Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 March 15

< March 14	March 16 >

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 00:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball Fight Techniques

This is very probably original research. Furthermore, I think that the article snowball fight can cover all the subject matter. Cenarium (talk) 23:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doesn't have a snowball's chance of survival. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's snowing! JuJube (talk) 01:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Let it snow... --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above... I'll defer to the closing administrator to say what we're all dying to say. Mandsford (talk) 03:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 05:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close per WP:SNOW? Sorry, couldn't resist. Delete. Original research.Brian Waterman, MS, CDP (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR and poor capitalisation as per WP:NAME otherwise a simple redirect to Snowball fight could be used. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia isn't a how-to guide. Also filled with original research Doc Strange^{Mailbox Orbitting Black Hole}Strange Frequencies 16:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article is all original research and references cannot be found –Dream out loud (talk) 19:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We do not need unsourced how-to guides. This may be appropriate as a section in the article, and would be better if it had a few references, but as an article itself as a how-to guide and no references is not appropriate. I've never been much of a deletionist, but this article is not suitable for Wikipedia. It's better off on Wikihow. So, my vote will be delete unless sources can be added and made less how-to. Otherwise, either delete completely or move to Wikihow. Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 19:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yellow snow (delete) How to guide, some of the throws sound made-up. Someone another 23:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep (non-admin closure), per WP:SNOW. Meets notability criteria. SilkTork *^YES! 17:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there is a case for this article to be removed as it has little to no information contained with in it, also he has never played a professional game and no source for weather or not he has played for the national team mentioned.Skitzo (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 23:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC) Speedy keep in light of new sources. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 23:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep He has played for Guyana (international football), as noted in the reference [2] provided in the article,[1] and this CONCACAF source. I previously prodded the article, but then removed it when I realised. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 23:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your second reference needs to be added to the article. The first reference in the article actually states that he hasn't played any games and (unless I've missed it) the second one doesn't actually mention him playing a game. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 23:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first reference doesn't state anything - it just seems to be a blank template (his DOB is given as 00-00-0000) with his name and nationality on it. I've added the second one, but I think the FIFA one is pretty clear that he's an international player. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 00:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Just about notable. TheProf | Talk 00:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - References show he's notable enough for inclusion. --clpo13_(talk) 06:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — references for playing for an international team prove he meets WP:ATHLETE. EJF (talk) 12:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - international football confers notability. matt91486 (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - playing for national team is notable. BWH76 (talk) 15:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 10:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eyesore

IP removed PROD. PROD read: "...this cites no references, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary" - Listing as a courtesy; I have no opinion on it. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 23:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a simple dicdef with no references. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 23:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC) 23:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I agree with Olen. It serves its purpose as a dictionary definition much more usefully than an encylopedic article. Besides, its mostly a stub. --InvisibleDiplomat₆⁶₆ 23:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Disagree. If it contains examples of eyesores, then it's no longer a dictionary entry. There's certainly no rule against stubs either.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 23:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICT. Prewitt81 (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has potential to become much more than a dictionary entry. The topic is much more than the word and its usage. It covers an important issue of local politics, planning law and aesthetics which will be familiar to most of us in everyday life. I have reworked the article to add some references and show its potential. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's better, and it is now referenced, but I'm still not sure how much more could be said about it. It seems to me like it will probably never be more than a long, possibly illustrated dicdef. What did you have in mind for further improvement? I'm not married to deletion; if you have an idea, I'm willing to reconsider, maybe even help save the page. I just can't think what else could be there. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 01:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC) 01:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is an ideal stub WP:stub#Ideal stub article. As such, it should be neither deleted nor merged. --Firefly322 (talk) 09:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm with OlenWhitaker - I don't see how it can be more than an illustrated dicdef; but I'll watch it and may change my !vote if it develops. JohnCD (talk) 10:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — There could be a world of references and usage available to base an article on. Re-evaluate in 6 months and see if we have a viable encyclopedia article. EJF (talk) 13:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's real, it's factual and like any article, it takes time to get sources and all that. I've tried wikifying it. --Alisyn^talk 22:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dictionary definition, which could be made into an article only by spurious lists of examples. Also the term is entirely subjective, what is an eyesore to someone may be seen positively by some - an NPOV outcome is hard to imagine. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 12:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wonder how many editors have really thought about the phrase POV and its various meanings. For example, in everyday language it's not uncommon to say "from a practical point of view." Another example, in science it's not uncommon to read "from a Newtonian point of view" meaning Newtonian mechanics. Just as exclusion of either of these two "POV's" was never intended by WP:POV policy, neither was such policy ever intended to exclude such non-neutral topics as cunt or fuck or shit, etc. In comparison to these three more or less meat-and-potatoes types of wikipedia articles, eyesore as a topic would be far easier to grow and maintain as an encyclopedic, unbiased article. --Firefly322 (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Jonathan Oldenbuck. BWH76 (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it has improved significantly since nomination. Also, I agree with Firefly322 - I don't think Jonathan Oldenbuck has understood the policies if he believes we should delete every topic that might be the subject of POV. If you read the article in its current state you see that the term is treated in an entirely NPOV manner. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 16:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Lampman. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep it's a stub, and there's no reason to think this can't make a fine article that is far more content rich than a dictionary entry.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 23:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Re-evaluate in 6 months and see if we have a viable encyclopedia article. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:DICT. Could be redirect or Disambig page for medical articles like Stye. -Jahnx (talk) 09:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The medical usage is described by the OED as obsolete. The actual dictionary definitions that it has are:

A soreness of the eyes. Obs.
Something permanently offensive to the sight; an ugly mark or feature.
A cause of annoyance, offence, or vexation; an object of dislike or disgust.

Colonel Warden (talk) 10:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jahnx, lucky us that this entry is a lot longer than a dicdef. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete by User:Toddst1, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Samuel

This article is a complete hoax, fails WP:BIO and WP:N, this is obviously a fictional character as there are no google hits and the myspace is a dud.--TrU Co -X 22:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3 as utter hoax, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unsourced and unreferenced - clearly a hoax. Dreamspy (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete The fact that nonsense like these needs to go through an afd to be deleted shows there are obvious flaws in the deletion system. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Full Metal Panic! as not notable on its own. Davewild (talk) 20:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TDD-1 Tuatha De Dannan

Delete as per WP:V. Though it's a newly created article but it seems totally unverifiable and unreferenced claim. Thus nominating for AfD. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 22:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Full Metal Panic! - all google hits I can spot point to that as the source. --h2g2bob (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Full Metal Panic! - It is a reference to Full Metal. So, I agree with h2g2bob. --InvisibleDiplomat₆⁶₆ 23:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, or re-direct, with Full Metal Panic. That article mentions this. I guess they'd be happy to source and reference it. (I didn't add the link to the FMP page because I'm not sure about the WQ) Dan Beale-Cocks 23:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Full Metal Panic!. There's not enough here to make an article of its own, but there's probably just enough for a mention there. —C.Fred (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a article on the ship in the spanish wikipedia articles (http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/TTD-1), so I don't see why there shouldn't be one in english. This one may not be much yet, but... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Battlestar atlantis (talk • contribs) 01:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the FMP fictional universe article, or an FMP list of equipment article. 70.51.8.110 (talk) 07:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. It has enough there to be it's own article. I looked at it before and it wasn't much, but now it is enough to stay as an article.

I know that when I started this article, it was not much of anything, but now, although it is little more than a brief description, I think it is enough to have it's own article. I don't think that merging it to the list of equpiment article is right because it is somewhat of a seperate kind of thing. I think that there is enough content on the page to make it an article or at least the start of one. For these reasons, I disagree with the idea of deleting or merging it.--Battlestar atlantis —Preceding unsigned comment added by Battlestar atlantis (talk • contribs) 16:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I think it's a reasonable merge - remove the formatting, and it's perhaps 2 or 3 paragraphs; I don't see any evidence that the ship itself practically a character, like in series such as The Super Dimension Fortress Macross with its SDF-1 Macross. --Gwern (contribs) 17:41 16 March 2008 (GMT)

No, it's not a character but it is a "mecha" kind of thing. There are a lot of articles on mecha (for example gundam) which have their own article, some of them shorter than this one (for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAT-01_Strike_Dagger). --Battlestar atlantis

Gundam articles are well known to have serious problems. They do need some serious cleaned up. But the fact that they are a mess does not excuse other mess elsewhere. --Farix (Talk) 15:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The subject is not notable in itself and even fails WP:FICT, however some of the content can be merged back into the main article. --Farix (Talk) 15:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The only thing to do in order to make in notable is to clean it up and put references. Otherwise, this goes down the trash. Ominae (talk) 09:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: if you have references that demonstrate its notability (beyond simply verifying statements in the article), now would be a good time to demonstrate their existance. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW --JForget 00:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bryce Sawyer

Delete as per WP:BIO. Though the article highly spoke on his achievements but google is saying something different [2]. Clearly fails at BIO. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 22:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanity page. Author is Dumjock12, myspace.com/dumjock12 is Bryce Sawyer.--Michael White^T·C 22:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - clearly a vanity article. Dreamspy (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A Google scholar search for "Bryce Sawyer" returns zero hits. Dan Beale-Cocks 23:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 01:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable enough for inclusion. --clpo13_(talk) 06:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pn - fails WP:BIO and is not notable –Dream out loud (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Spencer

Delete as per WP:BIO. The appeared in a TV episode and is auditioning for a title role (uncertain!), that's what her achievement. Clearly fails at BIO. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 22:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Who? Clearly a vanity article. Should not get her 15 mins of fame here! Dreamspy (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment see here User_talk:Bezzbex - seems to have created articles for all her friends also. Dreamspy (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Series (and channel it aired on) are notable. She's referenced in this BBC press release. The article can stay at stub until she gets more work. Dan Beale-Cocks 23:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment one passing reference does not denote notability. Nor can we see into the future to see if she will get more work. Dreamspy (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:BIO for entertainers. - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 05:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A BBC press release isn't really a reliable source for estabishing notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

H2Oregon

Delete as per WP:N. Though this article says it is in the middle of expansion, but it clearly fails at WP:Notability. Thousands of such forum exist on the web. Just because of the expansion tag, I am tagging it for AfD otherwise I would tag it for Speedy. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 22:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As much as it hurts me to support the deletion of content from Wikipedia, this simply doesn't seem notable. Of course, I'll change my vote if any references or sources come up; all I could find was a press release written by the group. Cel ^{Talk to me} 22:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEB.--Michael White^T·C 22:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I'm not even sure that this isn't an WP:CSD#A7 candidate. It'd be nice to see sources, but I doubt they're forthcoming. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as per nom. Gwandoya^Talk 23:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Simply not notable enough. As the nominator said, there are plenty of forums out there. How is this one any more worthy of inclusion? --clpo13_(talk) 06:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as per WP:SD#G11 and/or WP:SD#A7. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Red Planet (film), consensus is that it that it not independently notable but a merge is possible. Davewild (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Autonomous Mapping Evaluation and Evasion

Main antagonist of Red Planet, sure; however, no notability outside that film. Fails WP:FICT. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 21:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Make smaller and merge to Red Planet; it'd be a pity to lose this work altogether. Cel ^{Talk to me} 22:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a little bit of it into Red Planet (film) per Cel. Most of it seems to be plot summary and unsourced, though, so that ought to be fixed first. If a merge is not realistic (or if sources cannot be found), delete. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created the page simply because i believed that perhaps some viewers of the film would feel the need to know more about the ideas contained in it's script. We live in a world fueled by technology and many of us look towards the future in order to imagine the conception of machines such as AMEE, and seeing an advanced robotic life form would urge them to discover more about how it works, and about it's "attitude". After seeing the page for the Red Planet film, i noticed that the information given on the AMEE character was quite superficial, as was the information given in the film itself. With a page for the character in general, people could find out more about it and on how it functions, and therefore understand exactly how a conception of a robot could truly become a human creation in the future, which is why i thought that it's page had a use. However, if the Wikipedia Staff have decided that there is no true need for the page to exist, even after various editings and changes, I believe that i must simply accept that. If anyone else believes that this page has a right to stay, feel free to address your opinions. --TøM (talk) 09:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, sources have been found to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zane Morris

NN "professional wrestler". Google gives me nothing except a few YouTube videos. No reliable secondary sources to be found. IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Looks like this is a good reliable source, if a little boring. There should be more, but I haven't taken the time to find them. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. this is a good reliable source too. It was used in other sites on wikipedia articles including the one below. Would this be considered one l too? The NWA Rankings Archive, the as of May 19, 2000 section. If so I could add it. Wrestling-titles.com is used as a source on this wikipedia page as a reliable source as well. There are only two there, so with what we have here, that should be enough yes? Also, I did correct one of the cites with the secondary source that lifebaka found. Added a third as well. This should satisfy the original nomination, yes? With three cites that should be more than enough. Hyperbeard (talk) 10:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--hyperbeard (Talk - Contribs) 18:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Monster Bat Incident 1771

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), AfD withdrawn by nominator. No longer a copyvio problem. clpo13_(talk) 07:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from its markup, this is an exact copy of an article published in The Cricket Society Journal in 2006 and is probably a breach of copyright. Even if it does not breach copyright it should be completely rewritten in an objective and encyclopaedic style. But, as the original author seems to have left Wikipedia, it is doubtful if that will happen, so probably best to just delete it. JamesJJames (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as identified copyvio. Is the source online? --Dhartung | Talk 21:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio. From here. So tagged. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Several pages link to it. I have replaced it by a stub with external link to http://www.jl.sl.btinternet.co.uk/stampsite/cricket/ladstolords/1771.html#monster . Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep re-write to stub addresses copyright violation and provides a suitable basis for writting a suitable article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrucePodger (talk • contribs) 23:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Copyvio not a problem now, and it is referenced, but I'm a bit worried about notability. At any rate, I'm giving the article the benefit of the doubt. --clpo13_(talk) 06:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator. I think Anthony Appleyard has adopted the right approach. I didn't realise the article was already on the web but I now see that the author of the Lads to Lord's site is the author of the original published article in the journal. No need to worry about copyright. I would now suggest that the article is kept as a stub. It relates to an incident recounted in 1771 English cricket season that does have some importance as it caused a change in the rules (and that ruling is still current). I'll expand it a bit to reflect that. Thanks to all above for some very useful inputs. --JamesJJames (talk) 06:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination. I have expanded the new stub to capture the main points and cite the key source for the match result. I think this is now an acceptable article that should definitely be kept. The impact of the incident on the Laws of cricket ensures WP:N. --JamesJJames (talk) 07:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nandesuka (talk) 12:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disaster City

Advertising with little redeeming value. It has no assertion of notability, and was obviously written by the company that owns the site, the Texas Engineering Extension Service (the creator was User:Teexreviewer). -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 20:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — The article currently is poor, but I have found significant reliable secondary sources from The International Herald Tribune and Officer.com. This article can be improved very significantly I believe. EJF (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A cooperative extension service is an arm of a state university system coordinated by the United States Department of Agriculture. This is probably intended to be a money-making facility for what is basically a non-profit agency. --Dhartung | Talk 00:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy delete~~. Perhaps this structure is notable, but whole sections of the article are directly lifted off other websites, [3] and [4] for example, causing big time copyvio issues. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright violation material has been removed and replaced. --Oakshade (talk) 04:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Since you have made a convincing point that the subject is notable (not perhaps notable), I will call this a keep now that it is valid stub page. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and re-write per EJF. It is the in-depth subject of secondary reliable sources, the core criterion of WP:NOTABILITY. It should be reduced to a non-advert stub and grow from there. --Oakshade (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note:I've flagged the article for rescue — the facility clearly is notable, but it's a race against the clock before it's deleted. It was speedy-tagged at 08:48, 17 March 2008. EJF (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, (or at least merge into Texas Engineering Extension Service). Appears to be notable based on the sources. --Pixelface (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - subject has received non-trivial coverage in a highly reliable source (IHT) and lesser coverage elsewhere. скоморохъ 10:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Added more refs, not like it matters with all the keeps. -Jahnx (talk) 08:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. per WP:SNOW - Milk's Favorite Cookie 14:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chaotic Dischord

A punk band that, unusually for a punk band, set out to shock> Oh, wait, no that's normal isn't it? They had a few minor hits on the indie charts (note: indie charts have much lower sales numbers than the main chart). At least, the article says they did, there are no cited sources for that. There is some stuff out there for a band of this name, but no indication it's the same band. Guy (Help!) 20:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the creator of the article, I have to ask whether the nominator bothered to read it before bringing it here. Two hit singles and four hit albums on the UK Indie Chart, and yes, the article does cite a very reliable source for those chart placings. All specialist charts have lower sales than the 'main chart' - should we delete articles about artists that have only had hits on the US Country chart or the Modern Rock chart? If you found other 'stuff' about Chaotic Dischord, perhaps you could add it to the article - it seems very unlikely that there's another band with the same name.--Michig (talk) 20:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I'm not finding much in the way of sources here, but I'm assuming good faith in the print source for the chart positions. Even if it is "just" the indie charts, it does seem to be a notable singles chart, and thus enough to satisfy criterion #2 of WP:MUSIC. If more sources could be found, I'd go for a full-on keep. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per additional source and per the fact that its members were also in another band. Meets multiple criterion of WP:MUSIC, and that's good enough for me. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The contents of the book can, I think, be found on the Cherry Red website, if anyone thinks I've made the information up - I'll find a URL if required. It's a bit sad if people will trust a published book less than a website. I've added another reference to a review on allmusic. The band was around before the internet age, so much of the coverage will exist in pre-www printed sources. The article states that the band shared several members with another notable band, Vice Squad, which is another pass via WP:BAND, so I'm not really sure why this nomination is here at all.--Michig (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A URL would be good, so you can provide a link to cite at. 'Course, you can just use the book. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've added the URL.--Michig (talk) 07:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Looks like it's good on notability, but I'd like to see some more sources. A citation on the last sentence in the intro (which says they've had multiple hits on the charts) would be particularly nice. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've added he citation, although it was already there in the discography section, which details the chart positions.--Michig (talk) 07:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm satisfied that it meets WP:MUSIC notability guidelines. --Canley (talk) 23:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was already deleted. --Reinoutr (talk) 21:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon Culture

Neologism not supported by, well, anything. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. This is just unreferenced nonsense. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delte. Unreferenced neologism, coined today. Useight (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. Canley (talk) 00:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J. J. Dossen

Article fails WP:N, has no references, doesn't even have a date of birth. K im u 20:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are vice presidents inherently notable? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the vice president of (I believe) liberia from 1904 (I think)? Also, we don't even have a date of birth, date of death and the article has no references. K im u 20:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That means you're not very likely to find out too much about him on the Internet. If vice presidents are indeed very notable (I wouldn't know for sure, I don't pay attention to biographical articles), then this should probably be tagged for references (i.e. print sources) instead. Note that I said probably -- there's still a chance that this could prove unworthy of being kept. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, holder of two national-level offices is notable. Numerous Google Books results. --Dhartung | Talk 21:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User:EJF has added some references. Instead of taking this to AFD, it might have been better to drop a request for references at Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa or one of the subprojects. We can usually assume that vice-presidents pass WP:N. Zagalejo^^^ 21:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — I went through Google Books and found references and details on full name, place of birth, date of death and some other information. Given that he was V.P for 8 years and Chief Justice for 13 years suggests that he is notable. And don't delete, it's now mine ;-) EJF (talk) 21:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per addition of references, now asserts notability quite clearly. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notabilty asserted.Dreamspy (talk) 23:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. References clearly establish a high degree of notability (vice-president, chief justice of the supreme court of Liberia.) Is there snow in the forecast? OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 23:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC) 23:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article subject even has a hospital named after them - article could be expanded into something useful for WP. Dan Beale-Cocks 23:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —EJF (talk) 23:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Jones (Date Movie)

Film character is not notable by any means; simply the main character in a box office bomb, and not much else can be said in this article about the character. –Dream out loud (talk) 20:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lacks out-of-universe information to meet WP:FICT. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. JJL (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Dreamspy (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unnotable character from a barely notable movie. Gwandoya^Talk 23:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WHOCARES... oh wait, that's not valid criteria. Well it should be... completely non-notable character. JuJube (talk) 01:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Barely notable is being kind...instantly forgettable is what it is. I can't believe someone actually wrote an article about this cardboard cutout of a non-notable character. Nate • (chatter) 04:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Date Movie. The character isn't notable enough and doesn't have enough background to warrant having her own article. Redirect it to the movie article. --clpo13_(talk) 06:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, unverified aand notability not established with original research concerns. Davewild (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spike band

AfD'd per private request. According to the request, the article is WP:OR and has no references. Listing out of courtesy; I have no opinion on it. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 19:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. The article has been around since 2005 and in horrible condition. It is total OR and in fact, just plain wrong. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 19:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: How is it wrong? I mean, I don't have any knowledge at all about the subject, but it seems like it makes sense to me. I'm willing to bet if you really wanted to, you could improve this article... Cel ^{Talk to me} 22:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks sources to pass WP:N and many statements appear to be WP:OR. I'd be perfectly happy if someone wanted to improve it, but it hasn't happened for the past two years. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dreamspy (talk) 23:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete. I'd prefer it to be re-named --but what to? (The typo 'studded braclet' gets more ghits)-- and added to a fashion cat. Dan Beale-Cocks 23:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, as the notability guideline on future films says films should not have their own articles until it has been confirmed by reliable sources that shooting has begun. Davewild (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4Chosen

Fails WP:NFF. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like some big names are going to star in this film; what exactly makes it non-notable? Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Seems to have a couple decent names tied to it, as well as one okay source. However, there seem to be virtually no other sources on the film yet, so I'd say it may be a little too early. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is the incident mentioned in the article real? If yes, then KEEP, and link to that, because the film could generate some real world material. else delete, because it hasn't happened yet and IDontLikeArticlesAboutStuffYetToHappen. Dan Beale-Cocks 00:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's too early to have an article about this movie (it's the beginning of 2008, and it's set to come out in 2009). Until there's more information and more varied sources, delete it. --clpo13_(talk) 06:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, consensus is that the article has value with a move to another title being a possibility - which is an editorial decision. Davewild (talk) 20:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joan of Arc bibliography

Unencyclopedic content/listcruft. This article is nothing but a list of subjectively selected titles of books about Joan of Arc, with absolutely no information about the books given - it serves as nothing better than a library record, if that. If these books are deemed useful, they should be used as references to improve the articles relating to Joan of Arc, not to create an article with no utility. The one citation that is actually in the article claims that there are over 12,000 titles on Joan in French alone - this still does not tell us the validity of the works herein contained, and to do so would likely violate NOR. The subjectivity required in a "selected bibliography" means this will never be an encyclopedic article, nor will it be anything other than a incomplete list of titles, which can just as easily be located through Amazon or Google. MSJapan (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. After careful review by knowledgeable editor, please merge into Joan of Arc article. Renee (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not especially keen on such lists, but Category:Bibliographies by subject indicates it is not an anomaly. There have been a couple of highly specialized bibliographies appear on AFD and they generally pass. I feel they would be better off if sourced and attributed, e.g. "Smith considers this the best biography". --Dhartung | Talk 21:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This article should certainly not be merged into Joan of Arc article, which is already long and of good quality by Wikipedia standards. This article contains some important material, including a link to a translation of the transcript of the trial. It is an important resource for Joan scholars. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Keep, seems like a valuable fork from the main Joan of Arc article. I'm sure knowledgable editors could develop a clear set of inclusion criteria, as has been done at List of important operas and similar featured lists. Zagalejo^^^ 21:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, as it is filled with and links to notable, verifiable, and scholarly information. Merging it would make Joan of Arc even larger than it already is. Also, this is not an anomaly; there are several lists similar to this. Cel ^{Talk to me} 22:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep. Might be better merged into Joan of Arc, but, as has been mentioned, that article is very long already and if, as claimed, there are over 12,000 titles on this subject in French alone, this list has the possibility of growing into something far too large to be in the main Joan of Arc article. The suject is highly notable and this list could be useful to someone wanting to do further research. You know what, I've convinced myself: forget the 'weak', this is a full blown keep. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 23:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC) 23:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Joan of Arc. Dreamspy (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to List of works by Joan of Arc or List of Joan of Arc works. Article is certainly notable, but is more of a list and should be stated as such in its title. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep but perhaps move somewhere. The information is good (if sorely incomplete and unreferenced), but not in article form. This is when we need to have subpages enabled in article space -- this would make a great subpage for the main Joan of Arc article, or perhaps linked off of the talk page. -- phoebe/(talk) 06:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Possibly merge, or maybe rename as "List of works by Joan of Arc".--MrFish^{Go Fish} 18:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify something: none of these books were written by Joan of Arc. They are about Joan of Arc. As far as I know, Joan of Arc never wrote anything. Zagalejo^^^ 18:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus, defaulting to Keep, Delete opinions feel this will always be original research while keep opinions feel it can be cleaned up and sourced to avoid OR. As this defaults to keep strongley suggest it is cleaned up and sourced or am sure it will be renominated in the future. Davewild (talk) 20:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of cliffhanger endings

Fully unreferenced, and possibly original research. This also seems to be an expanded trivia section. Many of these bits, if properly sourced, might work in the articles about their various sections, but somehow I don't see it happening. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep It does illustrate the encyclopedic article Cliffhanger. It seems to me that identifying and describing a cliffhanger is more no original research than describing anything at all for an encyclopedia article. Footnotes are meant for material which might be challenged, and is anyone really interested in challenging whether or not something is a cliffhanger? If someone were really studying cliffhangers, this might be useful. Noroton (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are sources out there for this, e.g. books. I'm not seeing the OR. OR would be my theory that cliffhangers are increasingly used to give the producers leverage in end-of-season contract negotiations with actors. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, how will this discussion come out? Every AfD is a cliffhanger, isn't it? Delete I can see why this would have been spun off out of the Cliffhanger article, because it seeks to include every possible "to be continued" ending that ever was. Because it takes all comers, it also includes endings that weren't intended as cliffhangers (as with Planet of the Apes). A "what will happen next" question is now such a common feature of a TV show's season finale that it's too trivial to mention all of them. Even the question of what makes a cliffhanger notable is pretty subjective, in that people would disagree about what should belong on a short list. Beyond the ones that made the cover of a magazine, as with "Who Shot J.R.?", my opinion is that a true cliffhanger is one where the producers seem to have painted themselves in a corner and the viewer can't see that any of the possible alternatives are viable. Better to scrap this one and let it be rebuilt with some parameters. Mandsford (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but source, so that only notable cliffhangers are included. That shouldn't be that hard. --Dhartung | Talk 21:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I like that sourcing idea. Noroton (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It adds value to Cliffhanger and should be kept. The people who are putting forth that this is somehow WP:OR should have a look at what it means for something to be original research. Cel ^{Talk to me} 22:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of sources (thus spawning the WP:OR issue). I realize that it is probably a useful article, but without sources we just can't keep it. Easiest way to fix this problem is to source some stuff. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on a minute lads, I've got a great idea!. Cliffhanger isn't so big as to need splitting. We don't need an entire list of every cliffhanger ending there's ever been (just about every drama series that;'s got a new season coming up, and every part of a multi-episode story arc). All we need are some prime examples. A considerably smaller, properly referenced, list could easily be added to Cliffhanger, and this could redirect to it. Grutness...wha? 00:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Add a "smaller, properly referenced list...to Cliffhanger..." and within a week it'll be heaving with fandom-spawn: excessive plot explanations, howls of Nao, Spoiler! and 3RR-fest handbags over editnalia and wearying details of every single marginally unresolved episode ending of Miffy-tan the Warrior Vampire Housewife or whatever. If it could be kept to a select few which have the desired dramatic merit, all would be splendid but it won't stay that way. However we may try to keep it confined to the bloody doors off, I can just see the whole van going up everytime Plutonium27 (talk) 04:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Add citations and the example tends to slow those kinds of contributions; if someone's interested in maintaining it, that is, if the editor watching it simply demands citations, that slows it down further. See List of bow tie wearers. Selecting a few examples is difficult to defend. Noroton (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability through reliable sourcing. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourcing is certainly possible--its just that nobody takes these kinds of articles seriously enough. The remedy is to improve them, not remove them. DGG (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted under WP:CSD#G7 - author blanked the page after AFD nomination. Pedro : Chat 20:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanese Liberal Republican Party

Contested Prod. Seems a puff piece with few reliable sources available to turn it into something encyclopedic - procedural. Pedro : Chat 18:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete... And merge into an article about Lebanese political parties. I googled this name and there seems to be a Republican Party, a National Liberal Party, and no listing exactly as this name appears. Renee (talk) 19:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

}

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

The result was Redirect to Earth Kingdom, any sourced, useful information (of which I don't think there is much) may be merged there. Black Kite 17:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor Earth Kingdom locations

There is really no need to list every minor location in the Earth Kingdom just because they appeared once in an episode. In fact, this article is almost as useless as List of Avatar: The Last Airbender creatures, which is also nominated for deletion. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 18:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge good portions into articles on the episodes they appeared in (assuming they exist), and delete the rest. The intro says that the places aren't important by themselves, and together they don't fare much better. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Earth Kingdom. This article really seems more fit for an Avatar fan site than for Wikipedia. --clpo13_(talk) 06:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep good work , a list of all the minor earth kingdoms indeed is necessary , atleast for an encyclopedia that must be self sufficient . a merge would undermine the creator of this article , im not ready to hurt the interest of an editor . Pearll's sun (talk) 13:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment you may re-list to reach a consensus , a merge or an delete will surely cause damage to the article . Pearll's sun (talk) 13:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete narrow scope, does not belong on Wikipedia. Blast Ulna (talk) 13:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus defaulting to Keep, Disagreement over whether it meets the notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giardino Botanico Trebbo Trebbi

Non notable botanical garden. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 18:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As creator of the article, here are my views. The most direct guidelines appear to be Wikipedia:Notability, which in a nutshell states that "a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Since I am not Italian, it is difficult for me to perform any useful form of research on this topic other than web searches. This article is indeed referenced by online web pages, but everything that I have found to date is a tourism page, not (for example) a scholarly paper. In short, it is difficult for me to judge whether this a well-known botanical garden in Lombardy, or not. On the whole, therefore, I suggest keeping it, but flagging it with the 'notability' tag as recommended in the Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. It may become more apparent as additional editors can augment the article. Daderot (talk) 18:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep, mostly directory-type listings but there seem to be some sources in Italian, especially using just "Trebbo Trebbi" as a search term, who seems to have been a naturalist (but possibly best known because of the garden; he has one book profile on Google Books). --Dhartung | Talk 21:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability not demonstrated in the article. Dreamspy (talk) 23:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete Trebbo Trebbi has written a book that this Italian gardening club says is ["can not miss"], and lists it with some other very notable gardeners, but there don't appear to be any hits for him or his garden in the Italian WP (but maybe I don't know how to search them?) so either they're strict or he isn't notable. Dan Beale-Cocks 00:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Surely the most likely reason for the lack of an article in Italian WP is simply that nobody has got round to writing it yet. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to the secondary source found by Dhartung establishing notability to Wikipedia standards. --Oakshade (talk) 00:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETE as no context and copyvio. ... discospinster _talk 19:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kikiyaon

Unencyclopedic, barely an article, notability not established Corvus Fox (talk) 18:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A1 Article contains no context. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Anshuk (talk) 19:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, consensus is that the references identified here establish notability. Davewild (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PEI Media

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY Hu12 (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I had G11 speedied a previous revision. Despite spending some time searching online, I cannot find any sources that give significant coverage to this media group. EJF (talk) 20:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete by A7. I don't read anything in there that makes the subject important. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC) New comment below. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately its claim of being leading is enough for it to wriggle out of meeting A7, as it claims significance/notability. EJF (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The company's conferences and its PEI 50 list may be notable. A pension plan has a note on its site about being on the PEI 50 list: http://www.otpp.com/web/website.nsf/web/pei_award --Eastmain (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When you search for the brand name Private Equity International, rather than the company name PEI Media, you get better results. The news references at http://news.google.com/news?q=%22Private+Equity+International%22 seem sufficient. --Eastmain (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain. GreenJoe 00:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references provided by Eastmain seem pretty good. It'd be nice if the article stated the full name more visibly, though. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — references show it appears to be notable. EJF (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETE. ... discospinster _talk 19:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shafi Zamin

Memorial page for non-notable teacher. Speedy tag removed. Heavy Seltzer (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7. Article asserts no notability whatsoever. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Memorial. The subject isn't notable and I get a total of two Google hits, one to the page and the other to this very afd discussion, so it fails WP:RS as well. Doc Strange^{Mailbox Orbitting Black Hole}Strange Frequencies 18:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 19:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laconia (band)

Band, apparently with no albums, has some press. Possibly future notable band. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as entirely non-notable. When they have actually been signed and released an album perhaps they will pass WP:MUSIC but not now. nancy ^(talk) 18:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, not yet notable. The Metal Hammer coverage, as indicated on the band's website, is an award for "Demo of the Month". Furthermore, the entire article is copied from http://www.myspace.com/laconia. As it is the band's MySpace page, I am not sure whether that is copyvio or just self-promotion. The fact that Bruce Dickinson played with them on BBC is the main thing that makes this a Weak delete vote rather than a delete. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 03:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn subject. Peter Fleet (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Not a Chicken, You're a Turkey

I found this after commenting on the AfD for The Meth Song. I clearly remember seeing this PSA as a kid, but I'm not sure that its notable, and its been marked as being unsourced since November. A google search only turns up copyvio videos on Youtube and Retrojunk. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 17:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to have been a notable ad campaign. I vaguely recall it too, but it's still not the subject of any reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable 90's TV advert. TheProf | Talk 17:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and unclear. Mm40 (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ah, this one takes me back. It seems like only yesterday my school friends and I were mocking the kid in the ad and using the "you're a turkey" catchphrase as a catch-all greeting/put-down/farewell/shut up/pass the potato chips phrase and waiting until four o'clock when we knew that the older girl who lived behind the school would come outside and sunbathe topless in her back yard, seemingly unaware of the small hole in the privacy fence that...what? Oh, right...the deletion. As I was saying: delete. The article cites no sources, and doesn't make a claim as to why this PSA campaign was notable. I doubt it was ever the subject of any media attention even when it was new. Technically, the lack of sources also makes it unverifiable, although I remember it fairly well. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 18:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC) 18:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dreamspy (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I actually remember this one. But it's not worth it's own article. Gwandoya^Talk 23:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. per WP:SNOW (non-admin) - Milk's Favorite Cookie 23:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Research on Twelve Step Effectiveness

This article a fork from the Alcoholics Anonymous article. There are some issues with how the article is written now (style, MOS, etc), but those can be corrected. If it's going to stay, it should be renamed something like Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous, as was done when the history section of the Alcoholics Anonymous article was forked (History of Alcoholics Anonymous). The articles cited here are almost exclusively limited to discussing the effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous and not all twelve-step programs (e.g. it would not apply to Debtors Anonymous, Overeaters Anonymous, etc). Scarpy (talk) 17:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator gives no valid reason for the article to be deleted. This is not the place to discuss editorial issues such as naming or style, please do that on the talk page. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question/Comment if an article needs to be deleted and recreated with a new name, shouldn't it be nominated first? -- Scarpy (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, you are essentially proposing a rewrite and a name change and there is no need to use AfD for that discussion. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My mistake, if possible, you can close the AfD early if you'd like. -- Scarpy (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous. Seems to be a sound article. However I would like to be confident that this is all the author's own words. I Googled the phrase "largest benefit associated with AA attendance was increased abstinence" and to my amusement it took me to this page on the Haworth Press [no relation to me!] website. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename/redirect Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous. -- Scarpy (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep more than enough referanced material to justify an article.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The main benefit is it will free up the AA entry for a description of AA rather than an endless battle between the pro- and anti-AA folks. Sure, change the name to Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous.Desoto10 (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Change the name to Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous. I am an AA member that lives at 1329 grant street in Denver, CO 80203 and I need help and this article has helped me! Sometimes I edit other wiki entries for pleasure! 67.162.156.149 (talk) 01:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is a very important debate in the chemical dependency field--12 Step versus alternative means--and people need to be aware of the debate and where to go to find more information. Do not move to Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous because 12 Step programs go far beyond AA. Brian Waterman, MS, CDP (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's very true, but there are all ready effectiveness sections in the articles: twelve-step program, Crystal Meth Anonymous, Emotions Anonymous, Gamblers Anonymous, and Self-help groups for mental health. Since twelve-step programs vary in practices and the variety of problems they address vary widely, it would be a mistake to apply research done on one set to another. -- Scarpy (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Non-admin closure RoninBK _{T C} 14:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

List of old Macintosh software

De-proded and moved to AfD. ~~Should probably be merged with List of Macintosh software.~~ Klausness (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've changed my opinion from "Merge" to Keep. Probably useful as a separate list. Klausness (talk) 12:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge, preferably with its' own section to indicate it's age. Although, again, it should be noted that the proposed article to merge to is up for deletion. Cel ^{Talk to me} 17:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. After looking at this again, it looks likes there's enough here for this to stay the way that it is. It's useful, relevant, and links to notable, verifiable material. All in all, an ideal list. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; that's "its" own section, not "it's". --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 23:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This article should be merged with List of Macintosh software. Suggestion to the nominator: Instead of posting this here, maybe you should propose a merge on the article's page. K im u 17:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It had a PROD tag stuck on it. Someone put a hangon tag, so it had to go to AfD. Cel ^{Talk to me} 01:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep except perhaps the term "old" is too vague. Perhaps it should be "early" rather than "obsolete" or "superceded". Connectionfailure (talk) 03:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Very interesting for people interested in historical software. Enobeno (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep and expand. there's a lot more that could be included. Good place to give some info about minor software. DGG (talk) 04:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, consensus is that it just about passes the notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 09:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Cubs Fan's Guide To Happiness

Please Delete. This is an unimportant book. It was presumably added to Wikipedia in the mistaken belief that it was written by George Ellis the cosmologist. In fact it was written by another George Ellis, the co-founder and managing editor of "The Heckler". See http://www.theheckler.com/store/shop/item.aspx?itemid=11 PedroElls (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This book hasn't received any coverage in third-party sources and the author doesn't seem otherwise notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Hobit; seems to have been covered in a couple decent sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - I've seen way more notable articles get deleted! TheProf | Talk 17:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A google news search finds three Chicago Sun Time's articles behind a pay wall. Look like non-trivial mentions, but don't know for certain. Hobit (talk) 18:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per reasoning of Hobit. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Heckler (newspaper). I don't consider that one and a half reviews (basically) from the same publication passes WP:BK, and we don't have an article on the author. (Oh, and I imagine it was added by a Cubs fan, and the link to George Ellis was just coincidental.) --Dhartung | Talk 21:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From http://www.cubsguide.com/press.htm it looks like there is at least one Chicago Tribune article also. I think this needs to be a keeper. Hobit (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, from the same site, it looks like RedEye has a rather long article on in. Hobit (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, barely within regs, a google search shows that the author is only known for the book and vice versa. I saw no awards, commendations, or any other notable mentions save a few reviews from some newspapers.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 03:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep No editor advocated deletion, merge can be WP:BOLDly completed by any editor. Non-admin closure -- RoninBK _{T C} 14:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mac OS X software

Moved from prod to AfD. Suggest merge to List of Macintosh software, which is actually a useful list. Also, those huge icons add nothing, so they should be removed if a merge is done. Klausness (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, as this is always preferable to deletion. However, it should be noted that List of Macintosh software is currently up for deletion. Cel ^{Talk to me} 17:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - it's not notable enough to have its own article, but it is good information to merge into List of Macintosh software, which is already getting Keep votes, by the way. JamieS93 20:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, or delete if List of Macintosh software is deleted. This is obviously not a complete list (it even says so at the bottom), there are no stated criteria for inclusion, and I don't see any particular reason to keep this distinct from the other list. Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Why maintain a separate list? Just categorize it on the List of Mac software page. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 23:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question If the intention was to merge, why was it brought here in the first place?DGG (talk) 01:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably to force it to happen. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Carlos Oliveira as (a) a plausible typo, and (b) to keep the history so that anything relevant can be merged into that article. Black Kite 18:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Olivera

Article should be deleted as it pertains to a non-notable subject (see WP:N). The content is written in an exclusively in-universe perspective, and does not contain any real-world information (see WP:WAF). Additionally, the article does not contain any reliable third party sources to verify its content (see WP:A). ShadowJester07 ►Talk 16:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 23:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The subject itself isn't really notable. The article on IMDB specifically states that it's user contributed and not vetted by IMDB staff. There's a small article on a Canadian (international claim) movie website here that references him in the title. There's also (disturbingly) a cosplay outfit of the character here (blame Google, not me). My concern is that with this article being linked from several related lists such as Characters in Resident Evil 3: Nemesis and Characters in the Resident Evil films that this may just be the tip of the iceberg in a far greater Characters In... merge, as any content mergeback is likely to be complicated to avoid duplication. Have a look at Special:WhatLinksHere/Carlos_Olivera to see what I mean. Gazimoff (talk) 01:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - - good comment , its true indeed .Pearll's sun (talk) 13:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Suggestion: Take the character section from the RE3 character's page, combine it with this one, rewrite the article in a far less in-universe tone, sprinkle in some design notes and comments if possible, and voila. You get an article that isn't rubbish, and the character list pages get shrunk a little. Wishful thinking but a delete seems iffy and a merge would just bloat a page.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability whatsoever. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Carlos Oliveira For whatever reason the content from the Resident Evil movies character list seems to have been sent here instead of being merged into the existing article on the videogame character, squandering the opportunity to make a half-decent character article. A search for the film character's name (minus the i) + interview immediately spat out two interviews on IGN with the actor, real world information exists. Someone another 20:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge per Someone another. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - when both Carlos Oliveira and Oded Fehr exists this page is unnecessary .this page may confuse the users . if difficult to reach a consensus then simply redirect Pearll's sun (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Blast Ulna (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is the character is not notable. Davewild (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Bartlett

Speedy delete based on !vote for deletion @ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Armstrong (Home and Away) Good King Wenceslaus (talk) 16:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable fictional character; doesn't fit into any speedy criteria, however. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable minor character. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 23:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete by User:Jimfbleak, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

L-Dawg

Delete- Does not appear to pass notability guidelines; can't find any reliable sources on this individual. Possibly a hoax. Beloved Freak 15:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Beloved Freak 15:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3 Clearly a hoax, given a.) the author's name matches the name in the article, and b.) the name and various keywords turn up no results in a search. Surely the "youngest skater" sponsored by such-and-such would get at least a trivial mention somewhere. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sponsorship does not confer notability. Violates WP:V & WP:BIO. caknuck _° is kinda hungry 15:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 09:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emulator formats

Delete as per NOR. Clear case of original research. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 15:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is indeed clearly original research. It's possible that a decent article could be written on the subject, using emulation help sites and emulator documentation as references, but this isn't even written in the format of an encyclopedia article at all. What the creator was trying to do is probably more suitable to Wikibooks. *** Crotalus *** 21:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with nom. Gwandoya^Talk 23:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, consensus is that does meet the relevant notability guideline but needing a good rewrite and cleanup to address the problems identified here. Davewild (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Osklen

Delete as per WP:ORG and WP:N. I believe very close to speedy! -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 15:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, "Osklen opens in Milan, sets sight on New York", "Osklen, one of Brazil's most famous beach and casualwear brands...", "Osklen has mushroomed into a chain of 36 boutiques in 16 Brazilian cities...", "Globally, aside from its SoHo store, Osklen has six franchise stores - three in Portugal, one each in Milan, Geneva and Rome...", "In Europe, the brand is present in Paris, Milan, Madrid and Lisbon.", "Oskar Metsavaht, the creative director of expanding Brazilian lifestyle label Osklen, who has just opened stores in Milan and Geneva and has New York..." (the last from the Financial Times apparently) per this Google search doesn't sound like a non-notable company to me. Could be better written to bring this out. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage in Women's Wear Daily [5], for example, indicates notability. Pburka (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In its present form the article is in very poor shape. It is unreferenced, unverifiable, fails to prove notability and seems rather spammy. As it stands now it is a strong delete. However, the news hits uncovered above seem to me to address the verifiable references problem and appear, to me at least, to assert a sufficient amount of notability. If someone (i.e. not me) was interested enough to put out the time and effort, I think this article could be rewritten into a keeper. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 23:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC) 23:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Osklen is not a non-notable company. At WWD (Women's Wear Daily) Website there are some coverage about Osklen. WWD Website Search --Rafael.BR (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

original research. IMO Osklen has notability, the brand is somewhat famous in Brazil. But the article right now is written as an advertisement, it needs a major clean up and the removal of all POV adjectives. It also needs more references. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 10:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete by User:Jimfbleak, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sequoia Elk-in-wood

Delete as per WP:N, WP:V and WP:BIO. Only page that Google returns is this article. No extra off-line reference exists in the article to support its notability. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 15:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3 Utter lack of sources seems to indicate WP:HOAX. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete May not be a hoax, may simply be lacking in verifiable sources. The creator might be the subject? In any event, no evidence of meeting WP:BIO. Dloh cierekim 15:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine that a major league baseball player who turns up nothing at all is most certainly a hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another problem with the article. Looks like he tried out and was sent back to the minors. No major league play. Don't think that's notable. How much media coverage would a minor leaguer get??? Dloh cierekim 15:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It says he played for multiple teams, none of which have a history of ever having had a player with this name. Surely someone who played for seven teams would've been covered by at least one source. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find anything either. Oh, well. If the creator wants to help us out here, he's been noticed about the AfD. Does not look good for Sequoia. I know nothing about the Sac and Fox Nation. The name just seems . . . unlikely. A tree name plus a tree related name?? Oh, well. I know nothing of their naming conventions. Dloh cierekim 15:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almost for got. Seven teams-- in five years? Dloh cierekim 15:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep... the password is "hoax" indeed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing I finished lunch. Otherwise, I'd have tea coming out my nose from laughing so hard. Dloh cierekim 15:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on, I'm not that funny... Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, how much farther can we indent this? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not pass notability guidelines and appears to be unverifiable. --Beloved Freak 15:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Beloved Freak 15:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Beloved Freak 15:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete Toddst1 (talk) 11:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Žnidaršič

A non-notable poet and artist. Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —Beloved Freak 16:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. —Beloved Freak 16:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This probably actually qualifies as a speedy (I have flagged it as such): there is no assertion of significance. The article is now over four years old yet it is still a stub. —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 10:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This article is still quite an ugly mess, but AfD is not cleanup, and at the very least the notability concerns have been addressed, and consensus seems apparent. Non-admin closure -- RoninBK _{T C} 14:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Norconian Resort Supreme

Delete as per WP:N. Though it is very old but still it fails at notability. A book available on Google book talks about this resort but that doesn't establish its notability. In that case we may need to add all the resorts available in the world! -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 14:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP!!!! it will undoubtedly be added to over time, with more specific references, and the information presented is accurate (based on watching the PBS show California's Gold, which dedicated an entire episode to the topic).

Keep. Seems notable if the article is accurate. Used for movies; frequented by celebrities of the day. Pburka (talk) 18:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Interesting so few still know about this resort given the national coverage this National Historic Registered site has gotten in the last year. What is remarkable about this site is all but one of the buildings, structures and features listed on the National Register are still intact. Over 60 news articles spanning across the nation have covered this tragic site. I will be expanding over the next few days, but, assuredly the article is accurate, simply unknown.

I have added additional information and responded to the writer who has called for deletion. I strongly recommend a review of previous calls for deletions by this individual. Sorry, wasn't sure how to sign this before --Norcobash (talk) 12:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Norcobash (talk • contribs) 01:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(moved inappropriate comments to Talk page.) Sbowers3 (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ^That's uh, that's a quite bit. Anyway, if you have further references from newspapers, post them to the article. Five or six alone should be sufficient to establish notability and make this nasty AfD go away. Cel ^{Talk to me} 03:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Comprehensively documents notability. Article needs substantial Wikification to be a good Wikipedia article but has solid bones. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - now has sources to demonstrate notability. Sbowers3 (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 09:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Triop Kingdom

Not only does this appear to be a pure advert (and has already been flagged as such, but it also appears to be a violation of WP:NOT#HOWTO. I also have doubts about notability. CultureDrone (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as HOWTO violation with no RS and no assertion of notability. Not necessarily an advertisement, but enough issues anyhow. Matchups (talk) 02:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maxim_(talk) 14:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete How-to guide and advertising; no assertation of notability, all sources are primary. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete basically an advertisement. Not blatant enough for speedy deletion but still of very very low encyclopedic value. Pichpich (talk) 12:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete all, notability not established. Davewild (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buzzy

Non-notable fictional character per WP:FICT. Article creator (who is incidentally the character's creator) removed the prod tag, so I'm moving it here. Lordjeff06 (talk) 13:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Character lacks notability. TheProf | Talk 14:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. I added the film A Abelha to this discussion, as it's related and similarly lacks any traces of notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claims of notability are made, verifiable or otherwise; no independent sources are given, and the author appears to have a conflict of interest. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 14:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC) 14:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I added an additionally non-notable film added by the same author and not-notable for the same reason as the others. Lordjeff06 (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All three entries, for lack of notability. (Apart from the fact that they're very badly written and that it took me ages to figure out what they were actually about). Rien (talk\stalk) 17:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, Spam / self-promotion. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just added AfD template to A Bela Adormecida. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demos 2006

An unreleased demo album. These typically fail the inclusion criteria; see WP:MUSIC#Albums. PROD was contested. B. Wolterding (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertation of notability beyond the fact that it exists. PC78 (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Demo albums aren't usually notable, and this one is no exception. It doesn't seem to have received any reviews, coverage, etc. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The band itself is barely notable and its demo isn't notable at all. No reviews found anywhere. Demos themselves aren't really notable (unless of course you're really famous - like Radiohead or Against Me!) Doc Strange^{Mailbox Orbitting Black Hole}Strange Frequencies 15:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know if I'm editing this right, I only made a wikipedia account to add as much knowledge about my favorite hometown band who made it "big". A review can be found at http://www.takingrefuge.com/2007/06/gwen-stacy-demos-2006-review/, though not profesional. It's all just a matter of looking in the right place —Preceding unsigned comment added by DiLoretooo (talk • contribs) 02:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable (three songs). All else above. Mm40 (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the articles fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Andrews

simply being a President of ALSF is not sufficient, otherwise all previous presidents should have Wikipedia articles. A few media mentions does not satisfy substantial achievement required for notability

Delete Fails WP:BIO specifically: The person has received significant recognized awards or honors. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. Tim Andrews is not very well known outside student politics circles. Only passing mentions in mainstream media. Andrews is also not an elected politician as the article creator incorrectly gave him the category of Australian politician. Michellecrisp (talk) 12:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Michellecrisp's analysis. Good King Wenceslaus (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO. We've deleted several officials of national youth parties and similar groups. Although they have an above-average likelihood of eventually, say, holding political office, they are not inherently notable and are generally not known outside the organization. In the few cases where someone holds this office and is otherwise notable, it's based on better and more in-depth sourcing than providing a quote during a protest. --Dhartung | Talk 21:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep There are numerous other sources I could have mentioned, I did not exactly have time to write out a list of other sources. Secondly, persons such as Rose Jackson (BEFORE the infamous Zionism story) & [Mathew Chuck] had entries. As the VSU debate is currently very relevant in the news, and the subject essentially heads the pro-vsu argument in the country at the moment (as can be seen from the submission on the alsf page) it is certainly relevant and notable. StuPol (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment so the best source is the submission from the ALSF page? Hardly a reliable source. If Andrews claim to notability is "subject essentially heads the pro-vsu argument in the country at the moment" then he should be mentioned as a subsection in the VSU article. At the moment, Andrews gets absolutely no mention of the Voluntary Student Unionism article. So that argument sounds weak. It can easily be argued that Brendan Nelson was the one who introduced it and the principal proponent being the Minister responsible at the time. If you can't find enough sources to add to the article about notability then he clearly fails WP:BIO, resubmit Rose Jackson or Mathew Chuk for deletion if you're not happy with them having articles.

Michellecrisp (talk) 12:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, i'll concede that. I'd argue in response that 1)both JJJ and Radio National's PM covered it last week 2)we'd probably be seeing a lot more of it in coming weeks (eg the protest/counterprotest this week) 3)I think Angus McFarlane as President of NUS should also have a page - I was going to create one for him but didn't get around to it 4)The VSU article is hopelessly out of date - i'm not a big advocate of VSU so never really felt like amending it, but it says nothing about Labor's reversal of stance last year, or the recent discussion paper and whats happenining more recently. I'd be happy to edit it if no-one else wants though. 5)I am happy with rose and chuk having articles - i just think we need to be consistent. And the argument about previous presidents i don't think is as important - this is a relevant topic. StuPol (talk) 12:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're not here to second guess if Andrews becomes more notable in the future. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.Michellecrisp (talk) 12:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:BIO. Twenty Years 12:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as leader of prominant nation-wide organisation, quoted in numerous secondary sources. As noted by StuPol comparison with other student political leaders in Australia; it would seem from Mathew Chuk's site that he wasn't even President of NUS and still survived two deletion attempts. However, this does need clean up. Auspoliticsbuff (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking into this a bit more, the closest possible analogy to the ALSF is the CRNC. Indeed, the ALSF is the direct Australian equivalent of the CRNC. The Chairman of the CRNC has a page, and there is no reason why the Australian equivalent should not have on either. Definatly worthy of inclusion as per WP:BIO. Auspoliticsbuff (talk) 23:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are using a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument here.Comparisons can be highly subjective, and so it is better to look at the debates in question and see what policies were cited and make an argument based on how they apply to the current debate than just say "x was kept so this should be too". In addition, if anyone here is a member of Young Liberals or ALSF or know Tim Andrews personally they should declare that interest to avoid conflict of interest. StuPol has declared they know Tim but not on the same side of politics. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that when your account was created, your very first posts were about the Sydney University Liberal Club, inserting negative information about this club. Your edit history since that point, whilst diverse, does seem to suggest a very strong interest in matters relating to the NSW Division of the Young Liberals, and, specifically, Liberal Students and the Sydney University Libral Club. Your entire edit history would strongly suggest to me that you also know Tim Andrews and do not think particularly highly of him. However, I could be mistaken. Hmm, although if you want people to declare allegiances and I would suggest that perhaps it be applied accross the board and one side of politics is not singled out. In anycase, can happily declare I have never met nor spoken to Tim Andrews and only stumbled accross this as I was reviewing Michellecrisps edit history. Regarding my comparison, I certainly agree that comparisons can be highly subjective, however I think the CRNC-ALSF one holds very strongly (and is far, far stronger than the Rose/Chuk one). Auspoliticsbuff (talk) 00:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know nor have ever met or contacted Tim Andrews. If anyone cares to check the edits in question: [6], [7] feel free to. Your comment above (why would anyone search through my 1000's of edits back to March 2007) confirms my suspicion you may be a sockpuppet of User:LibStu who I have had dealings with previously. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And your suspicions would be wrong. Auspoliticsbuff (talk) 01:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? If you check the time stamps you reviewed all my 1000's of contributions from March 07 in 18 minutes?? Really Ben? Michellecrisp (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed to review all your contributions, I merely scanned through some of them pertaining to relevant topics and feel was able to adequatly guage this. I have no idea who this Ben you are now calling me is, think this is all rather strange, and if you want to continue this discussion that you should do it on my talk page, not here. Auspoliticsbuff (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Michelle, despite never having met or contacted by the article subject, are you, or have you ever been a member of the Young Liberals or involved with any part of the Liberal party whatsoever? If you are or have been, can you confirm that this is entirely motivated by proper editing principles, and not an attempt to remove Tim's article to somehow avoid scrutiny on the article? I'm not suggesting this is the case - but since you are calling for declarations of conflicts of interest it's only fair that you do the same (my declaration and comment is below). JRG (talk) 05:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the comment above. Nope, I have no connection with and know nobody in Young Liberals, Liberal Party or in fact any youth or student politics circles or political party. My reasons for deletion of this article are spelt out clearly in line with Wikipedia policy. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet when you started on Wiki, the very first article you started editing was the Sydney University Liberal Club. Inserting negative information. And since then you've shown a consistent interest in editing pages regarding Liberals, and obviously have them on your watchlist. And you claim to have no connection with politicals. Auspoliticsbuff (talk) 05:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:KETTLE! and you've constantly edited positive info on Alex Hawke, got Anthony Albanese page restricted because you kept on POV pushing and even admitted you're on Hawke's Facebook friend list. Editing doesn't mean a connection, I've edited Cardiff a lot but have never been there! I don't deny adding negative info but I have also added positive info from Liberal politicans such as [8] Michellecrisp (talk) 05:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable outside his sphere. —Moondyne click! 02:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but merge sections of the article elsewhere - Tim is definitely not notable enough for his own Wikipedia article at present - though some of the comments should be shifted elsewhere (the stolen generation apology article, the VSU in Australia article and the ALSF article, for example. For what it's worth, I have met the subject of the article, although not for some years now - but it was not in a political sense - I'm not involved in student politics at all. JRG (talk) 05:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So would you also state Charlie Smith is not notable and propose that that be deleted? Auspoliticsbuff (talk) 01:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF exists argument. Please keep discussion here to notability of Tim Andrews. Michellecrisp (talk) 02:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to draw your attention to WP:OSE which states "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes". I further quote "In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia.". Whilst I am not making the point that this article should survive simply because someone in an exactly-identical-position has a page, I do think it can help contribute to the debate. Auspoliticsbuff (talk) 05:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N, lack of likely WP:RS beyond a few incidents, and WP:BIO. Until he is elected to office at state or federal level or, for example, becomes a party president (rather than ALSF, which isn't even the more famous Young Liberals, I might note) then there is no reason for him to have an article. If an "other stuff" argument is going to be raised I might note this vote has considerable precedent on AfD, with many student politician or political candidate articles having been deleted (including both ones I voted to keep and to delete on different grounds). Orderinchaos 14:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nandesuka (talk) 12:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spike (Rugrats)

WP:PROD was removed. Remover claims article meets notability. I think not. So thats why i'm going for AfD. Also, the character is already fully covered in List of Rugrats characters and List of All Grown Up! characters. Bruce Willis one off voice contribution already covered in Rugrats Go Wild article. For the record, my vote is Delete. TheProf | Talk 12:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is already mentioned in the list of Rugrats characters, and as a non-speaking character, he has no significant roles whatsoever. Nor does he seem to be the subject of any reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Four sentences that can easily be merged into another article. Probably, the minutiae about the Rugrats dog are covered in detail in episode articles. When did Spike go to the vet? When did he get a new collar? Did the Rugrats have a cute misunderstanding when they heard he was getting fixed? All can be mentioned elsewhere. Mandsford (talk) 13:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful facts to List of Rugrats characters where he is already mentioned, a minor non-speaking character does not need their own article - Dumelow (talk) 13:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely nn character. All the information already appears in the List of characters. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per Dumelow. JuJube (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Already covered in character list, so merge is pointless. Please remember that an AFD closing as delete does not prevent a redirect from being created. Jay32183 (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that it fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DGAF (album)

Non-notable album by a non-notable group (whose article was deleted via AfD). Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. Prod removed without comment by article's creator. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 11:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 11:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The band isn't notable, so their album isn't either. This is yet another reason why I think A7 should extend to include albums. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 11:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep My first inclination was to say delete, since this is a first album, and the fact that it's going to be released on Monday gives the impression of a promo; however, the Suburban Noize Records label has had some successes, and we may know within a week whether this is going to become a bullet on a Billboard chart. It's unlikely that we'll have a snowball of opinion either way. Does anyone know whether there was deletion of an article about the band itself? Mandsford (talk) 13:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment See nom for link to AfD of the band's article. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the deletion of the band's article. PC78 (talk) 14:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TPN's duty-otter. I emphatically agree with the A7 suggestion. There's a similar situation going down with Miniature Tigers - to just name one - and it is all quite tiresome Plutonium27 (talk) 04:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since the band isn't notable, it sorta cascades on down. Jmlk 1 7 20:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As others said, the group isn't even notable and their article has been deleted already. -- Atama ^chat 18:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 12:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pudding fields

An underground band from Slovenia. No coverage. Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They've had quite a few releases, but none that charted or would otherwise qualify as passing WP:MUSIC. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 15:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - so far underground as to be unnoticed. Fails WP:MUSIC. BlueValour (talk) 00:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merged into Nipissing University. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 20:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nipissing University Student Union

The entire text of the article: The Nipissing University Student Union represents undergraduate students at Nipissing University in North Bay, Ontario & Muskoka, Ontario, Canada. They are members of the Canadian Federation of Students. I redirected this non-notable organization to its university, and was reversed by an editor who strongly believes in the notability of all student unions. I anticipate that the debate on this will be characterized by a variety of off-topic comments, let's hope I am wrong. This organization fails WP:N and WP:ORG. Paddy Simcox (talk) 10:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Inherently notable. Bad-faith nomination as the nominator has done this to several SU articles. GreenJoe 11:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Where is it written that student unions are inherently notable? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has no deadline. Where is it written that they're not inherently notable? SU's do a lot of stuff that is notable, and has coverage, but may not be immediately available to find on the web. It may require a visit to a library for example. GreenJoe 14:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it.". This user does not see like he's acting against WP:AGF, simply group AfDing student union articles in which the editor feels nn (and has very good reason to believe so), but did not feel like a bundle AfD is appropriate. I don't see a problem with this nominator. However, I do see random attacks at those who nominate AfDs and vote for deletion has gotten non-excuse excuses. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC) (including, but not limited to mentioning of bad faith, even so much as to Wikistalking. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Student unions are not inherently notable, and this article doesn't even attempt to assert notability. Reso lute 14:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that Student Unions are not notable per se. One must demonstrate that the union meets Wikipedia's criteria of notability for inclusion in the encyclopedia like any other subject and this article does not even indicate the significance or importance of its subject. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—While I disagree with the notion that student unions have inherent notability, I do think that GreenJoe makes an important point about attempting to search for sources prior to declaring an article's subject non-notable. I checked the North Bay Nugget and found nothing. When I checked a library database of newspaper articles from larger Canadian newspapers, I found four articles.
- One is a 2006 Globe and Mail article about the comfortable atmosphere that the university president helped create at NU, and the student union president is one of the students quoted.
- There's a 2003 Calgary Herald article about a different NU president and again, a student union president is one of the people quoted in the article.
- A 2002 Canadian Press article discusses some controversy about a sign outside a student pub; "student union officials" said the university president had requested the sign's removal.
- Finally, there is a 1999 Sudbury Star article quoting the student union president about students' attempts to have the Mike Harris government freeze tuition.

Since all these articles are about some other subject and not primarily about the NU student union, I am doubtful that this is enough to establish WP:N notability. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and if one looks at the appalling shape of the Nipissing University article, one should come to the conclusion that the push for separate articles for student unions is dilatory. Paddy Simcox (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you have to check the google caches: North Bay Nugget as canoe.ca, like every other Sun Media/Quebecor media news source, deletes its articles after a while. nat.utoronto 06:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know Other Crap Exists is not an argument, but there has, since 2004, been a template for Canadian university student unions Template:Csa which has far as I can tell has never even been nominated for deletion. There seems to me to be four years of precendence here establishing notability for all university student associations.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: With practically zero reliable sources or potential for sources (as Paul Erik notes above), this article will never be able to establish notability outside the local scope of its operations.—Noetic Sage 18:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —Noetic Sage 18:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no non-trivial coverage.--Michael White^T·C 21:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are, as one might expect, many articles in the North Bay Nugget archive, including the following:

Student union legal squabble settled at Nipissing University

Sudbury Star (ON) - 02-17-2007 - 259 words

Ken Sitter - They may not have kissed, but they have made up. Nipissing University Student Union president Sean Feretycki, former president Kyle Marsh and student union general manager Todd Fearnley announced a settlement

Students angry as tuition rises: Nipissing University board approv...

North Bay Nugget (ON) - Final - 05-05-2006 - 368 words

Jennifer Hamilton-McCharles - Nipissing University students voiced opposition against a four per cent tuition hike approved by the university's board of governors Thursday. The tuition increase will mean first year arts and science

Students protest pricey education

North Bay Nugget (ON) - 02-15-2007 - 571 words

bryn weese - Students at Nipissing University are running out of money, and they have the debts to prove it. Many took the opportunity Wednesday to write down the amount of money they owe

Tests, homework . . . and legal fees

North Bay Nugget (ON) - 01-20-2007 - 891 words

BRYN WEESE - in their wildest dreams, or worst nightmares, did Kyle Marsh and Kyra Knapp think their university experience would include being sued for $425,000. The two history students, along with the

Students protest after being shut out of NUSU meeting

North Bay Nugget (ON) - 01-20-2007 - 284 words

Gord Young - About 15 students protested outside a closed-door meeting at the Education Centre Friday, claiming Nipissing University Student Union has flouted the principles of openness and transparency. The students, frustrated at

Students voice frustration over high cost of tuition: Small group ...

North Bay Nugget (ON) - Final - 03-04-2006 - 397 words

Jennifer Hamilton-McCharles - if the province decides to lift a tuition freeze. The 18-year-old first-year Nipissing University student was one of six protesters outside Nipissing MPP Monique Smith's office Friday

Nipissing University unfairly judged by Maclean's

North Bay Nugget (ON) - Final - 11-14-2005 - 404 words

Tom Condotta - 's ranking of Canadian universities released a week ago Sunday. I am a fourth-year student at Nipissing and confused by the rankings. Why did I leave Brampton to study in

Nipissing University opens new facility

North Bay Nugget (ON) - Final - 09-11-2000 - 219 words

Nipissing University athletes finally have their own facility to call home. The $3.5-million Nipissing University Student Athletic Centre, which was funded primarily through student fees, will officially be opened

Shinerama raises $13,000

North Bay Nugget (ON) - 09-10-2007 - 431 words

BY BRANDI CRAMER - North Bay glittered Saturday as more than 300 Nipissing University and Canadore College students took to the streets for the 43rd annual Shinerama. Shoe shines, car washes, barbecues, even odd jobs

Students face 4.5% tuition hike: Universities brace for hit to fin...

North Bay Nugget (ON) - Final - 03-09-2006 - 551 words

Maria Calabrese - put them deeper in debt to pay for a tuition increase this fall, says a Nipissing University Student Union executive. "Even if you make it so students can take out more

Pub limits underage students: The Wall's liquor licence threatened

North Bay Nugget (ON) - Final - 01-31-2006 - 488 words

Tara Bowie - Underage students at Nipissing University and Canadore College have been banned from their school pub after 6 p.m. Student councils which oversee the operation of The Wall made the decision

Campus eatery's controversial sign relegated to the garbage bin

North Bay Nugget (ON) - Final - 08-30-2002 - 600 words

Phil Novak - A jackass has been kicked off The Wall at the Nipissing University-Canadore College on-campus pub. The oversized donkey's posterior and its grinning four-legged owner are prominently featured

NUSU GM sends cease, desist letter to students

North Bay Nugget (ON) - 12-20-2006 - 376 words

bryn weese - Nipissing University Student Union's general manager, Todd Fearnley, has hired a lawyer to challenge statements by students he claims are defamatory. A letter dated Nov. 29 was sent to Kyra

Statements challenged

Kirkland Lake Northern News (ON) - 12-22-2006 - 348 words

BrynWeese - Nipissing University Student Union's general manager, Todd Fearnley, has hired a lawyer to challenge statements by students he claims are defamatory.A letter dated Nov. 29 was sent to Kyra

International flavours focus of annual food fair

North Bay Nugget (ON) - 02-09-2007 - 546 words

Ken Sitter - to taste their efforts and the efforts of others, said organizer Melissa Toupin Laforge of Nipissing University, and raise money to support the World University Service of Canada (WUSC) Student Refugee

Students complete successful food drive

North Bay Nugget (ON) - 09-11-2006 - 485 words

Brandi Cramer The Nugget - North Bay's pavement Sunday to ensure their comrades in need won't go hungry. Nipissing University and Canadore College student leaders gathered participating freshmen and went door to door in

Food bank's shelves emptying: Canadore, Nipissing students put out...

North Bay Nugget (ON) - Final - 02-04-2003 - 625 words

Brandi Cramer - Nipissing University president Dave Marshall is not surprised students may need to rely on the food bank to get through the academic year. "The best they are going to earn (at

Students shine in annual fundraiser: Largest-ever effort meets goa...

North Bay Nugget (ON) - Final - 09-09-2002 - 488 words

Jennifer Hamilton-McCharles - With help from 450 Canadore College and Nipissing University students, the local effort was able to meet the $16,000 goal. "We raised more than $14,000 Saturday and we have

Marshall returns to hand out awards

North Bay Nugget (ON) - 03-22-2007 - 265 words

BRYN WEESE - For the fourth time in as many years, former Nipissing University president Dave Marshall returned to his old stomping grounds to help recognize the leadership abilities of nearly 30 students. The

Money worries hit students hard

North Bay Nugget (ON) - 10-06-2006 - 304 words

Jennifer Hamilton-McCharles - The needs of Nipissing University students are different than five years ago, says the executive director of student affairs. Al Carfagnini made a presentation to Nipissing's board of governors, Thursday

On that basis, I say keep. --Eastmain (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All those sources are extremely local; therefore they fail WP:ORG (please read it). Paddy Simcox (talk) 23:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree, The North Bay Nugget and the Sudbury Star are not "extremely local" as you call it, rural-ish maybe, are they are part of one of Canad's Media Empires, Quebecor. As well, the Sudbury Star is the largest newpaper in circulation in North-Eastern Ontario (Ontario is Canada's most populous province and its capital, Toronto, is Canada's economic Capital). nat.utoronto 19:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain. nat.utoronto 22:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - student bodies have to meet WP:ORG. This requires significant secondary sources. This page hasn't them and thus clearly fails notability standards. TerriersFan (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge I cannot discount the sources mentioned above to be completely useless, but it is local in scope, which directly violates WP:ORG. This article should be trimmed and merged into the main university's article in "Student life" and include those sources back into the main article for the trimmed version. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 01:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Very weak keep -- changed on the basis that the actual material there is not encyclopedic. There probably would be possible content, but it isnt that obvious that there's enough there to be worth keeping. ~~I was about to vote delete on this one, but to my surprise it seems there are sufficient sources, though not all the evnts relatedare important.~~ But the content of an article doesn't each sentence of it have to be notable, DGG (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The NUSU is notable in a Canadian context due to the legal matters that have occurred there over the years. The sources may be local, but the NUSU has been extensively covered across Canada due to the legal battles. It also noteworthy due to the close association and overlap with the college student union. 74.210.37.60 FullSmash26 (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the numerous sources listed above. Oren0 (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Local sources. Anything interesting can be covered in the (very short) Nipissing University article. Paddy Simcox (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I assure you that the sources such as The Eyeopener and the Sudbury Star are not "local" at Nipissing. Sudbury, Ontario is at a 30-45 min drive from North Bay, Ontario (where Nipissing U is located), and Toronto (where The Eyeopeneris based) is a 3+ hours drive from North Bay, Ontario. and as I've started before: The North Bay Nugget and the Sudbury Star are not "extremely local" as you call it, rural-ish maybe, and they are part of one of Canada's Media Empires, Quebecor. As well, the Sudbury Star is the largest newpaper in circulation in North-Eastern Ontario (Ontario is Canada's most populous province and its capital, Toronto, is Canada's economic Capital). nat.utoronto 21:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now to school page. Hobit (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the university's article, as independent notability has not been shown but within the context of the school it is quite relevant. Biruitorul (talk) 01:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD A7. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Racija

An underground band. No independent sources. Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion per WP:CSD#A7 - the article makes no assertion of why the subject is notable. So tagged. Ale_Jrb ^talk 17:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete; deletion arguments wwere sound, and keeps were based on liking it or the general notion that the subject was notable. The three references provided in this AfD are not reliable sources. One is a fanclub, one is a public reviewer site with a content disclaimer, and the last does not provide context for notability. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 07:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Devil Doll

An underground, not notable band. No independent sources. Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TheProf | Talk 14:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A cult and influential band. --AdrianX85 (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be impolite, but sincerely just because you say this person is notable doesn't mean anything. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep -

"Devil Doll has to be one of the most bizarre, frightening, confronting and satisfying bands in existance." Source: http://www.dark-muzik.com/articles/devildoll.htm

"Shagrath's (Dimmu Borgir) musical influences are Devil Doll and Rob Zombie" Source: http://www.movietome.com/people/340964/dimmu-borgir/trivia.html

"An absolute masterpiece!" Source: http://www.metal-observer.com/articles.php?lid=1&sid=1&id=151

Line-up/Musicians:

Mr. Doctor / man of 1000 voices

Francesco Carta / piano

Sasha Olenjuk / violin

Roman Ratej / drums - t.A.T.u.

Bor Zuljan / guitar - Šank Rock

Jani Hace / bass - Siddharta (band)

Davor Klaric / keyboards - Šank Rock

Micheal Fantini Jesurum / pipe organ

WITH:

Norina Radovan / soprano

Drago / accordion

Paolo Zizich / backing vocal

GLORIA CHORUS conducted by Marian Bunic and The Slovenian Philharmonic Orchestra soloists:

Igor Skerianec / cello

Irina Kevorkova / 2nd violins leader

Frain Gashi / double bass

Source: http://www.progarchives.com/album.asp?id=263

J3az6u (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, but without prejudice for recreation of sources can be found. If anybody finds sources and wants to re-create, feel free to contact me for the text of the deleted article. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coptic Rain

Not notable, underground band. Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep They seem to have had multiple releases on notable labels, thus satisfying criterion #5 of WP:MUSIC. However, I'm coming up with bupkis in the sourcing department right now. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 11:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, there are no independent reliable sources. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - What about the All Music Guide? Punkmorten (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then; I'm trusting the nom's judgment regarding the utter lack of sources here. This is a pretty good example of how WP:MUSIC isn't chiseled in stone. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If no independent sources can be found then the article should not exist; however, I'm a little sceptical about the nominator's insistence that "there are no independent reliable sources" if this is intended to mean that none exist at all. (If all it means is that none are in the article, no problem). I'd be cautious about bands from non-English speaking nations; such sources may be hard to find online especially in an English-language Google search). Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References can be found to support what is written currently. That's pretty scarce and does not make for a decent article. I have not been able to find more coverage neither in English nor in Slovene to confirm the band's notability. This seems suspect to me as it is in general not hard to find information about notable Slovene bands and musicians online.

That's what Katrin Radman (the singer) said about publishing abroad: "In the beginning of 1990s it was almost impossible to expect to be even listened by any domestic label yet even be published. The genre we have envisioned the project Coptic Rain should represent practically did not exist in Slovenia at that time or was listened to only in narrow, almost chosen circles. A realization of such a project is difficult so it was natural for us to contact foreign labels, especially the German ones, which are considered to be the main ones for this style of music." (Rockobrobje/Rock's Fringe). If this makes the band notable, ok then. By the way, as of december 2005 (after 12 years from the establishment), this band had no more than 5 (five) concerts! (Radio Študent) --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - they are one of the pioneers of industrial gothic metal in that part of the Europe (ex Yugoslavia).J3az6u (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If that is indeed the case, there should be independent, third party sources stating this... I see no such citation in this article. In fact, as it is currently written, the article falls well short of WP:MUSIC as it makes no real attempt to demonstrate it. Delete unless the article is "upgraded" to comply. B.Wind (talk) 04:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice for recreation with sources. Blast Ulna (talk) 13:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - but this article still needs more fixing work , a tag over the article will be enough . seems to be notable . Pearll's sun (talk) 13:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

relist for a consensus to be reached . needs more editors to comment . Pearll's sun (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Independent sources of the article:

http://www.wrappedinwire.com/C/CopticRain.htm

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:hpfqxqehldje~T1

http://www.aracnet.com/~jester/review/coptic.rain-1.html

http://www.aracnet.com/~jester/review/coptic.rain-2.html

http://www.mladina.si/tednik/200116/clanek/plosce-04/

http://www.studiod.si/si/novice/glasba/?oid=4451

http://www.mladina.si/tednik/200226/clanek/plosce-02/

http://www.adp.fdv.uni-lj.si/kiber/texts/ravesu/ravesu.html

http://www.platinum-celebs.com/song/324405/across-the-universe/

J3az6u (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(not even getting into the issue as to how many of these come from reliable sources) How many of these have actually been cited in the article (and not just dumped into a list of links at the bottom of the page)? B.Wind (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about WP:MUSIC - Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels - Dynamica/Machinery Records -J3az6u (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Dynamica is a part of Noise Records (Germany). Noise Records is a part of Sanctuary Records. Sanctuary Records is a record label based in the United Kingdom and a subsidiary of Universal Records. Until June 2007, it was the largest independent record label in the UK and the largest independent music management company in the world. So, the band pass WP:MUSIC, line 5 - Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels. - J3az6u (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 15:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Olmetti

Non-notable artist. 18 Google hits. Of the references in the article, three offer one sentence mentions or are mere listings, one doesn't mention her, and the Globe and Mail article (to be found free here) looks promising at first, but is actually an article about the Chelsea Hotel which mentions her in its first paragraph. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 10:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 10:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - vanity article for non-notable artist. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The coverage is brief, but it is still multiple coverage from reliable sources. --Eastmain (talk) 23:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only detailed quotes/references relate to the Hotel Chelsea, not the artist. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. The remaining references show no in depth-coverage from a reliable source that rises above the day to day listings any artist would have, so fails WP:BIO. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 03:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The subject of this article has called the WMF office to request the page be deleted (ref - OTRS Ticket #2008031710024575). --Versa geek 23:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probably deletable anyway, but the subject's request pushes it well over the edge.--Doc^g 17:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while the subjects wishes really are not relevant to the decisions we make here, I don't think an acceptable level of notability has been established. _(1 == 2)^Until 22:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Borderline BLP, requested deletion, no-brainer. FCYTravis (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geomancy of Divinity

Pseudo-science / new age twaddle. Not quite original research because the author has already published it here but thinks, for some strange reason, that removing the external link makes the article all right. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference:- [9]

The good thing about Wikipedia is its providing the freedom for bringing past knowledge into the present in preparation for a new age (of peace)for mankind.

The writer removed the link because it did go to a personal website so it could be seen as personal opinion as it obviously has. However the writer assures the gentleman who has opted for its deletion that the article draws on past wisdoms of mankind and cites the above reference as a starting point.

The writer would like the article to stay but can only now leave it up to Wikipedia to be the judge. Ddoorr (talk) 10:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's WP:OR despite being published on a private website already. Also WP:BOLLOCKS, obviously. Sandstein (talk) 11:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: you say WP:BOLLOCKS, and yet we keep Space opera in Scientology scripture. Just a thought. You shouldn't marginalize it just because it's new-age and not mainstream. If notability and verifiability can be establish, it should be kept without prejudice. Celarnor (talk) 13:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not because it's Pseudo-science or New Age twaddle, neither of which are reasons for deletion, but because it isn't notable Pseudo-science or New Age twaddle. Annamonckton (talk) 14:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article's only reference does not come close to meeting Wikipedia referencing standards. The article is basically an essay full of a lot of...er...unusual claims that appear to be original research. Notability for this...uh...theory is not asserted, much less verifiable, and the whole load of ~~boll~~...um...that is...information is presented as fact when it is clearly someone's theory. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 15:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC) 15:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete No original research means no original research. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 15:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, original research. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Chris! _ct 18:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 54 ghits assure me this is not notable. And alas, the the authors name bears very close resemblance to the user. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 00:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Defer Decision - This appears to be too prompt of a decision. It does appear highly unlikely that it should be kept, and the article is written from a strong POV. However, the author should be able to have some time to come up with some legitimate sources to start some cleanup. In a case such as this, discussing it on the talk page should happen first, as something which does not seem notable at first may turn out to be notable afterall. The fact that a book was published on the subject (even if by the sole contributor) would suggest that an opportunity should be given.KV(Talk) 04:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transmute to air Editor claims that "none of this is original research" but admits to being unable to source any of it (see article Talk). In reference to King Vegita above, editor should be prepared with sufficient sources to at least stand a reasonable chance of acceptability - per WP guidelines - when first posting the article. WP:HEY - while inherently subjective - is still a most useful guide to an article's AfD prognosis and by me this is not gonna make it. Plutonium27 (talk) 04:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete impossible to rescue this one, unsourced because it is total nonsense below the level where anyone notices. DGG (talk) 01:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus, defaulting to Keep, cannot see any consensus on whether this is just a short term news story and thus meeting WP:NOT#NEWS or if the coverage is significant enough to merit its own article or if it should be merged somewhere. Davewild (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Haven school Skittles incident

Wikipedia articles are not for news reports. This article is merely a rehash of news reports about a non-notable story of transient and purely local interest (boy suspended from school for having candy), and it is written in the style of a news report itself. Possibly transwiki to Wikinews, if it is significant enough for that project, which I doubt. Sandstein (talk) 08:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a news service. A student suspended for posessing Skittles... in that case, I'm surprised I didn't get booted out of college for all the times I sat there snorking down Combos while in class! Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 11:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, I know, we heard about this on the radio on the way to work, and we saw articles about it in the "weird news" section of the paper, but it's not worthy of an article. There was an incident in 1930 in Zion City, Illinois, where three girls were expelled for purchasing and using chewing gum, and it can be demonstrated that it was reported nationwide by the Associated Press. But it's not history. At most, some middle school in New Haven, Connecticut, can use this to demonstrate its "notability". Mandsford (talk) 14:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I thank God that I am no longer young in so thoroughly ruined a country. But I don't see this as an incident that supports an article. Transwiki to Wikinews if it hasn't been already. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep

The article complies with all Wikipedia policies.
The incident is notable because it has received significant coverage in the national press. References from CNN and the Associated Press prove this. That is more than sufficient to pass the recommendation of our notability guidelines.
The article is well referenced, with 5 10 unique sources; that is 5 10 more than our article on anteater. Update - 10 sources now, including international press. Also, the student has been on at least 3 national talk shows this week and the candy company has given him a lifetime supply of Skittles.
People studying the state of school discipline in America would find this article interesting.
People studying nutrition, and especially nutrition in school, would find this interesting.
Wikipedia has room to cover unusual subjects and our aim is to broad and comprehensive in our coverage.
Moving to Wikinews is never a viable option. Their licensing scheme is not compatible with ours.

Johntex\^talk 16:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to the above:

Except WP:IINFO.
Press coverage is not sufficient for notability. Our scope diverges from that of newspapers; we don't cover every crime, for instance, that the papers cover.
Verifiability is not the problem here.
A mention can be made about this incident in an article about the state of school discipline in America.
A mention can be made about this incident in an article about nutrition or nutrition in school.
As noted there, this policy is not a free pass for inclusion. We are not an indiscriminate collection of information either.
This does not preclude deletion. But since you wrote most of the article, you own the copyright on these parts and you may move these to Wikinews.

Sandstein (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to the above:

There is no violation of that policy here. There is nothing indiscriminate about this article. It covers a very discrete historical topic.
Our criteria for notability is that the person/place/incident needs to be covered in multiple national publications. That is met. To speak to your example of covering every crime, we don't do that because (a) most crimes don't get coverage in the national press and (b) most of the time people don't take the time to write a well referenced article that complies with Wikipedia policy. This is not a crime, but this incident did get national press and we do have a well-referenced article here.
Great, glad you agree that subject and facts are verifiable. As Jimbo Wales says, "We strive for verifiability, not truth". We have verifiability here so we have no problem.
An article on nutrion or nutrition in school would not be the best place for this information. Just as we don't put everything about the United States into that article. It is entirely appropriate to have seperate articles go into the details of an individual case.
Ditto
As I already explained, there is nothing indiscriminate about this article.
The article has been edited by another editor so my copyright to the article is not complete. Yes, I could contribute a version to Wikinews, but I choose not to do so. There is no point to even having Wikinews. A news event is just a historical event that is not that old yet. We should just cover those historical events here.

Again, there is no justification under policy to delete the article. On the other hand, the article would be helpful to readers/scholars studying topics such as education, school discipline, allergies, nutrition, etc. The best thing to do is to keep the article. Johntex\^talk 17:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe someone will write a True Crime book about it. Mandsford (talk) 18:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is well-written (though where were the Skittles bought from?) and cites multiple independent secondary sources. While "Wikipedia is not for things made up in school", just because something happened in a school does not undo notability. I agree with Johntex in that it may be useful for students of school administration, changing mores re school discipline, and the trend against candy sales in schools. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the article meets all of the basic Wikipedia content policies (WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR). I am opposed to layering additional "notability" requirements on top of these, because Wikipedia is not paper and one of our strengths is that we cover subjects that can be reliably referenced but might not make it into a mainstream encyclopedia. *** Crotalus *** 21:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, transient news coverage of an incident does not make it notable. --Dhartung | Talk 21:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - national news coverage proves notability. U$er (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete In a few years, we'll all look back at this and be like...why the hell did we keep this article? If we're not of that opinion, it's either because nobody remembers it, or because it's time to restore the article. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the coverage of these events has now spread beyond the US, including the Toronto Globe and Mail and the International Herald Tribune. Johntex\^talk 00:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
....and when you do your google news search a week from now, you'll find that the press has forgotten about the Skittles story and has moved on to other things. Replacing it in the "look what's wrong with our schools" category will be a story about someone who got in trouble in school for having a plastic knife, or cough drops, or an inappropriate T-shirt. I think he's at about "ten after" on his fifteen minutes of fame. When the kid gets back the honors that had been taken away, I can guarantee that the press will not report the happy ending. Mandsford (talk) 01:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
.....And if you want to apply that rational then you should delete all but the most famous nobility whom we have articles on. No one remembers Edward Poyning right? So let's delete the article. And there aren't any Deinodon around so lets get rid of those. For that matter, most high schools probably won't be around in 100 years so let's just start deleting all those articles too. And the 1924 Paris Olympics haven't been in the news for a while either.... Wikipedia is not paper; we can afford to be comprehensive. It is our mission, in fact. Johntex\^talk 01:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This topic received sufficient national attention to be of interest to a wide range of people. The article is properly sourced with references that prove notability. Just the number of people weighing in on the Keep or Delete alone shows that it has an attraction factor. And who doesn't like Skittles? Goodhabits99 (talk) 02:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional keep pending a merge into any article about the New Haven school district or the school in question, assuming they don't already exist. As well-done as this was, it will not merit separate coverage a year from now. I didn't write a separate "Tri-Valley Central School tampon incident" article, even though that got some national news last fall; it's most of the article about the school itself. And so will it be with this. Daniel Case (talk) 05:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dhartung. Suggest the creator try WikiNews if he enjoys writing about this kind of stuff, because being reported in the news for a couple of days does not make a trivial incident encyclopedia-worthy. The comparison to the 1924 Olympics does not hold any water --- that was an international event which got months and months of coverage in the time leading up to it and multiple articles on different aspects and different participants during the time it was actually occurring. In contrast, the news coverage on this story stopped two days ago [10]. cab (talk) 06:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken about the references. If you read the article and check the references, you will see that they are as recent as today. Johntex\^talk 06:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge per Daniel Case. --Kakofonous (talk) 12:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge A great start for an article on the high school - who will remember the incident in a few years? The incident needs to be part of a topic with larger scope. Royalbroil 12:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A good example of zero-tolerance policies gone awry and superceding good judgment.Brian Waterman, MS, CDP (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the long run, I agree that it would be good to have an article about examples of over-reaction within the schools, and that this incident would be part of that article. I appreciate that Johntex worked hard on the article, and wants to avoid its deletion. Incidents like this happen regularly in schools, and, depending on different circumstances, some of these stories are picked up by AP or UPI, and some aren't. As with ridiculous lawsuits, dumb crook news, wasted taxpayer dollars stories, things like the Skittles incident do serve as cautionary tales. That said, however, no single incident is worthy of its own page. The suspension of the 8th grader is trivial in comparison to the horrific deaths of several people in a construction accident (as in New York City yesterday), or a suicide bombing in Iraq, and even those would be objected to as lacking sufficient notability to become a permanent part of Wikipedia. I think this is headed to a "no consensus", so it will be kept. When it gets renominated sometime a few months from now, the passage of time will show a different perspective. Mandsford (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - in the long run, people will appreciate articles like this more, not less. It would be great if Wikipedia had been around in 1900 or 1800 or 1700 or 1200 to collect verifiable information related to some of the normal, everyday things that were happening in those periods. Scholars of today would find such articles to immensely valuable. An article like this should be kept so that it available for future readers/writers to study, learn from, re-write and reorganize. Wikipedia is not paper, it is OK to cover some things that are not the best or most memorable of their type. Johntex\^talk 17:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Johntext does have a point. Although it will probably be somewhere else, I believe that Wikipedia is a collection of knowledge, and I see no reason to delete it other than the basis that Wikipedia is not for news. – The Obento Musubi (Contributions) 19:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I'm typically not a fan of "news" stories being given wikipedia articles, but this one has received some degree of attention on a national level. I'd say merge it into the school's article. If litigation or some more national attention is brought to the case, then perhaps later a stand alone page could be created. Batman2005 (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I know that Wikipedia's not supposed to be for news articles, especially for non-notable ones, but I believe that this is notable, and with further re-writing, I believe that we can reword this to sound less news-y. – The Obento Musubi (Contributions) 19:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Rename The title of the article screams "something made up in school". I don't know what to rename it to ( turning it into a biography of the student doesn't seem appropriate either ), though someone suggested merging it into an article on the school system which isn't a bad idea. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional keep pending beefing up how it's important nationally and shows trends in modern America, such as overreaction. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - possible Merge to Skittles article There doesn't appear to be an article on the school or school system yet, but this could probably be merged into the article on Skittles candy. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Partition what is there between WikiNews, the article on Skittles, and the High school's WP entry. I can't see how this in and of itself deserves its on article, unless it were a daughter article in a series on student wellness, which as of now, it is not. MrPrada (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment--Create a Category for Zero-Tolerance Policies in Schools Merging this to Skittles is not the answer, as this has nothing more to do with Skittles as it has to do with New Haven. What it has to do with is a school policy and an overreaction in its enforcement. The school made a policy, a student violated the policy, and the school decided that an extreme reaction was appropriate. Several other actions (and in many cases, overreactions) can be linked through that category, and in a year when the specific incident is forgotten, it can still easily be found. Brian Waterman, MS, CDP (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Widely covered, and the idea of a Category about Zero-Tolerance Extremes in schools seems like a solid idea.--Bedford 02:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on this whole zero-tolerance cat idea. I think that would make a better article ... Zero-tolerance policies in American schools, maybe? There are enough examples ... from other articles I've worked on, see Pine Bush High School and the musket incident (there are sources provided). Daniel Case (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - transient news article. If this hadn't occured in North America it is very likely that the article would have been speedy deleted on sight. - 52 Pickup (deal) 12:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - to the extent that Wikipedia has a bias towards information on North America, the solution is to increase our coverage of other areas, not lessen our coverage of North American events. Johntex\^talk 13:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete before it paves the way for thousands of "cat stuck up a tree" news articles. The material may be worth a paragraph in a possible article for the school itself. Marasmusine (talk) 13:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to the school's name and make it be a section. The rest of the article would be a very raw stub but the efforts of the editors wouldn't be wasted. Gothbag (talk) 15:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that in all the "excitement", the author forgot to mention the school in the article. In one of those bizarre coincidences that we'll be talking about for generations to come, the kid's last name and the school name are the same. But it doesn't matter. What matters is that the kid got a lifetime supply of delicious Skittles-brand candy! Taste the rainbow. Mandsford (talk) 17:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Problem solved. Gothbag (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than a mere one-time news story, this is an event that has attracted widespread attention (far beyond the locale where it occurred) because it resonates with many people as a an exemplar of something that's wrong (or maybe something that's right) in society at large and in schools. It should be retained and added to Wikipedia:Unusual articles, along with other articles with which it has much in common, such as McDonald's urban legends, George W. Bush pretzel incident, and Montreal-Philippines cutlery controversy. --Orlady (talk) 23:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the school is Sheridan Communications and Technology Magnet School. --Orlady (talk) 23:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there's enough here of value, tho the article should be considerably shortened. DGG (talk) 01:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Received wide spread media coverage and well sourced. As per *** Crotalus *** it passes our most fundamental policies, which for me means keep is the only valid choice. --Falcorian ^(talk) 14:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well-written and referenced article. Content like this is why Wikipedia whips paper encyclopedias. Nesodak (talk) 15:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to a small paragraph in ~~Sheridan Communications and Technology Magnet School~~ Skittles. This is a transitory news item not an encyclopedic topic. SilkTork *^YES! 18:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per author request. Sandstein (talk) 08:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tensor Engineering

Unencyclopaedic, non-notable, empty article, advertisement; to wit:I created this article more than a year ago when I still worked for this company. It has not been filled out by anyone, and after leaving the company and being able to evaluate the article in a less-biased perspective, I have determined that it is non-notable (considering there is nothing on it and nothing that could really be added to it that wouldn't constitute anything more than an advertisement) and consequently have listed it at AfD. Lumbergh (talk) 07:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. No content Anshuk (talk) 08:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as a copyright violation of http://www.brookmanstamps.com/IndianStampIntro.html with no clean version to revert to. nancy ^(talk) 16:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indian reservation stamps

This page was speedy-delete-tagged {{db-nonsense}}. It looks sensible to me, but I do not know if it is true. (I am not a philatelist or an American.) It is a duplicate of http://www.brookmanstamps.com/IndianStampIntro.html, but it looks like the same man (Michael Jaffe / User:Michaeljaffe) wrote both. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am not sure whether this can be a COI or a copyvio issue but the article is definitely not encyclopedic. Anshuk (talk) 08:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Regardless of who wrote it, we have to assume this is a copyvio unless the author has released under a GFDL compatible license. He can contact the permissions committee if unnecessary. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 15:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, unverified and notability not established. Davewild (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lacdan family

Notability and verifiability in question. Google search (Philippines only) did not give substantial verifiable sources. Article has no cited sources since April 2007. Also the creator might have COI Lenticel ^(talk) 06:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I may be out of step, but I don't like COI as grounds for deletion. Someone with a COI could write a NPOV article and someone without could write a POV one. I prefer to judge on notability. Surely justice is blind? Annamonckton (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, COI is not grounds for deletion (though it is preferable for those with COI not to edit articles of subjects with which they have a close association). Verifiability is the major issue here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very few ghits indicates non-notability. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, unsourced, and written like a memorial. Starczamora (talk) 23:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, Snow close. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 17:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Object-oriented magick

This article fails Wikipedia:No original research. Zero Ghits. Speedy tag and prod removed by creator without discussion and without attempting to address this issue. Dethme0w (talk) 05:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am a complete newbie at this. I am trying to flesh out the article but whenever I save a few sentences I am having the computer try to delete it! How do I get this set aside so I can finish it properly? Alephhermetic (talk) 05:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The "computer" is not trying to delete your article. The Wikipedia community is now discussing whether your article meets our notability guidelines and our requirements for independent and credible sources. --Dhartung | Talk 06:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only hits for the term are the article. Original research, WP:SOAPBOXing, and probably conflict of interest issues as well. --Dhartung | Talk 06:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article history, contribs of the creator, and lack of external citations speak for themselves. Alvis (talk) 06:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as above Anshuk (talk) 08:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:NFT, term was obviously made up by author -- the lack of sources/GHits is the most damning evidence. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 11:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and add duplicate article Object-Oriented Magick to AfD. - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 11:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is something interesting going on here: the notion that fuzzy slogans like "object oriented" carry social prestige among some subset of contemporary mages is an interesting phenomenon, from a anthropological standpoint. But until the phenomenon gets wider credit, other than a single internet essay, it is not yet ready to support an article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is actually a relatively long-standing "tradition" within Post-WWII magical and occult societies: Chaos magic is a prime example. The article on Magical thinking delves into some of the root causes, but I quite agree that this particular attempt at co-opting computer science terminology for magic is not suitable for WP. Justin Eiler (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Makes no sense at all. WP:BOLLOCKS. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is made up, possibly soapboxing, and I can't find reliable sources on its existence Doc Strange^{Mailbox Orbitting Black Hole}Strange Frequencies 23:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I tagged this for speedy under G4. This is a recreated page. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 00:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've declined SPEEDY because it's been deleted before "through speedy", but G4 states "through the XfD process". Let this run it's course - though we're definitely close to WP:SNOW. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fairly obviously original research --BrucePodger (talk) 00:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Its an exact copy of the original and I agreed with its original delete. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the single source used appears to not exist, I followed the link. However, I would like to point out that the article makes sense though it would need a lot of work if this did show up signficantly elsewhere. However, it does show up though unexplained here, here, and here; and applies to something unrelated here, here, here, and in many other places if you search for object-oriented magic instead of magick.KV(Talk) 03:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete; no prejudice to recreation of a sourced article that demonstrates the subject's notability. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sand fountain

Non-notable curious phenomenon. Sole source is a YouTube video and we all know how reliable these are. In fact I have had no luck in finding serious discussion about it so for all we know, the video might be a fake or the phenomenon might be simply man-made for one purpose or another. Pichpich (talk) 05:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I wrote to a Saudi Arabian geologist and received the following reply: The fountain you mentioned in Al-Hasa was (to my understanding) simply a water pipe that has broken beneath the sand dune and the sands flown up as you have seen in the video. Rocky143 (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This "sand fountain" is not a sand boil/sand blow/sand volcano triggered by an earthquake. In those features, a layer of sand below a competent layer of soil is liquefied by being shaken by an earthquake. The wet sand is thixotropic, see Thixotropy. When the shaking stops, the sand solidifies again, and thus, cannot continue flowing after the earthquake. (I have a Ph.D. in geology.)Rocky143 (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find anything reliable even about the video. (Oddly, a recent issue of Nature had a paper on how little we know about the movement of sand.) --Dhartung | Talk 06:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sand Boils. I think this happens when there are earthquakes. I haven't seen one but descriptions found in the net seems to suggest that it might look like a fountain. --Lenticel ^(talk) 07:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Photo of a sand boil. I don't think they're sufficiently identical ... --Dhartung | Talk 08:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sand boils aren't as dramatic as the Arabic fountain but your cite says that the boils "look like a water fountain with insufficient pressure". --Lenticel ^(talk) 12:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I suppose that coverage of this is in arabic and so difficult to find with an ordinary search. The source seems to be a good one - a picture is worth a thousand words. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a picture from YouTube is worth a lot less. Pichpich (talk) 13:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Translating Sand Fountain into Arabic with Google yields "نافوره الرمال" which in turn gets over 6,000 ghits (more than "sand fountain"). IMHO we need an Arabic speaker here to comment on the refs. Annamonckton (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment yes, it would be good to get input from an Arabic speaker but if you actually go through the first two or three pages of these Ghits in Arabic, you'll see that almost all of them are internet forums, many which are simply pointing to the YouTube video. Again, we are looking for reliable sources. Pichpich (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems an interesting phenomenom but is it notable? Lack of coverage suggests not though I concede that much might be written in Arabic. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm finding useful results searching for "sand geyser", particularly this Martian phenomenon that they may explain. Earth has them too. The resulting geological feature may be a sand volcano, but I haven't confirmed that. I can't confirm that the video is really the same thing. In any case we may be able to collate enough for a sand geyser article that does not include the video. --Dhartung | Talk 18:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In the New Madrid earthquake there were numerous sand blows, or sand volcanoes, as they were called then, the results of which were logged and photographed by the US Geological Surveygovernment over a century later, as documented at [11] and at [12]. The phenomena of sand blows or sand volcanoes in major earthquakes has been studied and documented and an article on these is highly appropriate. The present article might need some improvement, but it does not need deletion. Edison (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC) Delete The phenomenon I was referring to is covered at Sand volcano. This articles subject seems less notable. Edison (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sand boils and Sand volcano are badly in need of a merge. Edison (talk) 18:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete by User:Jeepday, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bogaertianism

Non-notable neologism. Prod tag removed by anonymous user without comment. Zero ghits, apart from Wikipedia, and no sources or references provided to assert notability or even the existance of this word. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3 as evident hoax, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A7 - no notability asserted in any revision. Pedro : Chat 14:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merk (conference)

Full German name has 4 hits, while the English has 8. Some appear reliable but is a press release from the parent org (that doesn't establish notability anyway), this is a one sentence mention, this is a personal site with a one line mention of a paper at a conference.... It asserts that it's 'known' under the German acronym MERK but filtering the search to eliminate Merck shows lots of false positives and no assertion of notability for this conference. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 I think this falls under A7, as it's an organization of sorts, and it asserts absolutely no notability whatsoever. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 11:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merriam aquatic center

Wow! It has 3! diving boards. I'm *so* excited. And Google is in absolute awe of this pool with it's comprehensive 10 ghits, than I cannot even begin to imagine how we could ever begin to call this entirely not notable. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as utterly non-notable pool. Possibly an A7 even though calling it an organization might be a bit of a stretch. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, yeah once I saw the 'building tag' I knew the A7 would likely be denied so I didn't even bother creating an extra step. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability is so much as claimed, much less verifiable. Now, if it had four diving boards? Why, then I would recommend it for featured article. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 14:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC) 14:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, filled with original reseach and lacks reliable sources. Google search as stated by the nom, are underwhelming. Seems to have been created by a single-purpose account. There's no claims to any sort of notability (if it was say, the first municipal pool built in the state it would be really stretching notability). Doc Strange^{Mailbox Orbitting Black Hole}Strange Frequencies 15:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its name belies its more humble circumstances. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 22:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as non-notable. No reliable sources provided. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mezzo: Winter Edition

Speedy was declined following article's creation a year ago and don't think it's eligible a second time. Nonetheless, this is nothing but advertising, just maybe not 'blatant. So, no evidence of RS coverage and 48 ghits are: download links, forum discussions, You Tubes and other non reliable sources. No evidence that this passes WP:WEB in the slightest. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Gazimoff (talk) 13:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only reliable source found was Jay is Games, and that coverage comes to a quarter of a weekend roundup article. it's insignificant coverage and the rest are merely distribution sites or unreliable. Coverage doesn't satisfy WP:N. Someone another 16:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find anything myself that I'd be happy to quote as a reliable source on this. It feels like a case of WP:WEB to me.Gazimoff (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is pretty minor and reads more like an advertisement for the game than an encyclopedic entry.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep and fix it if you find it unfit . Pearll's sun (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as non-notable. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agape Baptist Church

Non-notable church Corvus cornix_talk 04:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Individual churches are generally not notable, and this one seems no different. Nyttend (talk) 04:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no assertion of notability in the wider sense. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 16:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; well it does make claims of notability, for example "Extraordinary healings began to take place", but without reliable sources they fail WP:V. Lacks the secondary sources needed to meet WP:N. BlueValour (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as non-notable. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Cobrasnake

Non-notable photographer Corvus cornix_talk 03:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 03:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; NN it is. Johnbod (talk) 04:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E, only received media attention for one thing. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 16:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NN. Dreamspy (talk) 23:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and cleanup. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Bucket

I don't know about this one. Half the article seems like it was copied directly out of the instruction manual. The rest appears to be original research. Beyond issues of verifiability and that the article lacks any valid secondary sources, I'm not even sure this product is really notable. At the very least, this needs a complete rewrite. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 03:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to be the subject of any reliable sources. Although I do remember the jingle! Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After ghits and careful concideration and drunken mediatation I feel its at least semi notable enough (even though it was discontinued at one point). It just needs a little cleanup to rid it of the advert-ness. I'm sure sources can be found. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(eponysterical!) *Weak delete, obviously something that could have reliable sources but just doesn't have them online being from the pre-internet era. Nothing usable in Google News/Books. --Dhartung | Talk 04:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article needs almost a complete rewrite, but that is not in itself a reason for deletion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - The article is horrible, but it can be improved. It appears there is some controversy over the toy, so it appears notable enough. The cleanup tags represent it properly. I cite Wikipedia:DELETE#Editing: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." KV(Talk) 03:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Stifle (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who have disappeared

Delete as listcruft. The topic is so broad that the list can be endlessly long if we found enough people who have disappeared. Furthermore, we already have "Category:Disappeared people" which fits the purpose of this page. Lastly it does not meet WP:V Jersey Devil 16:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete though I admit that I like the phrase "if we found enough people who have disappeared". Now if we found them all, then this list would be getting shorter instead of longer, wouldn't it? ;-) Maelwys 18:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good effort, but I must agree with the nomination. -- P199 16:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful because of chronological reference. If the category "disappeared people" can be listed chronologically, then this page can be deleted or merged. Docether 16:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Interesting and notable. Also, the category for disappeared people is not complete as this one is. This one has mysterious shipwrecks and the like, which the category does not. --Pal5017 18:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This appears to be people that have disappeared not Desaparecidos, is there a better name for this list/cat Category:Missing people?. A list is not the same as a cat though and I'm quite sure you can find sources that say Natalie Halloway is missing. So I ask, what exactly is this being deleted for? kotepho 19:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I don't quite understand all the reasons given by the original poster -- particularly "does not meet WP:V". If a particular item in this article appears to be unverifiable, then that item should be investigated. I don't see the purpose of saying that the entire article is unverifiable. In most cases, the items have links to the page about the person who has disappeared. Those pages, one assumes, contain verifiable information. Docether 20:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Make it disapper...Delete. Redundant with the existing category.--Isotope23 20:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful to have a chronological list, as categories are alphabetical. Piccadilly 20:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful. For great justice. 20:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Helpful list but should format the page differently so that it's simpler with dates of dissapearance after name, not as new header.
Keep. The chronology helps. Thanos6 05:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M. A. Lang

Subject does not satisfy WP:BIO; does not seem to be a notable architect; no major contributions except for his design of the train station in Gary, Indiana. –Dream out loud (talk) 02:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find anything substantive about him, not even his first name. Only building connected is the Union Station (Gary), which is something we actually need an article on, being a key endangered structure. Lang will be mentioned there, but probably not more substantively than he is here. --Dhartung | Talk 04:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notable architects generally have more than one important building to their names. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. Unsourced and unreferenced. Dreamspy (talk) 23:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Allen

Young man whose 15 minute of fame are long over. Only claim to notability was a brief issue with a teacher at his local high school. Jmlk 1 7 01:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E, only received media attention for one thing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 02:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the teacher's remarks are arguably notable, but the student who recorded them is not. --Dhartung | Talk 04:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BLP1E. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Well, I would like an article about the story itself; not the student. And it fails WP:BLP1E. K im u 16:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BLP1E and WP:N Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 16:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would anyone object to a redirect, as a plausible search, to Jay Bennish? Joe 19:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete How...is this notable, at all? Redirect to Jay Bennish per Joe seems smart. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The teacher is notable, not the student! Dreamspy (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whereas they'd probably have pages galore waiting for brave Gadget Boy over at Conservapedia Plutonium27 (talk) 05:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was userfied to User:Elucubro/Kori Carothers.

Kori Carothers

I would like the article Kori Carothers deleted. I want to go through the tutorial thoroughly before I do anything else and I would like to contact the musician or her representative before I do anything else. Then I will start over. Thank you, Elu --Carpe Diem! 00:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The above comment was mistakenly placed on the AfD log itself by Elucubro (talk · contribs). This is simply a procedural nomination. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It looks like Elucubro just wants to 'start over' with the article. Celarnor (talk) 01:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence on notability; no news hits on Google. JJL (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy and Elucubro (talk · contribs) can come to WP:DRV when it's sourced. --Dhartung | Talk 04:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I endorse Dhartung's decision to userfy the page for now, so that the user can work on it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 11:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elliot Knight

Contested prod (no reason given). Fails WP:BIO#Athletes as he has never played in a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 00:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 00:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. According to the article he hasn't even joined the senior squad yet. Definately not notable. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 00:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He will start in July and the article does not lie at all. There will inevitably be an article created anyway so there's no point in deleting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeanMerrett (talk • contribs) 01:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds like WP:CRYSTAL to me. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 01:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Richard O'Donnell was deleted recently for this very reason. He will almost certainly play his first game tomorrow and an article can then be created, but it has taken him 18 months to get this far after joining the senior squad. If and when Elliot Knight actually plays a game then the article can be easily recreated. Your argument basically boils down to "it isn't doing any harm" which isn't in itself a reason to keep an article. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 01:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yet to play a professional game. If he does this, then article can be recreated, but until then he does not appear to be particularly notable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per Lankiveil. Does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia at this time. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Eddie6705 (talk) 14:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well, it is a well writen article (sorta), and I wouldn't mind it being here except it fails WP:BIO#Athletes. 76.235.63.26 (talk) 16:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
About that above comment, that was me but I forgot I wasn't logged in. Sorry. K im u 16:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See all above. Can, of course, be remade once notable. Mm40 (talk) 00:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW and CSDs G1 and G3 - this seems to be patent nonsense and borderline vandalism given its clear unsuitability. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People scratching themselves behind their ears

Prod contested by IP address. Prod nomination reasoning: "Unencyclopedic, lack of notability. Likely socially irrelevant". I find it difficult to disagree. Delete. Daniel (talk) 04:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Daniel on this article being seemingly unencyclopedic. Unless someone can provide a very good reason why this article meets our inclusion criteria I say it should be deleted.--Jersey Devil (talk) 04:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the original user who prodded the article. I just can't find anything substantial to refute my initial thoughts. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 04:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch as unencyclopedic content with no real coverage to speak of. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment well, it is referenced, and it may be seen that people often do this in conversation, and so it can't be socially irrelevant.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 05:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's referenced, in a sense, but it's not encyclopædic. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep clearly notable, bad faith nomination. (closed by a non-administrator) Polly (Parrot) 18:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Gerhardus Strijdom

unknown politician. Doesn't warrant an article. Countyroadswhisper (talk) 17:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Strijdom was the Prime Minister of South Africa and so, as a former head of a national government, is notable by definition. Reggie Perrin (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. —Reggie Perrin (talk) 18:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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