Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 June 8

< June 7	June 9 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boogey Ball

Non-notable -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, considering the article's current state. I think it's bordering on A1 speedy deletion based on the really scant amount of detail there now. I'll happily reconsider if the article is improved to the point that it holds some value to the project. Erechtheus (talk) 00:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless the Boogey Ball becomes a massive hit with consumers, there just isn't enough notability for this article. Artene50 (talk) 08:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ukexpat (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is empty and a web-search doesn't give out much either. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just delete it! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Norchase

I can find no evidence for the use of "Norchase" as the name of a distinct region of the Platte Purchase. Every Google hit for Norchase +Missouri either is a clone of this article or contains a clone of Template:Missouri, to which "Norchase" was added by the author of this article. In the absence of any reliable sources confirming the use of this term, the article fails WP:V. Deor (talk) 23:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. —Deor (talk) 23:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nominator's rationale. At this point, it appears to be a likely WP:NFT case. Erechtheus (talk) 00:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifiable at best. Edward321 (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tagged this with a speedy when it was created, but was reprimanded. Grey Wanderer | Talk 17:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:V. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - blatant neologism. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the addition of this article was made in haste, due to the fact that the scholarly paper published for Northwest Missouri State University in which the term "Norchase" was coined is rather new and has not been adopted on a large scale by either inhabitants of the region or other scholars. [For some reason, the reference to said paper (The Norchase: A History of Andrew, Atchison, Holt, and Nodaway Counties by Jem Kenneth Syliss--edited by Niles Jennings) was deleted from the page.] The term itself is less of a colloquialism than a scholarly title for the region, but this does not mean that term does not exist. I am willing to make the necessary changes to this article to allow it to pass the current wikipedia standards. The purpose of this website is to share information, and information on the term "Norchase" can currently only be found in a single text in a small university library in northwestern Missouri and on this wikipedia website. I ask only that others help improve the page and give this relatively new information time to become more widely recognized and discovered. 12:06, 12 June 2008 (CST) (And my appologies to Grey Wanderer for prematurely deleting his tag. I'm new to the whole editing process.) User: Titus Justus

We really need verifiable references (see WP:V for the policy on that). Also, please note that if there's just one paper, the term may not be notable enough, yet, for wikipedia. (Please see WP:N for the notability policy.) An entry on wikipedia should come after the term is used and written about in the world. Unfortunately, wikipedia isn't meant to "get the word out there" so to speak. A common feeling on wikipedia is that there isn't a deadline, so we can afford to wait until a term is notable because it's in scholarly or common usage to include it. Sometimes that may mean deleting an article now, and recreating it when more references are published about it. After all, wikipedia does not publish original research, and sometimes getting the word out there for a new scholarly term treads too close to original research, becuase there are only primary sources that use the word. I hope that helps you see what we're looking for, and what the article needs. AubreyEllenShomo (talk) 07:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very Weak Keep, pending a closer look into Titus Justus's references. I do note, however, that the existance of only one scholarly article may make this a neologism that fails WP:N still, and depending on the publication status of the reference, may still fail WP:V. As such, my keep opinion is both provisional and weak. AubreyEllenShomo (talk) 07:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Changed to delete based on my inability to verify any references. AubreyEllenShomo (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't prove it, since I was unable to find any references to it at all, but I have a feeling that the "scholarly article" in question is a student's unpublished master's thesis or the like. (I removed a citation of such a thesis that Titus Justus had added to a different article.) WP:V requires "reliable, third-party published sources," and, to the best of my knowledge, Northwest Missouri State University (which was presented as the publisher of the source) doesn't even operate a press. If Titus has information about the history of the region for which reliable sources can be cited, I recommend that he add it to Platte Purchase. Deor (talk) 11:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that the catalogue of Northwest Missouri State's library—in which, if anywhere, one might expect to find a copy of this "publication"—shows no works by anyone named Syliss and no works with titles containing the word Norchase. Deor (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, no assertion of notability. Bencherlite ^Talk 16:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rosemary Margaret Hobor

John Candy's wife, and her notability (beyond being John Candy's wife) is not confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this site should have a refernce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eighthedition8 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Relation to someone does not directly imply notability. I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 23:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the basis that notability is not inherited from relatives. Erechtheus (talk) 01:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Speedy delete, so tagged. ukexpat (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lullaby Versions of Eminem

No sign of this actually being "official" as all engine searches of "Lullaby Versions of Eminem" lead to online stores, like most bootlegs do. No indication of it being released by any of Eminem's official labels, such as "Shady", Aftermath, Interscope or Universal. It clearly is another bootleg. Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 23:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bootleg album, no reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent on the similar Pokémon Chaos Black (AfD). -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 06:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also made a search and came up with nothing which indicates it to be an actual Eminem release. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with no !votes placed. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E (DVD)

Lack of reliable sources, plus it's not even an official album since it was not released by any of Interscope, Aftermath, Shady or Universal International that are Eminem's official distribution labels. As it can be seen here is was released by a probable bootleg label "Polygram Video" Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 22:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Keep. I just found this on Interscope's website[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raw and Uncutt

Lack of reliable sources, plus it's not even an official album since it was not released by any of Interscope, Aftermath, Shady or Universal International that are Eminem's official distribution labels. As it can be seen here is was released by a probable bootleg label "AFE" Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 22:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bootleg album, fails WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable" -- Coasttocoast (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources, fails WP:MUSIC. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete~~/Merge~~. ~~Some content was merge elsewhere~~.--JForget 00:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Southeastern/MidAtlantic US Heat Wave

Unencyclopedic content JasonCNJ (talk) 22:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete this article about a so-called heat wave that began just one day before the article was created. If it really proves to be a lengthy heat wave, the article can be recreated later when proper info exists. Zaxem (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. Also appears to be non-notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but not speedy. The same heat wave is existing in the Northeast as well. I't just hot temperatures, and this gives very little information to the reader. I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 23:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Provides not very much info to the reader, and these heat waves occur often. Soxred 93 01:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see a speedy criteria this falls under, but there certainly seems to be a CRYSTAL issue with it since we don't know yet whether this will be a notable heat wave. Plus, there's no possibility of there being sources about the lasting impact and notoriety of this weather pattern, as it is apparently ongoing. Townlake (talk) 05:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not because its not notable but because its WP:CRYSTAL Artene50 (talk) 08:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a speedy candidate, but the article describes a non-notable weather phenomenon. There are probably 2-3 "heat waves" every summer in the Cleveland area where I live NewYork483 (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No records being set, and we don't need an article on each one. Funnyfarmofdoom (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. This isn't significant. --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete We don't need articles on every "record breaking heat wave". Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Toasted TV. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck It In

Non-notable -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Already covered in the Toasted TV article. Zaxem (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Toasted TV article as a valid search term given what Zaxem mentions above. Erechtheus (talk) 01:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. That's probably a good idea. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Erechtheus. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chalkmaster

Non-notable -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The lack of any non-local coverage and a relatively scant amount of local coverage given the links provided in the article leads me to the same conclusion as that of the nominator. Erechtheus (talk) 01:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Artene50 (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for not notable. Tabor (talk) 02:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 06:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. As a Torontonian myself, his "legend" nevertheless seems to have escaped me. There are plenty of sidewalk chalk artists up here. He seems no more notable then the rest. freshacconcispeaktome 14:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable per nom ukexpat (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of General Hospital characters. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Morgan

This is a lengthy article about a baby from General Hospital. The article currently consists of unsourced plot summaries about what the adults surrounding him have done. After attempting to redirect it twice to General Hospital, an editor has reverted me twice. I have now brought it here for larger community input. Ani Mate 21:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Ani Mate 21:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable minor character, no out-of-universe info exists for him. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --El on ka 22:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This page's history is incredibly tangled, as it looks like an anon did a copy/paste move in September 2007, and nobody caught it. The General Hospital character that is being discussed is also known as Jake Spencer, in case anyone is confused. --El on ka 23:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "This is a lengthy article about a baby"—that sold it for me. –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable baby. Baby? Yes, a baby. Sigh. Gwernol 23:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Technically, you want 30 or RfC, not Afd. But in practice, I suppose AfD does serve to force things like this--let us consider closing as Redirect-- it actually is in practice a variant of delete. DGG (talk) 04:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of General Hospital characters. The character himself is definitely notable within the universe of the series due to his parentage, but obviously is undeserving of his own article. Such redirects have become a common practice for fictional characters from soaps to Star Wars. AniMate's previous attempts to redirect were thwarted by an editor who has now been admonished and blocked for unacceptable behavior, I don't see why a redirect can't be attempted again. — TAnthony^Talk 05:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to stop the article from being recreated through reverts. The article is just a lot of plot (WP:NOT#PLOT) with little hope for improvement per lack of sources. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of fiction set in Chicago

Hopelessly indiscriminat elist of trivia. Full of red links and original research ("uses Chicago as a foil for a fictitious Iowa city"), not to mention a total lack of refs. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I respectfully disagree with the nominator's categorizing of this list. As I see it, this list is actually comprehensive (although I had to add "Robin and the 7 Hoods" to the Film section -- how could they forget that?). The OR can easily be cleaned up, but I don't see the point in completely erasing it. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a useful list that could be cleaned up and improved, but shouldn't be deleted. BRMo (talk) 02:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up per above NewYork483 (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Where else can you find this information at a glance?Kdammers (talk) 01:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Categorise doesn't seem to add anything a category with subcategories wouldn't. Guest9999 (talk) 00:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of video games set in New York City

List of loosely associated topics. As you can see, these games have nothing in common besides at least "somewhat" being based in NYC. Pure trivia, unsourced. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also listing the following article for the same reason:

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. same also for the "London" version Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 23:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a notable and reasonable way to do things. It is very much something someone might want to look up, and enough can be said about them to make it more than a category., There should be no problem at all putting in a source to show where each of them is set. DGG (talk) 04:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, verifiable, organized, notable, and encyclopedic list). Plenty of editor and reader interest. Also, note that WP:PERNOM is an "argument" to avoid in deletion discussions. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NOT#INFO. Doesn't warrant an article for such a loosely defined inclusion criteria. As it stands, no sources as well and fails WP:V and WP:NOR. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The video games can be easily verified and as the list does not advance a thesis, it is not original research. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as a typical originally-researched list-of-things-with-attribute list. The fact that this list lacks a thesis is a good clue that it's just indiscriminately listing vaguely-related things. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is discrmininate though in that it has a clear inclusion criteria as indicated in its title. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The inclusion criteria are so broad and vague that it's including wildly disparate items. It's List of blue things; of course it clearly only includes blue things, but a list of blue things is wildly broad and useless and illustrates no article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That would be a reason for tightening or clarifying the inclusion criteria then, but not for outright deletion. The topic seems notable because of such sources as this. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - So we'd need a thesis, then. The link you give doesn't talk about games about New York as a whole, it just talks about a game, and thus has little to do with this article (perhaps it would belong somewhere relevant, like Liberty City or Grand Theft Auto IV?) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        A list of this nature serves a purpose akin to a table of contents, portal, or category. Editors interested in video games set in New York City can come to this article and use it to locate such games for which they might write their own off-wiki research. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It's not a table of contents, portals go in the portal namespace, and categories go in the category namespace. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate list of trivial facts which someone might someday find interesting. Wikipedia follows off-wiki research, it does not lead it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Having this article does not make us an indiscriminate list of trivial facts and obviously what some people deem trivial is subjective. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        A list without a thesis is an indiscriminate list of trivial facts; it's "List of things which are blue". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Apples and oranges. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as they are 1) HUGELY incomplete 2) don't have any sources to back it up 3) somewhat fancruft-like and 4) looks bac because of formatting. Mm 40 (talk | contribs) 15:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Being incomplete is a call for Wikipedia:SOFIXIT, Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built, and Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state. "Cruft" is not a valid argument per WP:ITSCRUFT and Wikipedia:Cruftcruft. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per (oh wait for it Pumpkin) nominator, MiB, etc... viz, fancruft, not INFO etc.... (Irritating & mindless Pumpkin gainsaying to be filled in below this line). Eusebeus (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both MIB summarizes it quite well, the lack of a good thesis to pass WP:NOT#IINFO. Video games are usually set somewhere, but being set in NYC or London is no more special than being set in Chicago or Los Angeles or my hometown (actually, a setting in my backwater hometown would be more special than NYC). – sgeureka ^t•c 19:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable topic and informative (if, at present, incomplete) article. Every bit as useful and keepable as List of films set in New York City (which, incidentally, like this article has and requires no refs at all; the works provide the information here, the same way we don't need a literary critic to source the statement that Anna Karenina is a novel; it just is). Ford MF (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rejoinder to asserted "reasons: Incomplete? Since when do we delete articles because they are incomplete? or for that matter, "somewhat fancruft-like" (not even fancruft-like!?) or "looks bad because of formatting"? What article here in Wikipedia is not incomplete; what article about anything of popular interest isn't at least a little similar to what a fan might write? and, finally, how many articles here are formatted perfectly? 03:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep Given that this list is discriminate, verifiable, organized, notable, and encyclopedic, it meets the definition of WP:LISTS. Any AfD that mentions Wikipedia:Cruftcruft is an article worth retaining for that reason alone. Alansohn (talk) 06:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this is blatant original research. But this is a pretty discriminate list: either the game takes place in New York, or it doesn't. I'd like to think that someone can do the hard work of referencing this list, because there's a lot of games that (on uninformed glance) shouldn't even be on this list. We have lists like this for books and television shows. There's nothing wrong with games. Randomran (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan dos Santos

Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league --Jimbo^[online] 21:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's already been deleted three times via prod and CSD. Time to put it to bed for good. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having two fairly well-known older brothers does not justify this individual having his own article. Zaxem (talk) 23:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Jonathan dos Santos is cool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.11.98.77 (talk) 11:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately "being cool" is a not a pre-requisite for a WP article, hence why I don't have one :-) ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 19:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that Dos Santos has earned his first major international cap to the Mexican National Team, would that be good enough to begin an article on him? Nore100 (talk) 04:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Decision replaced by speedy redirect to existing, well established article. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted material (WP:CSD#G4). Erechtheus (talk) 01:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)[reply]

H. Kramer & Company

Article is a mish-mash of info, very little of which relates to the actual company. Nominating for deletion for failing WP:CORP. TN‑X-Man 21:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mish mash of information my bootay. The article shows what led up to that man's founding of his company! I vote for leaving the article as is. Correctedit (talk) 00:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Correctedit[reply]

Delete. Sadly, I happened to patrol this article when it was new. I didn't catch what the nominator did, at least to the point of nominating for deletion. I agree that there is a failure to meet WP:CORP and that a lot of what is written really has no place in an article about a company. Erechtheus (talk) 01:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see its talk page--Correctedit (talk) 01:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as tagged for deletion by author. xenocidic (talk) 22:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MILOFM

Non-notable and unlicensed low-power radio station with no secondary sources proving notability, sans station's own website. JPG-GR (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Saying this station is not notable is a slap in the face for all other pirate radio stations on Wikipedia. Pirate radio can live because very few people know about it, only a small percent of people in a given community know about these type of stations. See Radio CPR for example. The best example is KBFR (pirate radio). What about Free Radio Santa Cruz? Just because you might not see any notability in unlicensed stations doesn't mean the people who listen to them think the same way. I can personally confirm that this station exists and can be heard some distance on several radios. (Side note - editor who nominated this article has vendetta against me and has repetitively deleted good faith edits of mine for some unknown reason.) --Milonica (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no vendetta - please assume good faith. Your argument seems fully based on WP:ILIKEIT and fails to provide any proof of notability. JPG-GR (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem all that notable: few Ghits. What's more, the article's main weakness, the total lack of reliable sources, needs to be addressed, otherwise, it's begging deletion. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Operating a low powered unlicensed radio transmitter can be a fun hobby (been there, done that) but there is no evidence this operation satisfies Wikipedia's notability guideline by having substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. The article reads like a blog by the operator of the station. Buying a low powered unlicensed fm transmitter does not guarantee one a Wikipedia article, and does not automatically elevate the operator to the same status as well known pirate broadcasters. Pirate KBFR also had a powerful enough transmitter to cover a larger area with a clear signal, with 150 watts which is 7,500 times the claimed power of MILOFM of 0.02 watts. Edison (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zaket

Not in the standard academic king lists, no sources on Google Scholar or Google books, perhaps an old hoax but reliable sources don't list him. Doug Weller (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete by the article creator Hi sorry for the delay. If you check the list of pharaohs on the dynasty page back in June 2006 you'll see Zaket red linked. Clearly the person who red linked it was in error. Thankyou ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 15:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find anything in Britannica or here (of course that doesn't mean he didn't exist as some king names are unknown). So I am delete per WP:VERIFY as not published by any known source. Anyway it's up to the editor really to find any reliable sources per WP:BURDEN. Nk.sheridan Talk 21:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've posted a message at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ancient_Egypt asking for sources regarding this supposed king. Not WP:CANVASS, I hope! As i've not mentioned the AfD debate. Nk.sheridan Talk 21:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think you could have drawn it to people's attention so long as you didn't comment on it. Doug Weller (talk) 06:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. —Nk.sheridan Talk 21:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of WP:RS Zaket is not mentioned as a king of the 16th dynasty by any reliable published sources or by an Egyptologist. Moreover this web (not reliable) source indicates that Zaket was possibly a fictional king: [1] while this reliable academic site by the University College of London names no such king: [2] (scroll down to the 16th dynasty). I checked Nicolas Grimal's book, A History of Ancient Egypt, and no Zaket appears either for the 16th dynasty. Leoboudv (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I consulted the most updated book on the topic by Brill in 2006 called "Ancient Egyptian Chronology (Handbook of Oriental Studies)" that was co-authored by Erik Hornung, Rolf Krauss and David Warburton. They provide a chronology table on page 492 and state the 16th and 17th dynasty were all Theban kings with names like Nebiriau, Sobekhotep VIII, Bebiankh, the 3 Intef kings, 2 Taoside rulers and Kamose. No Zaket, which is an Asiatic name, is listed. Leoboudv (talk) 23:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Likely, the "missing" name is due to a spelling problem combined with very uncertain chronology during the second intermediate period. Digital Egypt gives Sakir-har as a king of the 15th dynasty--perhaps one and the same with our Zaket. During the 2nd Intermediate period especially, dynasties and spelling of names is a huge mess. Often, it's not clear whether the king belonged to one dynasty or another, and the name is usually transliterated by several different choices. Add to this that some kings may not have been real, and the problems worsen. For the record, as of now there are no mainspace pages that link to the article. In theory, articles about second intermediate period kings are legit topics, but since we can't determine which king the article is supposed to be about, I wouldn't object to deleting. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 01:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I checked the Digital Egypt site and Zaket isn't there. In contrast, Sakir-Har was indeed a real Hyksos king; we already have an article with clear sources on him. Unless there is clear evidence for Zaket's existence, the best option is delete. We can't have phantom kings on Wikipedia. No one disputes the existence of king Sheshi or Yaqub-Har but no verifiable source confirms Zaket's existence at all. Zaket may be WP:OR Leoboudv (talk) 05:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifiable at best. Edward321 (talk) 14:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot find any reference in the books I have at hand that reference a King Zaket. A reference I have (The Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt) doesn't list any royal family member with that name. Likely spurious. Captmondo (talk) 21:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nigger Head Island (Queensland)

Google doesn't seem to know anything about this small island other than WP scrapings. The only reference is now dead. Aside from verifiability, does having an offensive name make a small island encyclopaedic? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of the island has been established, so please !vote based on the notability, not verifiability, of the article. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G3 Appears to be a hoax, no info exists at all on this island. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (possibly speedy) if this location cannot be confirmed in any atlas (whether paper or online). Note: It has been created by a user who has been around for more than two years with more than 1000 edits. Sebwite (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect:It is possible that this is a more obscure name for a place better known by another name. If So, it can be redirected to that.Sebwite (talk) 07:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It may not be a hoax, although it looks a lot like one. If it isn't a hoax, it still needs to meet the same notability guidelines as everything else. I suggest editors !vote on the notability, rather than the possibility that it is a hoax. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google Maps shows uninhabited islands (probably coral reefs) at that location. Nothing interesting on Google Books. It may be true, but it's not notable enough. --h2g2bob (talk) 22:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A hoax? Honestly, does anyone believe that a place with that name would exist? Ecoleetage (talk) 22:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like the egg is on your face this time, Ecoleetage. Hesperian 23:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep .. a quick search of Queensland's official placenames here shows that this Island does exist, and the name is both approved and official. Bruceanthro (talk) 23:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A search of Geoscience Australia's place name data base indicates that this exists. Given that sources can be found it is surely notable. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's a real geographic place—presumably named after a "Nigger Head", an obsolete term for a winch used on commercial fishing boats.(Dictionary of Prince Edward Island English, 1996) - Peripitus (Talk) 23:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy keep.~~ Real place, as confirmed by the Gazetteer of Australia.[3] Hesperian 23:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. All gazetted geographic locations are notable. Hesperian 23:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously a real place, as shown above and even mentioned, albeit briefly, in the news.[4] There is some notability in the fact that the name is allegedly racist. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: After a request from the nominator and further consideration, I have reopened this debate. Inhabited places are considered inherently notable; this island, however, is uninhabited, so notability must still be established. —Travis ^talk 13:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Real named geographical feature recognized by the government of Queensland. I added it to the category uninhabited islands, which has over 300 entries. Edward321 (talk) 14:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verified geographical locations are inherently notable. That includes towns, villages, lakes, mountains, and islands. 23skidoo (talk) 15:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone point me toward the appropriate guideline? The closest thing I could find was Wikipedia:Notability (Places and transportation) which didn't help at all. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the island in question clearly exists. All geographical locations are notable, including all islands (providing they are not just a very tiny lump of rock, then it becomes more difficult to assess) Wikipedia is not just a general encyclopaedia, but also a specialist encyclopaedia; and an encyclopaedia on Australia's coastline would surely mention such an island. I don't enjoy bringing OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to the table, but we have precedent for hosting hundreds (maybe thousands?) of articles on uninhabited islands. EJF (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (I was caught in an edit conflict but) I understand that all formally named geological features including mountain tops, lakes, rivers, and islands are sufficiently notable in themselves to warrant an article on Wikipedia (whether remote, uninhabited or not) .. and I have not encountered any notability guidelines to suggest otherwise!? Bruceanthro (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Unfortunate name, but not a hoax as per government source. --Oakshade (talk) 01:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wikipedia is supposed to include everything that appears in a gazetteer. It is definitely official, and because it looks like a hoax but isn't means there is a double reason to keep it. By the way there is also one in Tasmania. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Apparently, there are other geographical names that contain this particular ethnic slur; see Nigger#Names of places and things for some context. I'm not sure why this unfortunately-named island in Australia hasn't been the subject of debate, as have some of the United States locations, but maybe there's a source of the etymology of the name of this island. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It has been the subject of debate—see AussieLegend's comment above. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Government of Australia's web site confirms it exists. The name is unfortunate today but perhaps it was not meant as a pejorative term when the island was first named but just a reference to black people. Artene50 (talk) 08:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, real, verifiable location. I have a feeling this discussion would not be occuring were it not for the perceived offensiveness of the island's name. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Eminem#Personal_life. Black Kite 16:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberley Anne Scott Mathers

Fails WP:BIO. Everything in this article always relates to his former husband Eminem. It should almost be renamed Relationship of Eminem and Kimberly Anne Scott Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 19:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent achievements. Anything new here should be merged back into Eminem article. Thetrick (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If we merged then we wouldn't delete per the GFDL. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to presence of reliable sources and relationship with notable person. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: According to Wikipedia:BIO#Invalid_criteria, a relationship with notable person does not constitute notability. Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 21:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's obviously a valid search term, so I don't see any reason why nothing could be merged and redirected without deletion in the worst case scenario here. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but did you even bother to read the content under that link? "Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics" is right there too. Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 00:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing to check is the article's history, which shows many editors working on the article for three years. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So wait, the number of editors and when it was created now determines notability? Seriously????? Funny. Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 00:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It shows that a large number of contributors believe it is notable and than a handful of posts in the AfD does not reflect the real opinion of our community. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What?!?...well, you are just desperate here. Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 22:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A little civility please. Ford MF (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What difference does it really make if a referenced article that editors and readers obviously see value in stays? It bothers me when I see in effect electronic book burning. As an educator and especially a historian, there is no such thing as useless knowledge, especially when, as in this case, we are talking about someone who is directly referenced in songs by a well-known artist and for whom we have reliable references even in the article. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's nothing in the article to hint at independent notability, and I don't think there ever has been. zadignose (talk) 22:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I understand it, the nominator seems to be proposing a rename. let's close this and let him do it. DGG (talk) 04:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. No I'm not! Then why would I have put this on Afd?? I was being sarcastic...seriously, what a stupid name would Relationship of Eminem and Kimberly Anne Scott be anyways! Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 14:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable ex-wife, notability is not inherited. ukexpat (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- She is notable and notability is inherited. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - An absolutely false statement. Click the link this time. --Thetrick (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, the claim that notability is not inherited is indeed false. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: maybe in your version of reality it is false, but in Wikipedia it is not. Oh and by the way that was one editor's comment in a totally unrelated Afd discussion, the result of which was to delete. – ukexpat (talk) 20:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        An article that actually lacked any overwhelming consensus to be deleted. And in my version of reality, which is the Wikipedia version of reality, Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED is considered an "argument" to avoid in AfD discussions. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The link you provided says the exact opposite of what you are arguing here. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 20:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The link provides "Delete UNESCO can not be notable because it's the UN which is notable, and notability is not inherited" as an example of a bad or weak argument. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Dude, why don't you just give up? You brought three different ridiculous arguments to sustain your cause, used an essay and some random quote from an Afd to fight an official policy, and yet you ignore what everyone else is trying to tell you. Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 22:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Because no one has presented a valid or logical argument for outright deletion here. I can understand rationales for merging or redirecting, but there is clearly no reason to outright delete in this case. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eminem#Personal life. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 17:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Eminem. Lacks independent notability. --Madchester (talk) 03:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eminem, or Delete. This is a classic case of claimed notability by association, and equally classic that there are plenty of precedents to redirect to the associated subject. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. Mahanga^Talk 07:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If we redirect, then there's no reason to delete as well. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 12:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Radiohead B-sides

Not notable, ie, B-sides do not warrant page Tenacious D Fan (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as trivia, no reliable sources about the B-sides, and B-sides are rarely ever notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)}
Delete per TPH. -- Jeandré, 2008-06-08t20:35z
Delete as per previous comments. However, over the years some B-sides have been known to become hit tunes. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, that is true, but none of these did. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2+2=AfD Delete as fancruft. Would look better on a fansite, with more details of the songs. On a related matter, was their cover of Nobody Does It Better ever released? Lugnuts (talk) 07:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR. Its all rather subjective article. Artene50 (talk) 08:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In an interstella burst I am here to vote Delete. The B-sides already discussed in the seperate articles for each single. Its just a list where each title redirects to the single it appears as the B-side too, which makes it redundant to information elsewhere. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's well established that discographies are legitimate lists of works, and this is a legitimate subsidiary article of Radiohead discography per Wikipedia:Summary style. It could possibly be merged into Radiohead discography, but that doesn't require an AFD. EALacey (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B-sides aren't relevant in a discography anyway. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NOT#IINFO. A list of singles may be justified as part of a discography, but a list of B-sides certainly appears to fail. Seems like the sort of information that only die-hard fans would care about. The band is certainly notable, but there appears to be scant evidence as to the B-sides' notability. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a legitimate article and has no real reason for deletion I disagree strongly. Orangekubrick (talk) 00:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tour de Moose

Non-notable bike/bar crawl --Thetrick (talk) 19:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unsourced and does not indicate encyclopedic notability. -- Jeandré, 2008-06-08t20:34z
Delete. The event sounds like a lot of fun, but not encyclopedia material. Zaxem (talk) 23:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete stuff made up by someone one day, and no demonstration of notability., except to the 60-100 participants. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 agree with consensus that this actor does not singularly meet wikipedia's inclusion requirements. --VS ^talk 04:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Veera (actor)

Unsourced and does not indicate notability. -- Jeandré, 2008-06-08t18:39z 18:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he is playing opposite Trisha Krishnan in Chennaiyil Oru Mazhaikalam and I have added the source. Kipof (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN. One role in upcoming film of unknown quality. Not encyclopedia material. Thetrick (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What's quality got to do with it? That's an opinion not a fact. Trisha Krishnan is notable in the film. What happens if people want to find out about this actor Veera? If you don't want to keep it, why don't you redirect it to the film article and keep the information there? Kipof (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Read WP:BIO and WP:NF. --Thetrick (talk) 22:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The film is directed by Gautham Menon, who is well known. Also has music by A.R. Rahman which again makes it notable, and of worth. thauseef —Preceding comment was added at 22:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Even if the film has the potential in the future to be notable because the director is well known (for Tamil language films, not English or even Hindi films), the actor is clearly not. One upcoming role in one of the hundreds of Indian films released each year does not make an actor notable. Right now the actor might merit an entry in IMDB but not in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a place for up-and-coming actors to launch their careers. --Thetrick (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes that is true. But supposing people want to know more about this actor eventually, considering that interest is building up, and is always associated with any movie made by Gautham Menon, at least in Southern India, which a person from elsewhere might find hard to understand, it becomes essential to provide at least the basic information, which is what this page has attempted to provide. I guess the purpose of Wikipedia, is provide extensive information. What I suggest, as an alternative, is keeping the page..at least what has been confirmed, and adding on to it, if and when more content/information is available. --Thauseef —Preceding comment was added at 21:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Wikipedia is not the place for everyone who potentially might be famous one day to build a following. Let the actor develop his own website and do link-farming on his own dime. When his career merits his inclusion in an encyclopedia then someone can re-create the article. --Thetrick (talk) 23:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete potentially a conflict of interest. This article was created by Thauseef, a single purpose account to publicise this person who has no signs of fulfilling any of the criteria of WP:BIO#Entertainers. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spam. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 12:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect. Doesn't anyone know what a redirect is anymore? Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Five Dollars a Day (film)

The article basically already exists as Five Dollars a Day. Kivar2 (talk) 18:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Alan Burhoe

Fairly obvious as a self-posted vanity page. All 6 "references" are to the subject's personal webspace. Clearly fails WP:Notability. Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 18:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. The wording of the intro reeks of autobio advertisement. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. fails WP:N Ben1283 (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability asserted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the article is about a novel that is yet to be published. Appears to have published just a few short stories so far which have gained little attention. Zaxem (talk) 23:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable author; Google reveals virtually nothing. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 04:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Wenli. No notability for this person. Artene50 (talk) 08:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Madow

Fails WP:COI as author (Special:Contributions/Rundrdave) seems to be subject; not notable. --Thetrick (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears NN other than a g-book hit for his one book. Definitely looks like a COI; either an autobio or someone from his organization. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trading Places International

Contested WP:PROD; Appears to fail notability for corporations; is written like an ad; lack of secondary sources. slakr^\ talk / 18:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The world's third largest timeshare company; plenty of google hits; the article follows the same structure as articles for Interval International & RCI which are also timeshare companies... In fact, all companies in Category:Timeshare seem to follow this pattern. The article does need to be tagged "Expand" though, as reviews of the individual properties would be helpful. Frog47 (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant company. (Rewriting to make it sound less like an ad would be good, though.) Zaxem (talk) 23:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gremlins 3

I can find no reliable sources with which to verify the information in the article, only rumours - mostly from blogs and forums - that have appeared over the last several years. Whether the film ever comes out or not the level of coverage it has received at this point appears to amount to little more than speculation and cannot be the basis of an article. Guest9999 (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources exist, just speculation. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SOURCE. --Bonadea (talk) 18:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this one's a no brainer. Delete as per above. --.:Alex :. 20:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; Google revealed nothing but speculation. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 04:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. The new British Telecom ad may have piqued people's interest in the franchise again, but there's nothing concrete. Not even the IMDb has a page for the film, and they normally put a page up when someone so much as whispers a film title! -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 15:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:CRYSTAL at best, hoax at worst. No announcement of such a film has been made and the external link is to an "add your own info"-style website. 23skidoo (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G7 (User blanked the page). Given the previous deletions, I am also protecting the article from recreation. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 02:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ramsetcube

This article was twice tagged CSD G11 (blatant advertising) and twice speedily deleted. The article creator strongly disagrees with this outcome so I am running it through here for input from other editors. Fails WP:CORP (software product). Gwen Gale (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article shows no evidence of notability of product. Thetrick (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. SImple {{db-context}}: "an OLAP tool used to create metadata in Mondrian" is gobbledegook. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete and salt. I agree that it seems like advertising for a non-notable corporation. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it it seems like... But this persons are expert of BI ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergio Bertele (talk • contribs) 23:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The above editor created the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe this now qualifies as for WP:CSD#G7, as its contents have been largely blanked by the original author, with message "Deleted by people without BI culture !". Ohconfucius (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is insufficient coverage in secondary sources; the sources given (e.g. punknews.org) are all related to the subject. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red Scare Industries

Was speedily deleted A7 but an editor requested the page be restored, so I'm running it through here. Fails WP:Notability (music), WP:CORP. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The 'run from an apartment' obviously rings alarm bells, but 8 bands with their own pages on Wikipedia? (The band pages also appear to be barely notable at best) I've added a note to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Punk_music. Paulbrock (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Many of the bands may not be notable but when speedying this the other day, truth be told, I didn't want to stir that up on a fishing trip. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only source given in the article is their official website ( a Myspace page) and I can't find any more reliable sources from which to create a verifiable encyclopaedia article. Guest9999 (talk) 00:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia:Notability (music) defines important indie labels as "an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable". There are a number of noteable bands on this label:

The Falcon (band)- Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable, the band features The Lawrence Arms members Brendan Kelly (guitar and vocals) and Neil Hennessy on drums, as well as Alkaline Trio's Dan Andriano on bass. Todd Mohney, former member of Rise Against previously played guitar.

The Lillingtons- Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels. The Lillingtons were previously on Lookout! Records one of the most famous punk labels that has released material by Green Day, Operation Ivy, and a slew of other famous punk bands.

The Methadones- Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable, The Methadones are fronted by Dan Vapid, a well known punk musicican who has been a member of Screeching Weasel, The Riverdales, The Queers, and Sludgeworth. They have also included his former bandmates Dan Lumley who was also in Screeching Weasel and The Riverdales, and B-Face who was also in The Queers. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels, The Methadones have released albums for A-F Records, the record company that has released albums for the now major label signee Anti-Flag, among other notable punk bands, as well as Thick Records, the label that has brought Alkaline Trio among many others.

Sundowner (band)- Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable, the band is an acoustic project of Chris McCaughan from The Lawrence Arms and The Broadways.

Teenage Bottlerocket- Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable, the band was formed by Kody Templeman after the breakup of is previous band The Lillingtons.

Enemy You- Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels. The band released a full length album on Panic Button Records, an imprint of the aforementioned Lookout! Records. As well as EPs on Geykido Comet Records and Fat Wreck Chords.

Hoponpop69 (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:MUSIC has nothing to say on the notability of labels, and the quote by Hoponpop69 refers to the use of labels to establish bands notability,rather than that of the label. That leaves either WP:N or WP:CORP, both of which use the standard "significant coverage in secondary sources" and it has coverage in www.punknews.org,www.absolutepunk.net; furthermore the roster of bands suggests the label itself is notable; if there are arguments that the band articles don't meet WP:MUSIC then I may change my mind. Paulbrock (talk) 00:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind giving some examples of the coverage they have received at those sites, I could only find a practically blank profile page and several mentions of "(Red Scare)" after an artists name or "Red Scare's" before it, nothing that could be used to source verifiable content for an article. Guest9999 (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[5] there's over 28918 news items pertaining to the label on punknews.org.Hoponpop69 (talk) 01:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The articles I saw were press releases, for example [6]. PhilKnight (talk) 21:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree with Paulbrock. Messwemade (talk) 00:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per PhilKnight. I should also point out that Punknews.org is not a reliable source, as it is a user-generated site without significant editorial oversight (hence the "submit news" link at the top of the page and unattributed news stories such as this one). --jonny-m t 06:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article is unsourced and Google News and News Archives comes up empty suggesting that there are not sufficient sources to justify an article on this label. Capitalistroadster (talk) 07:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on what you search for "Red Scare Industries" yields no hits, but "Red Scare Records" gets a couple and ["Red Scare" punk] picks up a few more (obviously not all results are relevant). Paulbrock (talk) 14:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find any significant coverage in reliable sources so must support deletion as failing to meet any of the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, more cleanup needed, but it is a notable subject.. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fireworks photography

A 'How-to' guide - little/nothing left if the tips and recommended kit are removed, even the refs are all about how-to. Paulbrock (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Remove the how-to content and you have bupkis. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#HOWTO Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 17:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Might be useful for people interested in this unique subject. It also has several verifiable references and seems well written. Artene50 (talk) 02:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete' Per WP:not Tabor (talk) 02:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a printed ref in addition "Eastman Kodak Company. (1976). Photographing fireworks displays with still and movie cameras. Rochester, N.Y.: Kodak, c1976." from worldcat. There are probably dozens of articles in appropriate magazines. The references being how to do it is no handicap to an article. Just needs a little editing. DGG (talk) 04:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But if the articles (and from the title, the Kodak ref) are all 'how-to', what can be put in the article? I agree that there may be scope for discussing it as a discpline, (history of, notable fireworks photographers, etc) but there's nothing there that would be suitable for inclusion. Paulbrock (talk) 16:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though the article needs work, it appears to be a notable subject. 75.128.230.11 (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep The current article seems like a howto, but I don't see anything inherently wrong with the topic for inclusion in wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CallipygianSchoolGirl (talk • contribs) 01:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An ecyclopedic and notable subject that merely needs some editing (or trimming for that matter) to comply with WP:NOT#HWTO. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.If it's notable/encyclopedic beyond 'how to', then where are the sources that aren't "how-to"? How is this notable in the same way as nature photography, astrophotography - even fire photography has an international organisation. Whilst it is a challenging subject to photograph, I don't see that Wikipedia is the place for articles on "(any subject) photography" (I've just spotted Skateboard photography, and will address that article after this afd) Paulbrock (talk) 12:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Well it seems notable enough at least for Smithsonian photographers to write a how to on it, and a fireworks photograph is displayed prominently on their first page. The real problem is the lack of sources that are not howtos, but that could just be the nature of the topic and what is popular about it. CallipygianSchoolGirl (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps these are some better sources that mention fireworks photography: Encyclopedia of Photography (http://books.google.com/books?id=eP5UAAAAMAAJ&dq=fireworks+photography&ei=hAxQSJePDJWmigG1g808), and it seems to be mentioned at least as far back as 1924 in the American Annual of Photography (http://books.google.com/books?id=6vJIAAAAMAAJ&q=fireworks+photography&dq=fireworks+photography&ei=hAxQSJePDJWmigG1g808&pgis=1) CallipygianSchoolGirl (talk) 17:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: is written somewhat in an encylopedic manner, and just needs some writing style improvements. Sebwite (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. Reffing from how-to sources is no rationale to delete. Ford MF (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a notable subject in need of editing not deleting. RMHED (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creole (markup)

Little known effort to produce a standardised form of wikitext, no 3rd party sources cited. The only thing of interest that Google turns up is an ACM paper, but it was written by the WikiCreole designers themselves so hardly counts as a "reliable 3rd party source." Apart from that, almost all the hits returned by a Google search seem to be in blogs, issue trackers and similar. Vquex (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Vquex's argument. In addition, having to freeze development for two years until the thing is adopted hardly promotes the idea that it's an important markup language. Ironho lds 06:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POS parent over shoulder

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. wp:DICT Bit Lordy (talk) 15:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Will never evolve beyond a dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a dicdef, can be explained better and shorter in the disambiguation page POS Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per TenPoundHammer and WP:NOT. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable Internet neologism better suited for UrbanDictionary. JuJube (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Badly written dictionary definition with no context. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 04:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all the above. ukexpat (talk) 16:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Team (band)

Their albums have charted on major charts, but they haven't charted any singles. Furthermore, none of their albums seem to be on major labels, and there seem to be no reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see why charting an album is any less an indicator of widespread popularity as charting a single. This is an underground hip-hop group; they don't pay to get rotation on mainstream urban radio, and yet still managed to dent the U.S. charts. Passes WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do they pass WP:MUSIC? They haven't charted a single. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But they have charted an album Ben1283 (talk) 19:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MUSIC says "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart". It does not mention singles. Albums can be hits. Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:MUSIC Ben1283 (talk) 19:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes that policy aforementioned, specifically point 11. Granted this should be sourced. Also, The album helps their cause here. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --jonny-m t 06:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Princes of the Golden Cage (novel)

Unnotable forthcoming book from an unnotable author (deubtant). Possible motive for free advertising. Provides no secondary resources. Bit Lordy (talk) 14:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Author isn't notable, so book isn't notable. No reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It was published last August in the UK, September, in the US, and has had several reviews, easy enough to find via Google plus the ones on Amazon.com(not the readers' ones) -- it's rating on Amazon.com doesn't seem bad, quite a bit better than that of one notable author who published his book just a few months earlier last year. However, the article itself, isn't there a problem with WP:Plot? Doug Weller (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This book has been reviewed by Booklist, Locus and Green Man Review, so it passes WP:BK (multiple, non-trivial, independent sources). The author was also interviewed by SciFi Wire, which could be used to add some real-world content. -- KittyRainbow (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - Keep Notability shown by KittyRainbow and me as above. Doug Weller (talk) 05:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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#G7. Author blanked the page. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Junior

He's the personal assistant of someone not notable enough for THEIR own page. Created by a user working for an advertising agency that admits that the page creation is "in preparation for a publicity campaign". Ironho lds 14:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Assistant was one of the many other occupations this individual holds, its unfair and highly unnecessary that you or any one else target that one line out of the others. His client is very popular in the U.S. - but maybe thats something you have to be in the U.S. to know? Sounds to me as if someone has a little bit too much time on their hands! Talkoftheindustry (talk) 15:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you're commenting on it, you created it. I'd also like to point out TOTI's conflict of interest for the sake of fair play and all; working for an advertising company who's client is Eric Junior. WP:NOTABILITY for people is "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.". google comes up with nothing; you've got his myspace and a blog/news site run by him as sources. Ironho lds 15:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm commenting on it, because I think what you're doing is highly unfair, and unnecessary for you to target a young, and promising individual. If it's going to just absolutely make your day, please go head and delete the article. Once his official website, and biography is complete and there are more "notable" events that show up via google - the article will be reinstated on wikipedia regardless rather his publicist inputs or not, I was simply trying to get an early start to prevent running into any errors of some having/using the same name or submitting any of the wrong information. Talkoftheindustry (talk) 15:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How's it unfair? promise doesnt matter; see "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". well-known people will be included, people who could potentially be well-known in the future will be included in the future. Ironho lds 15:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; the user who created the page has blanked it; should i take that as a sign he wants it removed? Ironho lds 15:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beau dentro

Non-notable, no sources, no non-Wikipedia Google hits for "Beau dentro" and his album "This Cruel World" (which is nominated for deletion here). The record label similarly gives next-to-no hits. Thus, the article's content is unverifiable. Was prodded, prod removed by author without improvement. Huon (talk) 14:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be advert or hoax Thetrick (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above Duffbeerforme (talk) 09:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no claim of notability. only source is to show that there is mineral water in his hometown --T-rex 19:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, following no consensus, noting an ongoing lack of notability. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anime Punch!

Student organization, fails WP:ORG. Probably recreation of deleted material, see previous nom; I can't verify that, though. B. Wolterding (talk) 14:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note added: With "previous nominations", I was referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animate! OSU and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animate! OSU sub-articles. --B. Wolterding (talk) 22:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry kids, but notability is not confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability can be easily be established to some degree, but even more important I believe you shall not use "Notability" as the sole reason for deleting an article. Fan's View, a fairly reliable review source for anime conventions, has even gone and covered anime punch.1. Wish I had time to find more, but seriously this is a horrible AfD suggestion. Kopf1988 (talk) 11:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, Fan's View seems to be a self-published source [7] and does not confer notability. Second, there is a rather wide consensus that lack of notability is a reason not to have an article about a topic; see the WP:N guideline. Actually, notability is probably the most frequent reason for article deletion on Wikipedia. --B. Wolterding (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no, A Fan's View is Lillard's personal website, but he has been regularly published in Newtype USA and later PiQ. As as such, he can be considered an established expert in the field. (WP:V#SELF) --Farix (Talk) 00:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If anything, the article lacks focus. Most of the article is about the conventions Anime Punch! Armageddicon and Fieldcon. Anime Punch! Armageddicon was even featured in an article in the June 2007 issue of NewType USA. (Lillard, Kevin (June 2007). "Con Report: Anime Punch". Newtype USA. 6 (6): 96.). I'm sure if I did some more digging, I would find other times that NewType USA covered an Anime Punch convention. --Farix (Talk) 00:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Farix (Talk) 00:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unnotable organization. A single mention of one of its events in a magazine does not make it a notable organization. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to the nominator. A distinction should be made: while this organization was born out of a University, it is not a "Student organization." Many conventions get their start on college campuses, however, the events are now held in public hotel space, and involve members and volunteers not part of the University of Ohio. In that regard should the people who organize Otakon be considered a "student organization" since previous conventions where held at Penn State? Food for thought, AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the source found by Farix and his confidence that further sources are available. Am sure if further sources do not get added the article will be renominated. Davewild (talk) 17:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete...with some caveats.

To begin with, if the claims of the anonymous IPs below are true, then the band is notable per Wikipedia's notability guidelines for musicians. However, as additional discussion failed to locate the sources backing these claims up, the article is in violation on the policy on verifiability and thus unsuitable for inclusion at this time.

On the flip side, there is the definite possibility that sources exist, but no one here is capable of reviewing them. The English-language Wikipedia comes with certain systematic biases that make us ill-equipped for handling cases like this, and so it is perfectly possible that a failure to locate sources reflects the limits of the community rather than the limits of the information available.

So in the interest of not biting the newcomers, I have a couple of recommendations. First, I would recommend that if the band is indeed notable, it might be beneficial to start by expanding their article on the Romanian Wikipedia to include the sources required for verification. When a sufficient amount of information has been gathered to establish notability as required by the English-language Wikipedia, I will be happy to restore and userfy the deleted page here for further expansion. --jonny-m t 07:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bucium, folk rock band

I declined this speedy because it asserts vague notability (the talk page link for example), and therefore it can't be deleted via CSD. However the band does not appear to be notable, so I leave it up to the community. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Captain-tucker (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE, Band does fails WP:MUSIC, only one released album which fails WP:MUSIC#C5 and no other evidence provided or could be obtained through a quick google search. Note that the speedy delete was placed one minute after the article was created and the AfD placed 18 minutes later. The editor should be given some time to provide evidence of notability so as to not give the impression of WP:BITE. I placed a note on the editors talk page pointing to WP:MUSIC and others.... --Captain-tucker (talk) 15:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - rather triggy happy nomination, 19mins after creation. Would like to hear from the author, plus give them a chance to expand the article before !voting. Paulbrock (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: trigger happy or not, it fails WP:MUSIC. 19 minutes is not too fast for a speedy deletion nomination, why should this be different? -- Roleplayer (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As per Captain-tucker, editor should be given some chance to provide evidence of notability. It would be nice if all articles were drafted first, fully referenced and checked, then moved to article space but that's not what happens, and speedying and/or AFDing before an editor has had adequate chance to finish what they were doing or respond to concerns is just going to put people off WP. Paulbrock (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why don`t you wait for a few months and see if the notability increases, they will get reviews in the main sites in the next months, why hurry so much? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.76.131.76 (talk) 08:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because you yourself admit in that statement that there is a chance that their notability may not increase. The best way to go about this is if their notability has increased after a few months and you can prove that using verifiable sources, then come back and start again. --

Roleplayer (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC) article 12. on notability Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network. we`ve been 4 times live on national television with one hour and two hours shows...as a proof I should upload that on youtube and post the link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.76.131.76 (talk) 10:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appeared as in played a song, or appeared as in had an half-hour long show DEDICATED to them? I think the latter is what the WP:MUSIC criteria is getting at. Paulbrock (talk) 12:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appeared as in playing 1 hour live and in talking one hour with the host - 2 times, and playing 1 hour another 2 times. Yesterday we did an unplugged show at the national radio for another hour. we really do play... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.76.131.76 (talk) 12:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:MUSIC, and also COI/self-promotion, as admitted at Talk:Bucium, folk rock band. Biruitorul ^Talk 03:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another review on obliveon.de -

http://www.obliveon.de/pn-om/modules.php?op=modload&name=tplcdimport&file=index&req=showcontent&id=11735&cfletter=B

Keep assuming 82.76.131.76 is correct - this would clearly pass WP:MUSIC. Names of shows and stations would be great, along with any links! Paulbrock (talk) 08:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the televisions are tvr1, tvr2, tvr cultural, tvrm. www.tvr.ro —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.76.131.76 (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Then again, do you really want User:Buciumro to write an article on Bucium? WP:COI and all that... Biruitorul ^Talk 19:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dear biruitorul, what conflict of interests do you see in a band writing the article based only on facts that were published before, by other newspapers, magazines, websites? don`t you think that the band knows itself better than a volunteer editor? you would be right only if what the article says it`s a lie, in which case please tell us what do you think the lie is. The information can be verified, there are photos of newspapers and magazines in which we appeared that can prove what we said. I really take it as a bite of the newcomers...i don`t understand if I bring proofs of the WP:MUSIC - paragraph 1 and paragraph 12 why that isn`t enough? it`s kinda strange... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.239.228.205 (talk) 12:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to begin with, see WP:RS - you have failed to provide any reliable sources for what you have written, and these are required in order to establish notability. Biruitorul ^Talk 16:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, to begin with: here you find some press releases about everything I said before; http://www.metalfan.ro/trupe.php?id_trupa=555 here you find band`s page on metal archives http://www.metal-archives.com/band.php?id=123248 I will upload on youtube the performances on national television, it seems there`s no other way - I have to convert them first from DVD to mpeg4 for upload... Bucium's page on Artmania Festival website http://www.artmaniafestival.ro/en/bucium.php Bucium`s page on Rock'n'Iasi festival website http://www.rockniasi.ro/formatii/bucium.html

http://www.spirit-of-metal.com/groupe-groupe-Bucium-l-en.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.239.228.205 (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect to Ian Watkins (Steps). Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ian 'H' Watkins

Already exists at Ian Watkins (Steps) Ged UK (talk) 14:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ian Watkins (Steps) and speedy close. The user is an absolute newbie and I've left them a note on their page explaining how to create redirects. Redfarmer (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, perhaps much notability in the world began as spam but the consensus here is that this topic is steadfastly notable. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tõnu Trubetsky

This is the real name of an extremely prolific spammer User:Bloomfield. This article was written by him and his many socks (note that earlier history of the article is at Tony Blackplait and that page did not survive a deletion attempt at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Blackplait).

I have been trying to clean up Bloomfield's mess for a very long time. He posted rambling genealogical articles about early Lithuanian dukes. See, for example, this version before I cleaned up the article. Note how it corresponds with self-posted genealogy at his band's page at http://www.dcc.ttu.ee/Bands/english/get.asp?ident=909 (which dates from 1996).

His real life identity does not show any signs of notability. The article has many interwikis - all by him (possibly except lb:Tony Blackplait - translated from English?). Any external links are probably written by him. As I said, he's very prolific. He lists many books, films, bands, etc. but none of them check out. At first glance it looks ok (as it had three years to root in), but after more careful investigation it does not hold water. Renata (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also list related articles:

Father Jan Trubecki (reposted after deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Trubecki)
Grandfather Władzimir Wałoc Trubetsky
Great-grandfather Paweł Trubecki
And other ancestors: Nester Trubecki, Grigory Troubetzkoy, Piotr Nikolaievich Troubetzkoy, Nikolay Troubetzkoy (others need checking)
Band & related: Vennaskond, Sue Catwoman (The Flowers of Romance CDEP), Nick Rock'n'Roll & Trite Dushi, Pirates of Destiny, I Love America, Millennium (Vennaskond film)‎, Paris (The Flowers of Romance album)‎, Sue Catwoman (The Flowers of Romance album)
- See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Flowers Of Romance and speedied The Flowers of Romance (band 2)
Probably there are many more... Renata (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Don't knew about the Bloomfield's mess, but Tõnu Trubetsky and Vennaskond are even very notable in Estonia and in some extend in Finland. Some 20 years ago Tõnu Trubesky was one of the most famous representative of alternative culture (lyrics & musics) and around 15 years ago Vennaskond was the most popular band in Estonia with several superhits (Insener Garini hüperpoloid; Pille-Riin). Not so active nowadays and I personally can't understand all this story about using names The Flowers of Romance and Toni Blackplait instead of Vennaskond and Tõnu Trubetsky. However, it was only yesterday, when he claimed in Estonian daily SL Õhtuleht that Estonian punk is degenerated.[8] And you find more hits from Google http://www.google.ee/search?as_q=vennaskond&hl=et&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=ogM&num=10&btnG=Google+otsing&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=lang_en&cr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights= 90.190.192.206 (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC) — 90.190.192.206 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete all per nom BanRay 19:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tõnu Trubetsky, I've just asked my younger brother, who is more familiar with Estonian culture and he says Trubetsky is indeed a rather notable personality over here (even gave me a book written by him), so I guess we can keep that one, as for the rest - I'm not sure, this is certainly not my area of expertise. BanRay 21:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Tõnu Trubetsky; keep Vennaskond or merge with Tõnu Trubetsky. The conflict of interest is, indeed, annoying, and I've had to intermittently deal with it for more than three years (see here). The COI is a separate issue, but I would say block or ban the user(s) involved. We've previously been through this notability discussion regarding Trubetsky: See User:Andres' previous AfD comments, which IMHO should have been sufficeint criteria to keep the article. I verified the bibliography section myself (i.e. looking up Trubetsky's books in an online Estonian library catalog, and obtaining the ISBN codes). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Note that Sue Catwoman (The Flowers of Romance album) is notable for (ostensibly) placing on the ~~Estonian~~ Latvian music charts, though this still awaits attribution. Note also that this presents a situation in which an album is notable but the band involved (by previous Wikipedia consensus) is not; suggest that the Estonian band called "Flowers of Romance" be rolled into the Vennaskond or Trubetsky articles. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, per Renata's reasoning. Cleaning up this puppeteer's mess is hard enough without the rest of the community hampering those who do by finding excuses to keep his vanity article. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Tõnu Trubetsky is a famous personality in Estonia. He is primarily known as the leader and vocalist of the band Vennaskond. He also is known as a partisan of punk and anarchism. He is an outspring of the princely family of Trubetskoy (see also ru:Трубецкие). I can confirm what the anonymous contributor said above: Vennaskond is a famous band in Estonia ("Insener Garini hüperboloid" and "Pille-Riin" are indeed well-known songs in Estonia). The Flowers of Romance is less known. Its story is explained, for example, here (in Estonian). It involves almost the same people as Vennaskond but it is intended to be a different band. I am not sure if there should be a special article here about them. In any case, it is far more known in Estonia as the original band The Flowers of Romance, and the Estonian Wikipedia has an article about them (et:The Flowers of Romance). The Estonian article has probably been written by involved people and needs cleanup (it includes some mystification and glorification). Due to mystification by the members of the band it is difficult to find correct information about the band in English. But the article I referred to above should be trustworthy. The spamlike activities by Tõnu Trubetsky and possibly others should be kept apart from the notability issue. Andres (talk) 07:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The article has been around for 2 1/2 years, yet it has absolutely no independant sources for any of the claims. And most of the claims are not notable - he's been doing redlinked songs for redlinked albums with redlinked people in redlinked bands one of which actually managed a whole 5 gig tour with another redlinked band. He's appeared in redlinked films, most of which are self-made or directed by redlinks. He's written articles for redlinked magazines, as well as relinked books with redlinked co-authors from redlinked publishers. If he's really as important as he's trying to make himself sound then there should be some independant sources - yet his only source is his own Myspace page. Edward321 (talk) 23:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the whole family - I see no coverage, let alone coverage in reliable sources. Abstain from the bands, however. Some of them have links and references, and since I'm on terra incognita I won't opine on their usefulness.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Trubetsky not only vocalist. He is productive writer also [9]. His position in Estonian culture environment is very meaningful. Singer, writer, poet, actor, director... And delete??--HendrixEesti (talk) 07:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. for estonian music he is maybe more important than John Lydon for punk music at all -- Ahsoous (talk) 09:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Tõnu Trubetski is a legendary punk-musician in Estonia. He is less known outside Estonia, because the lyrics of his songs are mostly written in Estonian. The article needs just a clean-up. --Metsavend (talk) 13:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Vennaskond (and a weak keep or merge for Tõnu Trubetsky), neutral for now on the rest. I've never heard of this band myself before, but searching Google for vennaskond punk (in Estonian, Finnish and English) turns up enough seemingly independent sources asserting notability (e.g. [10], [11], [12] and [13]) that I'm willing to believe them. (And by the way, The Flowers of Romance (Estonian band) should probably be a redirect to Vennaskond, since they appear to be essentially the same band under different names.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This nomination appears to be made in bad faith. I see lots of allegations made about a particular user on wikipedia but that should have no bearings on the merits of any of these articles, some of which are clearly notable. Heck, I'm not even from Europe and even I've heard of this Tony Blackplait and his band Vennaskond. --Bardin (talk) 08:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphim♥Whipp 22:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cursor Hotspot (pixel on point of mouse cursor)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Prod was removed. NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 14:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, information is already present in cursor article, so nothing to merge; title is unlikely search term, so redirecting is unnecessary. Huon (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guest9999 (talk) 14:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unlikely search term, subject already covered in cursor. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 14:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Already covered in cursor, not needed. RedThunder 14:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not wikitionary and any information is (good) covered in another articles. Zero Kitsune (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sensible title of Cursor Hotspot already redirects to Cursor (computers). MortimerCat (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ukexpat (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nurburgring fastest lap times for comparison

Sort of a POV fork from Nordschleife fastest lap times. A user doesn't like the idea that comparing lap times from different sources is a violation of WP:SYN so they created their own identical version without the caveat that the road car times are not intended for comparison. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 13:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV fork, unnecessary. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork. Huon (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete it's POV and all the information is straight from the original article. Chaparral2J (talk) 04:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Terry Nova

The result was speedily deleted per nomination by author. xenocidic (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May not meet WP:BIO. Unchained mammal (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meet criteria for notability at WP:PORNBIO as having been nominated for two awards. —97198 talk 13:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - she was not nominated for the "Best New Starlet" award listed in the article; according to the IAFD she didn't participate in the nominated movie. Actually she is unknown to the IAFD. No indication of notability. Nominator Unchained mammal was sole contributor to the article. Speedy it per G7? Huon (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article entirely false, as can be checked at http://www.avnawards.com/pdf/2008Nominations.pdf. SockPuppeteer271 (talk) 19:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. Apparent hoax. Credits and awards appear to be copied from Natasha Nice. I found no credible sources that show Terry Nova really exists. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and question. Nominator created account, created article, and then took it to AfD all in the span of 12 minutes. With no other contributions besides user pages, what is author/nominator trying to accomplish here? • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per above comment. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 17:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RHUL Bears Basketball

The article is about a college's basketball team. It's one of many sports clubs within the college, and its existence is already mentioned in the Royal Holloway, University of London article. Nothing in the article or the team's own website indicates that this basketball team is significant enough to justify its own page on Wikipedia. A PROD notice was placed on the page on 23 May and removed by the creator of the article 3 minutes later. Dorange (talk) 12:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable student basketball team. Zaxem (talk) 23:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per no inline refs. We can also merge it into the main article. Mm 40 (talk | contribs) 15:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Little People, Big World. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Roloff

Non-notable biography per WP:BLP1E. She's notable within the context of reality show Little People, Big World, but outside the show is essentially a low-profile individual. Seriously, she's a stay-at-home mother, even says the article. —97198 talk 11:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Little People, Big World. Erechtheus (talk) 01:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Erectheus ukexpat (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to La Blue Girl. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miko Mido

Non-notable anime character that fails WP:FICT. Unlikely search term and there is nothing here worth merging. Disputed prod. --Farix (Talk) 10:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Farix (Talk) 10:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect Contains nothing of weight that isn't already present in the main article. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to La Blue Girl. JuJube (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge Main character in a manga, anime, game and live action. Edward321 (talk) 23:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect, already seems to be merged for all practical purposes to La Blue Girl so nothing to keep, and character fails all notability guidelines.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 closure) by Jonny-mt per CSD G11 as blatant advertising WilliamH (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Young CoSIDA

non-notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references to establosh notability. A search returns some blog mentions. and in any case, the entire thing is spam, and the article really is being used as webspace for the group, for example, this little excerpt "Join us at Gaspar's Grotto (http://www.gasparsgrotto.com) to partake in this Tampa tradition. Gaspars is located in Ybor city, a quick trolley ride from the Marriott. (Note that this venue, unlike years past, is NOT walking distance from the hotel, so plan accordingly!)" -- Whpq (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This content is directed almost entirely to the group's own members or prospective members rather than to the general public and should be put on the group's own web site. Wikipedia is not a free webhost. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As somebody who put on all the maintenance tags, this is a much more suitable solution. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks non-notable, and definitely an advertisement. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be non-notable and written like an ad. Google reveals no reliable sources. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 04:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --jonny-m t 07:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Hallworth

Non-Notable, and, cannot verify SQL ^{Query me!} 08:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as apparent hoax. No references cited, and no relevant Google Books or Scholar hits for "John Hallworth", "John Mark Hallworth" or "Sunderland Library Protest". EALacey (talk) 10:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article does not establish notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as a duplicate, however I'm moving the other article to this title as that seems the appropriate capitalization.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Headwaters

Duplicate article of Sacred headwaters Bit Lordy (talk) 08:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As there appears to be ongoing work to source this article and it has already been relisted I am unwilling to keep it lingering on AfD ad infinitum. Since the !votes coming in after sourcing began indicate that this may just meet inclusion criteria I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and a little time to improve, but I will specifically note that the burden of evidence remains heavily on the shoulders of those who wish to retain this article and that a rapid renomination of this article may be warranted if substantial improvement is not made in the upcoming days. Shereth 22:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Faik Zaghloul

Contested prod. A good faith search for references found nothing but Wikipedia for (Zaghloul "Egyptian Radio Magazine"), fails WP:N and WP:V. I came across the article while working Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles and as best as I can tell there is no evidence that anything in the article is true or accurate. I am not sure but I believe that even the Arabic version of the article [14] is unreferenced and tagged appropriately Jeepday (talk) 02:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Let's not jump the gun. Seek advice from Arabic-speaking Wikipedians, as topics such as this may not have easily located English-language sources. Give it a few days, and please use discussion before resorting to tactics such as this; the article certainly doesn't seem like any type of hoax and we don't discriminate in our subject matter against Arabic topics. Badagnani (talk) 02:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No offense is intended, the article has been posted as unreferenced for nearly 2 years. I made a good faith search for references and came up empty. Please remember that The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Jeepday (talk) 02:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NN, WP:RS, WP:V. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree w/ rationale provided above by Jeepday (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 03:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it is not cited, and thus unable to verify the claims being made (WP:V). Happyme22 (talk) 05:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per number of ghits although I'm not sure how many of them may be wiki mirrors and such and I've only searched in english. The fact that the article has existed for 2 years without substantial improvement is worrying but, that in and of itself is not deletion criteria. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Ali Faik Zaghloul" -wikipedia = 7 hits with "any language" selected in the Advanced Search. Jeepday (talk) 21:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the Arabic language does not use the roman script, so this is not surprising. Whether for better or worse, Arabic-language radio announcers of yesteryear do not have excellent coverage on websites using latin-based scripts. Let's defer to our Egypt-based editors on this and seek their input--we do have a lot of them. Badagnani (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. --InDeBiz1 Review me! / Talk to me! 22:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ghits for "علي فايق زغلول" -wikipedia = 136 results. I may be mistaken but most appear to be forums or blogs. Jeepday (talk) 12:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable (and) without sources. –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. —Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm relisting this and adding it to the more general Middle East deletion sorting list in the hopes that we get some more feedback from knowledgeable folks (at this point anyone who reads Arabic could provide some insight). I was on the verge of closing this as delete because we simply don't have sources right now so the article fails WP:V, but we're operating in the dark and it won't hurt to give this another 5-7 days to see if someone can shed some light on this gentleman.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was contacted as someone who knew Arabic to look for legit sources on this guy. I did an arabic search on him and got over 15,000 hits. Many of them were forums, yes, but many more were legitimate news sites. I think this article needs work from an Arabic speaker, not deletion. Wrad (talk) 11:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there a policy that goes with that? I looked all through WP:V and The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation... Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed. I was not aware that we had separate verification requirements based on the nationality of or primary language of the subject of an article. But if you think there is a policy that say's unverified information can stay if there is some possibility it may eventually be found, please point me to it and I will immediately withdraw the request for deletion. Jeepday (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've just verified you that it's notable enough to be an article. If it doesn't have refs on it, put a sources needed tag up. The answer then is to add sources not to delete. This article has the right to exist as verified by an arabic web search.

Why are you looking at WP:V for a deletion discussion? You should be looking at the deletion policy page, which says articles should be deleted if they "cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources" or if "all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed". This article no longer meets either of these criteria and should be kept. Language doesn't matter. Wrad (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind that I attempted to reference the article prior to posting it at AFD. While WP:V does not lead to deletion of an article directly, it does speak to the removal of all material that is challenged, I am challenging all of the content of the article. If all the content is removed, per WP:V then it qualifies for {{db-empty}}, so in essence all unreferenced articles are subject to deletion, by the two step process. I am not trying to appear disagreeable, but there are No Articles on Wikipedia that have been tagged as being unreferenced longer then this article. The oldest Category in Category:Articles lacking sources is Category:Articles lacking sources from July 2006 in which this article currently resides. Per WP:V "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." and as of yet no reliable verifiable reference supporting any part of the article have been provided. The reference you added in these two edits Diff shows Bad Request (Invalid Hostname) additionally there does not appear to be any relationship between "Popular Street Songs Belong to the Name of Rushdie (Arabic)" and the article content for "Ali Faik Zaghloul". other then they are both Arabic. The goal of Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles is The goal of this project is to ensure that articles meet at least the barest minimum of verifiability, by including at least one reliable published (online or offline) reference. Jeepday (talk) 11:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is freaking annoying! That stupid link worked last night and now it's dead! Can you just chill a little bit and not be so confrontational. You seem very doubtful of anything I put up that is Arabic. I'm doing this out of the goodness of my heart here. I don't care one bit about this guy or this article. Wrad (talk) 11:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a bunch more refs, but I can't translate them now as I will be late for work. You're just going to have to wait until this afternoon. And if you look carefully at the article, Rushdie (Roushdy) has a lot to do with the article. Zaghloul made him famous and that's what the article that went dead talked specifically about, so don't be so quick to condemn it. Wrad (talk) 11:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I know I hate it when links do that, the whole site was down when I checked. The relationship between Rushdie and Roushdy is not obvious unless you are familiar with the names (which I am not). I have nothing against you or foreign language references. I just have a thing about unreferenced encyclopedia articles. If there had been references on علي فايق زغلول I would have used them. Jeepday (talk) 12:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I was a bit rough there. I was pretty upset about that link. Wrad (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No offense taken or given, we are all after the same thing, WP:AGF. Jeepday (talk) 12:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks very much to Wrad, who I contacted, for looking into this and finding some sources that seem to verify this guy's existence. That's probably sufficient to make this article keepable for the time being, at least in my view.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Thanks to the work of Wrad, I would say that this article now meets the most basic requirements of WP:V though there is still much room for improvement, I would say as long as the Arabic language version of the article remains unchallenged for notability, the English version in it present version meets the requirements of a stub. I viewed the translated version of the first reference and it does verify by minor mention the subject as a personality, the second reference link is still down, which contains the support for notability. Wrad had mentioned above that he found several references that supported the basic claims of the article and I see no reason to challenge that assessment. Jeepday (talk) 12:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for bringing this up for deletion so we could finally get that tag off the article! Wrad (talk) 13:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing the leg work :) I like it when they get saved for good cause. But that's not why I brought it to AFD, I really thought the article was a fabrication or an overly inflated bio of a non-notable. Jeepday (talk) 22:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Caravans. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delores Washington

Soprano singer of gopel music. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NN, WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 09:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mostly for WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:BLP concerns. The spelling of "Deloris"/"Delores" isn't even consistent. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 09:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my mind, Redirect to The Caravans. This is a better option, IMHO. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 09:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Caravans. Certainly a valid search term. The group is well noted by news and other sources, but Delores seems only talked about in terms of her being in The Caravans...not any interest otherwise I can find to support a standalone BIO - Peripitus (Talk) 12:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Caravans per above Ben1283 (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted as spam (CSD:G11) and copyvio (CSD:G12). --MCB (talk) 18:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suresh Padmanabhan

Non notable bio. Only reference is to his own self-help website. The author's only contributions are this page and his talk page. The bio itself is a copy from his website. Could probably be speedy just for the WP:Copyright problems - Work permit (talk) 07:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (Could be swayed with extra references) If it's a WP:COI then it's safe to assume the Wikipedia editor holds the copyright to the website bio. (The username is inappropriate and reported as such). Definitely very WP:SPAMmy, there's the odd reference online, The Hindu Business Line. Doesn't appear to be enough to fulfil WP:N requirements. Paulbrock (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

College Prowler

AfDs for this article:

This article is purely promotional and does not provide any relevant information Chernysh (talk) 06:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on results when pressing on find tag/link under its talk page. --Firefly322 (talk) 12:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced. I'm willing to accept that this book is notable...if someone can actually demonstrate it. Following the talk page link that Firefly322 refers to only led me (on the first several google pages) to several links to the publisher's own site, and links to retailers' sites offering it for sale. All right, I accept these links as proof of the EXISTENCE of College Prowler. Now the burden on this article's editors is to assert and cite its notability for inclusion on Wikipedia's main namespace. Remember that multiple secondary sources are required. Links to amazon or other publishers are not secondary sources any more than a link to Staples' site is proof that a particular piece of paper is notable. -Markeer 15:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Following Firefly322's links shows several links to notable media coverage. --LTsmash97 —Preceding comment was added at 16:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC) — LTsmash97 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --jonny-m t 07:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to be difficult but can you link one? I again went though the first few pages and only saw links to vendor sites, but I'm willing to accept my scanning was poorly done if given a concrete example. -Markeer 16:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources provided by User:Firefly322 are ample to demonstrate notability and the potential of this topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Meets notability requirements per WP:ATHLETE. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy5 (talk) 07:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damián Manso

Procedural nomination. This article asserts some notability (CSD contested by creator), so I am bringing this to AfD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fan-ish page for an average player in a small league. Thetrick (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If I'm understanding the Ecuadorian football system correctly, LDU plays in the highest level of competition in Ecuador. Manso plays for the team. Ergo, WP:ATHLETE satisfied. Am I missing something? It does happen. Townlake (talk) 05:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also Speaking of procedure, doesn't this fall under WP:SK #1? No reason for deletion advanced by nom other than process. Townlake (talk) 15:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - he has played at the top level in four countries. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 08:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 08:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Meet WP:ATHLETE notability criteria: has played top level football in France.(Ligue 1, fully professional league): see this [15].--Latouffedisco (talk) 08:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Very clearly meets WP:ATHLETE criteria. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Player is clearly notable from playing in several fully professional leagues and has significant coverage in reliable sources. Jogurney (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per almost everyone above ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly meets notability requirements. Giant Snowman 19:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decontrol

Page does not establish notability. Original Research. No third party notability. Virek (talk) 06:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Almost an A7, and lacking necessary reliable sources. I'm generally an inclusionist, but this really ought not be kept. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 10:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS Article's only sources is its own web site which implies it lacks notability. Artene50 (talk) 01:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. AfD is not the correct forum for this issue; merge proposals belong on the talkpages of the relevant articles. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 00:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parthian relations with the Armenians

This article could be merged into history of Armenia as it lacks any unique content and does not deserve an article of its own Gülməmməd ^Talk 06:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article's certainly rubbish, I'll give you that. "This great Parthian power had most intimate and friendly relations with the Armenians"...well, up to a point, Lord Copper. It's possible to write a page on this subject but there is nothing here worth saving. Merge for now. --Folantin (talk) 11:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanup this seems a valid topic, but the article isn't great. Gulmammad, if all you're after is a merge this isn't the right place to ask for it: you can either be bold and do this yourself or raise the matter at WP:PM if the merge is likely to be contentious (which doesn't seem likely to be the case here). WP:MERGE explains the process. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver as a probable search term. As the primary complaints are that the material is too in-depth and primarily reduplication of material rather than a more egregious violation of content policies, there is no pressing reason to actually delete. Preserving the history will also allow for GFDL-compliant merging of any potentially useful information. Shereth 22:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Reaver

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just a repetition of the plot of the games in which the weapon is used. As such, it is pure duplication and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as consistent per First pillar with a specialized encyclopedia on fiction. More than sufficient reader interest. Plenty of editors actively working on it. Undeniable verifibility through reliable sources. Any time an article is repeated or duplicated, we merged and redirect without deletion. No reason therefore for outright deletion here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and DeleteZef (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is illegal per Wikipedia:Merge and delete, thus a "merge and delete" really means "merge and redirect wouthout deletion." Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Illegal" is a strong word, especially when the link you provided explicitly states that it is an essay/opinion, and not even a guideline. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is an interpretation of the GFDL that does have consensus as seen on AN threads and in practice in AfD closures. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nominator. DurinsBane87 (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD is not a vote, however, per WP:PERNOMINATOR. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is one thing to engage in discussion with the people who disagree with you, but it is quite another to harass them with this kind of stuff; the user does not act like he thinks it is only a vote, and there is also nothing "illegal" about merging some of this text and deleting the rest, that's what AFD is all about. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, there is something illegal about it, because according to the GFDL, if we merge anything from one article than we must keep the edit history public and therefore would have to redirect without deletion. "Per nom" has long been considered an argument to avoid and it adds nothing really to a discussion, thus pointing that out to editors is harmless as it encourages them to approach this as a discussion rather than just a list of bold faced stances with no arguments. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fine, I support my vote by saying there is no proven notability, and that its just plot rehashing. Which is exactly what the nominator said, but I apparently must rewrite it. There it is. DurinsBane87 (talk) 04:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's something for the closing administrator to decide. Your heckling is simply rude and does not help your position at all. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Arguing to delete valid articles because a handful of editors don't like it is simply rude and does not help our project at all. AfD is a discussion, not a vote of list of per nom "votes" or subjective "non-notable" votes. We are supposed to engage each other and hold each other accoutable in the discussion to get to an actual conclusion to see whether or not there are any valid reasons to delete and as this article is not a hoax, not a copy vio, not a thesis advancing essay, not a how to, etc. there's no encyclopedic reason for deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Simply because you decide to defend the article does not grant you a high horse to stand on and claim that everyone that wants the article deleted is acting in bad faith. The nominator of this AfD and every other person !voting "delete" is acting in good faith and presenting a genuine set of reasoning for deletion that is backed by consensus, regardless of whatever your views are on the matter. Claiming that their actions are conducted in bad faith is rude and uncivil. And again, the closing administrator decides the value of individual !votes, not you. If someone wants to say "per nom", then so be it. The closing administrator determines the value of such a statement. Argue against the nominator's logic, which this !vote is referring to. And again, this is degenerating into tendentious editing on your part - drop it. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 22:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Simply wanting to delete articles that a vocal minority wants deleted because in all honesty they just don't like certain articles is being on a high horse if anything. I have no doubt that some in this discussion are indeed acting in good faith, although I do disagree with the validity of many arguments presented. Misleadingly claiming that efforts to engage people in disucssion rather than to just make a list of delete votes is incivil and rude. If we really are going to say that AfD is a discussion and a vote, then we need to engage other editors. Efforts to derail actual discussion by ad hominen attacks on me is degenerating into tendentious editing on your part - please drop it and focus on the actual article under discussion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Accusing me of tendentious editing? Hardly, when there are multiple users on one side and you sitting alone on the other. Anyhow, your diatribe against the deletion policy notwithstanding, you still are the minority. In absence of sufficient opposition, current consensus stands. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 19:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I am hardly alone on this discussion. There is sufficient opposition against notability, regardless of what the minority think. Sure some may be for some kind of notability, but it is subjective when we start going from person to person. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's a little bit of redundant, and a whole lot of speculation and excessive detail. Nothing here to save; it's all "I played the game and this is what I noticed." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant; no reliable sources; seems rather fancrufty. Thetrick (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redundant material is redirected without deletion, reliable sources exist, and WP:ITSCRUFT is never a valid reason for deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is completely false and you know it; no reliable sources have been demonstrated, you know this to be true, so you are choosing to ignore wikipedia policies and it must stop. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These nominations of notable topics for deletion should stop if anything. Relable sources have demonstrated notability. Saying that a titular weapon is not notable is simply not accurate. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless someone can show otherwise, this weapon is not notable. That is, there are no reliable secondary sources about the weapons that are independent of the game series itself. Randomran (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is the titular weapon of a reconizable series, which means it is at least notable enough for a redirect. There is absolutely no reason here for an outright deletion, given Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm one of the editors working off and on with the Legacy of Kain pages, but the weapon itself has no real-world notability, and while the games and the characters are still going to be cleaned up and such notability established, there is no such hope for this article in particular. As mentioned, notable within the series though it is, all the articles on the games list the same information. The Clawed One (talk) 06:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which shows that there are merge and redirect locations, but not really any reason for an outright deletion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to the series article Legacy of Kain. The series article needs a rewite to remove unsourced material, as well as a heavy dose of citationing, but would probably benefit from the inclusion of some carefully selected material. I'd reccomend a redirect as Soul Reaver is a likely search term for the game series. Gazimoff ^Write _Read 23:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notability asserted via non-trivial coverage in reliable verifiable secondary sources, fails WP:NOT#PLOT. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is disputed. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which is not. Read the discussion. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The discussion shows that it is disputed and the fact that editors created and worked on this article in good faith also shows that it lacks consensus. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Or that the editors who created and worked on this in good faith made a good-faith mistake by putting a fanpage in an encyclopedia. We don't keep typos because they were made in good faith. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, exactly, we correct the typos, but don't remove the word. Thus, we should keep and improve this article rather than unconstructively delete it. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You're mangling the analogy here. The good-faith mistake was creating an article which cannot be comprehensive or well-sourced. An article which is bad, cannot become anything but bad, and is not a useful merge candidate for anything is a perfect deletion candidate. I'm sorry it means we're destroying someone's work, but sometimes editing means excising the unnecessary and unhelpful. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        If the article were bad or had no potential, okay, but an article that is a valid search term ("Soul Reaver" is part of a game's name) and that can be referenced through game guides and magazines (using a game guide or magazine as a source no more makes us a game guide or magazine than citing a scholarly journal makes us a journal rather than an encyclopedia) should be kept or merged in some manner or at least redirected in a fashion that keeps the contribution history public. I see valid rationales to merge and valid rationales to redirect, but I see no reason to outright delete a valid search term. And to be honest it is simply not right that a hald dozen editors here in five days should be able to undo what dozens of IPs and accounts have been working on since 2005. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Delete and redirect works fine. If you can source this with game guides and magazines and have something to say that isn't recapping the plot of the Legacy of Kain series, go ahead and do it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        If it's a valid redirect, then there's no reason to have to delete on top of it as keeping the contribution history public makes it easier for editors to possibly add sources to the article as they come up. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. Has received third-party coverage, see Google books refs here and here. More sources may be available, but not all books can easily be previewed online. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First one is a throwaway mention that doesn't constitute critical coverage - it merely describes what the sword is in the game. Next source doesn't even mention the sword save the hack you use to acquire it, which doesn't contribute any notability. The only other books I see in the last one are the strategy guides, which are not independent of the topic, and cannot be used to establish notability. Practically all the items in that search are likely pointing to the game rather than the sword in any case. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 10:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you used those references to somehow improve this article, I would be impressed and possibly convinced to change my mind. However, I cannot see how they could be used to do so. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver. There are no sources to demonstrate notability of this weapon, or that this article is not OR. Fails WP:PLOT (which, I know is undergoing discussion right now) in a massive way. --Craw-daddy | T | 10:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If we should redirect, there's no reason to delete as well, especially for a verfiable article that represents unoriginal research. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 12:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do I know it's not original research? The external links all seem to be fansites, so don't satisfy reliable sources. Other than your word (or those of other editors), what is my assurance? There's no sources given, no assertion of notability, the references suggested above aren't useful for the reasons that Sephiroth BCR gives, so there is a significant absence of tangible evidence for notability and verifiability. --Craw-daddy | T | 13:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know it's not original research by looking at those sources, looking through game magazines, playing the games, etc. all of which satisfy reliable sources as useful references. The article is unquestionable notable and verifiable at least enough for a merge and redirect without deletion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as a blatant hoax (WP:CSD#G3). PeterSymonds (talk) 14:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Roznawski

Likely hoax. Google turns up no relevant hits other than the article itself. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unverifiable if not a hoax. —97198 talk 11:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I know Roznawski. He is a university student in Canada and all of the information in the wiki page is fake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moregano (talk • contribs) 14:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G3 Hoax per above. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 , any merge proposal is an editorial matter. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Mysterious Benedict Society and the Perilous Journey

New book with no notability Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close, there are so many book articles that don't have links to demonstate "notability" it is not even funny. We should still provide a useful source for somebody who wants to know about the book even if there (currently) aren't any links to demonstrate "notability". Same goes for many video games. Many book and video game articlex have links just to a few pages about it, and tha article stays. In fact, I'll get to that now... Thanks! (and I'll stop rambling now), ‽² (Talk²/Contributions²) 15:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect into The Mysterious Benedict Society until separate notability is established. struck !vote per KittyR --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redir: I thought about it and this is a better solution. I was kind of tired 2 days ago... :-)Thanks! (and I'll stop rambling now), ‽² (Talk²/Contributions²) 13:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BK and already mentioned in article suggested for merge (which is itself lacking refs establishing its notability). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This book has been reviewed by School Library Journal, Booklist, Horn Book Magazine and, according the the Editorial Reviews part of its B&N page, Kirkus Reviews; it therefore passes the "multiple, non-trivial, independent sources" criteria of WP:BK. -- KittyRainbow (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by KittyRainbow which do appear to meet the Wikipedia:Notability (books) notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 18:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in the Animal Crossing series

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is a repetition of the character sections of the two Animal crossing game articles and the film. As such, it is duplicative, has no real content, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Transwiki to an Animal Crossing wiki if needed. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Virek (talk) 06:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The characters are largely interchangeable ciphers, and share one of four pools of dialogue. I thought I AFDed this a long time ago. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it used to be an alright article until information was repeatedly reduced to the point where there is barely anything left. It has also become a target for all kinds of crap. Delete, delete, delete. --.:Alex :. 20:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I noticed that notability is hard to apply to lists as being discussed in the notability discussion guidelines. Spinout reasons alone suggest this is too big for Animal Crossing. Thus can't be taken on its own merits. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy, however, to apply in this case. Most of these characters have five lines of dialogue or less, and are generic quest-givers or shopkeepers. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I like this page and don't delete it because it has use. Banana7070 825, 9 June 2008 — Banana7070 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

"I like it" isn't a valid keep reason. RobJ1981 (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of these are one-dimensional, and as a result no reliable, third-party sources exist or will ever exist. The characters that have actual character (such as Tom Nook) are few enough to be covered in Animal Crossing (series) since they appear in all the games anyway. Garrett^Talk 00:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the grand majority of characters are really unimportant, and shouldn't be included; after that, the actual characters can be covered at Animal Crossing (series). Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - exactly per nom. Fin ©™ 16:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 cleanup. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cell (Dragon Ball)

Don't think this one passes WP:FICT. The character doesn't play much of a role throughout the series, especially since he is killed. Suggest merging anything useful to List of Earthlings in Dragon Ball, or an outright deletion can do. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep was a major villain for a major arc in the series. Also death - even for a fictional character - does not mean that the subject is NN. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 06:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with nom's reasoning that this character was unimportant in the story, but nevertheless keep to merge/redirect through a proper merge proposal like the other DB characters. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You've got to be kidding. JuJube (talk) 11:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do something with this that isn't delete. He, um, is the villain of a full story arc; it's even called the Cell Saga. That said, this article is ARGLBRGLPHRGLE awful, and likely won't improve. I'm sure we have an article about the Cell Saga or major villains or the manga volumes or SOMEWHERE this can be merged and redirected. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup - The reason given by nom is asinine and contradictory. He's a friggin antagonist for an entire story arc. Just because is killed off in the story doesn't reduce his importance. Jonny2x4 (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Cleanup. Main villain of Dragon Ball Z and he is "alive" in Dragon Ball GT (he is killed but back in action). Sometimes, people mistakes AfD for clean-up. If this article was problems, wikify it but deletion is not solution. Zero Kitsune (talk) 02:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's where the nom's argument that because the charecter is non-notable because he is "killed" (sic) is strange. Not only does the death of a character have nothing to do with notability, but DragonBall Z is an anime where characters regularly come back from the dead or have stories about them whilst they are dead (several, actually). Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge somewhere - A little notability, but not enough to stay its own article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge but don't delete. This is a main character in the Dragon Ball timeline. Zarbon (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cell is one of the top 10 most significant characters. -- Frieza and Vegeta Forever (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I don't think it can really "fail" Fiction per se since that guideline is still very much a work in progress per Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)#Oppose. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, even after being relisted. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Catsouras

I created this article myself a few months ago. I believe some people here may know about this story - basically, a girl in California who died in a car crash, then photos of her fatal accident were leaked to the internet, resulting in a legal case, which may yet lead to a change in the law. It meets verifiability at the basic level, being covered by several U.S. news sources, although it doesn't seem to have reached an international level of coverage (for example, I have no evidence whatsoever that the story was ever covered in the U.K. media). Also, it may fail WP:BIO1E, and may also be a coatrack article for her accident, the photographs and the lawsuit, instead of about her (a non-notable teenage girl who died in a tragic accident). BLP may be taken into consideration given that it's an ongoing legal case involving the family etcetera, but if the case leads to a change in the law I believe it may be genuinely encyclopedic enough, but at the moment, I'm not totally sure and have different feelings now than to when I created the article. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Sorry to say. As the nominator points out, the individual, in and of themselves, is not notable for any other reason than the circumstances of one event. In that the one event cannot bestow Notability as outlined in both notable only for one event and and Wikipedia is not a news source, I regretfully say delete. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, definitely WP:NOT#NEWS, and precisely what WP:ONEEVENT was created for. The only possible justification for this article, aside from the brief media coverage, is that it provides a route to the real story and the tragic experience of the family for the 99% of people who only saw the gruesome photos (and I'm not looking now, but I think even Snopes omits the worst one). That's not encyclopedic, though, and itself leans on WP:SOAPBOX. --Dhartung | Talk 18:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with California Highway Patrol. Unless I overlooked it on my quick skim, this case isn't even mentioned on the CHP page yet. Townlake (talk) 19:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I could endorse a merger, too, if consensus goes that way. It probably deserves no more than a sentence or two. Also, we don't have an article for the Alton Parkway, where it happened. --Dhartung | Talk 23:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Typically you are right, a merge under the heading {Controversy} would be appropriate. However, a Judge has already ruled that CHIP has no liability in the case. Yes, I understand the ruling is under appeal. However, if CHIP has no liability, than no {Controversy}. Call it a Catch 22. ShoesssS ^Talk 03:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That might be a matter of perception. CHP has formally taken responsibility for the photos; the issue is whether legal liability flows from that. And even if CHP is totally vindicated, the written record of the debate over this will outlive us all. (This is the latest news story I was able to find about the proceedings - which is already a ref in the article.) Townlake (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I should have started out saying I see no problem with a redirect and a mentioning of the situation on the CHIP page. What I would be against is a full blown merge of this article into the CHIP article. I feel if that were the case, it would be undue weight, of the importance of the case. I think we are on the same side – saying the same thing but I am talking Philly and you are using proper English :-). ShoesssS ^Talk 20:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Haha... yes, it sounds like we are. I agree on the undue weight - a Cliffs-Notes of the article would certainly strike me as adequate. Townlake (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least in some form. I read an article mentioning the incident and did a google search on the victim's name. I was glad to find a Wikipedia article that answered my questions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.113.76 (talk) 22:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If the author wants it and has some decent reasons, then so be it. –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to be at least two events, the death and the subsequent legal action on an Internet related litigation. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Nikki Catsouras photographs controversy per WP:BLP1E. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorsement If we don't merge with CHP, I can get behind this as an equally appropriate (and easier) solution. Townlake (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dude, she is dead, BLP doesn't involve dead people, the "L" is for living. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sir: mea maxima culpa. I can't believe I made such a huge mistake, linking to the correct guideline albeit using the technically incorrect alphabet. Move per WP:ONEEVENT (links to the same exact guideline, but alphabetically correct). --brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep WP:ONEEVENT does not apply because there were three events - the crash, the pictures being taken, and the lawsuit. These events and the young woman are notable and many sources exist (as shown on the page itself) Ben1283 (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You guys are taking the abbreviated shortcuts way too literally. WP:BLP1E doesn't require that the subject under discussion be alive and WP:ONEEVENT doesn't require that the event be in actuality one event. (As an aside, your understaning of WP:ONEEVENT precludes its applicability in almost all cases. Every event can be subdivided into multiple events. Take for example this case: The question of druge in her system is another "event", the act of forwarding the pictured is another "event", and the posting of the pics online is another "event.") The point is, WP's policy is to avoid bios of everyone who got an above average fifteen minutes of fame. If the said person was involved in a notable event than - Cover the event, not the person (bold in original).--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Opinion only, will not pretend I know rules of wikipedia, would just like to give my two cents. This article lists an important controversy in various factors -leaking documents, about Nikki etc. Wikipedia is also not responsible for the actions of the users of their website. Should an article on child pornography or necrophillia or beastiality be removed because it might give people ideas??? NO! At the end of the day, there are people who can genuinely use this information in an educational way, + wikipedia does not show the photo's AND should not link to them. finally, wikipedia is an encyclopedia based website (duh i know), but an encyclopedia is supposed to be nonbiased, so long as the page stays relevant and does not include links to picture and respectful then keep it. Happiness in a pill (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that anyone here has asserted that the article be deleted because it will give people bad ideas regarding the pics. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete G3 as obvious hoax nancy ^(talk) 06:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Syrup wells

Unverified hoax in the sense that syrup wells were not invented in 1835 AFAIK. Enjoy for entertainment value, then vote delete. Yechiel (Shalom) 04:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced, probable neologism. About as useful as the hole in a doughnut. WWGB (talk) 04:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete If they weren't invented in 1835 then the artilce should be corrected not deleted IMHO --Wafflemaniac27 (talk) 04:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supposedly, Joe Pepitone coined the term in 1835, even though he wasn't born until 1940. I'm convinced this article was created as a hoax, so delete it. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently now it's Benjamin Franklin. Delete, patent nonsense. NawlinWiki (talk) 05:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rose (goat) (2nd nomination) which closed only 12 days before this nomination. Garion96 (talk) 10:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sudanese goat marriage incident

Unencyclopedic, bordering on the nonsensical. This supposed "Internet phenomenon" is just one of those off-the-wall stories mass media picks up from time to time - the same article in ten places isn't notability, but syndication. There is no objective evidence available besides links to various webpages of the story itself, and there is no indication that this is anything but notoriety (which is not the same as notability). I would further recommend this be salted. MSJapan (talk) 04:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Article has been kept at two previous AFDs: 1 2. The second ended 12 days ago. Gimmetrow 04:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is an off the wall story, yes, but as the nominator states there is no objective evidence suggesting that this meets any reasonable stretch of notability to be included in an encyclopedia, and Wikipedia is no exception. JBsupreme (talk) 06:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Per our deletion policy, this is a disruptive renomination. It does not address the recently closed discussion nor provide any policy reason to delete. There is ample objective evidence of notability cited in the article, as the previous discussion found. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-sourced article. I can well imagine this to be a search target for readers exactly because of its silliness. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based both on this only having been kept at AFD 12 days ago and on the plentiful notability established in the article. Davewild (talk) 10:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, last AFD was only a couple of weeks ago. Darksun (talk) 10:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 absence of delete preferences. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 00:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Green (musician)

Does not meet WP:BAND. Top GHit is this article. Sources: AbsolutePunk is a user-driven site, not an independent news source. Youtube is not an acceptable source. No major charting, not signed to a label that asserts its notability, no stated radio play, no major tours. MSJapan (talk) 03:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Not a solo artist. he's the singer for the band Circa Survive (who admittedly i've never heard of) and is a former member of Zolof the Rock & Roll Destroyer (who I have). Circa Survive seems to be notable due to being on a notable label and having a charting album (which IS sourced to confirm its #24 appearance on the Billboard Hot 200). However, I am unsure if notability is inherited or if he's notable on his own. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 07:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Circa Survive. Not notable on his own. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's not merely the lead singer of Circa Survive, a wildly popular post-hardcore band; he was also the lead singer of Saosin, and a member of Zolof the Rock and Roll Destroyer and The Sound of Animals Fighting. So redirecting there seems misleading. Pretty much everything he does gets a mention in Alternative Press or SPIN. Also, Absolute Punk has non-user generated content such as interviews, band bios, and vetted reviews. He has a solo album slated for release in August, so I guess this ends up being filed in the "things I'll have to get undone in the next few months" bin. Chubbles (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I only know him from Zolof the Rock and Roll Destroyer. Can you provide some reliable sources to his notability on his own? Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His involvement across multiple bands with their own articles suggests to me that he meets WP:BAND criteria. The article has some references, although it could certainly be improved. Bondegezou (talk) 09:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-lead singer of a very notable band, and formally a member of another notable band. youtube shouldn't be in there, but sources don't appear to be all that bad --T-rex 19:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A merge is a reasonable proposal for an article about a musician who has been written about primarily because of the notability of his or her band. However, when that musician has been part of multiple notable bands, there is not a neutral way of choosing the target for the merge and redirect; the precedent has been to keep these articles. I think it makes sense to do that in this case. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is the lead singer of circa survive, and has been involved in numerous side projects with notable bands. In August, he will be releasing his solo album, which will increase traffic to the article.NeverLogic (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. By and large it seems the majority feel this material does not meet inclusion criteria, but even those suggesting the article be deleted note that the incident can be written about in another article. Therefore, allowing for a merge to University of Cape Town seems a logical compromise. However, I strongly urge that a discussion regarding the merger take place on the target talk page prior to performing the merge to ensure that only relevant content is moved. Shereth 22:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Police invasion of UCT campus

A POV, poorly-referenced rant, written mostly in first-person or as a memoir, of student unrest. Tagged unreferenced for over 15 months. Stifle (talk) 11:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOTE. The resources on the article are not reliable. The article itself is poorly written and fails WP:NPOV.--RyRy5 (talk) 11:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cannot find any evidence of notability through news, news archives, books and google searches (failing notability guidelines), it also has a serious lack of neutrality. Atyndall93 | talk 12:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a highly biased article. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 12:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, there is some notability (there are other sources available including three more NYT articles, but the others are behind paywalls). This, however, is a POV rant telling only one perspective. --Dhartung | Talk 20:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hangon: This article looks like it could certainly merit notability, and there is at least one source. The article does need an overhaul, though. But unless I see more compelling arguments I would favor keeping the article. The article may need a better name, though; this name may violate WP:NPOV.

Keep: per TerriersFan and improvements to the article. Also, I have concerns about systemic bias in the deletion of this article. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or Merge/Redirect to University of Cape Town. This article could be salvaged with a drastic rewrite and significant improvement in sources, but as it stands, the article is problematic. The event is a notable one that should be included in the article for the University in a much shorter version, if the issues with the article cannot be addressed appropriately here. I am more than willing to consider my vote if the article's issues are addressed. Alansohn (talk) 20:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote has been modified to reflect improvements to article. Further work to make this a more thoroughly encyclopedic article is still needed. Alansohn (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Another instance where we should should be addressing the issues rather than throwing our hands up in horror and going for deletion. I have removed the section that recounts a student's recollection which is the worst of the POV. The Cape Times is a perfectly reliable source and the extract is informative, historic and confirms the accusations of censorship. The key claim to notability is that this (quoting from a reliable source here) "was the first time police had used gunfire to quell a student disturbance on a predominantly white campus." Additional reliable sources to verify, amongst other facts, the reasons for the protest can be found here. If, as I suggest, this clearly meets notability standards then I am happy to rewrite this as a sourced, encyclopedic page but noting the pile of delete !votes above, I am reluctant to put a lot of time into a page that will be wasted if it gets deleted. I await reactions. TerriersFan (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - OK; I have cleaned it up. I will add sources and additional content, as above, if deletion-commenting editors elect to change their views. TerriersFan (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was asked to reconsider my !vote in light of some improvements. The article still has a long way to go. There is almost no discussion of events that predicated a police entry of the campus (the word "invasion" is POV; presumably the police had legal jurisdiction, whether or not they had previously exercised it). Riots? Student unrest? Peaceful protests? What were they protesting? What precipitated the police entry? What are our sources for the redactions and censorship? (I'm fully believing it, but we need sources.) Finally, there should be consideration of whether an overall context is a better focus, e.g. Student unrest in South Africa or 1982 apartheid protests (just general suggestions here). --Dhartung | Talk 00:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the reason for the protest is contained here and the Cape Times, a reliable source, reports the censorship. Much of what you are seeking can be found in the sources here. TerriersFan (talk) 00:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merge somewhere appropriate. This is not significant enough fora separate article.DGG (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: POV poorly-referenced article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think this should be re-listed, as most of the !votes were given before the revisions. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. This is my first pass of the article, and I feel that none of the issues/problems noted previously have been addressed. I feel that the article's title, and its highly emotive tone are unsuited to WP. The article needs to be rebuilt from the ground up with clearer context or a better documentation of the origins. ~~As it stands, there is only the Cape Times as a source, and details are scant due to censorship.~~ The Cape Times as a source makes a big deal about not being able to publish certain details and photos. However, after looking at the NYT article, I feel that at best this is just another storm in a students' teacup to protest a military cross-border raid. All the rest appears to be speculation. I propose that the incident be written about in the UCT article~~, and later expanded into a separate, neutrally titled article as and when appropriate~~. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC) (as edited)[reply]
Weak Delete I rarely speak up for the deletion of any article. I believe this subject probably deserves an article, but this isn't it. Lack of WP:RS and POV problems abound, starting with the WP:NPOV title. We have a single source, admittedly unreliable by the virtue that it is censored. We have a complete lack of context where I can't even tell which students use the "upper campus." I would recommend somebody userfy this one and recreate it under a more appropriate title later. Jim Miller (talk) 02:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The event appears to have been notable, with significant coverage in at least two independant reliable sources. The title should be changed and the content improved, but those are not issues for AfD. There is a potential issue of systemic bias where information suppressed by a government is less well covered than it might have otherwise been, in which case the subject may be even more notable than the coverage might suggest, which is a further argument for keeping the article. If this event was part of a notable social phenomena in South Africa at the time then it could be merged into a more general article on that phenonema. But that merging can be done later outside of AfD once a suitable wider scope has been identified. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I lack enough knowledge of the subject to comfortably give an opinion of its viability, but if kept it most certainly must be retitled, as the current title is a violation of WP:NPOV as it indicates an opinion as to the event. Suggest an alternate word like "raid" be used instead. Also UCT means nothing outside a small region; the name should be spelled out in full. 23skidoo (talk) 12:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - certainly a rename is required. My suggestion is 1987 conflict at University of Cape Town but I am sure there are others. TerriersFan (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 1987 in South Africa. Not noteworthy enough for a stand alone article, but deserves a mention here. I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 22:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The subject meets the general notability criteria of having significant coverage in reliable independent sources. By what standard is it not noteworthy enough? Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge and redirect to David Low (cartoonist). — _Maggot^Syn 02:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rendezvous (political cartoon)

Not notable cartoon. DonaldDuck (talk) 03:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep most famous cartoon by a notable cartoonist, featured by TIME, hardly non-notable. Chimeric Glider (talk) 03:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are thousands of cartoons featured in TIME. Should we create separate article for each one of them?DonaldDuck (talk) 06:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with David Low (cartoonist). Seems to be notable but may not deserve its own article.Virek (talk) 06:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to David Low (cartoonist) per Virek. The article has been created over three months ago and seems to have become a perma-stub, so it should be combined with a more notable article for now. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per sgeureka. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Complete bollocks & nonsense. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angel the Bullet

This article appears to either be a hoax or about someone who is not notable. Either way the reliable sources required to verify the information in the article do not appear to exist. Guest9999 (talk) 03:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion clearly fits the criteria. Nonsense article. Chimeric Glider (talk) 04:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion Clearly a hoax, nonsense article. Star Garnet (talk) 04:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non admin closure). Skomorokh 04:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More to Me Than Meat and Eyes

Totally non-notable song page. Gives no reason why the song is notable, cites no sources; fails WP:RS, WP:MUSIC. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only most notable songs get own article. Alblums might, but not every single song. Star Garnet (talk) 04:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (or at least Redirect) to Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film for Theaters Colon the Soundtrack. NN on its own Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 07:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film for Theaters Colon the Soundtrack. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 09:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film for Theaters Colon the Soundtrack per above. Ben1283 (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spies Like Us / Winnetka Exit

Promo only release fails WP:MUSIC. Contested PROD. Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 03:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 03:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 2000 Fold (album); no evidence that the EP charted on any major chart. Same should be done for Spies Like Us (Remix) / Winnetka Exit (Vinyl). Somno (talk) 06:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 09:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:MUSIC is clear: Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable. There's no indication on widespread notability to make this an exception to that. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 16:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Will create as a redirect to Grand Theft Auto (series) with full protection to prevent recreation until/if this sequel comes about. Shereth 22:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GTA V

Pure speculation about a video game, fails WP:CRYSTAL. Previous game only came out within the last month. TN‑X-Man 02:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, no info exists yet. And why the heck is it semi-protected? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, or redirect to Grand Theft Auto (series) for the time being. -- Comandante {Talk} 02:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. -- Comandante {Talk} 03:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Grand Theft Auto (series) (ideally to a section about future games), fully protect this one. I suspect we'll otherwise fall into the create/delete cycle if there isn't something there, but nowhere close enough to justify an article at this point. --MASEM 03:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per Masem --T-rex 03:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL, too soon to call considering that Grand Theft Auto IV only came out on April 29. Wait a while, there is no deadline to Wikipedia Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 04:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect GTA 4 has just been released. There is no info regarding GTA 5. --SkyWalker (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and protect from recreation. Do not redirect, there is no reasonable place to redirect this to as the game isn't even in production yet. JBsupreme (talk) 04:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Masem, knowing the frachises success, it'll come out eventually. MrMarkTaylor ^{What's that?/my contribs/e-mail me} 06:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Masem. No reliable information regarding this game exists... yet. Una Laguna^Talk 06:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No information regarding this game yet. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 06:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and protect from re-creation as per above. --.:Alex :. 16:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOR. ~~I don't think salting is really necessary though.~~ Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but Masem had an excellent point about falling into a create/delete cycle, as this is exactly what happened with GTA IV way before the game was announced (before conception even I think) and I have no doubt in my mind that this will happen again. --.:Alex :. 16:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, based on my experience with the guitar hero series, once there's a mention of this by a reasonable source, people are going to try to create it if it's not there. Obviously I wouldn't recommend GTA VI, PlayStation 4, or the like since there's no sourceable reliable mentions. --MASEM 23:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'll leave it to the closing administrator's judgment. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was I was gonna delete this as A7 and negative BLP disaster. User:Gwen Gale deleted it ahead of me as A7. Dloh cierekim 03:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N, WP:BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Huang

This is a rather bizarre article about a (supposedly) [REDACTED per BLP]. Though well-crafted to look legitimate, the article cites 7 references but 6 of them are totally unreliable - blogs, facebook and eBay (??). The only thing approaching a legitimate reference is a student newspaper article. This doesn't seem to meet biography inclusion guidelines but due to the negative tone of the article and the lack of legitimate sources or claims to importance, it's probably a living-persons/libel policy violation first and foremost. Rividian (talk) 02:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A7 or G10 Non-notable person, possible attack-ish page. No reliable sources. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I generally take a cited newspaper source to be a claim of importance. But the admin who rules on the CSD will have the say here. --Rividian (talk) 02:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I thought student newspapers were taken case-by-case as they're not always reliable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's true too... the newspaper in question is not exactly the Washington Post. I really don't know and will defer to whoever deals with the CSD. --Rividian (talk) 02:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, thanks, LOL. Dloh cierekim 03:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joan E. Goody

Subject is not-notable, article seems vanity or spam for her firm. Does not conform to any of the criteria proposed for notability as creative professional or academic Gorgonzola (talk) 19:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Gorgonzola (talk) 19:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, quite a bit about her in Google Books and Google News Archive including a listing in the Encyclopedia of 20th Century Architecture. Seems to have a national reputation in the field of urban (particularly residential) architecture. --Dhartung | Talk 22:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chetblong (talk) 02:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect into Goody, Clancy & Associates, Inc. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The listing in the Encyclopedia of 20th C Arch. is just the kind of reliable source that indicates this article is worth keeping. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well known, important, American architect. Blah blah blah. Obviously no research into the subject was done about this nomination. Amusing nomination, I expected to see a crappy article all about her firm. It just mentions it, and there's no vanity anywhere near the level this architect deserves and gets. --Blechnic (talk) 08:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. 199 hits from various media sources shows her notablility. Artene50 (talk) 09:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep the artist, keep or merge the albums. Since there is no strong consensus to either keep or merge the individual album articles I will close it as a keep but leave it up to the discretion of those who maintain these articles as to which, if any, should be merged, and where. Shereth 22:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Esham

A little tricky, but ultimately I don't believe this artist satisfies notability concerns per WP:MUSIC. Aside from a brief stint at Psychopathic Records, his other labels have been non-notable. In addition, the article is unreferenced and is written in a generally promotional style. Associated albums to follow. Recommend Delete. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 01:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all The musician, as prolific as he is, isn't the subject of any reliable third party sources and thus fails WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the musician's page; he has a decent length AMG bio, so I'm sure there are more sources, and two of his albums were on Psycopathic. Therefore, he meets at least one criterion of WP:MUSIC. Not sure about the albums; perhaps merge those into Esham discography? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I saw his AMG bio, but a google search didn't turn up any other reviews from reliable sources. If I'm missing something, I'd be happy to withdraw, although I would prefer to merge his albums into a discography page. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 15:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete albums and no opinion on the rapper. Too many album articles that are non-notable and wasteful. Chimeric Glider (talk) 04:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. I don't know where this is coming from: his albums have frequently charted on Billboard and he's got All Music Guide album reviews. It's inconceivable that further reliable sources don't exist on such a person or his albums. Everyking (talk) 10:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A somewhat POPULAR artist who i've heard on Z100. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.145.15 (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 71.241.145.15 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep The deletion nomination appears to have been predicated more on the current state of the articles rather than the inherent notability of the subject, which demonstrably passes WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 18:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve The article is a little thin but Esham is a notable rapper and creator of a genre - acid rap. Ilovemyluminaz34 (talk) 14:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Ilovemyluminaz34 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Merge all albums into Esham discography and Keep Esham. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Real Gone (Billy Ray Cyrus song)

Nothing but primary sources and rumors. Song was just released last week; hasn't charted, et cetera. The Sheryl Crow version doesn't have a page either and doesn't seem notable enough either. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:22, 8 June 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 • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable at the time, if it reaches the top 20 it very will be notable --Caldorwards4 (talk) 03:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Any Single by Billy Ray Cyrus would be notable, but at this point I have concerns via WP:CRYSTAL --T-rex 03:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until such time as the song has both charted and there is something to say about it. Erechtheus (talk) 01:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 1TYM. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Jin Hwan

Sorry if I did this wrong but I do not believe this person meets WP:MUSIC primarily not to mention WP:BLP due to the lack of available sources about the subject. It is entirely possible that I'm missing them as I do not know how to search for this person in Korean language. JBsupreme (talk) 09:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 1TYM per WP:MUSIC. I don't speak Korean either, but the band clearly meets WP:MUSIC, having charted in Korea, and having released several albums on mainstream (Korean) labels [16]. He doesn't however, appear to have any other significant activity outside the band. The other band members really should be bundled into this nom as well. Debate (talk) 09:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 00:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 1TYM. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Jason McCoy. --jonny-m t 05:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest Times of All

Absolutely no info on this album online. 8 hits on Google, no All Music Guide listing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:27, 1 June 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 • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment - I have never heard of the singer Jason McCoy but he looks notable enough to warrant a bio. But then it is odd that his first album does not carry enough notability. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 17:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because the album was released on a small indie label, and it wasn't reviewed, and it didn't produce any singles. Notable artist doesn't translate to notable album 100% of the time. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The album produced three singles, and two of them charted on the Canadian country singles chart in 1989. Eric444 (talk) 10:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll vote keep if you can provide a source for those charting achievements. Wolfer68 (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although the artist's notability seems to have begun in 1995 with being signed to a major label, being a debut album by a Canadian country star that does contain a song that charted makes it worth keeping. Wolfer68 (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 00:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The three sources are fansites (one, being on Geocities, is especially verboten), and the third is an issue of RPM. Even if it did produce chart singles, the album is not the subject of any reliable third-party sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above. No indication of notability. Redirect at worst. Renata (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then redirect; no convincing evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC and no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Smile a While (talk) 02:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Antonino Rizzuto

Article does not meet criteria Wikipedia:BIO. Antonio Rizzuto is not a sufficiently notable person. His only feat is having been a family doctor of Totò Riina. Could be merged with the article about Riina, but not really necessary as it does not add anything substantial. Mafia Expert (talk) 14:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is of low quality, and importance. DeadmanUndertaker 19:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:BIO1E. Little evidence of sustained coverage. From the source cited, the main crime was providing services to a criminal's family. Low profile, low level, and not notable. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 00:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Low quality is a reason to improve an article, not delete it, and importance is subjective. In terms of criteria though, I'd say this is a case of one event. WilliamH (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'd just made the point about WP:BIO1E over on the Talk page.l FlagSteward (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G6. Non-controversial. Malinaccier (talk) 01:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some Things Never Change (disambiguation)

Neither the Tim McGraw song nor the Sara Evans song has a page. (The Sara Evans song was redirected to the album.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has no quality, or importance. DeadmanUndertaker 18:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 00:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Auz

Autobiography, non-notable —G716 <^T·_C> 19:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The subject could find a place on Wikipedia, perhaps as a stub, if the article didn't read like a vanity piece. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, No reliable sources to establish notability, in addition its probably in violation of WP:COPYVIO as it appears to be a duplicate of his bio on http://www.martinmauz.com/ --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 00:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no claim of notablity --T-rex 03:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vanity and not notable - Mafia Expert (talk) 13:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kavoshex

Non-notable software; a Google search finds no coverage in independent reliable sources. Article has previously been deleted via PROD. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 00:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn; 8 ghits, none for news. JJL (talk) 01:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no publicity or independent sources at all. This deletion discussion is the top link on Google --T-rex 03:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:N MrMarkTaylor ^{What's that?/my contribs/e-mail me} 06:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom Virek (talk) 06:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable with no sources or context. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 04:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g3 vandalism, obvious hoax, part of a walled garden of fake wrestling articles. NawlinWiki (talk) 05:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ExtremeDown!

This page has been deleted twice before as a non-notable club/group. It still doesn't appear to be notable enough for inclusion. Qaddosh|_contribs^talk 00:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Googling turned up so little of relevance that I assumed it was a hoax. Clearly there is no notability here. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As stated, a quick google search shows that the article is on a made-up group, and has already been deleted several times.Rorshacma (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Recreation of deleted material and non notable. Sunderland06 (talk) 01:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not-notable. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources means the subject does not meet the criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia per WP:N. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - still not notable. --T-rex 03:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Georgia-Russia crisis

There is nothing in the article that signifies that a crisis is or has occurred. Basically 2008 is really not that different from 2004-2007 in terms of Georgian-Russian relations. The article just basically has things that happened in 2008.

Delete- Per WP:NOT#NEWS Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia-related deletion discussions. —Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are numerous publications about this notable subject, as anyone can see from the list of references provided in the article. The crisis is a matter of fact.Biophys (talk) 00:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Really, care to provide a few publications that references that show that the crisis is a matter of fact in 2008? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - International Crisis Group's recent report "Georgia and Russia: Clashing over Abkhazia" is one example. --Kober^Talk 05:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article makes no mention that this is a crisis. The events in the article are no more a crisis than the events that have occurred between 2004-2007. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Independent articles for previous military incidents already exist. As these recent incidents resulted in a military buildup in Abkhazia and talk of war on both sides I hardly see how this does not qualify as a crisis and a significant event deserving of its own article. Also it should be considered that these events together with the enhanced ties are sizable, significant, and ultimately if all accommodated under the article on Georgia-Russia relations would most likely result in a split anyway. The lifting of sanctions, followed by the establishment of legal ties with Abkhazia, is a major development in the situation and preceded these heightened tensions and ultimately are part of the reason for heightened tensions. As such all the information present is relevant to the article and all of it is significant.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really, Russia unofficially had sanctions lifted long ago. Now it's just official. Also, you can't really call it a military build up when Russia is going to increase the number of peacekeepers from 2000 to 3000 (within treaty limits). Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nope. There are other troops which operate beyong peacekeeping mandate, such as railway force in the north of Abkhazia and special forces unit stationed in the region's south. Furthermore, the UN mission confirmed unsunctioned flights of Russian jets which engage in fighting with unmanned and unarmed Georgian drones. Anyway, Russia and Georgia were at the verge of war early in May, something that definitely makes the article notable. --Kober^Talk 05:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - And how exactly is this a crisis? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This topic has been in the news headlines of all media. I'd say few weeks ago "world" was speaking about these crisis. How this article could be nominated for deletion? This article is not based on announcements, sports or tabloid journalism that would be against WP:NOT#NEWS. Gülməmməd ^Talk 02:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Per WP:NOT#NEWS DonaldDuck (talk) 03:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable topic which appeared in the international media headlines and led to serious international involvement. Pocopocopocopoco, a long-time combatant on Russia-Georgia issues, wants the article to be deleted because the international response was unusually harsh toward Russia. The article's narrative may need some more cohesion, but there is no valid reason to eliminate it at all. --Kober^Talk 05:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see how this article is pro-Russian or pro-Georgian. It is simply unencyclopedic. I suggest you refactor your bad faith assumptions above. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously notable, very important events. It's preposterous that we've now got people citing "NOTNEWS" to justify deleting articles on major world events. If it's in the news, these people say, Wikipedia shouldn't have anything to do with it! I had to laugh at "the article just basically has things that happened in 2008." Everyking (talk) 10:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you don't like NOTNEWS then how about Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. That is exactly what this article is, an indiscriminate collection of information. If you look at the timeline of Georgia-Russia relations, there is no difference with what is happening now vs what has been happening in the last 4 years. Having an article 2008 Georgia-Russia crisis is like having an article 2008 Iraq-US crisis. Why does 2008 get special treatment? This article suffers from presentism. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - What you're describing would not be an indiscriminate collection of information. Of course, we should have a broad article on the difficulties in Russian-Georgian relations over the last several years, in addition to articles such as this covering events within a more restricted span of time. The existence of this article is in no way incompatible with an article on the broader situation. Until you can find someone who will argue that this article should be kept but articles on previous problems of a similar magnitude should be deleted, it is preposterous to argue about "presentism" and "special treatment". Everyking (talk) 09:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes but they should cover specific events and not just what happened this year. For example 2006_Georgian-Russian_espionage_controversy is perfectly OK because it is an article about a specific event. 2008 Georgia-Russia crisis is not, it tries to tie in what's happening in 2008 with the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence but there is no evidence that what is written about in the article came because of the Kosovo declaration of independence. Hence we can say that this article is a WP:SYNTH. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plentiful coverage in reliable sources of the present troubles in relations between Georgia and Russia as there has been for other incidents between them for which we quite rightly have articles. Cannot see how this ever meets the 'Routine news coverage' of WP:NOT#NEWS. Davewild (talk) 10:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see a lot of reliable sources, and it seems to be clearly notable. Soxred 93 14:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep another attempt (out of many) by Proco (who has specific POV against Georgian articles in general). Iberieli (talk) 17:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep A well written article with lots of reliable independent sources like the BBC. Georgia and Russia have indeed been feuding in 2008. Artene50 (talk) 01:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. From what I have understood by reading the newspapers on this, the crisis level of 2008 is such that war is a serious danger. That is far more serious than a mere news story. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per all of the above. —Nightstallion 22:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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