Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 July 18

< July 17	July 19 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was bold redirect to Mongoose (bicycles). Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 00:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mongoose skate boards[edit]

Either a speedy A1, a speedy A7, or just general cruft. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 23:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly merge to Mongoose (bicycles), as that's the company that seems to be referenced here? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 00:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by DGG per WP:CSD#A1 (no context). —David Eppstein (talk) 01:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yu gi oh abridged series[edit]

no notability Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Wanna know my story?}/ _{Share yours with me!} 23:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A1 Very little context, maybe a hoax? So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 23:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G1 (patent nonsense). —David Eppstein (talk) 01:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harriet Fields[edit]

self nomination BIO Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Wanna know my story?}/ _{Share yours with me!} 23:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy --T-rex 23:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy all the way. I would've pounced on this with a CSD like a hobo on a porkchop.Rob Banzai (talk) 23:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Article has since been re-created and re-written More consensus should be reached. User:WPNman01:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted, WP:CSD#A7. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Twitchen[edit]

self promotion Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Wanna know my story?}/ _{Share yours with me!} 23:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A1 Very little context or A7, non-notable bio. tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 23:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy this badboy. Rob Banzai (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Busbee[edit]

I've tried to do what I could as far as sources for this article, but aside from a few shaky web interviews I don't see much of note. It's nearly impossible to verify anything at all apart from his religious beliefs and some name-dropping. I don't think this qualifies for a speedy because it does assert notability, it doesn't seem to make any contentious claims about the subject, and there are (arguably) a couple of sources. I wouldn't be opposed to recreation of the article if and when notability can be better established through reliable sources. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 22:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Notability is not based on the number of references, but that there are references that focus on the articles subject. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's based on significant coverage by multiple, reliable sources. I'm the one who added the two that are already there, and even I can admit they're pretty weak. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 01:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hello! i am mike busbee. this article is a inaccurate in its details and poorly represents the totally of my career. i would kindly like to request is deletion. thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.145.243 (talk) 08:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - please don't forget that sources that establish notability must be secondary sources. The two references (both interviews) are not secondary sources, so notability has not been established. Remember WP:BLP, Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. If I were the nominator I would probably have prodded this. Cheers! --Samuel Tan 07:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources are preferred for notability, but not required for verifiability. Published interviews are sufficient for BLP. If they weren't, I'd have speedy deleted the article.

I don't use prod. I've been against it from the start. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 14:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't sources that prove notability need to be secondary sources? Hence no secondary sources can be found means not notable, no? :) -Samuel Tan 04:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, don't get me wrong - you're 100% right about the notability part, as far as I can tell. I was just saying that's why I didn't speedy it (because they're good enough to avoid BLP problems, and non-notability isn't a CSD). Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 05:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh you were talking about why you didn't speedy delete oops! Knock my head the next time you see me *grin* -Samuel Tan 05:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, other wise we can merge to similar articles.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 01:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

very weak keep Generally interviews are reliable sources and they indicate that the individual in question has been noted by the general media (which is part of the point of the notability criterion). JoshuaZ (talk) 12:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't appear to be independent coverage at this time and where the subject requests deletion and the notability is in question, I see no reason why not. Shell ^babelfish 08:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hang on, where did the subject request deletion? I don't see that int he discussion at all. JoshuaZ (talk) 12:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well right up above as 75.84.145.243 and in an OTRS ticket 2008071810023147. Shell ^babelfish 12:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Devoted[edit]

This was an independent release that got, as far as I can tell, no coverage. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 22:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 22:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable independent release, didn't chart, no singles were released. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 23:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - album appears to have gotten some attention well after its original release --T-rex 23:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where? I don't see any. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 00:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

more or less world wide (i'm not saying it was huge attention, just enough to be notable) --T-rex 01:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sold like, three copies. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 03:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*counts on fingers* Her Mum, her Grandma..........who bought the third one??????? Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you seeing that? Personally I'm seeing the album mentioned in almost every article on her during her time on American Idol --T-rex 14:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable album of cover songs, merge to Kristy Lee Cook if anything is worth keeping. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Kristy Lee Cook per WP:MUSIC#Albums: "...articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article". Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom; non-notable album. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. This article seems to only talk about eprsonal friends, nothing about Wiki contents.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 01:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mordechai C. Albrecht[edit]

Oh boy! Created by User:Ezidafoundation (definitive conflict of interest, as subject is listed as member). Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 22:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A7 Doesn't even assert notability. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 22:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy update There's a hangon on the page now. The AfD is older than the speedy. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 22:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google scholar shows zero publications for this professor. Pburka (talk) 23:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Possible hoax, in fact. I can't find any evidence of an Ezida Foundation. Pburka (talk) 23:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's probably not a hoax, the author told me that their prof and foundation try to avoid publicity. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 00:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can find something real, but it asserts some degree of possible notability, so it isn't a speedy. DGG (talk) 01:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no results on Google or Google News Archive for this person. Nor can I find anything about "Ezida Foundation." I strongly suspect this is a hoax. But even if it wasn't, this person definitely fails WP:BIO because there are no reliable sources about him. Cunard (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A7 Speedy delete as a WP:HOAX. The only Albrecht connected to Ezida on Google was Albrecht Goetze a respected scholar who published papers in the 1940's and 1950s. see here This person is not him. Artene50 (talk) 09:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; totally no source.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 00:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted per CSD G3.(non-admin closure) - Icewedge (talk) 23:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jamel Odom[edit]

Appears to be a hoax, the article claims that he is "Director of National Intelligence" but a Google search for +"Jamel Odom" +"Director of National Intelligence" brings up 0 results, Google searches for his name and the names of the colleges he supposedly went too also show up null. - Icewedge (talk) 22:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HOAX. A Google News Archive search for this individual returns no results. Cunard (talk) 22:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G3 Hoax indeed. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 22:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article appears to have been speedied, this AfD needs to be closed. Edward321 (talk) 23:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G11 -- it was a disputed speedy, not a PROD. Advertising even if contested. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sinlesstouch[edit]

Created by User:Sinlesstouch (shares the name of the article, conflict of interest?) G11 tag with hangon appended currently on article, bringing to AfD. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 22:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close No need to take it to AfD even if there is a hangon tag already on. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 22:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CountryReports.org[edit]

Created by User:Emulateme (conflict of interest as owner). Possibly insufficient notability. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 22:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spam --T-rex 23:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOT SPAM. This is a simple corporate history page of which Wikipedia has countless similar profiles of. Corporate histories are acceptable within Wikipedia. It lacks marketing pitches and promotions commonly found with SPAM. Article even cites and refers to competitive sites. Additional Notability can be provided.--Emulateme (talk) 00:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable web site. Site owned by Emulate Me LLC, which happens to be the name of the creator of this article. The article sites no sources other than for what sites people visit next. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spamvertisement. I won't speedy or otherwise delete as I've just blocked the creator for spam despite previous warnings and a block for same, but there's no evidence the company or website is notable per WP:CORP/WP:WEB TravellingCari 02:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, can't find any mentions at all in secondary sources, let alone significant coverage in reliable sources. Somno (talk) 01:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not for commercial or advertisement.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 01:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by me. The article cannot survive AfD. It was nominated for speedy after AfD tag was removed. - Richard Cavell (talk) 02:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

War Machine (IWC)[edit]

Is there any context to this? Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 22:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(speedy) Delete This looks like a CSD:A1 or A7 candidate, but in any case, should be deleted. gnfnrf (talk) 22:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A1 Not enough context. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 22:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete purely nonsensical. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete (non-admin closure, article deleted by Zedla per G12) --T-rex 23:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sea of Japan naming dispute since Japan invate Korea.[edit]

Anyone speak Japanese or Korean? I can't even understand the article! Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 22:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as G12. I've tagged the article as being a copyvio of http://kr.ks.yahoo.com/service/ques_reply/ques_view.html?dnum=HAC&qnum=5813299. Cunard (talk) 22:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G12 as copyvio per Cunard. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 22:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naked Truth Mixtape[edit]

A mix-tape is not an album. In addition the tone of this article is feverishly fan oriented. Rob Banzai (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep probably notable enough, but it needs to be rewritten from the ground up. Themfromspace (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's been stubified, but mixtapes still aren't notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 22:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also delete Banganyn Remyxes, a non-notable mixtape that's related. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 22:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mixtapes are not generally notable (Wikipedia:Music#Albums) and in this case I see no exception. Ros0709 (talk) 22:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both - nn mixtape --T-rex 23:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums, non-notable mixtapes. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Notability hasn't been established by those arguing to keep. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Project Powder[edit]

Unreleased game, still in beta, non-notable. ukexpat (talk) 21:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as noted above. Rob Banzai (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I object to this as why would there be fansites made for this game if this game is "not-notable"? There is already a link posted linking to an interview by onRPG, which I think is highly notable. I disagree on the fact that this article should not be posted on the wikipedia. Windrider07 (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fan sites aren't ever reliable. Furthermore, the interview is the only reliable source, and doesn't seem to be exclusively about the game. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 21:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I object as well (obviously - I created the page). The game's in beta currently, but will probably be live in less than a month. Also, how can a game that already has two fansites be "non-notable?" Ceridian (Ceridian) 21:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Fan sites are not reliable sources, it's a simple as that. – ukexpat (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the single interview isn't enough to meet requirements for notability. -- Whpq (talk) 12:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. While it started with some deletes, it is clearly heading to a snowball situation. --JForget 00:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin-Wallace Medal[edit]

Contested PROD. Not enough notability and per WP:NOT#INFO. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 21:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose bad faith nomination following decline of speedy and prod. DuncanHill (talk) 21:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad faith nomination? Are you serious? How do you judge whether it's good faith or bad faith? Ever heard of Wikipedia:Assume good faith? - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 21:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unnotable award and article is pretty much nothing but a copy of the list from the award site. At best, merge short description of award into Linnean Society of London. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Diligent Terrier and Collectonian are acting as a tag-team on this, the Linnean Society is the world's foremost biological society, and this medal is for major advances in evolutionary biology (one of the most significant and notable areas of the development of science over the last 150 years). DuncanHill (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think your allegation of "meatpuppetry" is pretty hilarious, actually. You provide no evidence for your allegation whatsoever. It seems to be used as a tactic to confuse the closing admin and get the discussion more dramatic, taking it away from the original topic. Just for the record, "meatpuppetry" is usually also refers to when the editors know each other in real life. And any accusation, whether sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry should be accompanied by proper evidence. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 21:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will note vote as I wrote the article, but can people please look at Linnean Society, noting that it "is the world's premier society for the study and dissemination of taxonomy and natural history". Thanks. Also, can I explain that unlike Linnean Medal, it has only been awarded a few times, but the medalists are very well known in their fields. I am not a dog (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — No evidence of notability. doña macy [talk] 21:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Collectonian and WP:N. After quick search on Google, I have concluded that Darwin-Wallace Medal has extremely small impact and does not merit its own article. Merge would be more appropriate IceUnshattered^{[ t | c ]} 21:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note--and, to "I am not a dog", I think it's the medal, not the people it was awarded to, that matters here. IceUnshattered^{[ t | c ]} 21:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Linnean Society and preserve redirect. Ghits aren't everything, but in a Google search, I didn't find independent sources. I found the Linnean Society, I found winners' universities issuing press releases, and I found blogs. In the absence of coverage elsewhere, it fails the blanket notability criterion of significant coverage. That said, if independent sources are located, I would reconsider whether it should be kept outright, and I don't see any reason it shouldn't be mentioned briefly (without the list of winners) at the Linnean Society's article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lists of winners are in fact one of the key features of the pages for these awards. Among other things, they provide proof for the notability of any individual winner who is challenged, and a list of people for whom additional articles need to be written. DGG (talk) 03:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if you'd Googled just a bit further, you'd have come across references in Science (unfortunately only for subscribers), Richard Dawkins' official web site, and... --Technopat (talk) 00:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The post on Dawkins' web site is in a forum, which leaves it short of being a reliable source. The reference for Science could be compelling, depending on the depth of coverage. Alas, without a subscription, I can't do that (without a library trip). —C.Fred (talk) 13:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article on the Linnean Society is sorely lacking in references and certainly has nothing to back up the claim of being "the world's premier society for the study and dissemination of taxonomy and natural history". Unless sources can be provided to demonstrate the significance of this award, it doesn't merit an article. If such sources could be added, I would support keeping the article, otherwise, it should redirect to the society's article.--Michig (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ctrl-Alt-Delete. Not-able (not notable). :-) Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 21:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am convinced that there is meatpuppetry (at the very least) going on here. The history of edits to the page, and those turning up here to support DiligentTerrier/Collectonian is highly suspicious. AGF is not a suicide pact. DuncanHill (talk) 21:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you provide no evidence for your allegation whatsoever. I'd like to assume good faith here, unlike what you are obviously doing by calling my nomination "bad faith" and making a crazy meatpuppetry allegation. Please stop trying to get the discussion more dramatic. (Note to readers: see DuncanHill's earlier comments accusing the nomination of being "bad faith" and the same meatpuppetry allegation. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 22:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collectonian targeted several articles by the creator of the article currently in question. In doing so, he apparently ignored both the content of the articles and the sources given, making no apparent attempt to verify his own contention that the subjects were not notable. Diligent Terrier then popped up supporting Collectonian's activities, (and making an ignorant comment on a talk page which shewed a failure to read the article history correctly), and suddenly Diligent Terrier makes the AfD nom, and various editors who Diligent Terrier contacted (some of whom had themselves been editing in support of Collectonian) pop up here to support the AfD. DuncanHill (talk) 22:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And that is somehow meatpuppetry when we don't even know each other in real life, and the is practically the first time ever I've interacted with Collectonian. WHAT is the "ignorant" comment on the talk page? If you look again, it appears as though you removed a PROD tag calling it a speedy, and and you contend that the a PROD tag is a speedy. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 20:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of us know how to read page histories. I added a comment objecting to speedy deletion, and saying I would remove any further addition of the speedy tag. Subsequently, a prod was added to the page, which I removed. I then went to the talk page to explain this, when (after edit conflicts) I found that you had made a mistaken comment on my actions. DuncanHill (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on an unrelated matter Can I point out that if this gets delted then pretty much everything in category:Biology awards needs to go too... (and that's just the B's ;) ) I am not a dog (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Each article is evaluated on its own merits, and it's the failings of this article on this subject that are the focus of this debate. —C.Fred (talk) 12:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a frequent editor of Alfred Russel Wallace, I was glad to have an article written for this medal to wiki-link to. Biographies of Wallace, including (Slotten 2003) always mention how important this award was to him. Also the honoree's are pretty much a who's who of evolutionary biology. Given WP:NOTPAPER I think this topic is more than notable enough for an article. Rusty Cashman (talk) 23:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the obvious notability of the article in question, the Linnean Society itself, common sense and the following guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability

Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines

Although articles should demonstrate the notability of their topics, and articles on topics that do not meet this criteria are generally deleted, it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be. When discussing whether to delete or merge an article due to non-notability, the discussion should focus not only on whether notability is established in the article, but on what the probability is that notability could be established. If it is likely that independent sources could be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort.
If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or:

The fact that this article and/or the article page for the Linnean Society may need serious work done on it is irrelevant to the question of notability. Wikipedia is already receiving enough criticism from the scientific and academic world for there to be a deletion of an article on an important scientific issue. --Technopat (talk) 23:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep There are tons of sources establishing notability out there. That fact that the organisation isn't very well known outside its own field is irrelevant; there are plenty of reliable, third-party sources confirming notability. Linneus himself is the godfather of biological taxonomy, and Wallace is almost on a par with Charles Darwin. Given the rise in awareness of evolutionary biology in recent years it comes as no surprise that this organisation has chosen to give this award more frequently than in the past. I'll assume good faith in the nomination, but even a cursory Goggle would have shown enough sources to establish notability, bearing in mind that notability and fame are NOT the same thing. --Rodhull andemu 23:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although nobody else has yet come forward with any decent independent sources, which would have been enormously helpful at all stages of this saga, I believe the following are more than adequate for establishing notability: [1], [2], [3], [4].--Michig (talk) 23:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of sources on Google scholar. Pburka (talk) 00:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly a very prestigious, long standing and important award in its field. Definitely notable. RMHED (talk) 00:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one of the most famous of all prizes in the sciences. I am not surprised all who know anything about this are rather startled by the nomination and its pile-on support--I can discern no possible rational (or understandably irrational) motive. DGG (talk) 02:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Sources have now been provided that demonstrate notability. This is indeed an important award. The Linnean Society of London is indeed "the world's premier society for the study and dissemination of taxonomy and natural history", but that article does need some good references. This is just the kind of topic that a reader of wikipedia might expect to find an article on. I really think that people should search for sources before proposing articles of this kind for deletion. Deleting it would not assist our mission. --Bduke (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per DGG. In full disclosure, I was involved here through an AIV request on User:I am not a dog which I declines, this seems a bit over the top, and certainly vindictive or ill-informed. Hiberniantears (talk) 04:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given by a notable organization to notable recipients = notable award. --Itub (talk) 07:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Google hits don't just show publicity by grateful recipients, which could well be a sign of vanity. They show serious Universities celebrating that their faculty members have won a major award. Would they do that if this wasn't important? Jonathan Cardy (talk) 08:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment to closing admin- please see also contribution from a new user on this AfD's Talk page. --Rodhull andemu 12:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC) Now moved here. --Rodhull andemu 15:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find it curious that this page is nominated for deletion when Wikipedia contains a wealth of pages for awards. Here following are some science-related awards that Wikipedia has permitted. Please note that the following pages consist almost entirely of lists of awardees. Could someone explain how the Darwin-Wallace Medal award page is less substantial in content/scope than are these? Further, are the ornithologist awardees more notable than the Linnean Society awardees? The meteorologists? Who makes these judgements? Based on the quality of the recipients and on the formats for other pages on scientific awards, I see no credible reason for deleting the Darwin-Wallace Medal page; if that decision is made, then all of the following pages need to be deleted as well:

- American Meteorological Society: Carl-Gustaf Rossby Research Medal

- Cooper Ornithological Society: Loye and Alden Miller Research Award

- International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence: IJCAI Award for Research Excellence

- Lasker Foundation Albert Lasker Award for Clinical Medical Research

- Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union: John Hobbs Medal Designquest10 (talk) 12:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- U.S. National Academy of Sciences: Alexander Agassiz Medal Designquest10 (talk) 12:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In case anyone is tempted to respond with OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it should be clarified that these will be defended every bit as strongly. I , for one, would regard nominations of those articles as prime examples of POINT. DGG (talk) 12:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not only does OTHERSTUFFEXIST in terms of numerous pages designated for specific awards, Wikipedia has gone further in its enthusiasm for award information and has devoted pages to listings of types of awards [please see examples following]. OK, just to iterate: there are abundant examples of award listings in Wikipedia, AND, further, there are compilations of award pages. So, this presence far exceeds the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS level of observation about Wikipedia. Clearly the practice in Wikipedia of listing awards / awardees and then listing multiple awards constitute a prevalent form of capturing this information. Perhaps the better emphasis should be to placed in ensuring that the importance/significance of the awards is clearly established in award-based pages, such as what C.Fred mentions following.

- - List of prizes, medals, and awards for women in science
  - List of prizes, medals, and awards
  - List of prizes named after people
  - List of film awards
  - List of literary awards
  - List of architecture prizes Designquest10 (talk) 17:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the six for comparison. I left four alone, tagged a fifth because it was completely unreferenced, and prodded the last one because it was completely unreferenced and failed to make clear that it was a notable award. —C.Fred (talk) 13:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Important award by an important society. Why on earth was this nominated? It is not sufficient to nominate an article for deletion and give "not enough notability" and "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", both irrelevant to this article in any case, as your sole reasons. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep This nomination is ridiculous, this is a major, notable award. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 18:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep quite an incredible AfD nomination. Shyamal (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "per all of the above" may sound lame, but there are many reasons to keep and they've all been clearly laid out already. This was an ill-advised AfD and I hope it was not fueled by the conflict between the article's author, I am not a dog and Collectonian. Mr. dog unfortunately removed CSD notices instead of using {{Hangon}} tags; eventually several more of his articles (such as Dame Janet Vaughan)^[5] were nominated for speedy deletion (but all survived). --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how the Prime Minister and Queen of England both thought enough of Janet Vaughan to knight her -- shows how little they know, I suppose. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: In science and the history of science, this, and the Linnean Society are very notable. It may be little more than a list, but that is why it would be consulted. The reason each person was awarded the medal would created an article far too long for Wikipedia, but it is still important information and links can be made from the winners' own pages to the medal to explain the award in the context of individual winners. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable award, merits own article. Gandalf61 (talk) 19:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (Non-admin closure), consensus is CRYSTAL clear. Paragon12321 (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

China 117 Tower[edit]

Appears to be complete WP:CRYSTAL. Googling for "China-117-Tower Tianjin" shows only 23 somebody's sketch-up that they uploaded to a few of the skyscaper sites. Zero news hits. KelleyCook (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - tallest building in china is easily notable, also construction has started so crystal does not apply --T-rex 23:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as under construction. DGG (talk) 07:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sure if this is true, but then Wikipedia would demand that we need a reference to a reputable source saying this. An anonymous editor commenting on the various skyscraper websites certainly don't count. Most of the future construction sketchups on the mentioned sites are just pipedreams of some lonely wannabe architect. Should we put all those buildings on here? -- KelleyCook (talk) 13:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails general notability criteria, notability criteria for buildings and structures, and WP:CRYSTAL. If and when building is finished, if multiple reliable sources cover it extensively and in a non-trivial manner, then an article would be appropriate. At this time however, article fails. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 19:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article is notable as this supertall skyscraper is going to be the tallest building in China at 570 m (1870 feet), which is taller than all but a few structures in the world. Two news sources document the groundbreaking (beginning of construction) of the tower back on 12-13-2007, although both are in Chinese and one is a close copy of the other. See [6], and [7]. The building is under construction so WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply. See this page. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Armin van Buuren - Oceanlab} 18:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps a Chinese-speaking Wikipedian could search for 中国117大厦 and if any reliable references come up they can include them in the article. Foreign-language references are better than no references. --Joowwww (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; the China 117 Tower is definitely notable. Becoming the tallest building in China (and one of the tallest in the world) is something that should be covered on Wikipedia. Even though there currently are not many sources, as construction progresses the building will become more well known. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 23:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note; I have made minor changes and improvements to the article. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 23:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article still fails general notability criteria, notability criteria for buildings and structures, and WP:CRYSTAL. Without "significant coverage" in "reliable sources", there is no choice but to delete. L0b0t (talk) 00:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't see a good reason so far for deletion. Thanks.

218.186.66.118 (talk) 11:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above vote was placed by User:L0b0t's wikistalker User:Yasis who is still hiding behind IP socks to avoid a block. Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Yasis. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - Nabla (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zeke_Vanderhoek[edit]

The wikipedia is not meant for advertising. The person mentioned in this article is not notable enough to merit an entry in the Wikipedia. He is no famous well known educator in America —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakesteed1965 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 18 July 2008

Comment. Note the reference from the New York Times. Perhaps the school is more notable than the person. --Eastmain (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing any sign of encyclopedic notability here. His school would be notable - if and when it opens - but that's not scheduled to be until 2009, it seems to be a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to speculate on its notability now. Also I get more than a whiff of advertising about the article, created as it was by a single-purpose account whose only other contribution was a (deleted) article advertising Vanderhoek's Manhattan GMAT company. --Stormie (talk) 01:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I am not very familiar with the US education scene, so I am for the moment not casting a vote. However, some aspects of this AfD are peculiar. User:TenPoundHammer removed a {{SPA}} tag from the nominator, with the cryptic edit summary of "srsly, he's a n00b, let's AGF". As I am one of those dinosaurs that still try to write English (and not being a native speaker at that), I had a hard time with that one! I know what AGF means and I guess that "srsly" is meant to indicate "seriously", but what kind of animal a "n00b" is I cannot fathom. In any case, a SPA tag is just a notification that the person in question has only edited articles related to one singe issue and the explication given with the tag explicitly says that this does not assume there is no good faith. Anyway, I looked up Jakesteed1965's edit history and I must say that I am impressed by someone who arrived in Wikipedia and within a day figured out that AfD exists and how to use it (cost me several months...;-). Turning to the issue at hand, I have Googled "Zeke Vanderhoek" and got hundreds of hits, one of them a biographical article in the NY Times (I have added that link to the article). Many other links appear to be to blogs, which does not necessarily confer notability, but there may be more out there if one looks for it. One final note to the nominator: it is not necessary for a person to be "famous", notability is enough. --Crusio (talk) 09:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are many charter schools (approximately one for every well-to-do suburb in America); this one has not even opened; on top of that, we are talking about one would-be founder of a charter school that has not even opened. Bear in mind that the New York Times is a local paper as well as a national one. These articles strike me more in the way of local interest rather than as serious news. RayAYang (talk) 05:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He doesn't seem to be notable, though I do think the Equity Project would be (provided proper sources exist, of course). All the information seems to come from his company site, and thus shouldn't be reliable as the basis for a neutral article on its own. JDbruin (talk) 17:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sources provided by PC78 clearly show this fails WP:NFF at the present time (ie until shooting begins).Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certified Copy[edit]

Explicitly fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice to recreation when film can be reliably sourced to have already begun shooting. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination wikipedia is not crystal ball WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Film is not even in production. No guarantee that it will even be made/completed. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Although several earlier sources state that the film was due to begin shooting in March this year (and one such source is linked in the article), IMDB says that this has been pushed back to next summer, and a recent article in Variety says May-June 2009. Having said that, there do appear to be an abundance of sources that indicate notability. PC78 (talk) 03:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — PC78 (talk) 03:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per PC78's source... filming is not going to begin anytime soon, and it is not guaranteed to actually commence. Article should only exist when filming begins, per WP:NFF. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

"

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), per wp:snow Oo7565 (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

Change of variables (PDE)[edit]

Contested prod. How-to guide, one of the things Wikipedia is not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has been criticized by Ryan Reich based on my motivations for creating the article, as much as for the quality of the article. I don't think motivations for creating an article are a valid basis for criticism; the article itself should be discussed on its own terms. (See the article Talk Page for the thread.) His criticisms of the article can be seen as a guide for improvement, not as a reason for deletion. This article documents a technique basic to symbolic computation with PDEs. It is no more or less relevant than the article on Integration by substitution. It's something that exists, is significant, and is worthy of note. If someone has a problem with the quality of the writing, then that person should feel free to improve the exposition and add what they think to be the relevant information for people who are interested in this topic. What is obvious to one person may not be obvious to another. I know, after doing a lot of Internet searches on this topic, that there is not a clear, simple, short and definitive exposition on this topic, but it is used in a casual way in many applied math expositions involving PDEs. That is actually a tricky issue is documented by a quotation from a Wikipedia-listed mathematician which is in the article. Ryan Reich could improve the article, following his criticisms, by:

Providing a better exposition of the general principle
Saying in a better way what the technique accomplishes
Giving a better example which illustrates the technique

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 22:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. See the discussion on the talk page for my response to the claim that I'm basing my criticisms on an assessment of Erxnmedia's motivations. I have also written there why I think this article is necessarily a how-to guide, and I believe that Erxnmedia's statement above affirms that he wrote the article as such a guide and would expand it to include more material in this vein (this is the short version of why his motivations are relevant, if not central to my criticism of the article). In particular, this article is much less relevant in its area than integration by substitution is in its, essentially because integration by substitution is an idea which goes above and beyond either its applications to symbolic integration or its connection to the chain rule, whereas substitution in differential equations is firmly a subset of both symbolic manipuation and the chain rule. It is not necessarily the role of Wikipedia to inform professionals in the use of a technique which is part of their work; occasionally, particularly in math, it functions that way because the tools of the trade are also part of the trade. Nonetheless, one could write an article on blacksmithing without being at all useful to blacksmiths, even in those issues which are tricky and badly-documented on the Internet. And not every mathematical tool is an object of independent study in math, particularly (as in this case) when it is an instance of something larger and more significant which has been specialized to a context in which nothing detailed can be said about it. I don't think this article can be rewritten to avoid being redundant with a discussion of the chain rule and also to avoid excessively instructing merely the technique of substitution. Ryan Reich (talk) 02:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Wikipedia is not a professional mathematical journal, and there is no reason to limit information about mathematics in Wikipedia solely to information which is of interest only to professional mathematicians specializing in that aspect of mathematics. Like it or not, change of variables in PDE is hard to do. The quote from J. Michael Steele in the current article was from a book on stochastic processes, not PDEs. There are many people who need to apply mathematics in professions other than mathematics, who need some correct information about a particular corner of mathematics which is accessibly presented, not like a JAMS submission in which all which would be apparent to an expert in the topic is ellided. Erxnmedia (talk) 13:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looking on this as an how-to guide seems a drastic extension of the meaning. Seen in this light, most mathematical topics could be seen as how to prove something or other. Not the most sophisticated mathematical article in Wikipedia, but elementary levels are acceptable too. DGG (talk) 07:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. --Itub (talk) 07:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Appears to need large portions substantially rewritten to become truly encyclopedic, but I'm wary to delete anything so comprehensive. Per DGG it seems reasonable for a mathematics article that clearly needs some cleanup work. -FrankTobia (talk) 07:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for improvement, any first DiffEq textbook will attest to the significance of the subject. WillOakland (talk) 18:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I know pedagogical arguments do not really hold sway in these discussions, but there are some truly fascinating bits of functional theory behind the ~~how-to~~ [edit: current theory-sparse article]. In any case, the technique is treated by any Differential Equations book (perhaps a more standard mathematics text should be cited in addition to the Financial Applications?) sufficiently to be covered by the encyclopedic mandate - Eldereft (cont.) 08:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eldereft, Can you add the functional theory to the article? I stated the general technique as best I could, but I am not an authority, and I am looking forward to someone with more experience and training supplying a deeper explanation of the theory behind the technique. Roughly speaking, I would guess that every change of variables can be cast as a coordinate system transformation, so the theory of coordinate system transformation would apply in this case. Also, the financial application (Black Scholes), which involves multiple change of variables, doesn't make clear the connection with coordinate system transformation. (It kind of looks more like a card trick -- it shows what can be done, but it doesn't necessarily make clear what's behind the curtain.) Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an important technique and not a How-to guide. QuantumShadow (talk) 11:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC) "[reply]

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

"

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

The result was merge to colorism. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pigmentocracy[edit]

This is just a neologism. The general concept is very important, but if it were being discussed under this name there would be a lot more material. As it is there is just one link to one article which uses the expression in its title. No evidence that anyone else uses the word. Redddogg (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The New York Times used the term as far back as 1993[8]. Google scholar finds 337 uses of the term[9]. Pburka (talk) 01:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, or better yet merge with Colorism. For a 15-year old word championed by the NY Times, that small a number of ghits is a reasonable indication that it never really caught on as a term. Grutness...wha? 02:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to colorism, and merge the detritus that doesn't exist in that article. - Richard Cavell (talk) 02:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Soxπed93^(blag) 04:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bet the House[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources for Bet the House. It's also non-notable because it is a series that airs in short segments that are only a few minutes long. Schuym1 (talk) 05:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources or reason for notability given. Black ngold29 06:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sources...Show's webpage, and minimal Google hits for "Bet the House" Nick at Nite...It appears to be a current show, but there's a distinct lack of external coverage...weak delete. — Scientizzle 15:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Protonk (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just an interstitial show, no coverage in reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 22:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per User:Blackngold29 --T-rex 23:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The result is Delete. Schuym1 (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. BJ^Talk 03:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of various type of power plants[edit]

This article is in need of copy editing, lacks references, and may not be NPOV. Further, much of this content is or could be covered on the Power station page. At this time I feel this article has no real value. Revr J (talk) 18:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Power station. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to power station. This article adds little reliably sourced content and lots of opinion. For instance, it compares the startup times for nuclear and fossil power plants and gives the nod to nukes for ease of start-up, which is doubtful and unsourced. Edison (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ~~or Merge to power station with considerable checking of facts and NPOVing,~~ per Edison. Rwendland (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reflecting, I agree a "merge" attempt is futile. There is just too much that is inaccurate, starting from scratch would be more reliable. BTW This article has no wikilinks to it. Rwendland (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - difficult to write an NPOV article with such a title. Deb (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Power station. Very important info, would be a shame to loose it. QuantumShadow (talk) 12:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I feel that a "merge" attempt is futile; there is are no references here and a lot of dubious (i.e. NPOV issues) and overall vague and poor quality points. Any content that isn't already covered elsewhere would need to be re-created from scratch. All this page offers is a concept: comparing the types more directly. If that's where we want to go, we should still delete and start fresh elsewhere. You can't really merge just a title. Revr J (talk) 19:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was G11 by WBOSITG. Non-admin closure. Now I'm hungry. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 22:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bosco Stick[edit]

Non-notable food product, someone associated with the company making them has asked that it be deleted [10]. Hut 8.5 18:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the company request. Also because they're not notable (Bosco Pizza Company doesn't have a page and doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP). They are tasty though. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 19:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom and G11. —Animum (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shereth 21:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan D'Onofrio[edit]

Non-notable biography, fails notability even if he was, in fact, notable for WP:ONEVENT. The subject is a Staten Island teenager who got into some trouble with the law for throwing some rocks at store windows and breaking into a few stores. The author of the article attempts to add to dramatic value of the events by calling his petty crimes notorious and adding that the subject appeared on the front page of Staten Island Advance, a newspaper whose circulation of under 60,000 is limited to the New York City's borough of Staten Island. A Google search provides no other promising leads that would make the subject pass the basic criteria of WP:Notability. Also the article reeks of an attempt to disparage the subject. The author of the article (Sislander11 (talk · contribs)) has made no edits before or after this article. The image of the subject (Image:2zthwf5.jpg) was uploaded by the same editor describing the image as a mugshot yet still claiming himself to be the author of the image, a claim I find contradictory. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Classic case of WP:ONEEVENT. RayAYang (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Someone who spray painted grafitti, broke a few windows, was charged with burglary and got probation falls far short of satisfying WP:BIO even if the local paper had a few articles about the crime spree. Edison (talk) 19:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Just a local kid. Nothing more. DarkAudit (talk) 22:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Agents (TV series)[edit]

Article lacks sufficient Attribution for Verifiability of the WP:FICTION notability criteria. I can't find any thing about this series. triwbe (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —triwbe (talk) 18:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources given, and a google search returns nothing. 78.146.213.30 (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as apparent hoax. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 19:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G3 Clear hoax. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 19:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. (EC)Hoax. Apparently James Coburn pulled off the finest performance of his long career in voicing one of the roles for the 2005 movie three years after he died. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, BLP concerns have not been addressed per this discussion. Shereth 21:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zuby[edit]

More known for the minor mistaken identity incident than his music; fails WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, having read the sources, he seems notable enough, even if not for his music. Per WP:VERIFIABLE, the sources would suggest a keep, although I would like to see it perhaps betterly written. 78.146.213.30 (talk) 18:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So far he is known only for the one incident. When his music career takes off then he should have an article. Redddogg (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks like WP:BLP1E applies --T-rex 00:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can understand why people who don't know about this kind of music might think he's only known for the case of mistaken identity, but he's actually quite well known now for his music, both in the UK and across Europe and the middle east. I don't have any connection with him, but I'd heard of his music before the incident. He is frequently on the radio, such as Radio 1 Xtra, Radio 1 and many Local Radio stations. I think there's a real danger of bias in deleting this article, because unsurprisingly the sort of demographic that edits wikipedia are less likely to be aware of British Rap music. I will put some more references on the article if I have time.--Hontogaichiban (talk) 03:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if he is actually well-known for his music, show me the reliable, secondary sources because I can't find any. WP:BIO1E: If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted.-Samuel Tan 07:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Breakout Tour[edit]

Pure crystal. No sources, no dates. Kww (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hmm... a google search found a few fansites that seemed to back it up, but nothing notable. 78.146.213.30 (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:CRYSTAL. Especially with tours, what's planned doesn't always materialize. Wait till it happens. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. No sources, no verifiable info. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 22:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very crystal --T-rex 00:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. If anything that is worth mentionning and source it can go to Cyrus's article or Hannah Montana. --JForget 01:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shereth 21:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crap From The Past[edit]

article fails to assert why this radio show is notable. Lacks 3rd party verifiable references Rtphokie (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced tag has sat on article for eight months; it stands to reason that nothing new is abruptly going to appear. —C.Fred (talk) 20:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was G7 by Ruhrfisch . Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 22:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Widad Marachi[edit]

No assertation of notability. Article does have some content and a tag indicating that it's under construction. However, I see no point in finishing it if there is no proof that she even exists (5 google hits, all but one from Wikipedia). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 17:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

good point. you can delete it. i was trying to write it out, but i really can't find any more stuff, and they havent got anything except that she has two portraits worth a lot, but that's really it. i dont know how to delete it actually, so go ahead Baronsamedi88 (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

in that case G7 Speedy now tagged as such. Beeblbrox (talk) 17:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per unreliable, if any, sourcing as discussed. —Sean Whitton / 10:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kylie Minogue's leaked material[edit]

Indiscriminate information. Fancruft. Fails WP:N as none of these songs have been released. Any useful reliable information can be merged to album that this stuff was meant to be released on. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources to back up the info. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 16:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything useful and sourced to the respective album pages per TDF "The Nom", bowl the rest. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Multiple unsourced claims suggest this article relies on a lot of original research. Dolphin51 (talk) 02:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 13:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kylie Minogue non-album songs[edit]

Non-notable B-sides. All information is forked from respective singles. Fancruft. Please see the AfDs for Garbage B-sides| and List of Coldplay's b-sides. Any useful information about songs which have not been released on Kylie Minogue singles or albums can be merged into Kylie Minogue discography. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per consensus that B-sides and non-album songs generally aren't notable or verifiable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 16:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of demonstrated notability. Drewcifer (talk) 19:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability, especially if it is already on the respective singles articles. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as being non-notable (not even an assertion). —Sean Whitton / 10:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shay Tubaly[edit]

No evidence of WP:BIO notability given. Zero Google news hits. Prod was disputed. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - biography of a living, non-notable person -Samuel Tan 07:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, consensus is that the article is notable. Davewild (talk) 20:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

West Parish Elementary School Science Park[edit]

This is a procedural nomination following discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 12. The original AfD was for West Parish Elementary School which is now a redirect to this article - interested editors may wish to consult both that debate as well as the resultant DRV discussion prior to submitting a recommendation here. In essence, it was argued that the school's notability hinged on the park's notability, therefore this AfD will also focus on whether the park is indeed notable. As a note to the closing administrator, if this discussion results in a deletion of the article, the redirect should also be re-deleted. Shereth 16:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I said earlier, no significant notability for either. DGG (talk) 17:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was amused by this article, but no real notability attaches to a playground in an elementary school, even if it does receive a profile or two in the local newspaper. RayAYang (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have added three more refs. Notability comes from multiple reliable sources which this page now has. I would add that getting MIT professors involved in the park's design certainly seems notable. TerriersFan (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at the risk of repeating myself. Neither the park nor the school meet notability standards. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)\[reply]
Keep meets WP:N as there are multiple independent references that are non-trivial and largely about the subject. I know of no guideline or policy that would indicate that this article shouldn't stay. Hobit (talk) 20:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was thinking that the one thing that could change my mind is recognition in the profession that it was significant, and then at Hobit's request I looked again at the source from the national site of the Parent-teachers Association, which I think does meet that requirement. The single local reporter in Boston writing 3 articles about a local event are of course not independent of each other. DGG (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As some say above there is more than one source and the sources are relible. I see this to be an exclent recorce for other schools to devolp there own park.CelesJalee (talk) 01:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - park is clearly notable -Samuel Tan 07:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Sean Whitton / 10:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don Ecker[edit]

Fails notability. Page also appears to be created/maintained by Don Ecker (Paramoral). Strong Conflict of Interest.

Strong Delete per nom. Wiki is not a MySpace directory for everyone who wants to create a page. 63.3.5.4 (talk) 04:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Sean Whitton / 11:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Matters Radio[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Dark Matters Radio

Don Ecker is using this page for self-promotion. Fails notability. Strong Conflict of Interest

Delete - Zero google news hits. Other Google hits appear either to be blogs or "news" sites of questionable source. I'm having trouble finding quality verifiable 3rd party references.--Rtphokie (talk) 12:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Sean Whitton / 11:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Past Sins[edit]

Don Ecker is using this page to advertise his only book. Fails notability. Strong Conflict of Interest —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepspire (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 22:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - could not find sources that establish notability. This is one case where it is extremely difficult to find sources because the article's title is such a common phrase. I'm for deleting this because the article has been AFDed for a few days and no one (including the author) has come up with proof of notability.-Samuel Tan 07:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree, no reliable sources could be found to establish notability--Captain-tucker (talk) 02:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep(non-admin closure) The nominators concern that there are no sources has been addressed. No other arguments to delete. - Icewedge (talk) 05:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FaktorTel[edit]

Not notable. No sources or links to prove notability. Ernestvoice (talk) 16:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. --Eastmain (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Eastmain's references seem to establish that the company is a notable service provider RayAYang (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The publications Australian IT and The Age are notable enough for me.--Lester 04:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. -- RyRy (talk) 10:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Engin[edit]

Non notable company. No references to any 3rd party sources (only internal ones). Changes required have not been fixed since 2006 Ernestvoice (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Company is notable, however the article needs a clean-up and sources to be added. Bidgee (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable VoIP company, see [11] for News on Engin. Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 17:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. --Eastmain (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the references seem to suggest it is somewhat notable. 78.146.213.30 (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- notable, needs a cleanup and expansion not deletion. - Longhair\^talk 23:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, ASX-listed public company, which guarantees verifiable coverage in reliable sources. --Stormie (talk) 01:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, ample coverage in the Australian media (per User:Kodster) and listed on the ASX. Clearly meets notability guidelines, suggest considering a snow keep at this point. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Notability evident since referencing subsequent to nomination. WWGB (talk) 06:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete given lack of sources that fail to appear. Can be added to discography at a later date if these are provided. —Sean Whitton / 11:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World sales and certifications for Madonna[edit]

Indiscriminate information. Fails WP:V and WP:RS as there are no inline cites or references. This article is just a listing of forked out information from respective albums. Anything useful can be merged into respective albums or Madonna albums discography. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any of this information should be merged into the discography page and/or the respective albums page if it's not there already. (Personally, I'm a bit disgusted that Madonna has sold so many albums, but what can I say? She is a Material Girl after all...) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 16:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now. This is hardly indiscriminate information, and merging into Madonna's discography would probably make that article too big. It seems a reasonable sub-article, but badly needs to be sourced. If something needs merging, AFD isn't the place to bring it. If anyone can come up with reliable sources, I would say Keep and then start a merge discussion if need be.--Michig (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unnecessary subpage - content should be in discography page and sourced. PhilKnight (talk) 13:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Susan Vaughn[edit]

Autobiography. Is she notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable based on the material presented. No paintings in major museums. No major awards. If there's more material, let's see it. DGG (talk) 17:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The awards listed seem minor at best and unless there's recognition for her work that's not mentioned in the article, the subject seems to be a non-notable artist. Rnb (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a side note, it appears as if the article is quickly becoming a non-npov advertisement for her, her work, her website(s) and anything else related to her. Rnb (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to fail WP:CREATIVE, the notability criteria for artists. -Verdatum (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 01:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG et al. Johnbod (talk) 03:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Was already speedily deleted three days ago, but this has been ignored by the creator. LuciferMorgan (talk) 21:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Sean Whitton / 11:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Le Transperceneige[edit]

Fails WP:NFF. According to this article (dated May 2008) the first draft of the screenplay is yet to be completed. PC78 (talk) 10:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 10:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 16:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to have no notability as well as being crystal ball. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too early and thus violates wp:nff. Sonuvafitch (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. BJ^Talk 03:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Performance Based SEO[edit]

This article appears to be a non-notable neologism. Facts have been gleaned from notable SEO blogs and then synthesized to form new conclusions. If all the cruft were whittled away, the remainder could be merged into search engine optimization, or there were sufficient content, a daughter article, search engine optimization payment models. "Performance Based SEO" is not a term of art used in the industry. Jehochman ^Talk 10:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Jehochman -- an unnecessary fork of our carefully crafted feature article, Search engine optimization. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 16:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable neologism, unnecessary fork. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:HEY. Although the article still has WP:PROBLEMS, the references added put its notability beyond doubt. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 05:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deltathree[edit]

Non notable. Article is for the purposes of promotion the company only. No references to articles Ernestvoice (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable advertizing. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. --Eastmain (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Only incidental mention of this company in Eastmain's references, as part of the broader VoIP sector, insufficient to establish notability. RayAYang (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following edits, change to Keep. But the article still has rather serious POV and context issues. It's hard to say how it fares versus its competitors, except that getting de-listed from NASDAQ is probably not a good sign. RayAYang (talk) 01:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Tidied up and added even more references - should unequivocally pass WP:CORP now. Gr1st (talk) 23:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus - default to keep (non-admin closure), no consensus reached even after relisting. - Toon⁰⁵ 21:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eximbills Technologies[edit]

Violation of WP:NOTDIR Beagel (talk) 12:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to China Systems. Dpmuk (talk) 12:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 16:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as non-notable. —Sean Whitton / 11:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MySNC Records[edit]

Doesn't seem to be notable, and a previous speedy deletion noted this. The main contributor is JamieGilder, possibly the same person as the founder (Jamie Gilder). Ian¹³ /t 12:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References and other citations will be put on in due course. I understand the face that it is me inserting all this information.

But soon, songs will be released in the UK which will appear within the UK Singles Charts. MySNC Records is hardly anywhere to be found on the internet, and when searched, it's Unprofessional MySpace page appears. JamieGilder (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Wikipedia isn't a place for advertising or a companies website, it is an encyclopedia. Neither is it a crystal ball - if the records company gets lots of signings, and hits on the singles chart, I doubt it's notability would be contested. But as it stands, there is little to make it notable. If there is little on the internet, it's probably because it isn't that important presently. Additionally, Original Research is banned. Ian¹³ /t 15:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What Original Research is currently on the page? - I really don't understand why this is being contested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamieGilder (talk • contribs) 17:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one can assume any facts added by yourself without references are likely to be from your own knowledge. Ian¹³ /t 18:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:CORP. Blatant WP:ADVERT & WP:COI Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 16:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although WP:COI isn't a reason for deletion non-notability and non-verifiability (of notability) are. Perhaps reasonable to work on in userspace (but, not include the links per say) so that if it becomes notable in a reasonably short length of time the article can be recreated. Otherwise, build it in Word (or other offwiki text program) and save it until the company does become notable. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Sean Whitton / 11:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mass transit interactive[edit]

A dead dotcom unlikely to ever have been notable. References and Google News searches link to many press releases and not much else. Its new corporate owners, Horizon Media, also have no article. I found this when closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Heller, the AfD about its founder. Sandstein 08:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 15:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing notable here Mayalld (talk) 15:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Sean Whitton / 11:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Björk remixography[edit]

Non-notable remixes. All information is forked from respective singles. Fancruft. Remixes are interpretations of other musicians work. If a remix has been released, then a remix should be discussed on the release article. This feels like indiscriminate information. Also fails WP:NEO for the use of remixography. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merge into discography if you have to. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 13:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or complete merge as this is not an unreasonable level of detail for as highly notable an artist as Björk, in whose work the medium of the remix is prominent.Skomorokh 13:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. Preferably the former, as a merge would make the dicography much less readable. Otherwise it needs citing, as some of these are not remixes (ie Brodsky quartet version of Hyperballad is a complete re-recording with different vocals and instruments - no remixer made this).Yobmod (talk) 09:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. Article isn't even an hour old.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

F&D[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/F&D

Contains assertion of notability, but no actual evidence of such. Weak delete SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Glasberg[edit]

Is this radio personality really notable? Rtphokie (talk) 15:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The reliable and verifiable sources provided, including coverage in The New York Times satisfies the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Additional sources are available to further expand the article. Alansohn (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep more reliable and verifiable sources should be found and included in the article though. And if she is more commonly called Lisa G than that should be the article's title as I understand the naming conventions. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lisa G is certainly a notable radio personality. The Billboard award and the fact that she is regularly featured on The Howard Stern Show makes notability a no-brainer, for me. I do agree more sources are needed and proof of her other notable radio work, mentioned in the article, but not sourced, could easily be found.. Radioinfoguy (talk) 01:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 09:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Meat Packers[edit]

Non-notable band - fails WP:MUSIC Dancarney (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Dancarney (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete utterly nn, and very WP:GARAGE Mayalld (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after looking through things a little more closely i'll recommend this for deletion, though i would say the WP:GARAGE comment was overstating it a little, first off its not my band, second, they do make money at it (they're just not RICH... not by a long shot - hence the delayed nn realization), and third - only having two members in a band and playing shows with others who aren't "members" isn't the same thing as being the guy who runs around music stores talking to every drummer they can see trying to recruit. Anyways, I'd rather see this thing out of here and deleted than look like a jerk defending my stupid mistake. Sorry folks, it won't happen again. Sonuvafitch (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Un monsieur de compagnie[edit]

Delete nn film, per WP:FILM Mayalld (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —triwbe (talk) 18:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Main actors are hugely notable and many refs on the Internet. --triwbe (talk) 18:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the nomination is unsubstantiated. In what way is the film non-notable? How does it fail WP:FILM? PC78 (talk) 00:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 22:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. Esn (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snowball Delete --JForget 01:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kane hemmings[edit]

Just declined a speedy on this one as some notability is asserted however I do not believe it is enough to pass WP:ATHLETE nor the informal guidelines at WP:FOOTY as he has not yet made a first team appearance for a club in a fully professional league. nancy ^(talk) 15:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit the article is hard for me to read in its current format but, I didn't see an assertion of notability. Either way he fails not only WP:ATHLETE but, also WP:BIO so should be Deleted. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - then again, I have a sort of vested interest as it was my speedy that was declined :-) CultureDrone (talk) 16:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:ATHLETE and even the more inclusive WP:FOOTY. And before people start saying it, no, the unsourced claim that this 16 year old kid has signed a contract with Rangers does not mean that he meets WP:ATHLETE, he has to actually play for them, something which he probably won't do for at least a year if at all....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk)
Delete, fails notability. --Jimbo^[online] 20:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BanRay 21:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 16:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. A long, long way from meeting the criteria for an article per WP:N and WP:Athlete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Result was Speedily Deleted - Copyright infringement. (G12) --Michael Greiner 16:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latest trends in power systems[edit]

This gave me a headache, but it appears to be WP:OR, possible a term paper or journal article. ukexpat (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If it is not original research then it will be copyvio. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 14:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as copyvio of this - tagged as such. Mayalld (talk) 14:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- good catch. – ukexpat (talk) 15:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Rename to List of Old Tonbridgians. The Helpful One 11:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Old Tonbridgians[edit]

Merge into Tonbridge School article as an Alumni section. s p u n k o 2 0 1 0 (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The list is not excessively long as to require its own article. Merge into Tonbridge School. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, merge is definitely necessary, perhaps coupled with getting rid of some of the less notable people on the list. Eton might be able to sustain its own grad list, but not Tonbridge.Thedarkfourth (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename to List of Old Tonbridgians to conform to the list naming guidelines at WP:SAL. Size is not the only reason to have these as separate articles. Consistency with the treatment of other alumni lists IS a reason, including the ability to categorize (which would disappear if there were a merge); I have added the relevant cats. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - and rename per the reasoning of UnitedStatesian. The list may not be huge, but it is beyond small. -- Whpq (talk) 18:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect. —Sean Whitton / 11:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Character Zero[edit]

Useful - reference to Man Mulcahey clarified —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.30.142 (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC) Non-notable. Not released as single. No inline citations means limited reliability. Media coverage? Tenacious D Fan (talk) 13:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 13:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It doesn't establish notability per WP:MUSIC:Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts Hasn't been charted. ...that have won significant awards or honors...:It has won no awards. Also, in the general notability policy: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject Both the sources are the band's website, not independent of the subject. TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 14:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect into Billy Breathes (the album it's on). Not notable, and not among the very small amount of Phish singles to chart. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Canvassing concerns aside, there are a sufficient number of well established editors casting doubt on the argument to delete to give me pause. What this really boils down to is a question of whether or not the weak sourcing provided is enough to nudge it into the realm of being notable - and that question really hasn't been answered. My suggestion to those wishing to see this kept are to find additional sources (not just the SSS information) to stave off future deletion attempts. Shereth 23:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

bRitic[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}}.

Does not appear to be notable, no significant or major coverage Stifle (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the Simplified Spelling Society advocates it, alone makes it notable. MinYinChao (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide citation to support that statement. --Snowded (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[12] MinYinChao (talk) 13:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

citation reports on Britic does not advocate it. Nothing better than that? It may be enough to justify the existence of something (maybe under the Deans name, possibly Britic). The other citation given as I pointed out on the talk page is to an email and not a valid source. I think you need more to justify it. --Snowded (talk) 13:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Please read the source. The fact that the Simple Spelling Society mention it in their journal proves it. From checking your contributions, it seems you have no knowledge of anything linguistic, so I suggest you leave this to the linguists. MinYinChao (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)1stly proving the existence of something doesn't prove it is notable and I'd suggest reviewing the policies and guidelines around notability and verifiability. 2ndly your comment about Snowded's knowledge (or lack thereof) of linguistics is uncalled for and does not contribute constructively to the discussion of the article in question. Let's stick to the issue of discussing the article itself and it's merits/flaws which mean it should be kept or deleted please. With that in mind I have to say Weak Delete as other than the spelling society it doesn't have any appearances in multiple reliable 3rd party sources. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(indent). I read the Source, it reports on the death of Deans and provides details on Britic. It does not at any point say "supports", "advocates" etc. There are no post 1983 references when the SSS site is searched on Britic as a key word. Any editor is entitled to question citations, sources etc . --Snowded (talk) 14:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so if any editor is entitled to question citations and sources, why was it that you expressed your desire for me not to raise the issues of the biases you were exhibiting on the talk:Wales discussion?

And anyway, no, the fact it is from the "Journal of the Simplified Spelling Society" shows its notability. Anything mentioned by the organization becomes instantly notable, please see WP:VERIFIABLE. MinYinChao (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One SSS source might be disputable, but there are a whole multitude of incidents where the society refers to it.

etc

while even the ESP system refers to it [[18]

and Rand has even spoken about it alongside other systems [19]

MinYinChao (talk) 14:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I (and others) asked you to stop accusing other people of being biased because they did not agree with you and you were also asked to stop edit warring. In respect of this article there are no third party citations that I can see other than the 1983 one you mention above along with some 17 other references (mostly minor) on the SSS site. Your ESP reference is one minor mention. At the moment, given the poor quality and the sparse nature of the references I would say delete, but if you can provide material I would be happy to support its continuation. --Snowded (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No third party citations? Are you not reading the above discussion? Firstly, any mention by the SSS makes it notable. Do you understand what the SSS is? It is the most powerful English Spelling Reform society in the world. Not only are they mentioned once by the society, but they feature in many, many documents written by them. On top of that, there are even more third part resources from outside the SSS as well. Additionally, you were exhibiting bias, Snowded, since you keep pushing the use of "country" over "constituent country", "subdivision", etc, all of which are as equally sourced as what you were trying to push. MinYinChao (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

request please get away from the talk:wales thing. It has nothing to do with this article. Let's stick to the issue at hand which is specifically why bRitic should or should not be deleted. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cite them then. So far the SSS links are weak and not enough to support the continuation of this article. Oh and please stop showering people with the "bias" word. --Snowded (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was pretty sure that where I just spent the time writing out the list of some of the sources, that counted as citing them. But then again, from experience of you on my talk page, I realize it may take 2 or 3 attempts to get you to listen. And don't push it onto anyone else Snowded, the only person I have stated is bias, is you. MinYinChao (talk) 14:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

commentRegardless of bias or not by the user you are accusing you need to address the issue of THIS article and THIS article only. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was curious as to whether it was even real (or a hoax) when debating (read edit warring!) over the capitalisation of the name. Now that someone else seems to think the same, it suggests maybe it isn't notable. Furthermore, the sample text section seems rather original research to me. Perhaps adding a few paragraphs to English spelling reform would be more appropriate. Nouse4aname (talk) 14:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that you have been blocked for edit warring, and yet you continued to do it despite warnings. Yet you somehow think you are stil correct regarding the name capitalization, even though it was settled in opposition of your contributions? Oh, and note, that on the links you gave, they actually backed up our argument. MinYinChao (talk) 15:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

commentRegardless of "editwarring" or not by the user you are accusing and the name capitalisation dispute you need to address the issue of THIS article and THIS article only. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. As a member of the Spelling Society myself, I cannot even believe we are considering the possibility of deleting the article. It is well cited, it is hardly unknown across the linguistic world, and it is well-written. --Illujion (talk) 14:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting that this above user has only two contributions, one being the above...amazing that they managed to stumble across this debate so soon after it began....Nouse4aname (talk) 14:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am supposing this is a suggestion that this user may be myself? Well firstly, I'm not called "Sam", and not a male anyway, but regardless, you can check whether we are the same user by the "Checkuser", can you not? Although I personally do find it odd about the user myself, but anyway... MinYinChao (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wasn't suggesting it was you, but when users with few contributions start contributing to AfDs, it does raise questions as to their motives....Nouse4aname (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry I didn't mean to cause any confusion. It was just that someone came onto an SS forum and mentioned what was happening here - several people are discussion it, and I thought that since i had an account, I may as well give my thoughts. Illujion (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)Hi. Welcome to wikipedia. You may wish to mention at said forum that we are not debating the society or its existence as a reasonably reliable source but, you should also mention to anyone else looking to cmoe here and provide input that they should review the notablity and verifiability policies before commenting. Multiple reliable 3rd party sourcing of a non-trivial nature means the article should have just that. I'm sure the policies and guidelines spell it out a bit better. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have given a whole list of third party sources above. MinYinChao (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok. Just out of interest, was that on ESES? MinYinChao (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I point out that you seem to be forgetting that one SSS reference alone would make it notable, let alone the dozens that there are, along with all the other 3rd party cites. I agree with Lllujion. I can't even begin to understand that some editors would dispute its notability gathering the sources provided. MinYinChao (talk) 15:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nouse4aname, if he is a suspected single puprpose account, then tag his vote as such. Otherwise, the attempt to incite drama with these needlessly overlong and unncessary threads that could've been easily avoided is not appreciated. SashaNein (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment actually no, one reference from SSS doesn't make something notable. Just because something is referenced once, twice, or many times by one single source doesn't guarantee notability. You need reliable 3rd party references from multiple sources which cover the subject in a non-trivial manner. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I have given these. Did you check the ESP and Rand cites I gave? Apparently not. MinYinChao (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please give me a page number reference for the 300+ page Legend of the MicMacs where they mention bRitic so I can try to find your substantial coverage from this source? And where precisely in all that ESP stuff is bRitic covered in more than passing? Be specific please. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove the citations I give. MinYinChao (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what are you talking about? Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The diff in question is here, where you did appear to remove one of his links. SashaNein (talk) 16:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are 30 hits for "britic" in the MicMacs document. If you use the "find" bar, this should help you. And yes, thanks for answering for me Sasha. Btw, I'm a girl, lol. MinYinChao (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my apologies I must of clicked "cut" instead of "copy" when moving it into the second browser. I'd still like you to point me to the specific pages which cover bRitic. And to its occurance at the ESP thing. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep though I'd like to see some further real references as well as the assertions here. DGG (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although I agree with David above. 78.146.213.30 (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting to summarise[edit]

Nothing like going to sleep for a few hours and coming back on line. Ignoring the inappropriate comments and assertions it seems to me that the following represents the facts of the case.

We have an entry and citations that support the fact that something called Britic exists, created by someone called Dean and that it is a system for creating a phonetic version of English
We have a few articles from the Spelling Society which describe the system (circa 1983) and before that are (where substantive) linked to the death of Deans. Others are single phrase or sentence references
We have one reference in ESP (largely a newletter type source) and Rand
The assertion that the Spelling Society have endorsed Britic is not supported by the references (unless one accepts the argument that an article about something comprises endorsement which would be unusual to say the least). However they do mention it pre 1983 so we have established that they are (i) aware of it and (ii) in the references do not specifically reject it
The assertion that the system has been successfully tested in the UK and Australia is only supported by one email support which does not satisfy WIkipedia criteria for citation.
The talk page states that the Spelling Society has a peer reviewed process for assessing schemes and that Britic has not yet been subject to that process. This statement is not supported by a reference, but has not been challenged on the talk page. Its truth or otherwise would be a material fact so can anyone shed enlightenment?

Now regardless of opinions are there any other sources that should be considered? Until we have agreed on what material is available judgement on keeping or deleting should be held back. No one wants to delete an article that has utility, but it has to have good citations and it has to satisfy the test for notability. So before we go there, can those who support this page, please confirm if the above is correct and if there are other sources supply them. --Snowded (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest the removal of the "success" section, considering the lack of worth of that particular source, but I think the rest of the citing is fine, and see no reason for the article to be deleted. Having just gone and had a look around the internet, I see it appears quite well known amongst the spelling reform community. (78.146.213.30) (talk) 21:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the removal of dubious claims (my citation request, your insertion of dubious) will be necessary if it stands. For the moment I think we need to know what the evidence is. Can you provide some citations from your look around the internet? "Britic + Spelling" produces 109 returns, the vast bulk of which are either to this page, or the existing (and limited citations). A further set uses "Britic" but not in the context of this article. --Snowded (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to make the amendments to remove unsupported claims etc. anyway as the article has a better chance of surviving that way. Responses to the questions above would be appreciated. --Snowded (talk) 04:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sad to see a couple of bits being removed, but I guess that until better sourcing of them is found, there is not much of an alternative. The Spelling Society pages are of the most worth here.

Strong Keep by the way, just in case that wasn't clear. MinYinChao (talk) 08:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you shed any light on the statement on the talk page in respect of peer review by the Spelling Society and the claim that Britic has not been through that? --Snowded (talk) 11:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. The comment left on the talk page (although not left by myself, just in case you didn't know), refers to the fact that the SSS does not have a specific system it fully adheres to. Instead, it publishes information about a multitude of differing ones, each of which it gives differing levels of support to - bRitic being one of the main ones. The society historically had an official spelling reform system, but in 1960, it stopped backing just one, and as mentioned, gave support to several. MinYinChao (talk) 11:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(indent) All I can find on their site is the articles otherwise referenced. I can see no list of schemes to which it provides support. Can you provide a reference which does that? --Snowded (talk) 12:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What? No one said there was a "list". It is simply that the systems which they mention are the ones they have backing of. There is no binding commitment of support to any of them if that is what you are asking? MinYinChao (talk) 12:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK so the only evidence is that they mention Britic in a small number of articles (c 1983) and some news items and emails? --Snowded (talk) 12:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(indent) Now we have removed the unsupported claims and the established editors on the page accept that I think ~~I am prepared to say WEAK SUPPORT on the basis that Britic exists, someone might want to know about it~~. Its not especially notable, but is as notable as many a page. The editors obviously care enough to put effort into detail. However it needs watching to make sure it does not engage in unsupported claims --Snowded (talk) 12:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Fails general notability guideline that requires significant coverage and prefers multiple sources. Mentions by a single source, even if that source is reliable, are rarely enough to establish a presumption of notability. L0b0t (talk) 19:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is another option which is to label it as a stub and allow the editors to gather more material --Snowded (talk) 19:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I point out, L0b0t, if you cared to read the discussion, you would see that there are multiple sources.

So far, we thus have the following:

Weak Delete - User:Jasynnash2

Delete - User:Nouse4aname

Strong Keep - User:Illujion

Weak Keep - User:DGG

Keep - User:78.146.213.30

Strong Keep - User:MinYinChao

Weak Keep - User:Snowded

Strong Delete - User:L0b0t

This means that 5/8 have voted Keep, and 3/8 have voted Delete. This shows that with such a strong support for the keep of the article, it certainly can't be deleted. The only options available to us now, are how to help boost the article. Snowded's suggestion of labelling it as a stub may have some worth, but I am not entirely sure about it, considering the length of the article is not particularly stub-like. MinYinChao (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You would assist your cause more if you found some third party references that were not the Spelling Society. To put it very simply, you do not have multiple sources in any meaningful sense of the word. Its not a vote (please read the heading) it will be decided on facts. I have set up a couple of searches to check the thing out, it would not take much for me to move to delete if those don't turn anything up. --Snowded (talk) 21:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would posit that 8 opinions on an AfD only 11 hours old would benefit from more eyes, time, and arguments based on policy and guideline. If I may quote from WP:RS:

"* "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive."

and "In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article. Secondary sources provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred. Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic."

and "Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources."

The sources provided consist of nothing more than an obituary of the creator, trivial mention in a newsletter, a newsletter editorial announcement of a reader's letter stating that the creator had appeared on radio and asking if anyone had heard it, an email exchange mentioning the death of the creator, a passing mention in a newsletter editorial, and a newsletter posted on some guy's homepage. Without sources more substantial than a single organization in the field and their interaction with 1 man (Richard Lung), I'm afraid article just doesn't make the cut. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 01:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see reason why must delete, I would go for keep. Thanks.

218.186.67.37 (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The posting above from User:Yasis, who is hiding behind 218.186.67.37 (amongst others) to evade his block should be discounted. He is merely stalking my edit history to revert or gainsay my edits. Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Yasis, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:218.186.65.34 reported by User:L0b0t (Result: 72 hours), and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive76#User:Yasis reported by User:NJGW (Result: Reported and reporting users blocked for 24 hours). Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep - because (1) the journal cited is likely to be peer reviewed and therefore is of high value, and (2) the fact that the number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources leads me to believe that the citations given are sufficient fo fulfill notability, even though they are (weakly) related. Ultimately, this is a very borderline case that depends on whether academic journals are such high-value sources that one or two of them can negate the need for other high-quality sources. -Samuel Tan 08:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find 4 uses of britic in the Rand page- which isn't about the subject at all.(all are trivial mentions which confirm existence) and still can't find it mentioned in the ESP reference. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I find it rather odd that the only references for this are from over 20 years ago. Surely if this topic were really notable, in that space of time a large quantity of better quality information could be found? The lack of significant coverage for two decades surely indicates something about the impact of this topic? Nouse4aname (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply apparently notability doesn't have a time limit. 20 year old references would be fine for me if they adhered to the multiple, third party, reliable, and non-trivial coverage parameters. The ones give so far don't and I'm not seeing much of an attempt to provide ones that do. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, that the age of a citation doesn't really matter, and has no real bearing on notability or verifiability. However, for something such as a spelling system, that was introduced in 1983 (apparently), you would expect an increase in the number of sources available each year after that. Given that no sources have been provided since 1983, one can only assume that the system has not been widely accepted or used, and thus in my mind at least, that raises questions as to whether Britic really is notable, or just an idea that some guy had 20 years ago that never really took off...Nouse4aname (talk) 13:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. eMail requests for information to the press office of the Spelling Society have so far received no replies. The main editor on this page whose profile indicates a qualification in linguistics has failed to respond to an invitation to provide any academic citation. If nothing else comes in then I think my weak keep is going to shift to a strong delete fast. One can only assume good faith for so long.--Snowded (talk) 13:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Weak notability and other concerns such as likely WP:NOR and WP:COI according to the edit history, tone of edits, and evasive/non-committal replies by the primary contributor so far. After much search and cross-checkings done by other editors earlier, I don't think the contributor or anyone else could provide any latest and more reliable third-party citations other than those mentioned above. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 04:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for same reasons as Aldwinteo --Snowded (talk) 08:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Just passes by references to the apparent Spelling Society. There doesn't seem any consensus to delete at all. Tlilita (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 09:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U-Jam[edit]

Not-notable. Fancruft. A "moniker" used for one show. No inline citations or references means zero reliability. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 13:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 13:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete not notable enough for a stand alone article. A properly referenced mention in U2 and Pearl Jam should be enough. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, but don't mention in articles. TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 14:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a nickname does not deserve an article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment although I agree that this nickname doesn't deserve an article I'm not sure that's a valid reason for deletion on its own (don't make me say The_Edge) and invoke WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS ... kidding mostly btw. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vince Bell[edit]

A wonderful advertisement for the subject which would be right at home in a fan-wiki or directory, but disastrously fails our WP:NPOV policy, presumably because it was written by the suject's publicist (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winifred Whitfield). Subject is probably notable, but this article is horribly POV and we'd be better off with a completely fresh start per WP:FORGET. Guy (Help!) 12:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stubify if needed, but Keep. Subject is notable, and WP:FORGET isn't a reason for deletion. Hobit (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Notability is there but, the article definitely needs to be rewritten though and better referencing is essential. I'm sure some of the stuff here [20] would help. It may even be reasonable to revert back to the extremely shorter version that existed b4 a particular editor became involved. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's WP:COI and all, but meets WP:BAND. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article meets notability, and doesn't appear to be an advertisement to me. Could use some cleanup and editing, but there is a difference between style and notability--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is so glowing I could warm my hands over it in winter. Weak keep as having some notability established, but it needs a) more sources to back up some of the claims, and b) a blunt object applied to beat out the promotional language that infuses it all the way through. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs cleaning up, not deleting.--Michig (talk) 18:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. What the nomination says. If Bell deserves a good article, he'll get one; it would be very different from this. If you think that this article could and should be rewritten, go ahead and rewrite it; I'll keep it on my watchlist and am willing to reconsider my vote here. -- Hoary (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC) ....... OK, keep. I'm still suspicious about some of this; still, a lot of what's in it is good enough, and Bell merits an article, if not the one that he seems to have paid for. -- Hoary (talk) 01:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, not quite done. Consider this subsequent edit of mine. And once I know the original article was paid-for advertising, everything about it becomes deeply suspect. I hope you are, or somebody is, checking those references. I also have great doubts about the article-worthiness of at least two of his albums, and about the way in which the albums are written up (again by a PR person rather than disinterested editor). -- Hoary (talk) 00:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I'm already planning on AfDing those albums after this AfD closes. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix, at least, could probably be spared, as I've found several reviews listed in ProQuest (although most are just abstracts, unfotunately). Zagalejo^^^ 01:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could be kept, also because a slew of notable people played on it. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMdB lists one of the broadcast appearances along with another which is not mentioned in the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've cited a couple of newspaper articles that weren't written by Kevin Avery. I got them through ProQuest. Zagalejo^^^ 01:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep - unlike the creators other spam, this one is ok. pov is not a reason for deletion. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has been cleaned up by Gwen Gale. Nice work. Zagalejo^^^ 22:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. BJ^Talk 02:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NoToPope Coalition[edit]

This article has no/few sources, and doesn't establish how the "group" is important or significant. It's more or less blatant advertising, as it exclusively promotes some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become even remotely encyclopedic. Their are thousands of atheist/raelian/socialist groups in the world, and most are hardly noteworthy; this is no different. I mean, if you're part of the group or hold it's views, you may see it as significant, but in reality, the wider world is not affected by it's presence, and doesn't even no of it's existence. The article doesn't even establish what the group does (if anything), what their goals are, their core beliefs etc. The only reason this article was created is because anti-WYD advocates wanted to heighten their profile on the internet, since the Australian print media and television/radio stations are relegating their "stories" to footnotes. The article is essentially a fluff piece about a non-notable group trying to gain publicity. Alice Mudgarden (talk) 12:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. - Alice Mudgarden (talk) 12:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or Merge with World Youth Day 2008 (although there's hardly any salvageable, notable information).

Redirect to World Youth Day 2008#Protests within the Australian community, and allow a merger to there if there is anything worth merging that isn't already there. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even the one reference supplied barely mentions the group. They'll be completely irrelevant in a week anyway. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A flash in the pan publicity stunt, with no evidence of permanent notability. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The group is temporary alliance of anti-Catholic organizations that will almost certainly cease to exist after World Youth Day. There is actually more information in the World Youth Day article about the group than there is in the actual article. Merging the article is pointless because the only information that isn't in the World Youth Day article is a partial list of members. Gudeldar (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just another publicity stunt. Hapsala (talk) 22:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG DELETE Athiests complaing about religion. Portillo (talk) 01:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retain or re-direct or Merge, do not delete. This could be marked as a stub. I helped expand it, with links. I do not think it is ads. It is notable due to court grant of the right of free speech. I am a closed Catholic and is against atheism. But atheism is also protected by constitutions. The links are important and show the value of this fundamental right. As lawyer and jurist, I consider this, more of cultural and legal article than religious. Definitely it is not ads. If only it had template stub, it could metamorphose to a good article. Just sayin. --Florentino floro (talk) 08:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The isssue is not about Catholicism vs Atheism and all of that, it is about whether or not this group is notable - which it isn't. The group is not recognised as significant by traditional media and the internet, so this article is hardly necessary. P.S, to the above user, your positions as a "juror" and a "lawyer" in real life (if that really is the case) carries absolutely no weight at all in matters related to Wikipedia's content. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 08:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is propaganda to this group. User:trs ([[User talk:]]) 08:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.180.161.122 (talk) [reply]
Merge with World Youth Day 2008. The protests against the Pope's visit are worth covering, but I don't think this group needs its own page - particularly since its 'notability' is likely to prove extremely temporary. Essentially, this is a group notable for one event, and while the event is notable, the group is not. Terraxos (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avalerion[edit]

No reliable sources Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thought could be a hoax after a look at google, but google books to the rescue.John Z (talk) 00:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced possible original research... If this article was sourced, then this issue can be revisited. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per John Z. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has now been sourced by John Z. ascidian | talk-to-me 21:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mythical birds, with sources of course, are notable. ~ priyanath ^talk 15:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thank you John Z. — goethean ॐ 00:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thanks! I changed the article a bit. I think the problem was that it seems to be a bird of European mythology, that supposedly lived in India, not a part of Indian mythology, which was what made it look wrong.John Z (talk) 05:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Withdraw nomination as RS added.Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

BBCode[edit]

The result was bold speedy keep (non-admin closure) per WP:SNOWBALL and the nominator's statement that the nomination was placed on the article while it was in a state of vandalism. Tarinth (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced and misplaced Wikidās ॐ 19:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Was this AfDed because of the shit formatting? The article was blanked then poorly restored by a vandal, it has now been corrected. Wongm (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC) Comment: Corrected version is better - you are correct. Wikidās ॐ 16:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems very notable. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable subject, many forums use this syntax for forum posts. Just tag it with some templates to indicate what needs to be improved. - Simeon (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Most every piece of forum software (except Lithium Technologies, from what I know) uses this. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 22:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, needs external links converted to proper references, but definitely notable as a de facto standard. --Dhartung | Talk 02:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I haven't deleted the redirects created on July 20, which could be sent to RfD.--PhilKnight (talk) 13:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't Believe It (T-Pain Song)[edit]

Article fails WP:MUSIC#Songs. SE KinG (talk) 00:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:CRYSTAL. TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 14:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:CRYSTAL & WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 15:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Song hasn't charted yet. Wait until there're sources pertaining directly to the song, please. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 16:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Sean Whitton / 11:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Krist Shtufi[edit]

Speedy la cucaracha (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC) Delete. No references or evidence of notability.Speedy la cucaracha (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not even a book? Delete. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that this academic is notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 23:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied per G11. —Sean Whitton / 11:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contentforces[edit]

Per WP:ADVERTISING (promotion of services/products) and WP:NOTABILITY (notability not established) Simeon (talk) 12:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is written like an advertisement, does not provide any hint of notability. RayAYang (talk) 19:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - while "written like an advertisement" and "article does not explain notability" are not reasons for deletion, this article is likely non-notable: I could not find any secondary sources -Samuel Tan 09:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Ty 23:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silkcolor[edit]

More neologism shenanigans. In plain black-and-white, this is just not notable. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Silk painting has been around for thousands of years. But you decide to come up with your own name for it? Who the Hell are you? Article veers off topic and never comes back. Still...there isn't a dedicated article on silk painting, and there probably could be. -Verdatum (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useless article, doesn't add to Wikipedia. Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 17:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable neologism, and a coatrack for mentioning the person who supposedly came up with the word. Brilliant Pebble (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 22:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. Johnbod (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted per WP:SNOW; discussion blanked as a courtesy per request to WP:OTRS Shell ^babelfish 04:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Winifred Whitfield[edit]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 13:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red91 Music[edit]

Contested proposed deletion - Only two online news articles (1 a press release ) and very little web interest. Seems to be a largely unknown music publisher, not written about extensively by reliable sources. Fails the notability criteria in the corporate notability guidelines. Peripitus (Talk) 10:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In support of Red91 Music, the company and owner have been quoted and featured in several sources that cannot be linked to. Included on their website is a transcript of an editorial for Billboard magazine (the largest and most notable music magazine in the world). Editorials are only given to those music industry figures that are deemed worthy of comment. I would hope that although the description is small, the fact that it was the first company to giveaway an album in its entirety should not be seen as anything less than ground-breaking. Many larger more popular artists have followed this route and it would be a shame to dismiss the original pioneer of what is now considered forward-thinking. History is littered with misplaced credit and an overuse of the title genius. I hope this is not to be one of those occasions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simond91 (talk • contribs) 10:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete as non-notable. google news hits are press release, an unrelated article, and a international herald tribune article: [21], that gives some coverage, but as part of a wider article, and doesn't seem enough to establish notability on its own. The billboard article seems to barely mention red91. A google search for ""red91 music" only comes up with this article and related content, the company website, and content on linkedin. No hits on blogs, or google groups, or in books. Only hits for "Silas Casual" the ceo seem to be non-reliable sources, or press releases. Of the doubtful ones, this one [22] looked like it might be original coverage, but the bits referring to red91 seem to be taken from a press release: [23]. This one seems to be a dutch blog: [24]. I will reconsider my deletion !vote, if significant coverage in reliable sources, independent of the company, can be found. Silverfish (talk) 23:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be a mistake and a shame to delete Red91 as so many music companies are small and seem insignificant but can have a cult following. Anyone in the music industry knows that just because a company isn't covered by mainstream news providers doesn't mean they are not important and don't have a valuable role to play. As Simond says, being the first digital-only record company in UK is quite an achievement. This is backed up by press release dates and a bit of research of my own. I have read the Billboard article. It doesn't mention Red91 very much but the article is not written about the record company, it is the views of the owner/founder. To be given this opportunity to host a Billboard editorial, the writer must have a very credible background. That endorsement in itself should be enough to warrant a place on Wikipedia. Surely Wikipedia's role is not just to champion the mainstream? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomisnosyd (talk • contribs) 07:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Firstly, if company has a cult following, cite the source. If company is "important" and "valuable", cite your source. Secondly, our guideline is that An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The one source cited in the article deals with only one thing the company did, which was "giving away an album over the Web", and we have found no other reliable secondary sources. If you have more sources, cite them quickly because this deletion process will close soon. Cheers! -Samuel Tan 09:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is Silas Casual, the owner and founder of Red1 Music commenting on the eligibility of Red91 Music to stay on Wikipedia. Firstly, I should say that our business will continue to function with or without the inclusion of six or seven lines briefly describing what we do. However, my attention was drawn to this discussion by a colleague that uses Wikipedia several times each day. It is probably worth pointing out to the kind people that are acting as judge and jury that the music industry is written about extensively in both published and subscribed-to magazines and newsletters. I am hoping that those deciding our fate will not make the mistake in thinking that because a link to a source cannot be established, it is any less important. I do not need to visit the moon to know there is no air present - some things can correctly be assumed.

With regards to having a "cult" status, the definition of the word means to attract a small group of devotees. Wikipedia puts it better than me ("Cult" typically refers to a cohesive social group devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding population considers to be outside the mainstream). Plenty of mainstream coverage could result in the loss of the cult tag and anyone involved in the entertainment industry will tell you how difficult that can be to reacquire. Many artists have gone from cult to popular but none have made it back.

Being "important" or "valuable" is difficult to quantify. I have provided links to music media such as Music & Copyright and MusicAlly (both considered eminent publications written by often-quoted journalists). However, as a subscription is required to read these newsletters, no access is allowed to the general public and our cult status remains intact. I can assure you that we have been a feature of both for our innovative approach to what is now a very challenging industry.

Addressing the "notable" issue - pioneers often do not received the credit they deserve. History is littered with wrongful accreditation for inventions that have changed the world. Wikipedia has many such examples that are too numerous to mention. But make no mistake how important our album giveaway and our position as the first digital-only record company is. No other artist had provided an album for free before we did. Our business model has now been adopted by the big and small and is written about on an almost daily basis. It would be wrong to expect Red91 to be cited every time another artist provides free access to their content, as championing a competitor when marketing a release would be suicide. But the coverage now afforded to this sort of approach should stand in our favor as we were the first. That should count for something.

If, as I fear, we are deleted then so be it. It will be a shame that Wikipedia has missed out on our company and an opportunity to innovate. You put it best yourself when you say "the term innovation may refer to both radical and incremental changes in thinking, in things, in processes or in services (Mckeown, 2008). Invention that gets out in to the world is innovation. In many fields, something new must be substantially different to be innovative, not an insignificant change." —Preceding unsigned comment added by SilasC (talk • contribs) 14:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Four issues remain: (1) claims that the company has a cult following, (2) claim that pioneers are notable, (3) claim that album giveaway makes the company notable, (4) claim that Wikipedia will miss an opportunity to innovate by deleting this article. My take: (1) no one has produced evidence that the company has a cult following - if evidence can only come years down the road after history and the media has analyzed the phenomenon, then we must wait until that time comes (see WP:Secondary sources); (2) pioneers may not be notable: once again it may take years for the general public to analyze the innovation and judge its importance, and years for the media to catch on - until then we must wait; (3) does one incident make a company notable? I feel that the answer is no, which is why my stance is still delete, but that is up to the administrators to decide; (4) Wikipedia does not have an obligation to aid the process of innovation by creating articles about pioneers. That's my take... Cheers! -Samuel Tan 04:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although the four issues that Samuel has identified have already been addressed, I shall try to answer them again as clearly as possible. It is probably worth pointing out that to succeed in the music business you need foresight. One must take a chance that your opinion will be shared by others and an artist you have backed will prove successful. Perhaps I am wrongly assuming that reviewers such as Samuel also share my foresight, hence the wait and see approach. I would much rather be on the ship before it sails rather than stand on the shore and wave it goodbye. (1) Cult status - it is open to opinion whether or not something has cult status. There are many instances where an artist or music company has achieved cult status and have not graced the covers of mainstream magazines. All I can say to this is that there are many more worlds turning than the ones you read about in the mainstream media. He who dares.... (2) Anyone involved in the music industry would agree that being the first digital music company is a notable achievement. In five years or so the majority of music sales will be in digital format. Only we can say we were the first to embrace fully the digital movement in the UK. But again, if standing on the shore waving to a ship that has sailed is your take then there's not much more I can say. (3) Does one incident make something notable? Yes it does. The world knows Neil Armstrong only as the first man on the moon, even though he has had a life full of other achievements. In the UK OJ Simpson is not known as a ball player, but the star defendant in a famous murder case. I could go on listing examples but I think these two answer your question. (4) Wikipedia does not have an obligation to aid the process of innovation. It is much more than that. In its own words - "Wikipedia attempts to collect and summarize all human knowledge in every major language". How sad it would be if the likes of Samuel are left to determine what is included or deleted from the world's greatest encyclopedia. Perhaps 683 million annual visits suggests there is a world wanting to board the ship in the harbor and wave the likes of Samuel goodbye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SilasC (talk • contribs) 08:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully bow out of this conversation because I don't like being involved in contentious disputes that border on personal attacks, and ask the Silas, the company's CEO, to please read WP:N. All the best to your company. *sincere smile* -Samuel Tan 11:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Sean Whitton / 11:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MTV Unplugged: R.E.M. (2001)[edit]

Non-notable - seems like something lifted from a fan site. No inline cites means zero reliability. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't think individual shows, even ones broadcast on television, inherently merit articles. This would be different if the show were the subject of a live album or DVD (which doesn't appear to be the case here), but in that case the article would effectively be about the album. Much of the article is furthermore a copyvio, as it looks like huge sections of reviews of the show were just copied and pasted with little transformation. Postdlf (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 13:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Sean Whitton / 11:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MTV Unplugged: R.E.M. (1991)[edit]

Non-notable - seems like something lifted from a fan site. No inline cites means zero reliability. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't think individual shows, even ones broadcast on television, inherently merit articles. This would be different if the show were the subject of a live album or DVD (which doesn't appear to be the case here), but in that case the article would effectively be about the album. Postdlf (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 13:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Sean Whitton / 11:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VH1 Storytellers (R.E.M.)[edit]

Non-notable. This seems like something lifted from a fan site. No inline cites means zero reliability. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a single performance by a notable band on an episode of VH1 Storytellers. Consists mainly of a tracklisting and a list of unsourced quotes. Fails WP:NOTE Any useful content should be merged into R.E.M. Jезка (talk) 12:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 13:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Sean Whitton / 11:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Later... with Jools Holland (R.E.M.)[edit]

Non-notable fancruft. No inline cites means zero reliability. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - strange subject (appearances of a band on a show??) for which I found no sources that prove notability. -Samuel Tan 09:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - perfectly notable band, perfectly notable TV show appearance if the sources could be added. Just needs a tidy up. --86.40.215.134 (talk) 13:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's an article on a band's appearance on a certain show. How is this notable? Tenacious D Fan (talk) 13:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The band is notable. The TV show is notable. The notable band are notable for having made a number of notable appearances on this notable TV show. It would not be appropriate to say that other such articles don't exist since to compare such an article to the fact that other don't exist kills off any hope of any such article being included. --86.40.215.134 (talk) 14:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mistake the subject of an article. To give an analogy, Tom Cruise is notable and Mel Gibson is notable. Suppose Tom Cruise appeared three times over many years in a fund raiser organized by Mel Gibson. Are Tom Cruise's three appearances notable? It may be, it may not be. It depends on whether there are reliable sources that cover Tom Cruise's appearances. Hope that helps :) -Samuel Tan 04:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 13:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect. —Sean Whitton / 11:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Am The City[edit]

Non-notable. Song was never released as a single. No inline cites or sources means zero reliability. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the band ABBA is notable and the song is available for download. –BuickCentury Driver 11:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many songs are available to download from many bands. Notability is not inherited. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 13:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: there are plenty of arguably less notable songs with entries. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists is not an argument. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 12:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems as if any keep vote will be refuted. –BuickCentury Driver 10:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. People reasonably expect consistent standards from any reference work, so that they will no what they may look up therein without wasting time. Precedents are created over time, and the fact that you don't like some of them is irrelevant. Abberley2 (talk) 20:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to The Singles: The First Ten Years: article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC and the general notability guidelines. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 00:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not the album I have it on. It is awkward and inappropriate to cover it there, when most of the other songs have articles. It would make that article badly structured and disproportionate to devote more space to the LESS notable songs on it, just because of deletionist urges. Abberley2 (talk) 20:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Movingboxes (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (insufficient source material to justify an article of its own) and merge (with suitable ref, e.g. [25]) into ABBA unreleased songs, assuming that article survives its current AfD. — Pek, on behalf of Tivedshambo (talk) 09:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's an ABBA song, so sufficiently notable by wikipedia standards. Abberley2 (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Citations have nothing to do with reliability. The impression of reliability they create in academic minds is spurious. Abberley2 (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus, defaulting to keep. —Sean Whitton / 11:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ABBA unreleased songs[edit]

Non-notable. No inline cites or references means no reliability. How can anything be notable if it has not been released to the public? This means there is limited media coverage providing notability. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If there is anything of use, it should be merged into relevant album articles, which would be better than a speculation and trivia filled page. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reasonable breakout article for highly notable band. I'm sure most of this can be sourced. Hobit (talk) 13:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is notability inherited? This is just a collection of very non-notable songs. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a breakout article of a notable topic, per WP:SIZE. Yes, sometimes there is so much to write about a topic that you need multiple pages to best present the material. Hobit (talk) 22:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs referencing, yes. But the information offers an interesting aspect into the ABBA experience. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"interesting aspect into the ABBA experience" is not a valid reason. This doesn't account for notability. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Reply I respectfully disagree with your opinion, but to address your concern I will clarify my reasoning. The notability of ABBA and their music is not in question. The article details a little-known aspect of the group's music that was not previously covered on Wikipedia. The article meets the requirements of WP:MUSIC. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Why not add this material to the ABBA page as a section there? Surely it does not need its own page. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 20:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Size would seem to be a constraint. Hobit (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Size would seem to be a constraint. Hobit (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wow you really don't have anything better to do. You've attacked pages written about Mariah Carey, Janet Jackson, Bjork, Kylie Minogue, Spice Girls, and now ABBA. Which artist's page are you going o hit up next? Ofelixdacat (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "I think the nom is a jerk" is not a valid Keep rationale. JuJube (talk) 09:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Merge Abba are one of the biggest selling bands in the history of music. However, unreleased songs could only be notable, IMHO, if they were performed live, for a long period of time, or recorded by others. Thus, this topic may make a good section, on the existing article on the band, but fails notability on it's own. I do agree with Hobit that size could be a constraint. Radioinfoguy (talk) 01:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there must be a number of books about ABBA, and I strongly suspect at least some of these songs are discussed. Anyone have the books? Hobit (talk) 15:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every artist and group has recorded songs that weren't released. Do they warrant a separate article? I don't think they do. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 13:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the general rule for notability is not whether it's been released or not, but whether there is sufficient reliable sources. In this case, whilst the article needs to be better referenced, I would strongly suspect there are enough reliable fan-sites and books which list these. Having said that, I do have to declare a slight conflict of interest here, as it was an unreleased song that inspired my username - see 1981! — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 20:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not really debating reliability. I am debating notability. Fan sites are a poor indicator of a wider notability of a subject. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree. Most fan sites, of any genre, cannot be considered suitable sources for any article. My point is that there are so many dedicated sites, not to mention books which are generally more reliable, that some suitable sources should be readily available. From WP:MUSIC: A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article. This is a reasonably detailed article, lacking only the sources which, as I said, should be available. — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 21:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Potential sources. I picked out 2 songs somewhat randomly (names that would be easy to search for and weren't later released under the same name).

"Get On The Carousel" [26], [27]
"Free as a Bumble Bee" [28], [29]

While the first is much better than the second, I think it's pretty plain that this page can be sourced quite nicely. Hobit (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Show[edit]

WP:OR. No references, and no supporting evidence found for this term - especially the assertion that the length of a video determines whether or not it is a "video" or a "show". Created and used by a user who is posting hoax articles about home videos as major productions, and this appears to be another attempt at misinformation. Ros0709 (talk) 09:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't see any notability, too general a topic to source or add information. Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 17:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Either OR or made up in school one day. Brilliant Pebble (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yet another in the series of cruft from User:KingActor and User:WriterMJ (see ANI). --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR for sure, no sources either. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing but rubbish. Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 16:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. TravellingCari 16:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Lucas (Singer)[edit]

Delete nn singer, fails WP:MUS Mayalld (talk) 09:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created this page as another wikipedia page was incorrectly linking to a different Matt Lucas.--MrMix76 (talk) 09:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete... could have been speedied under A7. --Storkk (talk) 09:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, clearly not an A7, as there are multiple claims of notability in the article. Still, not convinced that he is particularly notable, although according to his website, he's appeared on TV and in numerous magazines. There's no indication of how substantial these appearances actually were, though. There has also been minor coverage of his live shows, but nothing I think that actually conclusively establishes notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Insufficient notability, session muso. WWGB (talk) 06:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable at this time. I Googled hard, but there's nothing much out there. Nothing much in the article, either.--Lester 03:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable at this stage. Orderinchaos 11:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Synergy 20:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sage Francis[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Sage Francis

Contested prod, but I still believe this person fails WP:MUSIC and has also been lacking non-trivial references as far back as March 2007 which speaks for itself. JBsupreme (talk) 08:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C5 for 2 albums on Epitaph Records. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to have to dispute this one -- merely having two albums released on an indie label is insufficient for WP:BLP if there are no sources to support the biographical content. JBsupreme (talk) 19:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP & WP:PEOPLE are general guidelines. Wikipedia has given certain groups have a more refined set of guidelines to work from, for example WP:POLITICIAN, WP:ATHLETE, WP:ACADEMIC, and of course WP:MUSIC. This person meets the criteria laid out for their specific one, which is WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WRONG. WP:BLP is not a general guideline. It is a NON-NEGOTIABLE POLICY. WP:MUSIC is the guideline. JBsupreme (talk) 06:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the article was brought to AfD as failing WP:MUSIC, and it appears that the subject meets the guidelines set forth there, then already we have a reason to keep it. If we're modifying the rationale for deletion as failing WP:BLP, it would be fair to note that policy's note on deletion: "Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed.... Page deletion should be treated as a last resort, with the page being improved and remedied where possible and disputed areas discussed." This article may certainly benefit from improvement in sourcing, but with music notability having been (as far as I can tell) satisfied, the next step should be clean-up, not deletion. It's by no means given that improvement is "not possible." -- H·G (^words/_works) 04:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, what Esradekan Gibb said. Shnakepup (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is well-known in the world of spoken word/underground hip-hop, not the biggest genre but certainly not a marginal demographic. If it's an exaggeration to say that the artist is synonymous with that genre, it's not much of one--simply viewing the "What Links Here" link shows how tangled the subject is in this genre. As noted in Underground hip hop, the artist has even seen Billboard 200 success, which isn't altogether common for "underground" artists. I haven't edited WP for a while, but when looking up some album info earlier it simply bewildered me that this is even being considered for deletion. The sources may need clean-up, but deleting this particular article for supposedly being about a non-noteworthy subject would be quite the mistake. -- H·G (^words/_works) 04:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "clean up"? There are no sources cited! JBsupreme (talk) 04:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly the sources provided by editors to date have been sparse, as they often are in music-related articles. At worst, this would warrant deletion of unsourced biographical material (though I'd personally recommend posting a banner demanding better sourcing as an intermediate measure). Poorly sourced material is the bane of Wikipedia's existence, but wholesale deletion of the entire article is a rather extreme first step to take. -- H·G (^words/_works) 04:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of the ease of finding source material, the AllMusic page[30] on the artist provides a good overview of much of the material on this page. That took me all of half a minute to find, and if I had more invested in this, I'd probably contribute more. The sources are there, certainly. -- H·G (^words/_works) 04:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Sean Whitton / 11:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Past Sins[edit]

Don Ecker is using this page to advertise his only book. Fails notability. Strong Conflict of Interest —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepspire (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 22:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - could not find sources that establish notability. This is one case where it is extremely difficult to find sources because the article's title is such a common phrase. I'm for deleting this because the article has been AFDed for a few days and no one (including the author) has come up with proof of notability.-Samuel Tan 07:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree, no reliable sources could be found to establish notability--Captain-tucker (talk) 02:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Sean Whitton / 11:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Matters Radio[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Dark Matters Radio

Don Ecker is using this page for self-promotion. Fails notability. Strong Conflict of Interest

Delete - Zero google news hits. Other Google hits appear either to be blogs or "news" sites of questionable source. I'm having trouble finding quality verifiable 3rd party references.--Rtphokie (talk) 12:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Sean Whitton / 10:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don Ecker[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Don Ecker

Fails notability. Page also appears to be created/maintained by Don Ecker (Paramoral). Strong Conflict of Interest.

Strong Delete per nom. Wiki is not a MySpace directory for everyone who wants to create a page. 63.3.5.4 (talk) 04:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Sean Whitton / 11:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomats Vol. 2[edit]

Contested prod. Article about a mixtape which fails WP:MUSIC#Albums: "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources", however, no sources are provided. Note: Diplomats vol 1 also previously nominated (this cannot be added to that nomination because there are already comments attached). Ros0709 (talk) 07:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 09:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Dawson[edit]

Not notable autobiography.

Stunt performer with history that can be seen here: [31] Carbonrodney (talk) 07:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 07:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - verily violates verification (and WP:RS ... sorry, I took it as far as I could) LonelyBeacon (talk) 07:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom ww2censor (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bondegezou (talk) 14:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per above. Themfromspace (talk) 01:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Sean Whitton / 11:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supratim Dutta[edit]

An otherwise unremarkable, and unnoted, person who survived an unusual injury after a car accident. All this is here, and in the wider world, is a press report about a single incident. Per Wikipedia:BLP#Articles about people notable only for one event ... this belongs in wikinews not here. There are lots of news articles about the single incident but nothing prior. No appropriate article I can find to redirect or merge it to Peripitus (Talk) 06:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOT#RipleysBelieveItOrNot (and a tad of WP:OR on the medical explanation). LonelyBeacon (talk) 07:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your concern. I would have thought that the person is not important here. What is important here is the event, and the exceeding rarity of this. If I were given a choice I would like to record such events for posterity, just for their rarity and uniqueness.

The book "Anomalies and Curiosities of Medicine" by George M. Gould (http://www.amazon.com/Anomalies-and-Curiosities-of-Medicine/dp/B001B0A17U/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216391769&sr=8-2) was compiled by Gould (and his friend Pyle), by resorting to such "single", "insignificant" events. They had all been published in separate journals and in separate years (separated by centuries!). If the authors of those single and insignificant events had chosen NOT to publish those events, such significant book would never have been produced.

Who knows after a year another similar even occurs and then another and then another, and then one could make a significant book out of it. Doctors could perhaps study those cases, to know how to deal with such cases in future. Lay people would read such books for their sheer amazing quality.

Thanks and Regards Anil AggrawalAnil1956 (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While thank goodness this is not something that most people will see in their lifetime, the fact that people's bodies are pierced or penetrated and survive is not uncommon in and if itself. As noted, the rod missed major organs. Is he lucky -- very much so. Notable by wikipedia's standards ... no. LonelyBeacon (talk) 15:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment some single events can be notable, but at the least we'd need some references that others have thought so. DGG (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My congratulations to Supratim for coming through his ordeal. But the event is notable, not Supratim himself. I remember reading about a similar accident almost a decade ago at a construction site. That man also survived. I don't remember that man's name and ten years later, I won't remember Supratim's either. Delete and add incident into a larger article on road/construction accidents or create an new article about accidents involving objects piercing through the body. The article itself in not in Wikipedia style. I suspect, a large portion (if not all) of it is a copy paste from Indian Express. That in itself is a reason to delete. ChiragPatnaik (talk) 12:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No need to preemptively salt the article as there have not heretofore been issues with recreation. Shereth 23:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Current World Champions[edit]

Contested PROD: "This article seems to consist entirely of an arbitrary list of people, teams and countries which are "world champions" at various things. It is unreferenced and there is no indication of methodology or scope". Creator removed PROD and placed "I only made this because I thought that the page should exist. Articles shouldn't be deleted because they are bad...they should be deleted because the idea of the article itself should not exist. It can be improved over time if we leave it" on the talk page. Delete, as WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Ros0709 (talk) 06:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think this could be much better implemented as a category - [[Category:Current world champions]] - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - This is just flat out incorrect. There really cannot even be a category created because, except maybe for the NFL and the FIFA World Cup winner, the rest of these are definitively not world champions, no matter what any sources might claim. Baseball, hockey and basketball (mens and womens) have their own world championships sponsored by their respective international association. Also, (I'm not sure), doesn't chess have two or three world champions (that may have gone away). LonelyBeacon (talk) 07:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, there are several chess world champions. Don't even get started on boxing... Still, it is possible for several world championships to be recognized. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no reason to salt the article. It may be misconceived but I see no reason to suspect that the author made it in bad faith. There is no reason to suspect that he will recreate it if it is deleted here. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I put prod on it and I stand by my reasons quoted in the nomination. The author is correct in saying that "Articles shouldn't be deleted because they are bad...they should be deleted because the idea of the article itself should not exist." but I don't think it helps in this case. This article should not exist because it is not an encyclopaedic topic. No amount of work can save it. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So many things wrong with this article. First, a category? NO. Categories aren't practical for something that's temporary. New World Series champ, don't forget to take the "Current World Champion" tag off of the Boston Red Sox article. Then there's the problem of maintaining this list; unless you have someone who makes it their life's work to follow the newspapers for the sports championships, it's not going to be kept up to date. If the New Orleans Saints won the Super Bowl, is there anyone in a hurry to update this article? Finally, only two of the sports on the list so far (soccer and chess) have a "world championship". Yes, I know, the Red Sox and the Celtics and the Giants are proclaimed "world champions" by virtue of being the "American champions", and most sports fans would agree that those teams would beat the Japanese baseball champion, the European hoops titlist, or the Grey Cup holder in a competition. But there is no world championship competition in most professional sports. Fold this one now before it adds some expansion teams. Mandsford (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The purpose of Wikipedia is not to report current events, or to have articles that are temporary. A list of "current" world champions would, by definition, consist entirely of temporary information. Calgary (talk) 14:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are tons of temporary articles. There are articles with world records that are broken every year, there are articles that consist of statistics (baseball for example) that are updated every day. The article for 2008 Major League Baseball season has updated standings. They play games every day! You're right that calling the Giants world champions of football is not politically correct because we don't really know if the Giants can beat the Saskatchewan Roughriders. Still, the article can exist. If you have a problem with the Giants (or the Celtics or the Red Sox etc.) then delete those from the list, or add the other champions. Maybe we can change the name of the article from "World Champions" to "Champions of major competitive organizations" or even "United States Champions". I just think it is an interesting and valuable list to keep. 24.195.242.210 (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can kind of see your point, and maybe a table that let a person see at a glance who the reigning champion is in a given sports league would be useful, such as List of current world boxing champions. It's just that there are so many champs out there. Even if you limited it to team sports, there are tons of leagues, conferences, tournament winners, etc. Mandsford (talk) 02:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Lonely Beacon. Arbitrary inclusion criteria, I doubt it would ever be a complete list. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 02:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Who cares if it's complete? Is any article ever truly complete? 24.195.242.210 (talk) 04:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only if it's deleted. Mandsford (talk) 23:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will agree that the fact that the list may never be complete, or the fact that it would need to be regularly updated are not good reasons for deletion. The problem I see is "what defines a world champion"? ... Even "what defines sport"? We already have chess, a very legit game listed. Would the world parcheese champion also be eligible for inclusion? What about (this is what's called opening up a huge can of worms) the so called "professional wrestling champions" (to which there is a lot of disagreement as to how "competitive" it is -- I don't include it as a competition, and I don't think it should be included in such a list, no matter what sources list anyone there as a world champion). Would the winner at Nathan's Hot Dog eating championship be eligible? And then, there is the problem of what happens to a competition that either claims, or is mistakenly recognized in the media as "World Champion" (like the World Series). In the end, it becomes a huge fight about what belongs and what doesn't. There is another issue with sports like tennis and golf who do not really have a world championship, but rather a ranking system. Do the annual #1 ranked players qualify as "world champions"?.

While I also think it is kind of cool to be able to look at one source that lists all of the current champions, this is an example where a subject that may be notable, and may be supported by reliable sources (even if they are unreliable in elevating some team to a world championship), makes a poor list-article for an encyclopedia. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving practicality aside for a moment, let us ask is this an encyclopaedic subject or is it OR? If the list has obvious, uncontentious and simple inclusion criteria then that would be OK, but if we have to make up our own non-obvious, non-trivial inclusion criteria then that seems to point to OR. In my view, what it would take to legitimise this article is for there it be a body of reliable research which we can reference on the subject of what defines a "world champion" as well as externally produced lists which we could point to (instead of compiling our own). I don't think this exists. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yucef Merhi[edit]

Non notoriety of the person per WP:N and WP:BIO Caracas1830 (talk) 05:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per reviews of his work in reliable sources. Article needs clean-up, not deletion. TravellingCari 15:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles hardly add to "significant coverage" or make a case for his notoriety. All articles, except one, mention that one of his works is exhibited here or there with a one-line description or using just a few words, which is the case of hundred of thousands, not to say millions, of artists around the globe. The only article dedicated only to him [32] from the "OC Register" is not enough to consider him notorious.Caracas1830 (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment he has exhibited at major museums, all already included in the article. Artists that are no one don't exhibit at these places. You don't have to be "notorious", just received coverage in reliable sources, which he has. TravellingCari 16:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cari, I am reluctant to even question your assessments in this field, but were any of these solo exhibitions, or did he merely have a single work in a group show? Were any of the reviews substantial? (And are the Orange County Register's reviews reliable for notability?DGG (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to disagree, I may end up being proven wrong here. This one was on my watchlist from one wikilink so I can't claim extensive knowledge, though I am familiar with the artist's work as I saw it at the Bronx Museum of Art. He did a four month solo show at the Orange County Museum of Art, see here for information on it as well as info from the museum related to the exhibit. He's definitely not a traditional artist, though I don't believe he is completely non-notable. One of his major works has gotten some coverage as well. We're not talking caliber of a Met exhibitor here, but I think he's been recognized. I'd say the OC Register's are a reliable source to cover what's going on there since they're an independent publication and not connected with the museum, but that's based on my perception. I don't see them listed anywhere here as not being a RS. Thoughts? TravellingCari 17:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't see how one solo show at the Orange County Museum of Art could make him a notable artist. There are additional concerns with regard to another requirement for notability, which is "depth of coverage". Even if one of his works, called "Super Atari Poetry", got some coverage from internet sites, it is limited to brief descriptions of the work. No real reviews or word on the meaning, influence, relation to a movement or other works...(Caracas1830 (talk) 03:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Ok, one of the articles on "Super Atari Poetry" is more on the lines of a real review [33]. However, it is just 166 words long. Still not having real "depth of coverage". (Caracas1830 (talk) 03:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

There is more, I'm not going to have time to get back to this until Tuesday, most likely, as I'm packing and moving. He doesn't have only one solo show. David asked me if he had any solo shows, I found the one that I was able to clearly ID as solo and mentioned it with the limited time I'm working on. I'll put it this way, I know he's likely notable and if my time contraints keep this from being kept, I'll userfy and then re-submit. I think if you, or other editors, looked a bit more you'd find the same info I'm finding. Yes, I know the onus of work is on those who want it kept, but I think this information is here. Back to packing and awaiting bed delivery. TravellingCari 13:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 07:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep work in the collection of the Orange County Museum of Art: [34]. That's good enough for me. Plus, he's appeared in some group shows reviewed for the The New York Times: [35], [36].--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please be more specific and explain with arguments how being part of a group exhibition and having just a few words on a an article and having one exhibition at the Orange county museum is enough to be a notable artist.(Caracas1830 (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

He has a work in the permanent collection of a museum. He's had a solo show in the same museum. He's participated in museum group shows from New York to Caracas. He is clearly a museum-standard contemporary artist.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 12:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CREATIVE does not mention "museum-standard artist" but it does states "represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums". I'm afraid that one piece at the Orange County Museum is not enough.(Caracas1830 (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Keep meets WP:CREATIVE per Trav & Ethico. Johnbod (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In which way does he meet WP:CREATIVE? PLease be specific and note the word significant, because he does not seem to meet any of the four requirements. 1)The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. 2)The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. 3)The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. 4)The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries. (Caracas1830 (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Art Basel Miami Beach is a significant exhibition. I don't know about Bienal de São Paulo-Valencia. There are press mentions from the NYT (several), LAT, Miami Herald, El Nacional & other Venezuelan papers, Art in America. Johnbod (talk) 02:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His work was not a "substantial part" of those exhibitions. He had one piece among many. The press mentions do not give "depth of coverage", they barely mention his work (using 20 words or less). This is not enough to consider him a notable artist according to WP:N.(Caracas1830 (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge and redirect. This seems the best option based on the comments about the references below. —Sean Whitton / 12:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Young Magicians' Club[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Young Magicians' Club

This seems to be an non-notable organization. The refs provided are either primary sources or weak secondary ones. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 05:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, self substantiated, no reliable third party refs to establish notability. Mfield (talk) 05:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect - to The Magic Circle. I'm fine with deletion, but since this group is sponsored by The Magic Circle, and that article does not mention this group, that is where it should go. I agree with Levine, in the absence of secondary sources there can be no article. LonelyBeacon (talk) 07:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~or Merge~~ - I found an article on the telegraph.co.uk website about the group, and added it as a citation into the text. I also removed the inline external links per WP:MOS, will keep looking for more refs - in it's current state it looks a contender for merging into Magic Circle, but not deletion. - Toon⁰⁵ 14:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC) I added another ref from the Guardian website, so I'm changing to a plain "keep." - Toon⁰⁵ 20:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP At least three references appear on the page, all reliable, this WP:N cannot be used as valid criteria for deleting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KoshVorlon (talk • contribs) 20:17, 19 July 2008
You need to actually read those references. The second reference appears to be a reprinting of wikipedia's content and thus not usable as a reference. Notice the "Copyright wikipedia" at the bottom. The first reference is from an advice column, which makes it questionable and the subject of the article is not the subject of the advice column. It is mentioned in conjunction with several other items. The third source does give it coverage, but not title coverage and only sees fit to cover it in the context of Harry Potter and its parent organization the Magic Circle.--221.143.25.19 (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs a good deal of formatting, copyediting and other work, but the subject has received coverage in WP:V/WP:RS secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I don't find the sources provide sufficient coverage. It is mentioned only in context with other subjects, and doesn't receive any headline attention above them. I've removed one invalid reference, which leaves a trivial mention in an advice column and another article which seems to only grant it coverage in the context of Harry Potter and its parent organization. It doesn't seem to have any presented independent notability. The article even mentions it only has 200 members, I would need some full articles about it to demonstrate it has any actual notability on its own.--221.143.25.19 (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Magic Circle, the reliable sourcing currently apparent appears limited and in both cases refers to the parent organisation. Neither article is long and the one in question will be significantly shorter when the POV issues are dealt, merging the article will give it's content a clearer context in which to be viewed. Guest9999 (talk) 06:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or sort of merge maybe. Completely lacks notability outside of the context of the primary organization (even in the provided sources), which is low on the notability scale itself. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 08:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support removal of the content as its own article, either by outright deletion or as a merge and redirect to The Magic Circle. While the sources in question do mention the organization, it is often in relation to either its parent organization, or some other context which does not grant this organization notability that is independent of The Magic Circle. seresin ( ¡? ) 21:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I suggest keeping the article as it makes available information that is correct and useful to young people interested in becoming magicians. The information is accurate and up-to-date. I've also added a large number of links to verify the organization's notability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kismetmagic (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted per WP:CSD#G11 Pedro : Chat 10:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. EFragC[edit]

Non-notable existing organization of gaming clans. No news articles, could not find any reliable sources. Samuel Tan 05:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Sean Whitton / 12:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Collison[edit]

Non notable person Hirolovesswords (talk) 05:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article does not assert that the person is notable. - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO absolutely no assertion of notability. --Storkk (talk) 10:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shereth 21:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oneness Blessing[edit]

Non notable organization. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 05:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 05:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 05:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 05:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Total nonsense. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 08:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nonsense.--Boffob (talk) 06:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was already deleted. Shereth 23:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Ravenswood[edit]

Seems to be an autobiography. Is she notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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}}.

Delete - Google gives nothing but a MySpace page and rambles on various message boards. No secondary sources at all referring to the album, either. Fails criteria for both WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 08:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Had the same search results. Unnotable at present. Artene50 (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete check the KPIE radio station entry for their inclusion of the album Songs from the Future on their radio playlist. www.kpie.org/Talent%20Library.htm - also listed in the Emory University Archives Portal for notable Irish Writers source found at http://irishliterature.library.emory.edu/content.php?el=c02&id=fallon817_1008793 (User talk:Lindrave) — Lindrave (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Do Not Delete I see the two online references. User:Bess25 User Talk:Bess25 — Bess25 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Do Not Remove I heard her read in LA. She's a performance artist Banxxie 12:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC) — Banxxie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete non notable.Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have seen her perform, and if she is anything, it is notable, remarkable. I am adding references to this wiki article. I just saw her name last night on PBS, singing the title song for a documentary called Healing Words:Poetry and Medicine ! Coincidence ? --RulaLens (talk) 14:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC) — RulaLens (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment The added sources are either promotional sites or the subject's own site. Subject isn't even mentioned in the healing site link here Artene50 (talk) 09:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I also could find no reliable, independent sources to indicate notability. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shereth 21:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oneness University[edit]

Non notable organization. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 05:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC) Ism schism (talk) 05:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 05:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 05:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 05:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Comment as per nomination. Currently there are not enough sources to establish notability. Ism -- it would be helpful if you could group some of your nominations; for instance, I believe you nominated the founder of this movement's article for deletion as well, above. Best, RayAYang (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: never heard of them. Isn't a university in the real sense of the term. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 08:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ditto.--Boffob (talk) 06:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - Nabla (talk) 20:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Open Door Tour[edit]

While bands and the products they produce can fairly easily be shown as notable, documenting every tour is a bit of a far reach. Totally non-notable in the scheme of things. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 18:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, lacks reliable sources and references. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, makes no claim of notability, looks like it was copied from somewhere. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Protonk (talk) 05:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:RS, WP:N. LonelyBeacon (talk) 07:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even clear if the article is trying to describe a tour or bootleg albums from a tour. A blank page would be a better start than this. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow delete. TravellingCari 17:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roscommon Senior Hurling Championship 1989[edit]

Delete is an individual countly-level championship encyclopedically notable? Don't think so. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Protonk (talk) 04:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:N. LonelyBeacon (talk) 07:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Comical that this was even brought to an AfD. I'm sure this was put here as a joke. Quick and speedy delete. --Airtuna08 (talk) 12:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ww2censor (talk) 16:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. -- RyRy (talk) 10:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Watson (author)[edit]

Unsourced biography created by a family member. Fails WP:BIO. Contested prod. BradV 19:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Protonk (talk) 04:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Doing a bit of searching, the only reference I was able to find in a major newspaper with this guy's name on it is a short blurb in the 1999 Sunday Times (Jan 10) that gives a review of his book "Talking in Whispers." I'm not sure what "The Other Award" is ... if it's a significant award, maybe we might have some grounds to keep the article. RayAYang (talk) 19:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change my mind to Keep following Tassedethe's work. RayAYang (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unfortunately he shares his name with far more famous DNA guy, who's also an author. I have found enough links to suggest he is a notable children's author. Link to Buxtehude prize page showing he won in 1987. Interview in Books for Keeps, children's book magazine. The WorldCat page showing that Talking in whispers is held in 277 libraries, and has gone through 10 editions. Another profile on the Penguin Books site. I think the strongest evidence is that you can buy essays, or getting teaching notes, on Talking in whispers as it is a set book for English GCSE. See here, here, here or here. Plus the study guide available on Amazon. Plus I found a couple more short reviews, one in the Guardian (Children's books: Rip off their jackets and get the joy of texts, The Guardian (Manchester); Feb 5, 1994; JOANNA CAREY; via newsuk) and The Times (Tickets to central Europe;Books, The Times (London); Aug 27, 1994; Brian Alderson; via newsuk) Tassedethe (talk) 06:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tassedethe's extensive and decisive research; shared common names are a pain in the neck, which is why I glanced at but stayed away from this one.John Z (talk) 07:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Go to Google Books, go to Google News & Archive, go to Google, try different keywords, and when sources are not online go to your local fucking library and read them. Make it work, because authors don't need people kicking them around after all the hard hours they have spent getting their words just right. Sincerely, Manhattan Samurai (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Hindustani. The focus of the arguments for keeping are rooted in a well-intentioned desire to have an article representing an ethnic group of some 400 million people - but it has been demonstrated that there is a lack of scholarly evidence for creating such an ethnic group. Doing so would, therefore, be original research. If it can later be demonstrated that there does exist an academically accepted name to designate this perceived grouping, then there is no prejudice against overturning the redirect and moving this to an appropriate title, but doing so without adequate sourcing is, again, original research and not allowed. Shereth 23:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hindustani people[edit]

No such ethnic group; Hindustani means "Indian" Maquahuitl^talk! 04:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

Hindustani also refers to the language group consisting of Hindi, Urdu and its dialects, though that has already been canvassed in the Hindustani language article. There is nothing substantial that adds to that article to form the ethnic group page, as I had to remove a lot of OR. I believe that it should be deleted. Trips (talk) 04:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hindustani language. Reyk _YO! 06:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nomination. There is no ethnic group called Hindustani. Hindustani is synonymous with Indian. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 06:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- actually, "Hindustani people" is more specifically synonymous with "Indo-Aryan speaking peoples of the 17th to 19th centuries". --dab (𒁳) 10:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, alternatively redirect to Ethnic groups of South Asia. --dab (𒁳) 08:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If there are 400,000,000 of these people they are obviously an important ethnic group. The article should remain for that reason. But maybe the name of the article should be changed. What is the correct name of the ethnic group that is composed of the people who are native speakers of the Hindustani language that live in the four Indian states of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, and Haryana (as opposed to the other languages of India that are spoken in the other States of India) if it is not the Hindustani people? Is there another name that is used for these people? Keraunos (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Han are the largest ethnic group of China. The Anglo-Americans, sometimes called Anglos (English speaking Caucasians), are the largest ethnic group of the United States and Canada. What is the correct name for the largest ethnic group of India, that is, those who are native speakers of the Hindustani language that live in the four Indian states of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, and Haryana if it is not the Hindustani people? Keraunos (talk) 13:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply High number is no argument for the authenticity of the concept. The problem is that the concept itself is flawed. In fact, there is nothing like "Hindustani language" itself, in the modern day psyche of either the Indians or the Pakistanis, whether Hindus or Muslims. People identify their mother tongue as either Hindi or Urdu, whilst the fact that both are linguistic standards of what linguists call a Hindustani language is of no concern to the people themselves(This however does not mean that the Hindustani language article should also be deleted).
  - Another fact that is being ignored here is that Hindustani, even if we use it as a cover term for Hindi and Urdu both, is spoken only in the cities. The people of Bihar, MP, UP, Haryana etc. all have their own languages which are commonly perceived to be Dialects of Hindi. They do not believe themselves to be "Hindustani people", the term which for them means "Indian people" since Hindustani means Indian. There is no perception of belonging to a common ethno-linguistic group like other linguistic sub-nationalities of India like Tamil, Bengali or Punjabi nor would you find anything to suggest that on the net. Maquahuitl^talk! 11:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also, we can discuss and debate this all we want here, but the fact remains that unless several reliable secondary sources have used the term "Hindustani people" to refer to the people of Bihar, MP, UP, Haryana, etc. as a single ethnic group, then this whole point is moot. We can't use Wikipedia to invent a new ethnic identity; we can only write articles on what has been reported. --Hnsampat (talk) 13:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and deal with definition problems on the talk page. DGG (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Keraunos's well reasoned second comment; the largest ethnic group in a country should still have an article.--Serviam (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Keraunos. 78.146.213.30 (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As far as I know, the Hindustani-speaking people of the north of India are a mixture of various ethnic groups who all speak various dialects of a common language and are not a single ethnic group. If such a categorization does not exist, then it is not up to us here to invent a new categorization for them. If reliable secondary sources have referred to those who speak the Hindustani language as the "Hindustani people", then (and ONLY THEN) can this article be kept. --Hnsampat (talk) 22:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Keraunos. Concept is widespread. If reliable sources are produced which show that it is a misconception, that fact can be explained in the article, or article can be merged with south asian ethnic groups. ~~Maybe it could be re-written as a dab page which explains that it is a colloquial term for North Indians, Hindi speakers, or citizens of India, with a link to Ethnic groups of South Asia.~~ It should redirect to Hindustani. — goethean ॐ 01:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If the concept is widespread, then there should be plenty of reliable secondary sources for showing that "Hindustani people" are a widely recognized ethnic group. However, if that is not the case, then I emphasize again that we cannot use Wikipedia to invent a label for these people or to categorize them as an "ethnic group" when they are not generally recognized as such. Remember, language alone is not enough to make a group of people an ethnic group. For instance, all of the Spanish-speaking people of the world do not count as a single ethnic group; they include ethnic Spaniards, Amerindians, mestizos, etc. To use an Indian example, Gujarati-speaking people divide themselves among Kutchis, Kathiawaris, etc. Language alone does not constitute an ethnic group. So, if we want to categorize all of the "native" Hindi speakers into one group, then there better be some good, reliable secondary sources categorizing them as a single ethnic group known as the "Hindustani people." Otherwise, this article has to be deleted as a violation of WP:NOT#OR and WP:NFT. --Hnsampat (talk) 02:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hindustani Language or another relevant title, if not Delete. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 01:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- Suggested Rewrite: What you people from India seem to be saying is that the people who speak each dialect of Hindi each regard themselves as a separate and distinct ethnic group. You people from India obviously know the situation on the ground better than I do, since I live in the United States! We obviously want the article to be as accurate as possible. So how about retitling the article Hindi peoples and then rewriting the article so that each of the Hindi ethnic groups is listed separately. Here is my proposed rewrite of the article:

Proposed rewrite

Hindi peoples

The Hindi peoples are a constellation of Indo-Aryan ethnic groups who speak various dialects of Hindi. They inhabit the Indian States of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Haryana, and Bihar. As of 2008, they number approximately 400,000,000 human beings.

The Hindi peoples primarily live in that region in northern India, east and south of Yamuna river, between the Vindhya mountains and the Himalayas, where the Hindi language is spoken (this was the area formerly called Hindustan in earlier centuries because it is the region where what linguists calle the Hindustani language is spoken, although today the term Hindustan is generally synonomous with the whole of India). This region consists of the four Indian States of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, and Haryana. ^[1] People of the Hindi ethnic groups are also found in significant numbers in the city of Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, and in Pakistan (Muhajirs).

The Hindi peoples are divided into the following ethnic groups: (Note: I copied the information from the Hindu dialects article that tells where the people who speak each dialect live.)

Note: Totals for each ethnic group are from the 1991 Census, so the totals add up to less than the estimated 2008 total of approximately 400,000,000.

The Western Hindi peoples:

- - 180 M: The Khariboli people (Those who are native speakers of Standard Hindi+Urdu) —live in the major cities and towns of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Haryana, and Bihar.
  - 13 M: The Haryanvi people live in the states of Haryana and Delhi.
  - 6 M: The Kanauji people live in west-central Uttar Pradesh.

The Eastern Hindi peoples:

- - 20 M: The Awadhi people live in north and north-central Uttar Pradesh.
  - 11 M: The Chhattisgarhi people live in in southeast Madhya Pradesh and northern and central Chattisgarh.
  - 2M: The Bagheli people are found mainly in six districts of Madhya Pradesh (Rewa, Satna, Sidhi, Shahdol, Umaria and Anuppur), and also in some districts of Uttar Pradesh like Allahabad and Mirzapur.

The Rajasthani people:

- 5 M: The Rajasthani people live in Rajasthan.

The Bihari peoples:

- 45 M: The Maithili people live in Bihar and in the eastern Terai region of Nepal.
- 26 M: The Bhojpuri people live in the western part of state of Bihar, the northwestern part of Jharkhand, and the Purvanchal region of Uttar Pradesh, as well as an adjoining area of southern plains of Nepal.
- 11 M: The Magadhi people live in the Magadh area of Bihar state. This area includes Patna, Gaya, Aurangabad, Jehanabad, Nalanda, and other surroundingdistricts. They also live in some areas of Hazaribagh, Giridih, Palamau, Munger, and Bhagalpur, with some in the Malda District of West Bengal.
- 2 M: The Sadri people primarily live in Jharkhand.

The Pahari people:

- 7 M: The Pahari (excludes Dogri and Nepali) people live in the lower ranges of the Himalayas from Nepal in the east to the Indian State state of Himachal Pradesh in the west.

Then, later, more information could be added by those of you from India about each of these ethnic groups (their customs, clothing, cuisine, etc.).

I hope this rewrite satisfies the concerns of those of you Wikipedians who are from India. Best wishes, Keraunos (talk) 05:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Hudson, John C., editor Goode’s World Atlas 20th Edition Chicago, Illinois, USA:2000—Rand McNally Map Page 203--Major Languages of India (map of the ethnolinguistic groups of India)--The Hindi language is shown as being the language of the Indian states of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, and Haryana.

Additional comments

- - Strong Object Thankfully you yourself accepted that we Indians would be knowing better in this respect, so that we didn't have to bring in that argument here.

Unfortunately, you cannot rewrite the article to Hindi peoples either. There is no such ethnic group. The word Hindi to mean a group of people is a defunct term, and it used to mean the same as Hindustani, i.e. Indian (vide "Hindi hain ham, watan hai Hindostan hamara). But if you are so adamant on writing something on the peoples of the states in India where Hindi is the official language, then you can write articles on Rajasthani people (speaking the different Rajasthani languages; it is also a very weak ethnicity), Pahari people (speaking the Pahari languages; it is a strong ethnicity), Bihari people (speaking the different Bihari languages; it is not a very strong identity and has mostly been defined by people from other states of the country. The Maithili identity exists, though, to some extent as a subset of the Bihari peoples.) and Jats (who mainly speak Haryanvi)(which already exists). Unfortunately, there is no such ethnic group called "Uttar Pradeshis" or "Madhya Pradeshis" and nor can you make articles titled Western Hindi people or Eastern Hindi people which are nothing but utter nonsense. Awadhi people and Chhattisgarhi people are debatable; I've found some references on the net referring to Awadhi people. It is probably not because of the identity of the people in India, but rather those in Nepal, who have clearly defined identities of Awadhi, Bhojpuri or Maithili speaking.

I am afraid that the basic reason why all this is meaningless is not being perceived by our friends on the other side here, is not coming to them. The basic reason is the definition of all these languages as Dialects of Hindi, officially, even though in reality the cultures of the different areas are different and the languages are also different. As the people come into the cities, they start speaking Modern Standard Hindi(though with a regional flavour) and therefore lose any regional identity within the Hindi belt. Also, since the languages are officially just recognised to be Dialects of Hindi, the states of the belt are not divided on ethno-linguistic lines, as in Southern and Western India, there is hardly any reason for the existence of these identities. Maquahuitl^talk! 12:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Concurring objection - While done in good faith, this rewrite does the same thing that the original article does, which is to try to invent ethnic identities or categorizations for ethnicities. I say again now that we should not try to do all of this based on our own perceptions but should instead rely on reliable secondary sources, such as papers and books by experts on Indian anthropology. (Right now, the only source cited is a world atlas.) --Hnsampat (talk) 13:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Perhaps some of the non-Indian editors need to understand this. If you ask a person Kya aap Hindustani hain?, you are asking him "Are you an Indian Citizen" and not "Are you a speaker of Hindi/Urdu/Hindstani". A person from the south or north east(belonging to entirely differenct race and ethnic gorups) who understands Hindi will also respond affirmatively to this question, beasue you are asking him if he is Indian , not whether he belongs to the ethnic community that speaks Hindi. Nobody says "I am Hindustani" to denote that he is a member of an ethno-linguistic group in the same sense that someone might say "I am a Bengali" or "I am Marathi" or "I am a Malayali". The term Hindustani as applied to a ethno-linguistic group is simply non-existent. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 08:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Often people from the majority ethnic group within a major country don’t feel themselves to be part of an ethnic group; they only perceive the minorities to be part of an ethnic group.

In the 1950s the Anglo-Americans in the United States usually didn’t perceive themselves as an ethnic group, they just said, “We’re Americans” (of course they perceived African Americans to be a “minority” ethnic group). But as more and more non-Caucasians have migrated into the United States, now Anglo-Americans think of themselves as an ethnic group.

Before the Communists took over China, the Han used to just say "We're Chinese" but the Communists developed the system of Chinese ethnic groups that recognized the 88% majority Han as but one of 56 different ethnic groups.

In the same way, people who speak Hindi (who constitute about 40% of the population of India), while regarding Bengalis, Marathis, etc. as ethnic groups, may not regard THEMSELVES as an ethnic group, they may just say "We're Indian", but people from outside of India DO regard them as a distinct ethnic group (or group of ethnic groups). Everyone is part of some ethnic group. If one were to create a map of the world and map each of its ethnic groups in a different color, then the Hindi speaking area of Northern India would be one of the major ethnic areas and would be indicated by a different color (or colors if each dialect were colored separately) than the Marathis, the Bengalis, the Oriyas, etc. There cannot be a gigantic black hole in Northern India on the world map of ethnic groups. Would perhaps the correct term be North Indian or Northern Indian?Keraunos (talk) 09:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again the same question. Do they call themselves as Hindustanis? No. We cannot artifically coin new terms that are not used. The job of an encyclopaedia is to report what is, not create new terms. Hindi people may be but definetely not Hindustani people. The term Anglo american is now commonly used , even if it was not in the past. The Han were an ethnic group regardless of whether they called themselves Han or Chinese. I m sorry but I do ont see anything common between Han and Hindustani.--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 10:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to respond to Keraunos' "black hole" point, there is no "black hole" of ethnic identity in North India. There are many ethnic groups in North India. We just don't collectively refer to all native Hindi speakers as a single ethnic group. Just because a group shares a language doesn't mean that they share an ethnic identity. (Sure, the Bengali ethnic group speaks Bengali and the Tamil ethnic group speaks Tamil, but I reiterate my earlier argument of how Spanish speakers include ethnic Spaniards, Amerindians, and mestizos, who all have distinct ethnic identities. There are also the Indian examples of how Gujarati-speaking people include Kutchis and Kathiawaris with their own distinct identites and how Punjabi-speaking people include Jats, Sikhs, Kambojs, etc., who all have their own distinct ethnic identities.) With Hindi, we also have one other issue, which is that all Hindi speakers don't speak the same "language" per se, even though they are all classified as "Hindi speakers." The Marwaris in Rajasthan speak a very different kind of language than the Bhojpuris in Bihar, and yet they are all considered to be "Hindi speakers." The ethnic identities of Marwaris or Haryanvis are quite different from Biharis. And yet this article would lead us to believe that they consider themselves a single ethnic group, with a common language, common culture, common cuisine, and common history. It is a gross oversimplification. And, for the umpteenth time, this whole argument is moot because nobody has been able to produce any reliable secondary sources that actually show all native Hindi-speaking people being categorized as a single ethnic group known as the "Hindustani people", or by any other name for that matter. We cannot cannot CANNOT use Wikipedia to invent an ethnic identity where none exists, just for the sake of categorization. --Hnsampat (talk) 14:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible ethnic identity related articles from the Hindi-speaking areas (The states of India where Hindi is the official language are- Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Arunachal Pradesh, Delhi)

Pahari people of Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh, speaking different Pahari languages.

Different tribes of Arunachal Pradesh, speaking their own Sino-Tibetan languages

Marwari people of Rajasthan, speaking Marwari language

Weak support for--

Bihari people of Bihar and Jharkhand, including Maithili people as a subgroup, speaking Bihari languages

Maithili people of Mithila in Bihar, speaking Maithili

Rajasthani people of Rajasthan, including Marwari people as a subgroup

Awadhi people of Awadh and Nepal.

About the language-ethnicity related blackhole argument, it has been answered well. Usually the majority does not define its own ethnic identity, and especially not when it's as a confusing situation as it is in the Hindi belt here. Maquahuitl^talk! 05:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment—Including the following ethnic groups as suggested by Maquahuitl is similar to what I proposed on my rewrite:

- Possible ethnic identity related articles from the Hindi-speaking areas

"(The states of India where Hindi is the official language are- Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Arunachal Pradesh, Delhi)

Pahari people of Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh, speaking different Pahari languages.

Different tribes of Arunachal Pradesh, speaking their own Sino-Tibetan languages

Marwari people of Rajasthan, speaking Marwari language

Weak support for--

Bihari people of Bihar and Jharkhand, including Maithili people as a subgroup, speaking Bihari languages

Maithili people of Mithila in Bihar, speaking Maithili

Rajasthani people of Rajasthan, including Marwari people as a subgroup

Awadhi people of Awadh and Nepal.

About the language-ethnicity related blackhole argument, it has been answered well. Usually the majority does not define its own ethnic identity, and especially not when it's as a confusing situation as it is in the Hindi belt here." Maquahuitl^talk!

The only question is, what is the overall name that should be used for the cluster of ethnic groups that consists of the 400,000,000 people that are native speakers of Hindi? Apparently in India the word Hindustani means “a citizen of India” and the word Hindi means “a Hindu”, so neither of those words can be used. There must be some word that you use in India to distinguish people who are native speakers of the Hindi language from those who speak Bengali, Marathi, Oriya, etc. WHAT IS THAT WORD? Would it be acceptable to just call the article Hindi speaking ethnicities, and then list those ethnicities suggested by Maquahuitl above? Or would North Indians or Northern Indian be a better title? Keraunos (talk) 10:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, all these 40 crore people are not native speakers of Hindi. They are being perceived so just because the states where they live in happen to have Hindi as their official language. And Hindi does not mean Hindu. Hindi just means Modern Standard Hindi. It used to mean, though, "Indian", just like "Hindustani". There is simply no ethnicity to describe these people except for the ethnicities as I suggested, all with separate articles. North Indian, again, is a fuzzily defined identity and Hindi speaking ethnicities again is just a contrived term. Maquahuitl^talk! 04:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was consensus to delete, although there is no special reason it cannot be converted into a disambiguation page as suggested below, which I may well do in lieu of actually bothering to delete the content (as it is not particularly odious). Shereth 23:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sheth[edit]

Delete unsourced one-liner about a surname with no indication of its notability Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Protonk (talk) 04:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are several people with the last name Sheth [37] who have Wikipedia articles. While the current state of the article is pretty useless, it can be converted to a surname disambiguation page, in the manner of, for example, Roberts (surname). ~ mazca ^{t | c} 14:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - article has since been enhanced. ——RyanLupin • (talk) 10:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Top Ranking[edit]

Unreleased and as such un-notable album. Only references/links are to reseller. Mfield (talk) 05:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think it's the album itself that's unreleased, i think it means "containing [previously] unreleased material". tomasz. 14:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, unreleased and does not yet meet WP:MUSIC right now. JBsupreme (talk) 08:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Protonk (talk) 04:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mixtapes generally aren't notable. I see nothing that makes this one notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 17:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is a mixtape by one of the most well-known DJs (Diplo) and a very popular artist. His previous mixtape in the exact same fashion, with MIA instead of Santogold, was found to be notable enough to have remained on Wikipedia for four years. Why is this any different? 63.231.90.185 (talk) 07:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To demonstrate notability of this mix-tape, please show evidence of non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 07:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I have updated the article with references from third party publications. BambooBanga (talk) 03:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BambooBanga. nice job, mate. tomasz. 15:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as non-notable based on the arguments of the nominator. —Sean Whitton / 12:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Team Impact[edit]

This article about a rugby sevens team that does not meet notability. The team is a social team formed for a non-notable local tournament with no coverage in reliable sources writing about the team. The references provided are the host club web site, their own facebook groups and another rugby website. The ballsout rugby website is just a link to a homepage without explanation as to why it is even a reference.

The article was originally proposed for deletion but the PROD was removed when two additional references were provided. However, the references are a news article in a local paper that covers the tournament and mentions the team as the team as the winner, and the other reference is from the host club's website. The addition of these two references does not correct the deficiency in reliable sources. Whpq (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: - The current version of the article shows only two references. Earlier versions prior to the PROD removal had a different set of references. -- Whpq (talk) 15:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-I found nothing on this subject on an engine search and it fails WP:N.S_RX 16:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Protonk (talk) 04:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, and I'll examine the conduct of whoever added the {{db-nonsense}} tag. Sandstein 18:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National-Anarchism[edit]

(Also page National anarchism.) Was tagged {{db-nonsense}}, but as this page has had text since January 2008 it better be discussed. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The article clearly does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, and as I understand it, there is no actual rationale for deletion beyond its being tagged. Calgary (talk) 14:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Article is well sourced and not nonsense as far as I can tell. No rationale for deletion other than it was a declined speedy. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 17:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep I've worked on heavily on referencing the article, and I've seen no rationale for deletion so far. Belzub (talk) 12:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Of course the article is full of nonsense, but how else could it reflect this wretched ideology. That's precisely why it should be kept.Harrypotter (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete C'mon now, these sources are absolute rubbish. Web forums, white power websites, commie agitprop, radical rag-sheets, and unattributed political screeds. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOBJ, and WP:RS. Nothing here that can't be neatly summed up at Anarchism and nationalism. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article on the inventor of this "ideology" Troy Southgate should be deleted for the same reasons, sourcing is just not up to snuff. L0b0t (talk) 23:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep L0b0t obviously hates any ideology not his own. Both National-Anarchism and Troy Southgate are works are significant developments in a number of different areas. This is like a Democrat saying the Republican page should be deleted because he doesn't like what it says. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.150.21 (talk) 02:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:AGF, you have no idea what "ideology" I do or do not like. The issue here is sources or rather, lack thereof. On its face, this article fails our general notability guideline, notability and objectivity guideline, and guideline for reliable sources. Please address your comments to these conserns, not your misguided assumptions about other editors. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close Satisfies notability concerns as the subject of non-trivial third party coverage in notable sources , cf Green Anarchy". Plenty of sourced material available to verify content such that a reasonably comprehensive article can be written within the bounds of neutrality. Nomination of a long-standing article (as "nonsense" to boot) without any serious attempt at addressing issues through editing or discussing first is disruptive and indicative of trolling. Skomorokh 17:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pride family flag[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Pride family flag

Main contributor to article was apparently one of the creators of the flag, the article is apparently mostly Original Research with an external link to a Texas (the creators are from Texas) gay publication with a blurb about it. User0529 (talk) 04:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick links within Wiki about this article:

Pride family flag - the article
Talk:Pride family flag - article, includes comments by article creator
Special:Contributions/STPride -- contribs history of person that created article (note they also added 2 links to the LGBT adoption article, which i have deleted)
Special:Contributions/Txst8978 -- contribs of person that commented on the talk page (partner of STPride?)

--User0529 (talk) 04:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of LGBT related deletions. User0529 (talk) 04:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced WP:OR Mayalld (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- role^player 23:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I think the idea of the flag is noble, indeed, there are no sources or other resources to show that this flag is anything other than a self-made creation. Jeffpw (talk) 10:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Per the arguments given, there is consensus to delete: the article remains unsourced. —Sean Whitton / 12:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Farshad[edit]

Delete unsourced article about a given name with no indication why it's notable. WP is not a baby-naming guide. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Baby names are so the new X Brazilian. On a serious note, I don't think we want to have wikipedia articles for all names, and I can find no reason to believe this name is particularly notable. It's unsourced, one line, and I can't really imagine an encyclopedic expansion. Vickser (talk) 00:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Anthroponymy has been informed of this ongoing discussion. Beef Dripping (talk) 13:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pending reference addition - I have tagged with {{unreferenced}}. Absence of citations without due diligence to provide them (either by effort or notification) is not itself grounds for deletion. After a reasonable period, if supporting material is not provided, bring back to AfD for re-review. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Protonk (talk) 04:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied. —Sean Whitton / 12:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Koulage[edit]

Could not find reliable secondary sources. Appears to be a direct copy of some sort of statistical record. Samuel Tan 03:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Criteria G1 or A1. --neon white talk 04:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD G1 and A1. -- RyRy (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - nominator withdrew. (non-admin closure) ——RyanLupin • (talk) 08:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advance Party (religious movement)[edit]

~~Non notable article. Orphaned article with no reliable sources.Thanks.~~ Ism schism (talk) 03:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 03:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 03:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 03:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hmm. 4 books. Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, Ashgate and Routledge - 2 of the world's best universities and 2 major academic presses. Unreliable sources? Well, one learns something new every day. It is highly recommended that one familiarize oneself with the rules on reliable sources and deletion policies and guidelines before nominating articles for AfD. Cheers, John Z (talk) 03:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Reliable sources that establish notablity are important - these are what I was talking about in the nomination. The sources in the article do not state how this organization is notable nor do they focus on the the Advance Party as the subject of any of these studies. In this article, reliable sources that establish notabilty are lacking. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, study of the relevant guidelines may repay one in understanding what notability means at Wikipedia. While they are welcome and given substantial weight, sources stating an organization is notable are not required. If reliable sources treat a topic in a substantial way, we presume the RS considers it notable, otherwise, why would they have taken note of it? The article contains a substantial quote from one of the RS's. Have you considered that your standards for substantial sourcing may be uniquely high - as in the past, dozens of pages devoted to a topic have been deemed insufficient. Also, it is generally deemed proper to research a topic before nominating it for deletion. I confess I haven't had time to look at this one. In any case, I was replying to what you said in the nomination. It would be helpful if your nominations were more precise and clearer, as your comment above was.John Z (talk) 04:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Thank you for your suggestions. I appreciate your comments on my research methods and I am always open to advice on how to improve them. Also, after looking at the sources for this article, I found little more than passing references, and these did not establish notablity. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: I have no idea who these people are, but their references are impeccable. Brilliant Pebble (talk) 05:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete formation of a organization is not a notable act. Getting a mention in texts is not a notable act. There is no mention of what makes this group notable. There are literally millions of religious movements. If you like I can start one right now. For all I know, from the article, this organization is 3 members large and has never done anything beyond sit in mom's basement and muse about what's right or wrong with the world. It's not impossible that this organization is notable, I just currently see no reason to believe it. -Verdatum (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quite sufficient material to meet the criteria usually used for political parties. We try not to judge which ones are actually important in a political sense, as long as real substantial existence can be proven. Otherwise this gets very subject to questions of bias. DGG (talk) 07:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply/Question I am confused by you statement, "sufficient material to meet the criteria usually used for political parties." I thought this discussion was about a religious movement. Are we talking about two different things? We are at least using two different sets of criteria for notability. As a religious movement, I do not think this organization is notable. I do not know of its role, if any, it plays in politics. Could you please expand? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and reliable sources find the subject notable enough. ~ priyanath ^talk 15:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One wonders what exactly would qualify as a notable subject or a well-referenced article in the mind of deletionist extraordinaire User:Ism schism. One wonders how my artiocles would be left in the encyclopedia is this user were to have its way. User:Ism schism needs to stop disrupting Wikipedia in order to make whatever point they think that they are making. — goethean ॐ 00:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This group seems to be a fundamentalist splinter group of Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University (Brahma Kumaris Ishwariya Vishwa Vidyalaya /BKIVV) which is also known as Adhyatmik Ishwariya Vishwa Vidyalaya ( AIVV, Prajapita Brahma Kumaris also redirect here.) Perhaps it should be moved back to the other name cf talk page proposal; earlier, pre-redirect versions of the Adhyatmik Ishwariya Vishwa Vidyalaya article had more content but were not referenced. There even was an Arbcom case about BKWSU, and there's a section of that article devoted to this party, there's not much additional here. It is not too clear how some, not all, of the references are being used in this article, but it seems notable, something which has been the object of scholarly attention- e.g. John Walliss's book. Like many of the other articles up for deletion, the proposers may have found ones with problems, but like most they seem to be solvable through normal editing, merging and redirecting at worst, not deletion. Deletion is a last resort. Above all, this needs the attention of editors who know something about it, I tried to notify some. In their absence, I suggest Keep.John Z (talk) 07:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable enough and good references exist. Orderinchaos 07:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes it, and its relationship with the BKWSU as a splinter group, is well document in Dr John Walliss's seminal book on the subject, "... Reflexive Traditions" which is itself widely discussed within the field of the sociology of religion. The sociology of religion is a narrow field, and we should not be discourage by cultural prejudices. Its a small Indian religion but still many times bigger than other guru traditions featured on the Wiki.

Given the proposing deletionist's Ism schism (talk · contribs · logs) involvement with traditional Vaishnaitism/Krishna-consciousness, I'd have to question "issues of faith" coming into play with this proposal as the AIVV are, essentially Shivaite and, arguably, "anti-Bhatki yoga" ... or at the very least highly revisionist. Adherents number in the thousands all over India and internationally. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 15:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As this information still does not make sense to me, and there are numerous keep votes above, I change my vote to keep. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin Nominator changed vote to keep. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to Boys Like Girls, no need to keep discussion open. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 17:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Charles DiGiovanni[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. Members of a band who do not do anything of note outside of it are not in themselves notable. RayAYang (talk) 02:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just redirect it to Boys Like Girls, hardly needs an AfD discussion, there's no content there anyway. --Stormie (talk) 04:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect seems like the bold thing to do. I'll do it now. --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valentin Mihai Bogdan[edit]

Autobiography of a pianist. Is he notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing to indicate real notability, the article claims that he has "received a number of prestigious awards" but all of them accept for a scholarship that is routinely awarded to thousands of people all are red links, which makes me suspect that they are not all that prestigious. The article as it stands is unsourced and a quick trawl through Google does not turn up anything to remedy that, the top results are all just his website, facebook, and, myspace. For what its worth the article was written by the person himself as well so it is a COI. -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 02:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant performances or recordings.And , as mentioned, student awards and scholarships do not count towards notability. DGG (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Sean Whitton / 12:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inkwyre[edit]

Recently formed social networking company. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete inadequate evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 02:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete zero evidence of notability for this site, which is in beta. None of the three articles given as references even mentions this company or its site. Brilliant Pebble (talk) 06:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I respectfully disagree in that this article provides resource information for over 30 school districts with licenses to the Inkwyre service. The company is private, not public, and thus has not released any information to the media. Keeping this article serves as a major benefit for schools that wish to learn more about Inkwyre, if they are not currently licensed, or learn more about the service if they do possess a user license. Nmishra91 (talk) 07:42, 18 July 2008
Delete - there are no reliable sources covering this company -- Whpq (talk) 14:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. —Sean Whitton / 12:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harvest Bible Chapel[edit]

Non-notable church. Only sources are primary, and plenty of linkspam present. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 02:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best to merge & redirect to founder James MacDonald (pastor), who does seem to be notable on the grounds of widespread radio syndication and a number of books written. --Stormie (talk) 04:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep most churches are not notable, some are. And yes, Wikipedia is not a church directory. This church, I believe, is notable due to its size and rapid growth. I'd ask for editors to develop the article more before we make a final decision.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:RS and reads like marketing collateral. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google News search [38]shows some sources which appear to satisfy the demand for multiple independent and reliable sources with substantial coverage. The Chicago Tribune Feb. 2, 2005 [39]noted the unique "franchise" nature of the church's expansion congregations, where the "franchise" sites serve up the same music, sermons and videos. The Daily Herald has had many dozens of articles about the church (behind paywall) such as [40] and [41] and [42]. Delete The refs cited are all the church's own sites. Independent and reliable refs are needed to show notability. Having 10,000 claimed attendance or having several daughter churches do not by themselves make this one notable. Are there books, magazine articles or newspaper articles about the church. especially ones showing it had more than a local effect? See WP:CONG , a proposed notability guideline (now tagged "rejected") for some ideas on how the notability of a church building or congregation can be demonstrated. Edison (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Curious having 10,000 in attendance would put this church in the top tier in attendance in the world. Why would that in itself not be notable?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Claims of large church attendance may be exaggerations intended to boost notoriety. There is no auditing process and no legal penalty for misrepresenting. In this case, there is no reference which says that is the attendance. Membership claims of some churches are likewise over-representations, including many who have quit participating, but have not been dropped from the rolls.Edison (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response true, but that is certainly not always the case, and many large churches have auditors to review many aspects of the church. Does this one? Not sure...--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IF acceptable sources are included into the article. Radioinfoguy (talk) 01:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The article reads like an advertisement, but the organization may be notable because it's one of the first "religious franchises". See "It worked for burgers, now churches try franchising.". It's not the first church franchise, or the biggest, though. The current cites don't support much notability. --John Nagle (talk) 21:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources presented by Edison suggest that the church is notable. The article needs some work. At the moment, it is poorly written. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amish boy in africa[edit]

The article is very short, and unreferenced. It talks about an upcoming film. I couldn't find any references for it, not even at imdb. Seems pretty non-notable for me. Besides, it violates WP:CRYSTAL for talking about an upcoming thing that was not covered by the media. Victor Lopes (talk) 02:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, possible hoax, no hits outside Wikipedia. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 02:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if it's true, it's non-notable crystal ball-ism, if it's a hoax - well, then it's a hoax. --Stormie (talk) 04:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:RS & WP:MOVIE LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, at the very least. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 05:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete User:Warning87's only other contribution was something left in a sandbox. This, too, resembles something that a cat would leave in a sandbox. I'm glad you didn't put a lot of effort into making this article. Mandsford (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL possible made up hoax, largely because of the lack of ghits outside of Wikipedia. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 20:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ASAP. Deb (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 21:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Either a hoax or made-up. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No google hits [43]. Likely hoax. PC78 (talk) 07:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snowball Delete --JForget 01:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fox Valley Bible Church[edit]

Non-notable community church. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this page!!!!! Someone help me get it up and running. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.88.17 (talk) 01:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertation of notability. Sources aren't reliable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 01:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable church. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Gsearch shows lots of directory listings, but no notability; gnews search shows lots of passing mentions, but doesn't show meeting WP:Notability.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
how come you have an article on Grace Community Church in california and not one on other surronding church's such as Christ Community Church or Harvest Bible Chapel. 2 leadership people from this church were from Grace Community Church. Please do not delete this page! I just need help getting it up and running. Also, I tried uploading a picture of the church's logo and it wouldn't let me. It wouldn't even let me get to the page were you upload it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.88.17 (talk) 02:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because we have a page on X doesn't mean we need a page on Y too — because after all, X may not be notable either. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 02:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No independent notability of the church has been presented. As such, it fails WP:NOTABILITY. Should notability ever be established, then of course the article could be recreated. John Carter (talk) 02:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no assertion of notability, let alone evidence. --Stormie (talk) 04:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a church directory. Grace Community Church is a notable church, this particular one (although probably quite nice to attend and full of good people) is not notable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and unverifiable. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 12:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to author in response to the request, "Please do not delete this page!!!!! Someone help me get it up and running." Listen, Wikipedia is not a place for every organization to have its own page. Your church already has a webpage, but even if it didn't, Wikipedia is like an encyclopedia, in that people who want to look up information about a particular subject will look it up here. There are some enterprises that are almost automatically entitled to an article because they fall in a certain category, such as a municipality, a high school, an FCC licensed television station, regardless of how many people are associated with it. Those entities that aren't "inherently notable", however, have to prove that they are notable outside of their own publicity. If Fox Valley Bible Church were to make headlines nationwide or worldwide because of its activities, that might be notable enough for an encylopedia. Even being the largest church in St. Charles, Illinois, however, would not be notable enough for an encyclopedia. There are thousands and thousands of houses of worship, and they do good works, but only a few of them would rate a mention in, say, an Associated Press article. You may be right. Perhaps Christ Community Church doesn't rate an article either; that article might be deleted too, but that an article exists doesn't mean that all churches rate an article. Mandsford (talk) 13:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Massively fails WP:NOTABILITY. Radioinfoguy (talk) 01:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
with Regret Delete. Unfortunately the current view is that most churches are non-notable. The author has provided a full (though brief) hisotry of the church, which is better than for many church and ministry articles I have seen. See WP:CHURCH for notability guidelines. If the author can explain what this church is notable, and preferably edit the article to display this. Consider writing about all the churches in the town within the article on the town. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted (non-admin) by PeterSymonds per CSD A7 due to group/company/etc not indicating importance or significance. WilliamH (talk) 11:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jayceon[edit]

Autobiography with no claim in article of meeting WP:MUSIC. Career consists of one mixtape, and an album which is not yet released. Contested prod. Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A7 Doesn't even assert notability. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 01:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on speedy While I agree that it needs to go, there is an incredibly weak assertion of notability ("rose to fame in early 2008"). It's not a strong enough assertion for me to remove the speedy tag, but it kept me from A7'ing it myself. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't count that as an assertation. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 01:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found it through the speedy—it's damn close but I'm on Fabrictramp's boat. As for on the merits, a Google search with no results whatever ([44]) is very strong evidence in the pop music genre.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A7 Themfromspace (talk) 02:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5'13"[edit]

Non-notable short film. Fails WP:MOVIE Ecoleetage (talk) 01:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability for films. No reliable sources, no notable actors, non-notable director, etc. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 01:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No G-hits, nor does it pass WP:MOVIE. Leonard^(Bloom) 03:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, your search returns 9 million + hits! PC78 (talk) 00:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - could not find director, producer, or title of this film. Fails WP:RS. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google search doesn't yield much, though in fairness most of the hits are in French. That said, there is no evidence to show that this five minute film has any shred of notabily. Or the director, for that matter. PC78 (talk) 00:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pretty clear failure of WP:MOVIE. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shereth 23:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4 This Way![edit]

Notability is absent from this article about a single lottery game in New Mexico (I believe they have several different lottery games there). Ecoleetage (talk) 01:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lottery games aren't generally notable, except for screwing millions of people out of money $1 at a time. Seriously, there're no sources for this, no assertation of notability, you know the drill. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 01:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Concur. Nothing much else to say :) Okiefromokla ^questions? 02:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Claims to be unique, but four-digit pickems are not unique, and it is discontinued. I could maybe see merging to an article on New Mexico state lotteries or some such of it exists. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lookey what I found - New Mexico Lottery. Personally, I would try and expand this article before making a separate article on the pick 4 only. I know WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESN'TEXIST is not a valid reason to kill an article, but I doubt that states have individual articles on their various lottery methods ... and I think the Justice League of Inclusionists would even have to agree that this article best belongs in this article than as a stand alone. LonelyBeacon (talk) 16:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While this could be merged, I'm not too excited about doubling the size of New Mexico Lottery with details about the workings a defunct lotto game. Still, I wouldn't be opposed to a shorter mention of "4 this way" being added there, preferably with a source, of course. Okiefromokla ^questions? 18:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, I would agree that looking at the length of an article is important before merging. However, the New Mexico Lottery articles is eight lines long ... total. I think doubling, tripling, quadrupling its size and expanding it would be a very good thing for that article, and adding information on the "4-This Way!" would be a start. If there are other games, they should be added and sourced as well. Lotteries can be big deals from the stand point of politics and such, so the article really could use some expansion. I'm not sure the current "4-This Way!" should be dumped in word-for-word, but I would look at this as an opportunity to make one articles better, rather than be left with two stubs, one of which (the 4-This-Way!) will never really be improved upon because there will never be much more to say about it. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-it should be acknowledged in some way. Ironically I started the page the day the New Mexico Lottery announced it was going to be retired a short time later. Loveyourcar (talk) 15:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

109th and Broadway fire[edit]

This one is a bit tricky - yes, it was covered in the New York Times. But...it was strictly a local news story (a New York City fire) that had no particular notability in itself (it didn't change fire codes, the building on fire was not famous, etc.). Quite frankly, it is not unlike any fire story you would find in any city or town. I am taking the stand that the article fails notability requirements. Am I right? Ecoleetage (talk) 01:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A good example of where WP:NOT#NEWS applies. Nick Dowling (talk) 03:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:ONEEVENT & WP:NOT#NEWS. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails the notability standard: a quick mention in the NY Times isn't enough. WP:NOT#NEWS also another thing. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 05:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all above. Buckshot06(prof) 05:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Put it out per nomination. I'll grant you that it was a big fire in a building that was more than 10 stories tall, but I agree that it didn't seem to have coverage other than locally. Mandsford (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as local-news event that WP:NOT#NEWS applies to very well. Also, a pat on the head for the nominator for noticing the "local news" aspect of the New York Times, it's enough of a global news source that I've never really considered that it would focus on certain New York-only things. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 14:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to indicate that this event had lasting notability even within New York City itself, certainly not beyond New York. Sad to say, major fires, including fires involving multiple deaths, are not particularly unusual. 23skidoo (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, well below any reasonable standard of notability for disasters. I used to live two blocks away and the building itself is not notable and probably has no notable residents. It was just a fire, something that happens all the time. --Dhartung | Talk 02:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure), as newly posted information confirms the article's notability. Nominator withdraws his AfD. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1100 Grand Concourse[edit]

Yo, shout out to my peeps in Da Bronx. It's a great place to visit, but the subject of this article has no evidence of notability. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not only is it a great place to visit, but the New York Times calls it "long one of the most prominent residential addresses in the Bronx". [45] Yo. --Oakshade (talk) 01:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yo, word on the street is that notability is not inherited. Having a famous person living in a building doesn't necessarily make the building prominent -- otherwise, every famous person's crib would be rockin' Wikipedia. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's see. The New York Times calls it "prominent" (one of the most in the Bronx). One Wikipedia editor doesn't. Which shall we go by? --Oakshade (talk) 16:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment back Well, the New York Times also said there were WMD in Iraq in early 2003 -- don't believe everything you read (in the Times or on Wikipedia!). How about getting more independent references to back up that rather grand Grand Concourse claim? Ecoleetage (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I love the fictional WP:NEWYORKTIMESISUNRELIABLE guideline. You're not the first to bring it up. --Oakshade (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Uh, any other reliable sources to back up the notion of notability? Ecoleetage (talk) 17:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yo. Some of your peeps in the Bronx live in a building that contributes to the Grand Concourse Historic District, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. In other words, they've got some famous cribs there. I think the homies who run the National Register are straight ballin', if you know what I mean, so I'm going to say keep. Word. (It's painfully obvious I don't know a thing about Bronx slang.)--Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yo, I am not snapping those National Register of Historic Places dudes. This nomination is being withdrawn and I'm going back to the hood. Peace out! Ecoleetage (talk) 21:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shereth 23:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Ross Owens[edit]

Vanity article which I believe fails WP:POLITICIAN. Failed candidate for state assembly. Written by sole author with same username as subject; author has contested PROD and removed coi tag. RayAYang (talk) 00:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Self promotion is not permitted, and this article may even be a CSD:G11 candidate. 206.116.63.240 (talk) 01:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Irrelevant of sources, fails WP:POLITICIAN. Definitely appears to be self promoting. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he is not a politician, he just worked for some unsuccessful candidates. "Winning" an uncontested election to be Vice Chairmanof a county committee is no where near being a politician or being notable; being a spin doctor perhaps. Racepacket (talk) 04:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - the sources (well, some of them) seem to be reliable enough, and back up his notability. 78.146.213.30 (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources must be independent as well as reliable. Things such as a LWV candidate guide come with the role of running for office and are not indicators of notability. --Dhartung | Talk 03:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no real indicators of notability, sources chiefly fail independence, and jobs are below WP:POLITICIAN inherent notability standards. --Dhartung | Talk 03:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dhartung. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. We may want to courtesy blank this discussion, I suppose. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:POLITICIAN. --Crusio (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, per complete absence of delete preferences expressed. No delete !votes were made, indicating that there is no consensus to delete the article. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh, who is not an administrator. 06:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RAS syndrome[edit]

I'm finding no reliable sources here, just Usenet posts and blogs and Urban Dictionary. Seems to utterly, completely, and totally fail each and every single one of the rules established in the notability guidelines for neologisms that are new. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 00:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's been mentioned in New Scientist's Feedback section several times, and this is mentioned in the article, we just don't have an exact date to cite it. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one and another. And really, how can you delete the best vandalism ever? -mattbuck (Talk) 00:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't delete that vandalism. Oh, and good finds too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 00:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting the page would remove the vandalism page history, in essence removing that vandalism from the world, apart from the 1600 admins here. And it wasn;t hard, I just did a google search for it. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did too, but all I came up with was Urban Dictionary and blogs. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 01:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now someone comes up with an RS source (ha!). That tag's only been there since November. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 00:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hahahaha, just noticed the slight modification to the deletion template. Nice work. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 17:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - Per WP:NEO, neologisms should only be avoided because they are not well understood, are not clearly definable, and will have different meanings to different people - this particular one seems to have a pretty well-defined meaning. It appears, however, to fail the #Reliable sources for neologisms section of WP:NEO. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 04:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. RAS syndrome is well known and frequent. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There seems to be quite a lot of unsourced stuff that might be original research in the "Reasons for use" section, but overall the topic does seem to be notable with some decent sources. Needs cleanup but seems to be a worthy encyclopedia article. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 14:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that the New Scientist articles aren't very substantial in their coverage, so I'm still not convinced that this meets WP:NEO. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 17:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - despite being the creator of this article, I'm ambivalent as to whether it should stay or not: I think I created it mainly because it was being linked in other articles. However, whether or not the term is a neologism, the phenomenon is fairly widely recognised, and seems to me to be worthy of discussion in terms of its linguistic origins and effects. If that is better covered under a different title, or as part of a broader subject, I'd suggest a merge-and-redirect approach. - IMSoP (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xera Maxmus[edit]

Lacks notability (see here). Fleetflame 00:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nominator. Nothing special here. Truthanado (talk) 01:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources in sight. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 01:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - violates WP:RS. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no assertion of notability, let alone evidence. --Stormie (talk) 04:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:V. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 12:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only does it not have any third party references other than its own website, but its own website doesn't seem to exist upon further inspection anyway. 78.146.213.30 (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Hudson, John C., editor Goode’s World Atlas 20th Edition Chicago, Illinois, USA:2000—Rand McNally Map Page 203--Major Languages of India (map of the ethnolinguistic groups of India)--The Hindi language is shown as being the language of the Indian states of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, and Haryana.

[1]