (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and dabbify per Elkman. I see good dab potential, as also suggested by most of the interwiki links. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The existence of Practice (learning method) may appear to support having a disambig page, but that page is little more than a dicdef and a list of things that can be practiced, and totally unreferenced. If someone can find refs to support an article that goes beyond defining 'Practice', then an article may be justified, but there's nothing here at the moment to justify an encyclopedia article. We don't need a disambiguation that's just a list of '(Something) practice' entries.--Michig (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Practice of law is a possible for inclusion on a dab page, so I can see this just about working as a dab page, but let's please leave the definition of the word to Wiktionary.--Michig (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dabbify per Elkman Will ^(talk) 14:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change into disambiguation page. The term is obviously linked all over the place.[44] It just needs some cleanup, and is already in Category:Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup. There's no need to delete it, just fix it. --El on ka 02:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
dabbitize it per everyone. — brighterorange (talk) 03:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it's already pretty obvious what the consensus is here. I've therefore had a crack at converting it into a properly formatted DAB page. I think I've covered the basics, but I've dropped a few wikilinks which I don't think are relevant. Please feel free to prod and tweak, especially while it is fresh in your mind, as I've no doubt I've not made it perfect yet! Guinness (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No concensus (default keep) based on discussion about notability. If the subject of the article has valid complaints about libel and vandalism, he should go to OTRS or request office action via the WMF email channels. We can't be expected to determine the right course of action, from hearsay without specifics, in this AfD. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Winset[edit]

WP:BIO1E One newsworthy incident, and other than tha, no assertion of sufficient notability over and above any college professor, which fails WP:BIO. Avi (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Merge I agree on the WP:BIO1E, but I wonder a stripped down version of the controversy might have a home in the article for the college. Does seem like a somewhat noteworthy event and there seem to be solid references.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Originally this was on Emmanuel College's page, but IP addresses from the college kept removing it completely after a series of flames back and forth. Likewise, this article keeps getting vandalized; I've tried cleaning it up repeatedly, but someone seems to have a vendetta against the Professor. Probably best just to delete it, sadly, at least for the time being. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.136.137 (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as a notable controversy. To start deleting articles because people vandalize them is feeding the vandals. DGG (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I tend to agree with the substance of DGG's comment. If it's kept or merged is one thing, but once we delete because it's too hard to keep it un-vandalized, then we've lost the war.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note: Subject has complained about libel and Vandalism to the Wikimedia foundation. -- Avi (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NeoAxis Engine[edit]

The article about this engine was early deleted as CSD A7. [45]. This engine is still in development and unimportant/unsignificant. It has still not used in any real game or 3D-product, which were released or are under development. Alex Spade (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 17:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there appears to be a bunch of blog entries but no reliable sources covering this game engine. -- Whpq (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jj137 (talk) 05:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources, was deleted with CSD A7 before (I checked log..). I used google to search for NeoAxis Engine, but most of the results is mainly blogs, or forums. ClanCC _{(_T / ^C)} 05:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bindaas[edit]

Reads like an ad with no encyclopaedic content. Only edits to the article are additions to a trivia section of "Programs aired". Requests for references are ignored while templates requesting clean-up and references get constantly removed. / Mats Halldin (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be a little more specific:

The article was created by Thewarriorrrr and the only other contributors except myself are anons with IPs 122.162.X.
I've spent a month trying to convince this contributor to add a single reference to the article with no success. I even added the single dummy reference there is to show how to use references. The latest response on the talk page was "Those doubting the reliability of the content of this article should search the web and see for themselves how accurate it is."
So it seem unlikely the article will ever see any references. I don't live in India, but as far as I can tell this TV channel lacks notability.

/ Mats Halldin (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can't find any sources either, and a real Indian TV channel would have them. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - You're more patient than I am. Torc2 (talk) 00:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Those doubting the reliability of the content of this article should search the web and see for themselves how accurate it is" sounds like "Oh, I'm too lazy to actually put references on this article, so other people should do it for me." Burden of proof is on the person creating the article. TheLetterM (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep w/ addition of references. The article will need more, but at the very least, it's sourced (if minimally so). TheLetterM (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. If sources can be provided at a later date, we can re-create the article then. RFerreira (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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