Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 May 8

< May 7	May 9 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 22:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Anne Brown

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article Jamie Anne Brown is simply a recreation of the article on Jamie Anne Allman (deleted three times for failing WP:BIO) under her maiden name. The information remains the same, the actor remains non-notable, and the secondary sources remain non-existent. Furthermore, the editor recreated this page after being warned not to do so by an administrator, here. He did so immediately following the third speedy deletion of Jamie Anne Allman. -- Lenky (talk) 11:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural keep. This discussion was opened 14 years and 26 weeks ago minutes before Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supercompact space was opened, and the result of the latter was Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor 22:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Supercompact Space

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am writing a report on why this article should be deleted. First of all, this article states 8 facts, with some 100 references or so. Just delete the article. If this article is so important, then why don't you prove it by giving names of people who actually research this topic. No one does. Also, see the following five small reasons:

. Paracompactness and compactness ARE IMPORTANT topics and that is why no one has challenged them. However, supercompactness is not nearly as important and shouldn't be on an encyclopaedia such as this one. . This page has hardly anything. It has just stated facts. There are only a few points written on this page. It is a useless stub. . There is no point in using a WHOLE page to talk abou supercompactness. This article should be written under Alexander's Subbase Theorem. It has hardly any information. . There is someone who keeps removing this sign for speedy deletion and gives no reasons why he does this. Could an administrator please see that he stops?

Is supercompactness worthy of study? Was it a concept, so important that mathematicians were dumbstruck by it as soon as it was defined? The "Nagata-Smirnov Theorem" article is a good example of an article which shouldn't be deleted since it is extremely important. Is supercompactness even as important as the definition of a point? I may seem to be exaggerating but I am strong on my word. I understand that some people (such as "Oded"), have not been against me just for the sake of it. Others have said that this article shouldn't be deleted and given no reason to back this up. I am going to report this article to an administrator. Some articles that are extremely important have no references given to them (there are heaps of such articles in mathematics). Why do people waste their time give 800 references to such a negligible article? Please answer this.

In conclusion, this article is useless, and ineffective. It provides no applications in other elements of point-set topology and has only a few facts. This article is like wasting one whole piece of paper just for writing a single word. Someone should delete it. If not, I will.

Topology Expert (talk) 09:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - this AfD has been done incorrectly in a number of ways. The actual page in question is Supercompact space, and no notification has been posted to that page of the AfD. PianoDan (talk) 17:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wait - this is fourteen years old, and was already resolved here: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by PianoDan (talk • contribs) 17:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Malformed nomination (this title seems to have never existed) (non-admin closure) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sticky and Sweet tour

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Keep.This tour have been confirmed. Poster for the tour has been released and few dates have been announced. Lecarlos (talk) 02:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. From Official Website. http://madonna.com/news/ http://madonna.com/news/news.php?uid=236 MADONNA STICKY & SWEET TOUR ITINERARY 2008

Showdate - City - Venue - On sale Date:

23-Aug - Cardiff Millennium Stadium - Fri. May 16 26-Aug - Nice Stade Charles Ehrmann - Fri. May 16 28-Aug - Berlin Olympic Stadium - Wed. May 21 02-Sept - Amsterdam Arena - Sat. May 17 04-Sept - Dusseldorf LTU Arena - Wed. May 21 06-Sept - Rome Olympic Stadium - Fri. May 23 09-Sept - Frankfurt Commerzbank Arena - Wed. May 21 11-Sept - London Wembley Stadium - Fri. May 16 20-Sept - Paris Stade de France - Fri. May 16 03-Oct - E. Rutherford Izod Center - Mon. May 19 06-Oct - New York City Madison Square Garden - Mon. May 19 07-Oct - New York City Madison Square Garden - Mon. May 19 15-Oct - Boston TD BankNorth Garden - Sat. May 17 18-Oct - Toronto Air Canada Centre - Sat. May 24 22-Oct - Montreal Bell Centre - Sat. May 24 26-Oct - Chicago United Center - Sat. May 17 30-Oct - Vancouver BC Place Stadium - Sat. May 24 01-Nov - Oakland Oracle Arena - Sun. June 1 04-Nov - San Diego Petco Park - Sun. June 1 06-Nov - Los Angeles Dodger Stadium - Sun. June 1 08-Nov - Las Vegas MGM Grand Garden Arena - Sat. May 31 11-Nov - Denver Pepsi Center - Sat. May 31 16-Nov - Houston Minute Maid Park - Sat. May 31 19-Nov - Philadelphia Wachovia Center - Mon. June 2 22-Nov - Atlantic City Boardwalk Hall - Mon. June 2 24-Nov - Atlanta Philips Arena - Sat. May 31 26-Nov - Miami Dolphin Stadium - Sat. May 31

Additional dates and venues to be announced.

Madonna's Sticky & Sweet tour will also visit Mexico and South America later this year. Show date and on sale information to follow. Israell (talk) 08:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Speed Racer episodes. Fabrictramp (talk) 22:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Challenge of the Masked Racer

lack of reliable sources WP:RS,WP:N Dwanyewest (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: AFD nomination incomplete. It is now listed. --UsaSatsui (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Speed Racer. --UsaSatsui (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge how? There's no episode list to give context. — Quasirandom (talk) 02:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is there a List of Speed Racer episodes article I'm failing to find? Because it should be merged to that. — Quasirandom (talk) 02:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the aswer is, between then and now, someone's created it. Unless someone finds secondary sources to support the notability of this two-part episode, selectively merge this to List of Speed Racer episodes. — Quasirandom (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - no citations from reliable sources. An alternative would be to redirect to Speed Racer#Characters. B.Wind (talk) 05:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Control (Metro Station song)

Non-notable single as per the sentence in the article that says "the song failed to chart on any music chart". The preceding comment was added by User:Wolfer68. Nsk92 (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A non-notable single, does not warrant a separate WP entry. Nsk92 (talk) 00:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 01:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Santay

Nonnotable. Bishops of splinter sects are not necessarily notable, and this one in particular fails Google Test, Google News Test. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficent sources to establish notability. -Icewedge (talk) 01:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete goodness, if the splinter sect doesn't even have its own page then this one definitely has a problem with WP:BIO--The Jacobin (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Icewedge Jakew (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 01:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AP US History ID List

Indiscriminate list of terms. There is no source provided to indicate that the list is comprehensive or in fact representative of the AP US History test subject matter. Accordingly, the list is arbitrary.

I am loathe to list it here, since its prod expires tomorrow, but there is a similar article from the same original editor at AP Physics C Mechanics Help. —C.Fred (talk) 23:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it affects debate here, but that prod expired without being contested. —C.Fred (talk) 23:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE. We are not a study guide for the AP Exams. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This reads as though someone's using Wikipedia as a webhost for their study guide. (I'm a tad confused about the title, but I suppose it could be along the lines of "Things and people you'll need to identify on the test.") Boy, I'm glad I took the Gov exam and only had to know those Supreme Court cases! AnturiaethwrTalk 23:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What the hell? Mandsford (talk) 21:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not web space for your high school exam study guide. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (small) consensus, fails WP:CORP. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nation (Nightclub Liverpool)

Non-notable local business. Article is unreferenced, is written somewhat like an advertisement with external links only to promote the business, and otherwise has no assertion of notability. Hellno2 (talk) 23:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article refers to a nightclub in Liverpool which was purported to hold Cream (nightclub) promotions. These promotions have been held in various clubs around Liverpool (IMO as a local resident.) This article has no references and appears in collision with WP:NPOV. Nk.sheridan Talk 23:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 01:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ubuntu Customization Kit

No claims to notability. The main Ubuntu itself is definitely notable, but is the toolkit to create the CDs notable separately? I don't believe so and no evidence has been supplied since the notability tag was put in. Canterbury Tail talk 23:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N and WP:V. One result on Google Scholar, nothing on Google Books. Jakew (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article doesn't present any evidence of notability. Peacock (talk) 03:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have verified the above delete assessments. (I'm not an experienced AfD'er, but from what I know an AfD is not a vote and "me too" entry aren't useful, however with only two comments, I figured verification is useful. Please correct me if I'm wrong.) Wrs1864 (talk) 19:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 01:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atlag United Methodist Church

Non-notable church. In addition, the page which I reverted was designed to look like the church's personal website, and not like an encyclopedia article. Corvus cornix_talk 22:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Tiggerjay (talk) 23:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Didn't I just !vote to delete this a couple of weeks ago? Ah yes, here it is; I even recognize the picture. Now, does this qualify as a G4 speedy, or will I have to reiterate that this church is no more notable than the next? AnturiaethwrTalk 23:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think we can't speedy this one. If I remember it right, the new article is not a duplicate of the old one.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well, such is life. Still, I think it's similar enough that the comments from the last time apply to this one as well. AnturiaethwrTalk 00:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --ShakataGaNai ^Talk 23:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete (G4) as per Anturiaethwr. Horologium (talk) 23:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments of the last afd and my analysis of the references below:

References 1 and 2 are only directories and does not give much detail about the church.
Reference 3 is a multiply site, need I say more?
References 4 and 5 are the strongest but they do not give any history regarding the church or its notabililty. no. 4 simply states that the church is given a mention in one of the speeches but there are no elaborations regarding that matter anywhere else in the webpage. No. 5 might give the possibility of notability since an annual congregation meet was held in Atlag. However, it does not clearly state that the meeting is held in the church, only the baranggay.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, local churches are not inherently notable. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm happy to userfy if someone wants the info for another article. - Philippe 01:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sex, Drugs and Music in the1960s

I would say this topic is already adequately covered by other articles - the scope of this article is too broad. Plrk (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, has some references but it's basically a school essay with a POV. --Dhartung | Talk 01:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essentially pure OR. Nsk92 (talk) 03:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even an essay with citations is still an essay. Sorry. Mandsford (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essay, original research, etc. Another college research paper? KleenupKrew (talk) 11:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Woop County Community College, Cultural Studies 101, essay task #5, version 3691. Or someone has exhumed Mr Van Driessen's abortive doctoral synopsis Plutonium27 (talk) 05:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This article is clearly written like an essay (A Conclusion section? Yeah). However, there is some well-sourced information here that might be useful in another article such as Counterculture or some other 1960s-related article. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 01:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move content into Counterculture and Social effects of rock and roll#Sex, Drugs, and Rock and Roll. --Pwnage8 (talk) 16:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 01:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Wayland

Unfixably badly written. Written entirely by one person, who probably has a conflict of interest. Foobaz·o< 22:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. While I agree that removing unencyclopedic content would leave next to nothing in the article (and it definitely needs rewriting), I don't think that's grounds for deletion; however, I have my doubts about her notability. I'm not seeing any claim that she satisfies WP:PORNBIO, but I'm not sure whether the three interviews cited demonstrate notability or not. I'm not seeing any guideline saying they do, so I'm thinking they don't. (This, I think, is a case that demonstrates the weaknesses of the Google test; I'm not wading through 66,000 porn sites to try and find reliable sources, especially considering that she doesn't get any GNews hits.) AnturiaethwrTalk 23:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Defence ) As I agree with you (even if I am the article writer) that the article requires more sources and rewriting,I totaly Disagree with you regarding notability,as Miss Wayland is not Hradcore porn actress,she is not famous among porn sites which concentrate on Sexual aspects of porn (Direct sexual connections),yet,Miss Wayland is quiet notable and famous in the genre of softcore,fashion and latex modeling ,as her cover and mag apperances sugests,she did many covers ,interviews ,modeling and advertisments in the genre of latex fashion and fetish.

I fully undersatnd that the featish and latex genres are in and of themseves are not popular,yet there is alot of people into these genres (Including me) ,and beleive me,Miss Wayland is our first or ultimatly second most famous and recognizabble face in the genre,second only to Binca Beauchamp (In my opinion she is the first but I have to respect openion of other fetish and latex fans).

So If Miss Wayland is not popular amongst hardcore fans,It is extremely famous among Latex and Fetish Fans or what is called(The sweet Porn),and the evidence is the number of covers she made for the top Magazines in the genre like (Marquis , Massad , Skin Two , Pirates and many many more)

Thanx and I hope that you will change your mind,and this will be regarded as a respect for softcore fans. And a Last word to the guy who says that I have a conflict of inerest :I am a Fan to miss Wayland,I live in Iraq and she lives in germany,I never met her,never spooke to her,not connected to her in any way,not even participated to her paysite,I am Just A Fan,and If the article is entirely written by one person,theen it is not my fault,instead of spending time siting it for deletion,you can help by refining and increasing the article,I dont own the article according to WIKI roles,so you can be helpfull and make it better lol,wright????

--Loover (talk) 11:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. While I believe Miss Wayland is important enough for the genre of modeling she is active in to establish notability, the text of the article calls for a huge rework and improvement. Perhaps it would be best to start with a shorter text, but with accurate encyclopedic information and style and with proper referencing. Later it would be be possible to expand the article gradually. Rikapt (talk) 13:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's a talkI totally agree with you,it is the first wiki article for me,and the article requires huge work which I will try my best to accomplish,yet no deletion,She is notable.

--Loover (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updating content I just saw the article recommended for deletion but I think Miss Wayland is very important as a model. I've allowed myself to rewrite the old article. I hope this new article will enrich and meet Wikipedia's quality standards. --MikeJones73 (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep her and Edit Like most people wrote before, she isn't into Pornography not eaven much into BDSM (new edit). She is an Latex-Model and Germany's most famous one. If my english was better, I would edit it and also upload an picture (since this is the only thing, that you need to know about an Model) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.137.107.212 (talk) 11:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And your relationship to the author "Loover" is...? Plutonium27 (talk) 05:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relationship I'm not sure if you was asking me but I don't know the author "Loover". Updating this article was just my intention to finish this deletion conversation and bring the article to higher quality standard. MikeJones73 (talk) 20:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edited and keep Having followed Norman Richters photographic work for some time I took an interest in this page. I've had a go at editing it make it a bit more "reader friendly" whils also adding some extra credits and info to back up Susan Waylands notability as model and perfomer. Susan (aka Sway) has appeared in many notable fetish and alternative industry magazines and websites. The publications Sway has appeared in would easily equate to the more "regular" Penthouse or Playboy type magazines. As per the WB: Porn Bio thing, Sway has most definitely featured in noteable mainstream media when it comes to the main stays and big names of the fetish and latex world/industry. Magazines like Marquis and Skin Two are most assuredly major fetish magazines so Sway would quailfy under the first point with fetish falling under "as well as their counterparts in other pornography genres". I'd be hesitant to label Sway and/or Normans work as Pornographic, but fetish will more often than not be considered that way.Warped-Phot —Preceding comment was added at 12:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The edit by "Warped-Phot" is a very good improvement of my base. In my eyes it was never a question wheather Susan Wayland is noteable but the article was in poor quality. This problem is successfully solved. --MikeJones73 (talk) 22:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 01:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maelare

I hate to say it but this might be a hoax. References have been requested since June 2006, I looked on Google books and scholar under multiple terms and found nothing. There's very little on a Google web search, noting appears relevent.[2] See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eau, apparently other articles created in the same batch as this one were suspected hoaxes too and deleted... this one wasn't for some reason. At any rate, happy hunting... I tried about 15 search terms and found nothing. If not sourced, should be deleted per WP:V. Rividian (talk) 22:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources that satisfy WP:V can be found before the end of this AfD. Deor (talk) 00:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did a bit of google searching but the only relevant entries I found are mirrors or clones of the WP article. Either a hoax or an entirely non-notable subject. Fails WP:V and WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 03:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rividian. Jakew (talk) 22:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also so searched for references and came up empty, delete per WP:V. Jeepday (talk) 13:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found this entry on Nationmaster.com that mentions Maelare. I know nothing about that site and its reliability or lack thereof. Anyone know if it's any good? Aleta ^Sing 04:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's just a clone of a previous version of the WP article Malara. Jeepday seems to have removed the mention of Maelare from the article when s/he added a couple of sources, (perhaps because he isn't mentioned in those sources?). Deor (talk) 11:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK. Thanks. Aleta ^Sing 12:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in light of all of the above with no prejudice against recreation of someone actually comes up with some real sources. Aleta ^Sing 12:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just added Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tua-Uo-Loa, which looks like the same thing. FCSundae ∨^☃ (talk) 08:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Since the creator wants it gone and noone disagrees... Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Jeandell

Procedural nomination: persistent repost by the subject of the article following speedy deletion. Possibly meets WP:PROF Skomorokh 22:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_University_of_Delaware_people —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjeandell (talk • contribs) 22:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: Wikipedia is not about shameless self-promotion per WP:SOAP, especially when it comes to non-notable individuals. The subject does not meet the basics of WP:PROF or WP:N. According to LexisNexis, only one article mentions "Jason Jeandell" and that was an announcement placed in the society section of a local newspaper by family members regarding his impending nuptials with one "Nicole Lyn Miller." Beyond that press release, I couldn't find anything suggesting notability in the print media. JSTOR contains no academic journal articles published by Jeandell, nor any mentions of his work. Google News and Factiva also make no mention of a "Jason Jeandell." Finally, Worldcat cites no books or citations linked to "Jason Jeandell." In short, "Jason Jeandell" is not a notable subject for an encyclopedia entry. Sorry folks, J Readings (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per WP:COI and WP:AUTO. And if he's reposting speedied material, then salt as well.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Jeandell, "Improving Mental Maps: Sequencing Teacher Instruction Verbally and Visually", 2003 http://delcat.udel.edu/F/?find_code=WRD&request=Jason+Jeandell&func=find-b —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.197.230.115 (talk) 23:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails to establish notability. I love how the link to the newspaper goes to his wedding announcement. Corvus cornix_talk 23:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under G4 and Salt to prevent recreation. The link above is to his thesis, which is apparently available at the University of Delaware library. This does not establish notability; it only establishes that he wrote a thesis for a Master's Degree. The references in the article include a wedding announcement and a Geocities page. He doesn't begin to approach the qualifications required in WP:PROF. Horologium (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Nothing by the subject (and no citations of his work) in GoogleScholar, WebOfScience or Scopus. Clearly fails WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 01:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the excellent research of various editors above. Blatant COI problems. Debate (talk) 06:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable local teacher. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There was a recent disruptive edit[3] by User:70.110.143.113 who removed all the votes in this AfD. I have restored them. Nsk92 (talk) 15:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This episode appears to have been more than random valndalism. Before removing all the votes (which were all delete votes) here, the same IP editor added Jason Jeandell back to List of University of Delaware people, see [4] (which I now reversed). In fact, we might be dealing with sockpuppetry here since the WHOIS results for 151.197.230.115[5] and for 70.110.143.113[6] are almost the same. Nsk92 (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I opt then to delete my own entry, since I have the right as its creator! Obviously I have found that adding any information to this site, not just autobiographic, is pointless since examination of it is carried out by a committee of individuals with their own agendas. I have made viable edits to wikipedia before on other articles that were legitimate additions with references that have since disappeared. Hell, you people are even making comments about stuff added to my entry by other users (ie. I didn't put the wedding reference on it nor did I tag my own home page in that manner). Besides, as a "notable" teacher in the state of Delaware (contrary to your opinions), we don't advise our students to use wikipedia anyway. So thank you and good night.User:Jjeandell

You don't own your page. I've reverted your deletion. I don't see what difference it makes, as the page is going to be deleted by an admin anyway.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the last time I checked we lived in a democracy in the US where things are owned and can be sold or removed at any time (see property). If Wikipedia is freely admitting to be a a Communist site according to your link, then I am justified! I decide my own destiny! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjeandell (talk • contribs) 19:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the last time I checked, Wikipedia wasn't a democracy! (Although given Wikipedia's pro-atheist slant, I wouldn't be surprised if it was Communist--joke).--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to point out what everyone else already knows: You don't own the page just because you're the subject/main contributor, Wikipedia isn't a democracy and blanking the page is considered vandalism, and repeating it will only get you blocked. Understand now?--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well my friend, I can read/quote Wikipedia manuals too...

Stubbornness: Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is regrettable—you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. Repeated deletion or addition of material may violate the three-revert rule, but this is not "vandalism" and should not be dealt with as such. ...So from what I read, I can delete my own and it isn't vandalism!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VAND#NOT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Uw-3rr (Jjeandell (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Opposed by everyone else? Last time I checked, you're the only one doing this. So if anyone's being stubborn, its you. Furthermore, what you are doing is blanking the page with no other reason than that you feel that you are entitled to do so because its yours. This IS vandalism.

If you want, I can notify the admins about this, and chances are they're going to agree with me.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Might not be a bad idea. Blanking a page (other than user's own user page or talk page or user's sandox) is vandalism, and is listed as no 1 example of vandalism in WP:VAND. Nsk92 (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it really needs that -- the page is going to be deleted (if I were an admin I would close the discussion now with a WP:SNOW delete), so it's not really being disruptive to the project by having the page wiped. Since that's the main reason why we have an anti-vandalism policy, I don't think it's necessary and will have the primary effect of alienating someone who could potentially be a future contributor to the project. If we can avoid biting the newcomers, might as well delay as much as possible. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would indeed be the best if some admin did a speedy close for this AfD as this would presumably resolve most problems. Perhaps posting a note at AN/I is the best way of achieving this. Nsk92 (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stated as much on the article's talk page. I agree with Myke Cuthbert. The AfD is usually a five-day affair, but in this case, it might not be a bad idea to close this discussion sooner per WP:SNOW considering the subject clearly does not meet the notability criteria for a Wikipedia encyclopedia entry. Mr. Jeandell, we all realize that you are new to Wikipedia, so it would be unfair to expect you to understand most of our policies from the very beginning. That said, I do hope that you decide to edit Wikipedia, study its policies and guidelines, and make a productive contribution to the encyclopedia's content. Best regards, J Readings (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate the more kinder, gentler explanations of the previous 2 users (Myke and J). Much more appropriate. A snowball sounds fine to me. However, I am still going to be a lil alienated. As I stated before, I made useful additions to this encylopedia before (in forms of additional info and news references) that have been since deleted with no explanation. (Jjeandell (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

You haven't exactly been civil yourself. Although I will admit that I have become wary of autobiographers on Wikipedia and tend to be more snappier than usual.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Closed (non-admin closure). Vandalism removed, legitimate page, wrong place for this type of discussion. WilliamH (talk) 22:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category talk:Photosynthesis

Nonsensical Mark5677 (talk) 22:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Speedy Close Delete the bad comment, but the talk page is legit. Also, this is the wrong place for this type of deletion discussion. Undeath (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as a reasonable solution, no outright reasons for deletion given. Leaving history intact per GFDL. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ollie Cole

Apparently non-notable musician, who was a member of band which briefly had minor success. The article is referenced only to his own MySpace page, and while a google news search throws up a few hits in the Irish music magazine Hot Press, I'm not sure that this adds up to notability per WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC.

I make the nomination because I think there is case for deletion, but I'll remain neutral for now. If kept, the article needs a major cleanup, because much of it appears to be original research or speculation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Turn (band), this dude's band should be the afd. If the band is notable, usually its members are as well. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply The band seems to me to be of marginal notability, but I took the view that in most cases a band is more than the sum of its parts ... so that individual band members will in general be less notable than the band. (Obviously that doesn't apply in all cases, but it seems to be a reasonable general principle). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~That sounds logical, but according to WP:MUSIC the members of a notable band are usually ipso facto notable. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
    - Sorry, that's wrong. See the bottom of WP:MUSIC#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles:
      Members of notable bands are not given individual articles unless they have demonstrated notability for activity independent of the band.
      So do you have any evidence that Ollie Cole is notability for activity independent of Turn (band)? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - My bad. Either I totally screwed up or the notablity standard changed. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hi, I just saw this article is being considered for deletion. It’s kind of a fine line with Ollie Cole. Yes, Turn were only moderately successful and since there hasn’t been much news with regard to Ollie.However, He has contributed to the highly praised charity album The Cake Sale and has spent much of his time since leaving Turn working on his solo album which is due out this year. Ollie is considered an important figure on the Irish music scene and shouldn’t be judged completely by Turn’s success or the last 2 absent years.If you wish I can clean up this page a little as it seems very unreferenced and bulky. I know of several articles and reviews that can be used as references for almost everything on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robmark23 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Turn (band) as co-founder, lead guitarist, and songwriter of the group, but has yet to produce/do anything separate from the act. When his much-belated solo album is finally released, or when his activity after the dissolution of the group attracts more notoriety than a contribution to a compilation album, this article can be restarted with the appropriate citations from reliable sources. B.Wind (talk) 06:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Good idea. That sounds to me like the perfect solution. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 01:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of Native Americans with facial hair

I'm not convinced this is a valid article- the does seem to be a potential discussion about facial hair and native Americans, but I don't feel that it deserves its own article, and especially not an article which is effectively a gallery of images of native Americans who happen to wear facial hair. Prod was removed by the author with the comment "Remove banner because I added sources." J Milburn (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though it has a slim possibilty of being an actual article, this is essentially a page of random images are Native Americans with facial hair that is trying to correct a mis-conception. БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є 22:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or merge. I think this is notable enough a topic for its own article, or at least merging into another article. However, I don't think it should be a gallery. It could be a proper article with a small gallery in it, but a gallery like this (even with an introduction) isn't that useful. There only need to be 2-3 pictures of native americans with facial hair to get the point across. -kotra (talk) 22:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I think any relevant info should be merged with Indigenous peoples of the Americas#Culture. I don't know how much there is really, but it fits better there. TN‑X-Man 22:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Possibly also a basic description could be merged into Stereotypes of Native Americans. -kotra (talk) 22:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is not an article. Aleta ^Sing 22:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America of this discussion. Aleta ^Sing 22:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My first reaction was "oh, good lord". The article (and I use the term loosely) did not improve that perception. This would absolutely fail as a category under Wikipedia:OVERCAT#Trivial intersection, and I really don't think that this qualifies as an article either. It is possible that an article could be constructed about this topic, but this isn't it. Horologium (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You have got to be kidding. Let's start with WP:NOT a gallery, and continue on with, exactly why is this even remotely encyclopedic? If it's meant to address a "common misconception" this can be handled with a single line in some article relating to Native Americans. You don't need a gallery of pix to belabor the point. 23skidoo (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I had to laugh at the title alone. Come on. Corvus cornix_talk 23:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge written content to (surprisingly short) facial hair article. The obvious WP:NOT applies to the gallery. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia might have a short gallery section in the article, but it is not the place for an article that is nothing but a gallery. My suggestion would be to delete the article from Wikipedia, but create this as a category in Commons, then at the main page of the WP:IPNA, create a link to the Common's category page, as it is an interesting grouping of photographs worth noting. CJLippert (talk) 01:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete and list at WP:DAFT. Seriously nonsensical, trivial intersection. Wikipedia is not Flickr. Stifle (talk) 09:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Odd gallery of photos, apparently premised on the assumption that we have misconceptions about American Indians that need to be refuted; Intentions were probably good, kind of like people I've known who actually said things like "He's black, but he's really nice". A footnote in an article about stereotypes would be as far as one needs to go with this. Mandsford (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Faith (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Atomic Delete I'm sorry, but this is the strangest article I've seen in the AfD discussions. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While there is a slight majority for deletion, the rationales are found somewhat lacking in the view of provided independent sources about the church which contribute to passing WP:N. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Waukee United Methodist Church

Individual church congregations are not notable unless proven otherwise, and this article has no proof of notability. It has sources, but not enough to make it notable. Nyttend (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 21:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite or merge with Waukee, Iowa. Notability and Verifiability requirement met by being both a pre-20th-Century American church still in existence combined with it being one of the oldest churches in its locality, combined with being cited in the listed references. Current article is does not meet Wikipedia standards, but that is grounds to improve the article not delete it. The content can be safely merged into Waukee, Iowa as part of a section that covers all historical churches in the town. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you preferring a keep or a rewrite? As far as your opinions for keepingj, all four churches (altogether average) in my hometown meet those criteria, along with dozens of congregations in my small denomination; simply a big number of years in its age and a small number of other churches nearby don't make it notable. Nyttend (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewritten for style with minimal content changes. I stripped out the current officers except the pastor and added a mention of the preschool and food pantry. The article could probably use an infobox. I'm okay with merging an abbreviated form of this and other similar churches in town into the city article and turning this into a redirect. As far as what the criteria for notability are for historic churches, different editors will draw the line at different places. This is part of why we have AfDs, so we can discuss whether a given church like this meets the criteria. I think we need input from a few more editors before the closing admin can made a decision. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comment on church articles It would make a good WikiProject to go through all the church articles, divide them into categories of "clearly not notable by any stretch of the imagination," "clearly meet Wikipedia's notability criteria," and "notability debatable," and do the appropriate speedy and afds on the latter two categories. For churches that do not assert their notability, an editor needs to at least read the church web page and do a web- and news-search to see if there is anything even marginally notable about the church, and if so, put a reference in the article before nominating it for deletion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, local church congregations are not inherently notable. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Taking into the account Davidwr's suggestion, I would argue this falls into the "notability debatable" section and err on the side of maintaining the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecoleetage (talk • contribs) 20:56, 12 May 2008

Delete - I see nothing notable about this congregation. - Philippe 01:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tempest Female Wrestling Club

Non-notable erotic wrestling club. Speedy was contested by one IP editor, and removed by another, but this is an advertisement for a non-notable business. Horologium (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: no indication of significance or importance, let alone notability. Fails WP:CORP; not a shred of coverage from a reliable source. The last edit [7] from the original author reads like blatant advertising. – Zedla (talk) 20:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't see any significant coverage in reliable sources in google. Nothing in Google news, books or scholar. As such, does not pass notability guidelines, unless significant offline coverage can be provided.--Beloved Freak 20:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 21:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 21:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, small BDSM club, charges $300 an hour. 78 Google hits. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear to be notable. Aleta ^Sing 22:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as advertisement/non notabl. So tagged. Undeath (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RockSomething

Non-notable webzine fails WP:WEB. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 20:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable webzine. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independent coverage from reliable sources that would be needed to sustain WP:WEB. B.Wind (talk) 06:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fram (talk) 11:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The National School System in Ballincollig and Carrigrohane 1831 – 1921

This doesn't appear (searching on co.uk or com) to be a notable topic, a notable period in the school history of this region or a notable anything. Without sources, or proof that sources exist, this appears to be almost wholly OR or an essay. Creator appeared to have written only on the topic of his/her town _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 20:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I wouldn't expect to see much in .co.uk about this given that Ballincollig and Carrigrohane are not in the UK (although they were at the time). Stifle (talk) 09:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response yeah I know, I was hoping for historical info and/or books by UK publishers, which I've found to turn up more in co.uk then .com at times, especially older books. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 13:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No doubt some of this can be used, much more appropriately in National school. Most of the article, which is historical would be better there, and any Ballincollig and Carrigrohane specific information should be in a town article, so long as some sources can be found or supplied by the original editor. Can we try to get some response from them? ww2censor (talk) 01:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I notified the creator, however s/he appears inactive and it appears that this was written as a possible essay. If someone can find sources to add referenced material that isn't already covered, that would be great but a search doesn't reveal any and this is quite unlikely to be a search term _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 04:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No references, no evidence of notability. There is no reason in principle why the history of schooling in a small area should not be notable, but notability is no established in this case of this piece of unsourced original research. I oppose merger to any other article: we should not be merging unreferenced material. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability; nothing particularly spectacular about this period w/these schools. - Philippe 01:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 01:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

South Korean scandals

Many countries have scandals and controversial incidents but there is no such page (as far as I've known) titled with one specific ethnic group (it includes incidents held in the U.S and Japan) to collect scandals for decades. The title and article could mislead that South Korea is the only country to keep causing scandals in the world. Besides, the lead says the list is about political scandals in South Korea but the article includes too many irrelevant incidents to politics. Appletrees (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 20:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do find a Political scandals of the United States, also French political scandals... and the Political scandal has lists of scandals from several other countries. Dekkappai (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I could not find them in the category to which the feature article belongs, but you did. However, the title and article contents are not fit --Appletrees (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it just needs trimming and better sourcing? Dekkappai (talk) 21:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it should probably be renamed to either "Political scandals of South Korea" or "South Korean political scandals", to be in the same format as the other articles, and to emphasize that these are political scandals. Dekkappai (talk) 22:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rename, cleanup & add sources. There are actually quite a few lists of political scandals by country, and there is no good reason why there shouldn't be one for South Korea as well. The only problems I can see with this article are cleanup issues. I don't see any valid reason for deletion. PC78 (talk) 22:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 22:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. I'm sorry, "South Korean" is not an ethnic group, and I don't think that there's anybody who would be "misled" into believing that "South Korea is the only country to keep causing scandals in the world". Mandsford (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Irregardless of the timing of the nomination, the subject appears to be notable. . - Philippe 01:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skyler Stone

No notability, apparently a vanity article. Previous discussion was erroneously closed when the closing magistrate felt that sources documenting the TV show Con provided notability. This logic is flawed in that the issue here is not whether wikipedia should have an article on Con, (and we do), its ONLY on whether this person (creator of the show) should have his own article even though he has accomplished little besides that show. Furthermore, it is ludicrous that the article on Stone is about 7 times as long as the article on "Con," which I think ran for all of two months. I say lets excise this unneeded article and make mention of Mr. Stone's 5 minutes of fame on the article about "Con," the only place where it belongs. JeanLatore (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 20:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the grounds that just because an editor disagrees with the rationale behind the closing of an AFD, you still can't renominate it only a few days later. That's a case of renominating until a desired outcome is achieved. If you feel the AFD was closed prematurely, it should be discussed with the closing editor. 23skidoo (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it was closed because of bogus and misleading sources provided at the last minute than were purported to be on the subject (Stone) but in fact were not. JeanLatore (talk) 22:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If you have a problem with the previous closure, talk to the closing admin or go to deletion review DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 15:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Without regard to the article (which is awful), this nomination smells like a little improper to me... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
erroneously closed ??? - that is a Deletion Review problem, it does not warrent a second bite at the apple. Is there an WP:IDONTLIKEIT issue going on here? Keep Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not only on the grounds that so far the nominator is the only person to have argued for deletion in now 2 attempts to delete this article in AfD, but also because Skyler Stone is notable for other things besides Con. For example, a Fox pilot called Skyler's Revolution (Hollywood Reporter); roles in movies such as Waiting... and its upcoming sequel Still Waiting... (MTV.com), For Your Consideration (Daily Variety), and the upcoming comedy No Place Like Home (Daily Variety); and a guest role on an episode of CSI: NY (Daily Variety). DHowell (talk) 01:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He appears to meet mimimim criteria.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 01:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rob DiFrancesco

Substantial recreation of prod, still mirrored at [8]. Since this was a prod, its ineligible for G4. That said, the article is borderline uneyclopedic, and fails WP:BIO. MrPrada (talk) 20:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 20:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 20:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable staffer for an Assemblyman Ohconfucius (talk) 08:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Article lists sources and does make a claim of notability, specifically the "youngest chairman" bit. This sounds odd, but I get a sense of deja vu that I can't place. TN‑X-Man 18:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "youngest elected X" is first of all very hard if not impossible to verify, and second tends to bea euphemism for "jut aboutto start becoming notable". This would if accepted give us one person for every possible minor office to be found, none of whom would be the least notable. DGG (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local politician, no broader notability. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I read the article and it can't be a vanity article, no onw wouel write an article to make himself look like such a failure. It must be an attack on one low-level politician by another.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 parent article. As it is, its a vanity article, nothing to merge that can't be said in one sentence of the parent article. Not merging content, but leaving history intact for mining and per GFDL Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atila Omer

This is clearly a vanity article about a non-notable person. If this article is to be included in Wikipedia, there are about 10 million more articles about people that should also be included. Starting small businesses is not notable unless the business becomes large or significant. Stellis (talk) 20:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 20:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Collaborative Fusion, which may just squeak by WP:N; all GHits he gets (aside from the usual LinkedIn, etc.) are trivial mentions in the context of him speaking about his company. cab (talk) 00:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Merge it into Collaborative Fusion. asenine ^{say what?} 00:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 01:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vida Jane Butler

Article fails to establish why this radio personality is notable. Orphaned for nearly 1 year. Rtphokie (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as subject is notable, verifiable, and covered in-depth in reliable sources. The time of her career limits the number of easily Googled sources (beware the FUTON bias trap!) but there are sufficient to cross the threshold. NPR devoting nearly four minutes of All Things Considered to the obit of this radio pioneer speaks strongly to notability as well. Article could use expansion but that's for another day. - Dravecky (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article is sourced properly, and the sources show notability. I concur with Dravecky, four minutes on a national program like ATC is very substantial coverage. In addition, she has further coverage here. Xymmax (talk) 02:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 both. - Philippe 01:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen R. Pastore

Non-notable person. He is not mentioned by secondary sources. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep marginally notable [9], [10], [11]. JJL (talk) 01:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment concur with comments below about the Saturday Review link but still consider him marginally notable. There's no notability penalty for deception, is there? JJL (talk) 01:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is said to be an author yet there are no reviews of his books cited. Northwestgnome (talk) 02:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep if properly cited. Sgt. bender (talk) 03:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Agreeing with JJL that it is "marginally notable". ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 09:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any site that hosts a review of Pastore's work, other than Amazon, is most likely created and hosted by Pastore himself. In the first "Weak Keep" vote, the first reference is to "The Saturday Review" which has not existed since 1986, and the site linked is hosted by Pastore. Also, on Amazon, the editorial reviews are also faked. If the page is kept, I suggest noting that while he has made some donations to libraries, the items donated have yet to be verified as genuine, and every book he has published is self-published and is cites fictional and misleading reviews. Allumeur (talk) 14:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. NO!!! 81.149.250.228 (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 02:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All facts I tried to check on this author turned over evidence of misrepresentation by the author and or his claimed publisher. --Pleasantville (talk) 15:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources for 99% of material; links are to bogus sites; awards don't appear to exist; publisher phone number is the same as the author's. Before edits, claimed his book was nominated for the Pulitzer. ????? Not according to them...and what is the European Literary Critics Circle...does not appear to exist. To be fair, however, I did find out that Pastore was an attorney: http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/attorney/AttorneyDetails?attorneyId=5383179 ontoyou (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete per Pleasantville. I edited this article extensively, and while there are many web hits to be found on the subject, they don't seem to have much substance behind them. I removed most of them from the article as being of unconfirmed validity, and what's left doesn't show notability. I also am going to add Never on These Shores to this nomination, as its notability is based entirely on the notability of the author, and on the validity of a award it claims. Finally, I don't know what it is about Mr Pastore, but there are too many SPAs around for me to feel altogether comfortable. I'm placing a warning template on this discussion. Xymmax (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

scamdetective1 (talk) 13:32, 7 May 2008

CommentI would ask then that you immediately strike your comment until there is a verfiable source. Such a comment would be removed from an article under our biographies of living persons policy, and that policy is just as applicable to this space. Thanks, Xymmax (talk) 18:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your understanding and cooperation. Xymmax (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep author and book! Found official award site which shows the book won the award in 2007 [12]; updated book's article. Other books by author More on Amazon! (Goodness people) Faith (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Award that this book is claimed to have won does not pass notability either.. with only one site that I have found mentioning it Fallenfromthesky (talk) 20:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding the Aldous Huxley award. Here is the Whois webpage on the owners of the website domain that mentions Aldous Huxley....NetworkSolutions no less. http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/results.jsp?domain=literaryawards.org Does the phone number for this company seem legitimate to you? Here is the website for Oxford Press, the owner of that domain name: www.Literaryawards.org. Here is the website for the REAL Oxford Press; type in Mr. Pastore's name to see if he's listed: http://www.oup.co.uk/ Ontoyou (talk) 17:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find it hard to believe that every site which has reviewed Pastore's books is a fake site from Pastore himself (isn't saying that without proof a violation of WP:BLP, anyway?). Rambles.net reviews heaps of books, including Pastore's NoTS [13]; NNDB an extensive database of noteworthy people has an entry on Sinclair Lewis listing "Sinclair Lewis: A Descriptive Bibliography, 1997, BY: Stephen R. Pastore" among the books about SL. Here's more:
- James M. Hutchisson CV, Professor of American Literature and Southern Studies, Department of English, The Citadel, Charleston, South Carolina, lists Pastore as editor of "World So Wide: The Life Journey of Sinclair Lewis." Sinclair Lewis: A Descriptive Bibliography, ed. Stephen R. Pastore (New Haven, CT: Yale Books, 1997), pp. 21-36.
- Oxford Journal, one of his books are cited in XVIII Bibliography and Textual Criticism, BAKER and WOMACK, Years Work Eng Studies.1997; 78: 968-987
- Also cited by Reesman, Jeanne Campbell. Fiction: 1900 to the 1930s American Literary Scholarship - 1999, pp. 289-311 Duke University Press [14] "Stephen R. Pastore in ‘‘Sinclair Lewis and Theodore Dreiser: New. Letters and a Reexamination of Their Relationship’’ (ALR 32: 69–81)."
Also, Amazon and other reliable booksellers (Barnes and Noble, Tower Books, etc.) list at least 14 books by this author which alone makes him notable per Wiki guidelines. I'm at a loss here why this is even an issue. --Faith (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Searching google for "Aldous Huxley Prize" finds a review a Amazon by "Seano" which claims

Mr. Pastore is a scam artist. You'll notice the review above says it's from LosAngelesTimesBookReview.com. Try looking that site up. It's a parking page, not the LA Times Book Review. The "Aldous Huxley" Prize he supposedly won for this book is fictitious. He made it up, and a friend of his made two fake websites to make it look real. [...] His "publisher", Cohort Press, is listed at his home address. He made up his Wikipedia biography to say a book he hasn't published yet is nominated for a Pulitzer. [...]

(However, the page that google lists is not available any more, only Google's cache. Also, it seems to me that amazon reviewers are as anonymous as wikipedia editors.)

--The very model of a minor general (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: But is the author able to edit several major booksellers listings? Again, regardless of commentary on Google (BLP anyone?), there are 14 books listed on Amazon with ISBNs which correspond to other big booksellers. Also, I showed where respectable journals have papers mentioning this author's name (as well as the CV for the Citadel professor) as author/editor. I'm quickly losing interest because I saw this on the AfD list and only replied because I saw there was a problem as he's a genuine author, but it's not my thing, so this will be my last comment on the matter. Faith (talk) 22:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FaithF, I know you've disengaged, and I don't blame you, but for the edification of anyone else following this discussion let me reply briefly. Everything you've written about the subject's online links is correct - they are there, and normally I would be the first to agree that they point to notability. Here, however, as Pleasantville and others have noted, when you push behind the surface - such as Googling the author of a favorable review, or the source for an award, too frequently we can not verify it. The subject certainly is a real author, but there is a real question as to whether he's a notable one. My personal observation is that I think the Sinclair Lewis scholarship seems to be accurate, but the notable (in WP terms) fiction-writing career has been, to date, difficult to confirm. Xymmax (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did an analysis of those ISBN numbers. See my comment in the discussion of the Pastore biography itself for the details. Something doesn't add up.Ontoyou (talk) 17:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Repeat...delete: http://www.yalebooks.co.uk/yale/default.asp http://www.hup.harvard.edu/ http://academic.scranton.edu/organization/upress/forthcoming-releases.shtml http://academic.scranton.edu/organization/upress/current-releases.shtml http://www.oup.co.uk/search/ http://www.google.com/search?q=hamlin+house+press&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a Each of these websites can be used to see if they ever even heard of Stephen Pastore. Furthermore, these fourteen books are SELF published. There's nothing wrong with that, but Mr. Pastore is not the world reknowned author he purports to be. Mr. Pastore is president of Cohort Books.http://scifi.fictionfactor.com/sfmg1.pdf (Sorry you'll have to do a short download of the listing on sci fi publishers; Cohort & Mr. Pastore are listed on page 40....but there's the truth of it. Furthermore, the info is public and you don't have to pay for it.) Ontoyou (talk) 03:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 01:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time Stands Still (single)

Non notable single by questionably notable artist. I feel like a tourist (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. Why not? Seems like a no-brainer to me. -- Taku (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable single. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 18:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last Man Standing (Ryan Shupe & the Rubberband album)

WP:CRYSTAL, no proof that this album even exists yet. Only tracks are rumors, only source is MySpace. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL. Check back in a month, maybe? Tnxman307 (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete. Item is for sale on Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/dp/product/B0017V8Q0W). (Sorry if I did this wrong.) 18:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.31.77.27 (talk)

Item is for pre-order on Amazon.com, it still has not been released. I feel like a tourist (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Three sources have been added to the article; however, none of them is reliable. The first is a contest; the second, an iLike profile; and the third, a primary source that's also trivial in nature. This is still WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Can we hold off on article deletion until after May 27th, which is when the album will actually be released? Cskaryd (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that would be a good idea. There's always a chance that the album could be delayed like Andy Griggs' last album was (same label). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 01:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Itsumade mo Ai wo Tsutsumou

This is an article on a single released by a questionably notable artist. This song however does not meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable single, see this artists other two singles above. I feel like a tourist (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge Obvious? -- Taku (talk) 21:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable single. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List_of_Total_Nonstop_Action_Wrestling_tournaments#Deuces_Wild_Tournament - seems the logical solution. If redirects are undone, we can evaluate other options. - Philippe 01:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deuces Wild Tournament

This tournament is included on the List of TNA tournaments article. It is not notable for it's own article. King iMatthew 20 08 19:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not simply redirect to List of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling tournaments#Deuces Wild Tournament. That seems like a logical solution and would have been quicker than this AFD. --76.66.180.126 (talk) 01:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was PROD-ed [15], which was then removed [16]. Although a re-direct would be quicker there is no reason why that would not simply be undone. This is correct procedure. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki311 21:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, and if it becomes a problem with people undoing the redirect, the page can be protected. Nikki311 23:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 01:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zoomquilt

A nonnotable internet art project tagged so since April. No independent references provided. Mukadderat (talk) 19:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not notable. I feel like a tourist (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim of notability, no references. There are a fair number of google hits, but I couldn't find any that provided a reliable source for notability. Maybe an article could be created, but this one has been around for long enough that if someone was going to improve it, they could have. Wrs1864 (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not only nonnotable, but abandoned as well. `'Míkka >t 05:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, band with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beow Mix

Fails WP:BAND, no albums in general release, fails all criteria of WP:MUSIC, no Google hits. Ravenswing 19:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

del nonnotable. Mukadderat (talk) 19:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 01:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How Do You Solve a Problem Like Maria (Canadian Version)

Article about a TV show that does not yet exist. I feel like a tourist (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete as the Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.~~ Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per below. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I suggest checking back in a few months. TN‑X-Man 19:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete crystal. KTC (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to keep per link to CBC promotion of the program below. KTC (talk) 22:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep CBC has a website for the program here, listing a summer airdate, but plenty of G-hits involving the term ""How do you solve a problem like Maria?" +cbc", mostly involving auditions, so at minimum the show is going forward with that. Nate • (chatter) 22:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Article has now been expanded with this additional information, though a title change to How Do You Solve a Problem Like Maria? (Canada) is suggested. Nate • (chatter) 22:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:CRYSTAL does not apply to upcoming series that have been officially announced and already the subject of promotion by the producing network, which is the case here. 23skidoo (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per 23skidoo. The network is promoting it, it's not so crystalballish any more. Corvus cornix_talk 23:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is confirmed, as per previous comments. (Though I can't say I'm looking forward to this particular show!) Ecoleetage (talk) 02:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as a blatant copyright violation. Hut 8.5 16:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elise window seal

Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. No salvagable encyclopaedic content. nancy ^(talk) 19:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I was going to list this one too; this original how-to article does not belong in an encyclopedia. I feel like a tourist (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: original research: describes author's how they did it. Mukadderat (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Note to the author: Wikipedia is neither an instruction manual nor your blog. AnturiaethwrTalk 19:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above. Nothing encyclopedic worth saving. nneonneo ^talk 19:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously unencyclopedic WP:NOT#HOWTO – Zedla (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G12 as a copyvio of this forum site. -FrankTobia (talk) 03:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Mr. Cut and Ms. Paste have visited a forum (see above), the text (and photo links, all broken) lifted and deposited here. If it weren't for the copyvio, I'd still urge a delete as Wikipedia is not a "how-to" guide. B.Wind (talk) 04:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 01:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Utah Sports jinx

Alleged jinx that's really the author's opinion/analysis in violation of WP:NOR. No sources. Includes weasel words like "Many feel also..." NawlinWiki (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete as OR.I feel like a tourist (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete Mukadderat (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR. KTC (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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), as notability has been confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Massachusetts Public Records Law

OR essay on a non-notable field of one state's laws. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Nominator is misguided it is OR. In fact a huge piece (deleted by me) was cut and paste from the law itself. State's law cannot be nonnotable by definition: it governs the life of a whole state. And wikipedia is not paper. Mukadderat (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mukadderat. It does not read like OR and cites sources. Given the importance of access to public records in a free society, I cannot see this as anything but notable, even down to the state level. Dloh cierekim 20:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above comments. Article could do with improvement though.... KTC (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Absolutely notable, article can be edited to address any other faults. This is the state equivalent of Freedom of Information Act (United States), and as with most public legislation, sources abound. Xymmax (talk) 20:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be a fairly important state law of broader interest outside of just Massachusetts. Article could use expansion. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 01:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Squarular

Did not speedily delete as a nonsense page. Looks like a not notable neologism to me. I found nothing on Google scholar or Google news. Google web search shows limited usage. My favorite is "I have a tendency to go off on people about how squarular should be a word until they get tired ." Then there is this bit of intellectual insight "Interestingly enough my honor students taught me the words squaricle and squarular (um, I think they're geometry terms...I don't teach math) today. (such is the state of education today.) Perhaps it's a new synonym for rectangle. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 18:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC) Dloh cierekim 18:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, see WP:NEO, WP:NFT. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although a bunch of people seem to be using it informally (to mean "square," "cubic," or "tiled"), it's still well within the purview of WP:NEO. Furthermore, there is no potential whatsoever for this article to be more than a dicdef. AnturiaethwrTalk 19:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a neologism.--Berig (talk) 19:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
speedy Delete as unreferenced and unreferencible, i.e., nonverifiable. Mukadderat (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already declined the speedy as it is a neologism in (limited} use. Speedy deletion does not apply as there is no appropriate category, and it can be referenced. It will probably snow close, though. Dloh cierekim 20:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete par nom. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 17:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp (talk) 23:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tirna Electronics

Speedy declined by DGG on the grounds that it asserts some notability. Personally I don't see it nor do I see RS coverage and ghits just confirm existence. Appears to fail WP:CORP _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 18:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For some reason, the AfD template is mangled on the page. I can't seem to fix this. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response appears fixed now, thanks. I think Twinkle hiccuped. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 18:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the assertion was that the equipment was used in notable projects in telemedicine. Now, I'm not the least sure that's enough to support the article, but it was just enough that I thought it best for others to look at it besides myself. In any case, some real documentation is needed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
Delete - there is no assertion of notability on the company's website, and their products are certainly not unique (nor high-priced, for that matter). Additionally, there is no assertion of usage in any significant other product, and without any assertion of notability, the company is non-notable. MSJapan (talk) 04:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, webcontent with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Gladiator

Fails WP:WEB and WP:CRYSTAL, online game from startup webgame company without any products to date, only now entering alpha testing. No independent sources, no pertinent Google hits. RGTraynor 18:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete; default to KEEP. - Philippe 01:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Biesterfeld

Fails WP:BLP1E; non-notable person known -- to the degree that she is -- for only this one incident. Zero citations on Google News for the last ten days; plainly, her fifteen minutes are up. Ravenswing 18:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep. My reasons for article creation were listed in Talk:Brenda Biesterfeld. Her "15 minutes" as you disrespectfully refer to the case, caused waves which went beyond paparazzi. The case put the library policies in the limelight and the issue is not closed yet. [17] Laudak (talk) 18:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Do you have any reliable sources suggesting ongoing notability? That link you just provided is a blog. That the issue of people surfing porn on library computers is an ongoing deal has been apparent for years, but Biesterfeld's involvement is not, and no mentions in the news media at all, anywhere, of late is telling. In any event, WP:BLP1E is unambivalent. Ravenswing 18:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where are wikipedia articles on this apparently notable issue, then? Mukadderat (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clear case of BLP1E and as Ravenswing says above, the issue is notable, her involvement is not _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 18:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not believe has received significant media coverage. Local yes, but no national news. Being fired for not following your boss' directive and employer policy is not notable. One event need not raise one to notability. Also, I have a sense that Wikipedia is hereby being used to promote a cause. The conflict between ALA's sensibilities and those of some communities is not new, and this episode is not particularly notable. Dlohcierekim 19:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "no national news" - false. LA Times is just as national as NY Times. "Being fired for not following your boss' directive" - notability depends on context: Civil disobedience is quite a notable topic. Laudak (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep WP:BLP1E inapplicable: while the first event was single, subsequent chain of events followed, described and referenced in the article. At worst, the content may be merged into something like Internet porn and libraries. Do we have anything on this topic? If not, this article must be written. 19:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Totally spurious remark. We could probably have a featured article on the conflict between ALA's values and local community values. As a former library board member, I'm glad this did not happen on my watch. I'd back my director either way, but it could be a really tough call. Dloh cierekim 19:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I wouldn't say it's inapplicable at all. There has been no nationwide dialog on the issue that was not already there, no laws have been passed, no local political repercussions, and Biesterfeld has dropped off the 24-newscycle's radar. If this incident had never happened, what else about Biesterfeld's life makes her notable? Ravenswing 20:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The last question is quite unfair. People routinely become famous of a single incident. I don't say she is famous. I am claiming she is notable in views of significantly large number of people. She got an award from some society. President of other societies present her as an example of civic courage. Library committees made sessions to make decisions about porn rules, so there were local political political actions. Laudak (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<<second spurious remark in reply to Ravenswing. Laudak's reply was interposed afterward>> OMG, I could have been the one hounded by the press, demanding why I loved/hated the First Amendment so strongly that I would have supported/opposed her firing-- nah. I'm sure there are people on both sides of this issue that would like to see the matter receive greater attention. I do not want to see Wikipedia used as a soapbox or a battleground. And apparently, the news services are not breaking down her door. Yes, this struggle will go on. Hopefully, not here. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 20:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and your point is...? Where in the article you see any battle or soap? News are not supposed to break in one's door every day. Some events are happened and recorded. Please cite any last 10 days news about, say,... er... Margaret Ringenberg. Laudak (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Laudak That was a second spurious remark, directed toward Ravenswing, who had replied to my first spurious remark. Please look at my original "delete" for my rationale. Dloh cierekim 21:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to points raised by Laudak One mention in the LA Times does not notability make. Nor does getting fired. Civil disobedience is notable as a subject, one/every /any act that might be described as such need not be. The fact that a lot of people might agree with her decision does not make her encyclopedicaly notable under WP:N or WP:BIO. One need not be in the news daily to be notable-- such news coverage as was never reached the level of significant media coverage. The LA Times is not a national outlet for a story occurring in California. It's just somemthing that happened in the state. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 21:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Story was in the local section of the paper. Being covered in the local section of even a national outlet is not the same as national coverage. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 21:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep andrename. difficult case. On the one hand it is one event, on the other it's about one of the classic problems in the public library profession and civil liberties more generally. she wasn't an inadvertent bystander. There will be articles about it for years in librarianship journals, as it will be used for teaching. But the notability is the event, and not her, And the event is notable because not of her getting fired, but the conflict of ethics--she deliberately violated one of the really fundamental rules about being a librarian in terms of what she considered a higher ethical responsibility. I'm trying to think of how to rename it. DGG (talk) 21:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable person, her 15 minutes are over. Corvus cornix_talk 23:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Give an article a chance. After having looked at the article, I see that it is adequately referenced in multiple reliable sources and was also less than an hour old when nominated. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. While someone insinuated here that I have some vested interests in the case, I created it by an extremely random occasion and will not shed a tear if it deleted. But I spent some time to convince myself that the case was notable enough to waste an hour of my time, and I find that arguments "15 minutes of fame" are mere fast slapped sticker not addressing the topic in question. I deliberately stopped expanding this article and wait for this deletionfest to end. This lady did not and does not seek for glory, so the description "15 minutes of fame" is not only meaningless, it is also insulting. Laudak (talk) 00:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per DGG's analysis. Antelan ^talk 21:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an obvious case of WP:BLP1E. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Google News gives 10 hits for late April, including this coverage talking about mediation instead of lawsuit, but how Tulare County wants her to pay for half the costs. Ongoing WP:NOTE (including more than just her local county covering the story; late April coverage is from CA, MT, OR, MS, etc.). LA Times 26 Mar 2008 Faith (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as advertising. - Philippe 01:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transform studios

No evidence of RS coverage and ghits from .com or .co.uk give the same paltry results that are essentially download links. No evidence of notability but not sure whether assertion of a connection with notable artists pieces was a claim at notability to avoid a Speedy. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 18:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, advertisement, not notable. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 01:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Soegaard: The movie

WP:CRYSTAL violation, movie not yet under production. ZERO Google hits, no sources proffered RGTraynor 17:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. According to WP:MOVIE, "Films which have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced shooting should not have their own articles... Sources need to confirm the start of shooting after shooting has begun." The article has other problems, but that's quite enough for me. AnturiaethwrTalk 19:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Aside from the obvious WP:V and WP:MOVIE issues, I could find no evidence that any of the names in the article are actually people involved in the film business. The tone of this indicates that it's a home movie some kids are planning to make. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per previous, well-stated concerns. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 01:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dieter Rossi

Doesn't seem to be a notable painter; only showcases were in his own gallery, and no third party sources could easily be found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. I feel like a tourist (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 00:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability. Johnbod (talk) 00:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Johnbod and nom.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this isn't close..Modernist (talk) 22:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 01:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bahavians

Delete. The subject is not notable and the article is redundant. Nsk92 (talk) 17:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non notable list.--Berig (talk) 19:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Magioladitis (talk) 20:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Bahave!! Merge this back to Cory in the House or whatever this is a reference to. Mandsford (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Cory in the House. No reason for a stand-alone list. Aleta ^Sing 23:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What kind of merge can we perform? There are only two names that they are already mentioned in the main article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, in-universe material that fails WP:FICT and is unneeded per WP:SPINOUT. Eusebeus (talk) 13:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. List of non-notable characters which do not need their own article, especially considering they are already included in a different list. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - we wish you the best, but an article is inappropriate until notability has been established. - Philippe 01:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uness

Non-notable musician, fails WP:MUSIC. Judging from the talk page, this is a PR piece and heavy WP:COI. Speedy and hangon tag removed by author. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not from promotional purposes. It will purely act as a source for information. We are updating the Bio as we speak and you can see the page has already been considerably expanded since I created it earlier. We have no reason to use Wikipedia as a promotional tool, we have social networking for that —Preceding unsigned comment added by NickHSpurs (talk • contribs) 17:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll take your word for that. However, please keep in mind that there don't seem to be any reliable, third-party sources for this musician -- nor has he done anything else that would meet the notability guidelines established at WP:MUSIC. As far as I can tell, he hasn't had multiple major-label releases, a charted single, or any significant media coverage; therefore, if he fails WP:MUSIC's criteria, he should not have a page on Wikipedia. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay fair enough, I wasn't aware of the above. The #1 hits will follow ;)

We're just starting to push a couple of tracks on the airways so we thought it would be a good time to get some info up on Wiki before the album is released as Wiki seems to be the first place people look for information these days.

It should be more in depth by the end of this week.

Thanks for your help —Preceding unsigned comment added by NickHSpurs (talk • contribs) 18:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He hasn't released anything, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball unless you're planning on waiting for anything to be released. Plus, the comment above reiterates my interest conflict fears. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 18:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: He's on Universal, but until he actually releases something, I would say that he is non-notable. I feel like a tourist (talk) 19:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As nothing has been release yet, this doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Don't get discouraged though. TN‑X-Man 19:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MUSIC & WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edgeworks_Entertainment

For a number of reasons, I believe this article warrants deletion, along with a similar article that both refer to each other. Notability is the biggest factor. The company has not done much work, and doesn't meet the basic notability criteria: "if the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." WHILE THE SERIES MAY BE NOTABLE the company itself is not, and if the paragraphs relating to the completed projects, which already refer to the SERIES PAGES were removed, what would be left would be a publicity article. As well, all the references to notability talk about the SERIES not the company. Until the company has produced more work, all information should be relegated to the SERIES PAGES rather than this company page. UnderPressure (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I am also nominating the following related page because of Notability (the founder of this company has made a few student films and had some local recognition, a few minor awards, but does NOT meet the eligibility requirement for a creative professionals. As well the information is not all verifiable at this time:

This is obviously an issue that we disagree on, and I've always found that Wikipedians can sometimes confuse "notability" with whether they care about it or not, (and I'm including myself in that statement as well). With that in mind, it can be hard to see whose point about notability is more objectively accurate. Luckily, Wikipedia has given us concrete criteria to appeal to...

Edgeworks Entertainment - The Wikipedia:Notability (web) lists three criteria for notability for a website, and it clearly says that a website is deemed notable if it meets any ONE of those criteria. The first is that it be the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, the second that it has won recognized awards, and the third that it is distributed through an independent and respected medium. Of those, Edgeworks has the first and third in the bag, (it was on the front page of several city-wide magazines, it had an entire chapter in a published book, and it was covered on NPR for the first, and it was distributed in a shrink-wrapped DVD on the cover of a British (thus, international) magazine for four months for the third). The second it doesn't really meet, (the awards Edgeworks has won are more niche in nature). However, as a webcompany, Edgeworks meets plenty of the Web criteria to be notable.

As for the assertion that the series is notable but not the company, there are two reasons to keep it the way it is: first, a previous deletion process, (which was ENTIRELY necessary and valid), eliminated the Forsaken and Codex Series pages and merged them into Edgeworks. The Edgeworks page was, very early in its history, established as the solution to having too many pages about this company. However, this is not a good enough reason to keep it. The Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) lists only one criteria for a notable organization: that it be well-covered in independent sources. To that end, many, if not most, of the sources on these pages (Dallas Observer, Houston Press, etc) discuss the group of filmmakers as much or more than the series itself, and a few (mtvU, NPR) focus almost entirely on the production and business aspects of the company. The NPR interview, for example, was for the show "Marketplace," a business-oriented program, and it was all about Microsoft's legal arguments toward machinima companies and filmmakers. These sources cover Edgeworks and its producers specifically, in addition to the series.

As a webcompany, Edgeworks meets more than the required number of criteria for notability. As an organization, it solidly meets the criteria for notability. And as a company, separate from its series, it has been covered in numerous independent and reliable sources. It is, objectively and aside from anyone's personal feelings, notable.

Alexander Winn - Despite having been official selection or winner at 17 national and international film festivals before he turned 20, (not "a few" awards and "local" recognition), arguments over quantity and quality of film festivals is irrelevant for this article, because Wikipedia:Notability (people) only gives one criteria: that the person be covered in reliable, independent sources. And, as you pointed out, they should be independent from the series he produced to justify having his own page. However, the mtvU piece was called "Machinima Master" and was not about The Codex by any stretch of the imagination, it was about Winn. The other filmmakers at Edgeworks were barely featured at all, and the series was mentioned as Winn's project, not Winn as the series' creator. Also, the NPR piece was, as mentioned earlier, about companies and filmmakers, not the series. Winn was brought on as an expert, and he was the only machinima producer to be featured in the piece, his was not one voice among many. I think that an entire story on a national television channel about one person irrefutably counts as "deep" coverage, as does the person being considered the sole relevant expert on a highly respected national radio program, but taken together they clearly indicate notability according to Wikipedia's guidelines, especially when added to Winn's numerous awards and other accolades.

However, while both Edgeworks and Winn's articles do meet notability and should not be deleted, I agree that they are not perfect, and I would not oppose an "Expand" or "Clean Up" tag on either or both of them. I agree that the Edgeworks page is mostly a description of the series, as you said, but the company is notable, and more can be added to the article to allay your objections. The same goes for the Winn article: it can be expanded and revised, but it is notable. Therefore, assuming good faith, and believing that you are as interested as I am in doing what Wikipedia's guidelines should objectively lead us to, I suggest that we remove the tags for deletion and replace them with "Expand" and/or "Clean Up" tags. Any objection? Tex Murphy (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia:INSPECTOR --Faith (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete; default to KEEP. - Philippe 01:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Traditionalist world view (American)

This article is an amalgamation of original research. I'm not convinced any of the cited sources even use the phrase "traditionalist worldview". This topic is already covered under a number of other articles. The article doesn't have a strong form, structure or direction, and reads like a couple of book reviews patched together. Instead of using multiple sources to write about a topic, it reads like an argumentative essay, where sources are complied to reach an original conclusion (that all these different souces are actually talking about one thing which is termed a "traditionalist worldview"). However, that term itself gets a very low hit count on google (including google scholar and google book), which also brings up notability concerns. Perhaps the article should be rescoped under Social conservatism in the United States? But as it stands, the original research issues and notability concerns have me leaning towards delete (but hopefully making this article more visible through the AfD process could generate more ideas). Andrew c ^[talk] 16:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. The thing reads like an article in a public policy magazine and there's no attempt made to show that the thesis is commonly held. Mangoe (talk) 17:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Cultural conservatism#American context. This article has good sources while that one has a better title. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well-referenced and its title doesn't appear as OR to me, since American Traditionalist world view is a reasonable synonomous phrase for Cultural conservatism in an American context, which is definitely not an OR topic. Plus, the article is in remarkably good shape for being 3 weeks old. Besides, most editors would probably have hoped that a discussion on the talk page or the main editor's user page would have preceded this AfD. AfD might be too much too soon. --Firefly322 (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to disagree with the synonym; the link has to be proven, and since the proof must come externally, it would have to be cited. Mangoe (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed approach to determining a synonym seems unrealistically skeptical. For example, I've looked through Mangoe's edits and his or her own standards for making a contribution never approach the degree of "proof" proposed. --Firefly322 (talk) 03:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with the possibility of renaming the article along the lines prescribed above. I am a relatively new editor on Wikipedia (long-time reader), and created the page in question as a term assignment for the course The Anthropology of American Culture. However, we were coached on how to make this assignment into something that would not resemble a normal school essay in any way.. It is not a book review, and it is not original research (if it were, I would have put in my own opinions about how the very use of the term "traditional" is a willful mythologizing of US social history). To save myself from writing my own polemics, the article uses specific authors to lay out general trends on the topic; there might be a sentence or two where my implicit bias comes across, but I worked hard to make it as neutral, and as particular in its American context, as I could. As for the topic, it was chosen from a list my professor gave us, and as far as I know it would be well-recognized and -respected by any academic who would come across it. The trouble with the topic is that many people in the social sciences have theorized on traditionalists, but have done so under different names (Hunter uses "orthodoxy," but does once or twice call them "traditionalists," Stein refers to both "conservatives" and "traditionalists," and Lakoff uses only "conservative worldview" since he is dealing largely in the realm of political action rather than isolated scholarly interest; there is secondary literature coming out just now about each of these authors). I think it might be appropriate to google your brains out until you find an appropriate synonym that might be more recognizable for the article title, but the term is in use, and I only wish I had enough experience with Wikipedia to know how to make that clear (one thing you can do is google "traditional worldview" in addition to "traditionalist"--I think these are fair synonyms, and the former produces several more results). Although perhaps some parts of the "Culture wars" section might be appropriate for a merge, the article is different from other articles on social conservativism for two reasons: A) it is explicitly in an American context, and B) rather than writing a laundry-list of issues traditionalists support, I have outlined theories about their worldview, which is to say the overall framework from which they make decisions about those specific issues. It is admittedly a much compacted article on a very broad topic, but for example I used the section "Key themes" to demonstrate that A) according to Hunter, there is a real divide between two groups, and he theorizes it has something to do with an anxiety of modernity on the orthodox side; B) according to Lakoff (the original person doing this kind of research), a model for a conceptual roadmap behind the seemingly illogical views of each side; and C) according to Stein, just like the progressive side of the gay rights debate, the traditionalist side uses particular rhetorical schemes that tend to conform to Lakoff's models, and additionally she argues that in addition to a fear of modernity (Hunter), conservative critics will use victimhood to reinforce their own domination. These are all fascinating theories (and there are more in the article itself) that don't exist elsewhere on Wikipedia--so let's not get caught up in the politics of nomenclature. Sorry I rambled on so much...I'd like to hear what everyone thinks. Thanks, this is actually really fun to debate like this.YouMustBeLion (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just an update, an anonymous user (I think?) placed a "FindSources" template on the discussion page of the article, implying I suppose that there are few results when "Traditionalist world view (American)" is put into the search engine, making it not notable. I have placed more "FindSources" templates with various spellings of the topic, many of which show a good number of results, on the discussion page of the article for general perusal. Hopefully that solves some of the notability concerns.YouMustBeLion (talk) 22:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My 2 bob's worth: By all means go ahead and argue and toss and re-direct the titles and whatever it takes to appease those whose ideological cheeks are flaming at being so concisely outed, but the article provides a succinct and well-researched explanation of an identifiable and pertinent philosophy - certainly encyclopedic in its context and IRL one that countless of my compatriots have buttonholed me down the pub about, knowing that I spent 3 recent years living in the USA. Plutonium27 (talk) 04:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is written in an extremely non-NPOV manner. As such any usefulness it may have is negated by the fact that it's basically an opinion piece. Algabal (talk) 12:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Algabal. Faith (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what a POV dispute is for, not deletion. And that goes for the both of you. KEEP per above. --Pwnage8 (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this thesis is that the very title of the article is a POV problem. Who says that American political conservatives are "traditionalist"? This article can be viewed as a POV fork, and therefore shouldn't exist. Mangoe (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename/rework as a spin-out of Cultural conservatism#American context (which is currently rather lacking). There's good stuff here, it just needs some love, and attention from more editors to take care of NPOV or OR problems. — confusionball (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While not necessary NPOV, and includes academic-like analysis, is surely not simply OR or an "opinion piece." This article pulls together a lot of interesting information (from various published sources) which appears nowhere else in Wikipedia. --John Champe (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 01:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clyde May

Policemen day everyday. Article fails notability per WP:BIO. Magioladitis (talk) 16:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failure to establish WP:BIO notability. Olaf Davis | Talk 16:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant claims to notability; at best this is a BLP1E case. Fails WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable.--Berig (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree that this article is a BLP1E and also falls under WP:NOTMEMORIAL. A shame, certainly, but I do not think he's notable. TN‑X-Man 19:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTMEMORIAL. KleenupKrew (talk) 12:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clearly non-notable, hoping to avoid COI since I am listed below. Rudget (Help?) 17:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MyGamingServers

Non-notable organization that fails WP:CORP. [18] is news coverage. Here are some ghits [19]. The latter simply reveals non-notable or unimportant mentions at various websites. I don't see any significant second or third party coverage. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 16:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computers-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 16:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 16:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 16:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Enigma ^message 17:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails corp. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 17:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no mention of notability, could be tempted to A7 (corp) this one. Rudget (Help?) 17:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm surprised it wasn't speedied initially. Kafka Liz (talk) 17:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I tagged it as A7. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and second the speedy. The ELs don't work any more, which makes me thing this non-notable corp may have sunk below the internet waves. Yarr.Gazimoff ^Write _Read 17:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Trying to find any reliable information on this company or it's current CEO has brought up a bunch of forum adverts and arguments, but nothing that appears worthwhile. --Onorem ♠Dil 17:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 01:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pec Indman

Non-notable person. Has a private psych practice, has been secretary of a state level org, but I don't see anything notable. (note: article was prodded, deprodded and replaced with material on a branch of psychology, I reverted to before I prodded it since the title did not fit the material that was added (and material already existed elsewhere). RJFJR (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable local therapist. KleenupKrew (talk) 12:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, webcontent with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tunimap

Beta stage, non notable music sharing community site, bordering on spam/advert. SGGH ^speak! 16:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7. Oore (talk) 16:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non notable beta product.--Berig (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 01:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Billy 'Pop' Attmore

Does every Mousketeer need their own article? I'm not in the US, so don't know just how much of a cultural impact this show had — maybe this should be cleaned up and expanded instead. His IMDB entry shows him as having appeared in occasional episodes of other programmes, but (it appears) all in fairly minor roles. If kept, this one will have to be slash-and-burn rewritten from the ground up (in this case, aside from adding in the other roles, I don't propose to do this myself as I've no knowledge of the subject). — iridescent 15:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think being a Mouseketeer is automatically notable. He's certainly not the only one of his peers not to have an article -- even in the original cast numerous actors don't have articles, nor those of the most recent incarnation which spawned a couple of superstars. In fact, I have my doubts about some of the names that do have bluelinks. --Dhartung | Talk 16:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Well, I suppose it's good to see Mouseketeer fancruft instead of the more usual Pokemon and Star Wars, but he's still not notable. KleenupKrew (talk) 12:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G11. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solar bat

Delete. NN company and sunglasses. Reads like a big advertisement. Appears to be WP:SPAM Endless Dan 14:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno if it should even be noted as this appears to be a snowball, but this was noted by the article creator. Violates WP:COI.--Endless Dan 16:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - advert for sunglasses company. I would recommend speedy tag for this article, actually. TN‑X-Man 14:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete advert. No independent evidence of notability. Laudak (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ADV. ArcAngel (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SPAM#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles; independent notability is not claimed or established. Frank | talk 16:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an advertisement.--Berig (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete; default to KEEP. - Philippe 01:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undead (Kamen Rider)

Fails WP:FICT, WP:PLOT, WP:N. Unnotable race of monsters in Kamen Rider Blade with no significant coverage in any reliable, third party sources. All sources added after AfD are from the official series website, and do not establish any notability. Nothing but plot and a big list of the 52 "monsters-of-the-day" seen in the 49 episode series. Already well covered by a single paragraph in the main article. Tagging for notability since March 2008. AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it's still being worked on, it's a part of the show. It does'nt need to be deleted, only updated to meet requirements. Fractyl (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It can't meet the guidelines, and nothing has been done to it since it was tagged. AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, would like you like to help in the matter? I have already posted this to WikiProject Tokusatsu. Fractyl (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm helping by nominating it for deletion. You never should have created it in the first place. They have no real world notability and a listing of all of them is completely unnecessary. Also, your post to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tokusatsu [20] is worded in such a way that it appears to be canvassing. AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did to move some space. But, I'm improving the Undead's profiles by first adding the references of the Undead that appeared in the series.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fractyl (talk • contribs) 10:10, May 8, 2008

The references are all for the official site and do not address any of the issues given as reasons for deletion, namely the lack of real-world notability and significant coverage in THIRD-party sources, meaning sources other than the show itself, its official websites, or other official/production materials. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, why don't you tell me just how to do that? I'm reformating the page to make it like the Fangires. Fractyl (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just did. If you want to prove this is notable, YOU must find reliable sources that give the topic of the Undead group/species significant coverage. That doesn't include fansites either, and not minor mentions. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless the contents of the article can be supported by independent sources, and have the notability of the subject demonstrated by independent sources. It is a question of verifiability. _{1 != 2} 16:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; it's a list of characters from a notable television series. Most of the article is in fact a sub-article of Kamen Rider Blade which is what the content came from, without much change from the original article. The existance of this article keeps the main article uncluttered, even though the article could suffice better as a list. I will look for references later, because they certainly do exist.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adding links to a bunch of fansites and blog listings does not meet the requirements for notability as they are not WP:RS. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those sorts of links are to be avoided. In this case, they serve to show that the item referenced exists (also Nirasawa's page would count as a reliable source, seeing as he's the one who designed all of the characters).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, they don't. They do not show that there is any significant, THIRD party coverage. Nirasawa's sight is not a third-party source either. These are extremely basic rudiments of WP:RS and WP:N, something an admin should know well.AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then the other websites, the ones that aren't personal websites or blogs, fulfill third-party coverage.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And those are? All I see are official sites, the creator's sites, and non-reliable personal sites, fansites, blogs, etc. AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Megahobby is not a fansite or the creators site or an official site. It is a third party website that covers the toys and other paraphernalia, which in this case covers the figurines.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That speaks to the series as a whole, not the undead (and one single link is not enough for notability) nor significant coverage. AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is about specific Undead and the fact that they were made into figurines. That has nothing to do with the series as a whole, and the other links, despite being less than reliable sources, work for just the Undead. The information is verifiable, the subject is notable, and there are reliable sources that mention the subject in a non-trivial manner.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are still figurines for the series, just like almost every other series, and selling toys is not significant coverage. The subject is not notable, except for you. You've already confirmed, they are not reliable sources. You have yet to produce multiple reliable source actually covering the specific subject of the Undead species in Kamen Riders in significant detail.AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The figurine stores are reliable sources, because those particular Undead are the only ones made into toys. Those do cover the subject of the Undead in Kamen Rider Blade as their impact on the real world. The article need not be deleted, as Krimpet says below. The content needs to be reworked and maybe merged back into the parent article, or simply remove the excessive plot summary. Not delete the whole article. These are fictional characters belonging to a notable television series. There are references to both the primary source as well as secondary sources, which only you have argued as being dismissable because they are blogs or they are personal websites or they are stores or they're the official website of the designer. This is about characters from a nearly four year old Japanese television show. Treat it as that, instead of as a "species."—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then shove the few maybe half-way sort of main ones into the character list where they belong. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's sorta been taken care of, with the major Undead that actually had a part in the story. The Jokers are purposely left out as they are alter egos. Fractyl (talk) 02:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Though my previous postings may had said it, I also like to this page to remain to be worked on. Fractyl (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could find no significant coverage from reliable secondary sources independent of the coverage. Doctorfluffy (i can has msg) 23:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't know enough about the subject to comment either way, but since this covers one piece of a whole fictional work, I think this would be better left to a merge discussion on the article's talk page, rather than an AfD. krimpet ✽ 00:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in the nom, they are already adequately covered in Kamen Rider Blade so nothing to merge. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if people are sure 100% of the necessary information has been merged in, keeping a redirect in place would still be beneficial for our readers. Additionally, as some of the information in that main article may have been merged in previously, it's best to keep the history in place for GFDL reasons. krimpet ✽ 01:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep asa list, rather than the individual monsters. This sort of compilation is the way to handle the barely notable. I cants see why te information is any worse here than in the main article. DGG (talk) 22:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If this does get deleted, in no way should it be remade into a redirect. If you come looking for information about the Undead as they pertain to Kamen Rider Blade, the vast majority of users won't type in Undead (Kamen Rider), because most users don't notice or care about disambiguations. They'll probably go directly to the series article to see what it says, then see, perhaps, that it links off to another page and go there. As for what to do with this article, however, I think a rework is in order, before any other action is taken. Describe the Undead as a whole, first. Then, the half-dozen genuine characters in the bunch can get their own sections. Isaka, Evolution Tarantula, guys like them. The rest can be mentioned in a blurb at the bottom, perhaps, if that's even neccessary. The cannon fodder Undead might be well-served by just a description in the lead, mentioning the whole concept of the Undead. Y'know? Howa0082 (talk) 18:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 01:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tribbles (game)

Contested PROD: non-notable card game. A quick Google search turns up only trivial mentions and catalog entries. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 14:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Completely unsourced? I'll agree that I haven't added much to it, but the reference I did add (before you made the AfD, by the way) is from SciFi.com. And it's a review, so hardly a "trivial" reference. --Craw-daddy | T | 14:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep - seems to have a number of independent sources in google. Laudak (talk) 14:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I found on Google:

[21] User submitted review (these are specifically mentioned in WP:SOURCES as not being acceptable.
[22] Review listed as reference, I agree that this article is non-trivial
[23] Rulesheet
[24] Catalog entry
Several ebay and amazon.com listings.
Several more pages of catalog listings.

With the exception of the review on Scifi.com, none of these seem to satisfy WP:SOURCES, thus failing the notability requirement of multiple non-trivial sources. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 15:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the writer should definitely expand upon the article, or even merge into Star Trek CCG if necessary, but it is not unsourced. There are a lot of articles out there that don't have non-trivial website sources (of which this article has at least one), so that should not be the main thing to consider here. Mathman1550 (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:NOTE:
If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable. "Presumed" means if there is substantive coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, then we presume the topic is notable. However, a subject that is presumed to be notable may still not be suitable for inclusion. For example, it may violate what Wikipedia is not.... Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article.

Of the refernces presented and those that I have been able to find for this game, there's only one that satisfies the first paragraph in this criteria: the scifi.com review. I'm not exactly sure what Mathman means in saying multiple non-trivial sources are not the main issue. Verifibility is one thing, I'm not arguing that this game doesn't actually exist, and that doesn't nessacarially require sources described in WP:NOTE to prove. My issue here is notability, unless someone found print sources that aren't being listed, I don't see how notability is established enough for this game to stand on its own as an article. Merging is a definate possibility. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions)

Comment. I started the article because I have the game in hand (received as a gift), but I have not yet actually played it, so I can't yet contribute much to the article about rules of play, etc. As for whether it's a notable topic or not, I'll leave that to everyone else. — Loadmaster (talk) 22:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like User:Mr Senseless, all I can find is the SciFi.com review. That does not warrant substantial third party coverage in any way. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Star Trek Customizable Card Game, which already has a brief mention of this game. There appears to be only one good source on the Tribbles game, which is not enough for a stand-alone article but may be enough for a mention in the main Star Trek CCG article.--FreeKresge (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 01:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O.B. Macaroni

Contested PROD. Family-run business that does not assert notability. Of the three references provided one is the company website, one only mentions the company in passing and the third doesn't mention it at all. Creator has WP:COI issues, sharing a similar username to the surname of the family who run the business. Roleplayer (talk) 13:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - I can not find any reliable sources that make this company notable. Wrs1864 (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to take a look at this again after Eastmain added some references. I still don't see how these establish the notability of the company. One reference is not about the company at all, but about a contribution the family made and as such would be a WP:COATRACK problem. The other two references do not deal with the company as the subject of the article, they are about the price of flour and tex-mex food and use quotes from the company to support the article. So far, I see nothing, as WP:CORP says, has "depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered", rather they are what WP:CORP warns against: trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Wrs1864 (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur and am in agreement with Wrs1864. Nothing I have yet seen added to this article convinces me that I was wrong to nominate it for deletion. -- Roleplayer (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think the second reference is sufficient. It's mostly about the company, and provides a lot of good, encyclopedic information. Zagalejo^^^ 17:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added a reference. --Eastmain (talk) 16:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 16:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 16:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It's been around for over a hundred years, and it has received at least a little bit of media attention: [25]. Seems to have an important place in Dallas-Fort Worth culture. Zagalejo^^^ 17:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wrs1864 is spot on in his coverage of the references here; they are insufficient. Zagalejo's google search yields some obituaries of officers of this company, but nothing (on the first page, at least) about the company itself. WP:CORP is not met. Merenta (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The obituaries do provide some history of OB Macaroni, and suggest that the company is pretty well-known in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. Zagalejo^^^ 17:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Thanks for completing it. I'm not completely sold that the organization's name should redirect to the bio, but instead should be the other way around. I won't change it now, but if there's interest, it can be discussed. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sangreal Sodality

Notability not asserted and googling shows little indication of any notability. Mangoe (talk) 12:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because the subject seems only "notable" as the originator of the above:

Mangoe (talk) 12:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, the lead of Sangreal Sodality does assert notability -- both in that it's been noted/studied by others and that it has multiple chapters across continents. I'd be happier that the notability has been demonstrated if there were a few more third-party references to people who have noted the organization. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge yes, they assert notability, and agreed that the notability is somewhat doubtful. The material in the 2 articles is very similar, and at most its worth a single article--I suggest for Gray. DGG (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the two articles should be merged, though I'm uncertain yet in which direction. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merge, either direction. dab (𒁳) 20:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject of the article, a group called Sangreal Sodality, seems not to to be notable. The only independant support for the claim of notability in the article is a supposed reference in a book by John Michael Greer, The New Encyclopedia of the Occult. There are indeed two mentions of Sangreal Sodality in Greer's book, but it is of William Gray's four volume series of books with that title, and not of the group which has the same name [26]. The first intery, on p.209, has no mention of the group, only of Gray's books. In the entry second, on p.418,there are two sentences, at the very end of that entry, that mention the Sangreal Sodality group, and the first of the two sentences calls Gray's effort to found the groups only a "moderate success". It seems clear that The New Encyclopedia of the Occult says nothing that establishes the notability of the Sangreal Sodality group, and the group is almost unmentioned.

In addition, much of the article is nothing more than blatant advertising for the Sangreal Sodality group, and it reads like a promotional brochure intended to attract new members to that group. There is not even a hint at an effort to achieve neutrality. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged it and cleaned it up a little. As it stands (as a single bio article), keep. --dab (𒁳) 14:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Already merged and set up as a redirect, which I believe was the right course here. Pastordavid (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 02:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Table of consonants

Table_of_consonants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

I guess this might be a convenient place for editors to copy letters to paste elsewhere, but it's not all consonants, as it claims; it includes some non-IPA consonants and consonants not found in normal speech, without distinguishing them; and it's full of non-notable details without any context. Besides it being misleading, what's the point? kwami (talk) 19:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This table provides useful information. I don't think it should be deleted unless this information is already provided elsewhere in wikipedia. Perhaps it could be merged. The article could be edited to meet the concerns mentioned (e.g. marking non-IPA consonents). Karl (talk) 08:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and suggest speedy keep. Issues with the article's content don't justify deleting the article, and the page serves a fairly obvious indexing function. There doesn't seem to be any point to this nomination, either. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep what's the point, indeed. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't understand it but it certainly has more place in an encyclopedia than an article for every single South-Park episode ever...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 16:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even though probably only a phoneticist could love this stuff, it's sufficiently impressive-looking to convince me it's important. Should be tagged for cites, though. Frank | talk 16:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wikisource. Not suitable for wikipeida stlye. SYSS Mouse (talk) 17:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response: This is an incomplete and poorly maintained duplicate of information at IPA. The only addition is that, through OR, a few of the diacritics have been combined with some of the letters they can combine with, and laid out explicitly; this gives the impression that these combinations are somehow notable, when in fact some of them may never occur at all, and literally hundreds of consonants which do occur are neglected. It would be unwieldy to list every attested or possible combination of diacritic and letter, which is why it is not done at "IPA", and if we avoid OR and list just the individual letters, then there would be no difference from the IPA charts at all. I think that the fact that some of you find it "impressive" is itself reason for deletion: The table conveys an aura of authority that it does not deserve. If we were to merge it with "IPA", there would be no change that I can see to that article, so it would be the same as deletion. kwami (talk) 18:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as duplicative and misleading, per Kwami. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably consider this together with Table of vowels. That has sound files & such, so might be worth moving to Wikipedia space or something, but it isn't an article. kwami (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is effectively a list of consonants in table form. I don't see how it would be wrong to have a list of consonants, especially since we have articles on virtually all of them; having it in a table seems better yet. Nyttend (talk) 20:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I need to mark it as OR, then. kwami (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTREPOSITORY, WP:OR --Faith (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While article definitely needs improvement, it is a suitable topic for an encyclopedia. Edward321 (talk) 17:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we keep, which consonants should we include? What are our criteria? kwami (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 userfy to User:Gopherfan/downward mobility and divorce. Part of a bit of freeloading by this author, Wojci028 and Spygirl86. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Downward Mobility and Divorce

Nominated because till now no substantial content has been put up. Shovon (talk) 11:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: I would disagree that "no substantial content" has been put up. I do agree that this is a weakly sourced essay that looks like a WP:NOR violation, and you could infer from nom's language that this was something put up last year and has been dangling ever since. Wrong: nom filed a speedy eleven minutes after the article's creation, allowing for no time for improvement or proper sourcing. If this article is unimproved a month from now, then deletion would be warranted, but this level of misdirection does the process no good. Ravenswing 13:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep - the article now has some content (it didn't when the AfD was put up) and I suspect that a good article could be created. As it stands at this instant, however, it is unsourced and appears to have lots of original research. I would give it at least a little longer to see if the article can be made into something useful. Wrs1864 (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep: It is fairly weak right now but I will be adding more stuff until about noon today. It is an assignment for a class I am taking and my prof wanted us to make a wiki article out of it. So it will be up and sourced within the day. I am a newbie at this so after I finish if there is any tweaking you want to do, then go for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.153.158 (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by another admin. Fabrictramp (talk) 00:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Veembungal

Does not show any notability what so ever. Original article was just a list of family members Triwbe (talk) 11:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claims to notability of any kind, probably could be speedied. Nsk92 (talk) 11:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged it for Speedy Deletion per Nsk92 and WP:CSD#A1 Olaf Davis | Talk 17:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable.--Berig (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 02:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick McKeown

Combination of advertising, and WP:NOR violation Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 10:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Par being the nominator Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 10:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Faith (talk) 10:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, advertising. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article states that subject published several books, but without sources or references, there is no way to be sure. Article claims notability, but fails to establish it. TN‑X-Man 13:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep,The Book Asthma Free naturally is published by Harper Collins and this can be verified from the following link: http://www.harpercollins.co.uk/(S(stmn1r55ra12ga55z51p5amd))/Content/Authors/default.aspx?id=7127

Patrick McKeown is a representative of the founding Buteyko Clinic of Moscow and is accredited by the Late Professor Buteyko. Very few people in the western world have this accreditation: see: http://www.buteykoclinic.com/

Close Your Mouth is a self published work but popular. See rankings on amazon.co.uk as of 12th may 2008; http://www.amazon.co.uk/Close-Your-Mouth-Buteyko-Breathing/dp/0954599616/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210580973&sr=8-2

His work in Ireland hase received extensive media coverage and his clinics have expanded to many countries throughout the world: See http://www.asthmacare.ie/

Delete as advertising.--Berig (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --KurtRaschke (talk) 00:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:N. I don't even see much of a claim of notability. Merenta (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 02:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Internal consistency of the Bible/tables

Delete: Subpage created to preserve text which was removed from original article, but which was too big to place on the article's talk page. The charts violate WP:OR and WP:SYN. Charts were discussed on the WP:OR noticeboard, where agreement was reached that they cannot be repaired because the entirety of the charts violate WP:SYN. Removal unchallenged on the main article's talk page Faith (talk) 09:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's hard to see how such a table could be anything but WP:OR and WP:SYN. It is clearly a large amount of work, but unfortunately not appropriate for Wikipedia. Frank | talk 16:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR.--Berig (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OR. --Doug Weller (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not think it is OR. The first part in particular is solid. The accounts of the events in the synoptic gospels and in John are very well known and obvious. How they are to be resolved in not the least obvious of course, and has been discussed for about the last 1900 years from every possible perspective and in a great many books devoted specifically to this problem. the final column of resolutions does not of corse give every possible resolution, but it is sourced to standard works. More can be added. The assorted ones in the second table are a variety of things: discrepancies between the gospels and the epistles, and differences between the OT and the NT. Probably a few thousand books in English of the first problem, and a few tens of thousands on the second at least, since its fundamental to the theological basis of Christianity. Again, there are standard views. I think the problems can be dealt with. As for POV,, it is true that these discrepancies (or apparent discrepancies) have often been used to support a skeptical or even atheistic view--but they have also been used in a purely supportive sense within the religion. This is all dealt with of course in the main article, but I think the tabular presentation here also helps. DGG (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The properly cited scholarly sources in the response column are mostly new and added by me, where I tried to delete the uncited sources regardless of Christian or critic POV (here is the original version before I started editing it [27]; example from the original: How many angels were at the tomb? One (28:2) One (16:5) Two (24:4) Two (20:1-2, 12), definite OR/SYN!) However, the fact remains that the problem isn't scholarly treatment of a reply, but that the entire charts violate WP:SYN. The introduction set the stage indicating everything the reader sees on the chart indicates error and/or inconsistency, then the charts suffer from overall WP:OR violations with uncited and poorly worded questions (even my attempts to bring them to neutrality still violates WP:OR because they don't come from reliable sources) and WP:SYN by applying misleading Scripture (taken out-of-context in a manner that changes how it would be read in the original context to an opposite or at least very different reader understanding) to the bad questions. We can't treat these examples as "very well known and obvious"; there are no reliable sources that use the questions' wording. WP:NOT a list of indiscriminate information, especially from email and internet spam. --Faith (talk) 09:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

good. you're showing how to improve it by your editing. The first part's wording of questions is about as neutral as you can get. Remember that the context is "internal consistency in the bible" -- the article is from that perspective, not what may or may not have happened historically, which is another topic entirely. DGG (talk) 21:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except, again, it's WP:OR, simply my OR cleaing up someone else's OR. Faith (talk) 02:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 02:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Beck

Contested prod, notability issues. Procedural AfD nomination, no opinion from my side. Thank you for your attention. Tone 09:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable small town newspaper reporter. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Satisfies none of the criteria at WP:BIO#Creative professionals as a journalist. —97198 talk 11:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable.--Berig (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as satisfying no criteria from WP:BIO#Creative professionals Nk.sheridan Talk 21:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. Nominator clearly doesn't understand deletion policy; any errors in the article can easily be fixed without deletion coming into play. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supercompact space

I am writing a report on why the article on Supercompact space should be deleted. First of all, this article states 8 facts, with some 100 references or so. Just delete the article. If this article is so important, then why don't you prove it by giving names of people who actually research this topic. No one does. Also, see the following five small reasons:

. Paracompactness and compactness ARE IMPORTANT topics and that is why no one has challenged them. However, supercompactness is not nearly as important and shouldn't be on an encyclopaedia such as this one.

. This page has hardly anything. It has just stated facts. There are only a few points written on this page. It is a useless stub.

. There is no point in using a WHOLE page to talk abou supercompactness. This article should be written under Alexander's Subbase Theorem. It has hardly any information.

. There is someone who keeps removing this sign for speedy deletion and gives no reasons why he does this. Could an administrator please see that he stops?

Is supercompactness worthy of study? Was it a concept, so important that mathematicians were dumbstruck by it as soon as it was defined? The "Nagata-Smirnov Theorem" article is a good example of an article which shouldn't be deleted since it is extremely important. Is supercompactness even as important as the definition of a point (such as a point in R^2)? I may seem to be exaggerating but I am strong on my word. I understand that some people (such as "Oded"), have not been against me just for the sake of it. Others have said that this article shouldn't be deleted and given no reason to back this up. I am going to report this article to an administrator. Some articles that are extremely important have no references given to them (there are heaps of such articles in mathematics). Why do people waste their time give 800 references to such a negligible article? Please answer this.

In conclusion, this article is useless, and ineffective. It provides no applications in other elements of point-set topology and has only a few facts. This article is like wasting one whole piece of paper just for writing a single word. Someone should delete it. If not, I will. Topology Expert (talk) 09:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Topo, you sound like a new user, so I recommend you read over the Wikipedia deletion guidelines. I recommend reading WP:AFD and WP:DELETE. A few points:

Only admins can delete articles.
Unless this article has been deleted by an administrator before, it is NOT a candidate for speedy deletion. See WP:SPEEDY for speedy deletion criteria.
A Google Scholar Search turns up over six hundred hits, meaning that this topic has been widely covered by scholarly sources. This strongly suggests notability--see WP:N.
"Too many references" is an argument for cleanup, not deletion.
Wikipedia covers many very mundane mathematical topics.
"I don't like the way the article is written" is not an argument for deletion but an argument for rewriting.

TallNapoleon (talk) 10:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it meets all of our guidelines and policies and seems like a notable topic. I agree with Napoleon here; 'Topology Expert', you might like to take it to heart :) -- Naerii 10:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Comment I think there are two reasons your speedy-deletion tag was getting removed. Firstly, you were replacing the article with the template, rather than putting it at the top of the article, as dictated by WP:Speedy Deletion#Deletion_templates. Secondly, the SD template you used was {{db-repost}}, which is for pages that were previously deleted and have been recreated. The deletion logs of the page in question show that this is not the case, you so probably meant to use a different SD template. I've removed the SD template again: now that this AfD has been opened having both is redundant. Olaf Davis | Talk 10:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That said, my vote is to Keep. The nominator says: "If this article is so important, then why don't you prove it by giving names of people who actually research this topic." Isn't that accomplished by the copious list of references? "Was it a concept, so important that mathematicians were dumbstruck by it as soon as it was defined?" Probably not, but that's not the criterion for notability that Wikipedia uses. Since the topic appears in many secondary sources as shown by the references, it seems to me to meet the notability guideline."Why do people waste their time give 800 references to such a negligible article?" The article may have more references that is necessary, but that's a good reason to remove redundant ones, not to delete the whole article. Olaf Davis | Talk 10:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Keep. I see no valid reason for deletion; the sources provided at least appear to demonstrate verifiability and notability. Topology Expert, you seem to be contributing earnestly and in good faith; I'll try to answer each of your objections to the article.

"...this article states 8 facts, with some 100 references or so." Scarcity of facts in an article is not a reason for deletion, but rather for improvement and expansion. Furthermore, reliable, secondary references are in no way a detriment to an article; on the contrary, they demonstrate its notability--see WP:RS and WP:N. (Now, I admit that I am unable to access most of the references because they are in print, and I doubt that I would be able to understand them because they are probably written in mathematical jargon. If you believe that the sources are not independent of the subject, are not reliable, or do not back up the claims in the article, then by all means fix them.)
"If this article is so important, then why don't you prove it by giving names of people who actually research this topic[?]" I am under the impression that this is accomplished by the inclusion of the thirteen references on the page. Again, if you believe otherwise, feel free to object to specific sources on the article's Talk page.
"...supercompactness is not nearly as important and shouldn't be on an encyclopaedia such as this one." We are not here to make editorial judgments about what ought to be in an encyclopedia; that is far too subjective for any consensus about it ever to form. Instead, we have our notability policy; we let others determine whether something is important by writing about it.
"There is no point in using a WHOLE page to talk abou[t] supercompactness. This article should be written under Alexander's Subbase Theorem." In that case, you should propose a merge to Alexander's subbase theorem (which does not yet exist) on the article's Talk page; this is not the appropriate forum for that.

Edit. It appears that, while Alexander's subbase theorem doesn't exist, Alexander subbase theorem does. My apologies. AnturiaethwrTalk 16:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"There is someone who keeps removing this sign for speedy deletion and gives no reasons why he does this." The reason is that this article is not a candidate for speedy deletion. In this case, you are claiming that the page should be deleted because it is a re-creation of deleted material with no substantial changes; I see no evidence that this material has ever been deleted. (For reference, the guidelines to determine whether an article can be speedily deleted are at WP:CSD.)
"Some articles that are extremely important have no references given to them (there are heaps of such articles in mathematics). Why do people waste their time give 800 references to such a negligible article? Please answer this." This argument is known as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and is generally recognized as invalid; the quality of other articles does not affect that of this one. If deserving articles lack references, then add them. As to why people add thirteen references to an article on an obscure topic: well, they're probably interested in it and feel that it can and should be properly sourced.
"In conclusion, this article is useless, and ineffective." The argument that an article is "useless" is, understandably, called WP:USELESS; because of its subjectivity (useless to whom, and under what circumstances?), it is generally recognized as invalid. If it is "ineffective" (I take that to mean "ineffective in communicating its point," as that is the meaning of the word with which I am most familiar), then it should be fixed, not deleted.

I hope we've answered all of your objections. AnturiaethwrTalk 11:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Sorry for the redundancies; that's what happens in edit conflicts, I suppose. AnturiaethwrTalk 11:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well-referenced, apparently notable enough concept in mathematics. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (note: I am an involved editor). User:Topology Expert made it clear from the very beginning that he/she wanted to delete the article (see Talk:Supercompact space). The initial reason offered for deletion was that there were no references. Editors were told that if they could find one book which studies supercompactness, then User:Topology Expert would relent. Now two books on supercompactness have been provided. In addition, there are over a dozen papers in high caliber mathematics journals like the Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society. Now one of the issues User:Topology Expert is bringing into this AfD is the overabundance of references. I agree that the reference list be trimmed a bit, I must also observe that these conflicting demands are quite unreasonable. I vote keep, since the article meets any reasonable notability guideline: those of Wikipedia, as well as those initially set forth by User:Topology Expert. silly rabbit (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability established by sources, even if the nominator doesn't like it for whatever reason, and is having a split personality event about dealing with it, which makes it difficult to assume good faith. A request for extension immediately precedes the speedy-deletion tagging, for example. --Dhartung | Talk 16:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability is certainly established as of current version of the article. I would go as far as to suggest closing this AfD per WP:SNOW. Frank | talk 16:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 both. - Philippe 02:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thornbury Town FC

Club has never played above level 11 of the English league system, which is not generally deemed notable. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. For the same reason I am also nominating Taverners F.C. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. AR TYOM 10:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom & established consensus that teams below Step 6 are not notable. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. Giant Snowman 12:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as per User:Number 57's comments. --Jimbo^[online] 12:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom.--Berig (talk) 19:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Neither meet the established requirements for notability - There's not really anything of interest in the Thornbury Town article and Taverners are only the third biggest team in Nailsworth!! :) — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 08:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 02:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barker College Cadet Unit

A high school cadet unit that is not notable enough for its own page. Relevant material is largely covered in Barker College. Most content unsourced. Recurring dreams (talk) 09:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Recurring dreams (talk) 09:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 09:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG. There's a long-standing convention that individual cadet units aren't notable, and this doesn't seem to be an exception to that. Nick Dowling (talk) 09:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly non-notable content Murtoa (talk) 11:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, would appear to be a garden-variety cadet unit with no particular notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Per WP:ORG. Five Years 04:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 02:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eurish language

This article makes an unsubstantiated, unsourced assertion that is either a severe misunderstanding or vandalism. Eurish is one fellows *idea* of a language for a "New Holy Roman Empire" but I am not aware (nor is Google, for that matter) of any such historically attested language or dialect. Szfski (talk) 09:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete. Eurish is conceptually valid, and has several literary references - including James Blish's infamous "Spock's Brain". Occasionally attributed to James Joyce, as the style (not actual language) used in "Finnegan's Wake". Check other resources: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,899462-1,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.3.177 (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word eurish has been used before, as in the reference you gave, but that has nothing to do with the subject of this article, nor does James Joyce. This really calls the "conceptual validity" you attest into question, doesn't it? Merenta (talk) 22:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. JSTOR doesn't know about it. AnturiaethwrTalk 11:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Checked a variety of academic search engines, zero hits. Debate (talk) 12:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems a hoax. AFAIK, the languages of administration in the HRE were chancery German, and earlier, Latin. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - also checked academic search engines. Came up with only a couple of hits with the following being the only one worth reading...except it has nothing to do with the article as written:

Database  	CSA Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts  	
Title 	  	Europe's Linguistic Future: The Eurish-Problem 	
Author 	  	Decsy, Gyula 	
Affiliation 	EUROLINGUA, PO Box 101 Bloomington IN 47402-0101 	
Source 	  	Eurasian Studies Yearbook, 1993, 65, 7-18 	
ISSN 	  	0042-0786

Frank | talk 17:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non notable modern constructed language, see[28].--Berig (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also see [29] which appears to be what the Wikipedia article is referencing; I'm not sure if Berig's ref is the same as this or not. Regardless, notability just isn't there. Merenta (talk) 19:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've heard of the language, and I even recall having seen it in the past. But all relevant links seem to be dead, it seems the project is already on its way to oblivion. Anyway, the article is extremely short and little informative, so it won't be much of a loss anyway. (And indeed, even this single sentence seems to be wrong: it's a modern constructed language, BASED ON the old language of the HRE. But if so, how can it be a priori?) —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 07:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable modern constructed language which significantly post-dates the HRE, so the article is a hoax. Edward321 (talk) 18:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article's creator also created articles for Shilhe language, Kota language, Chattisgarhi language, Arikara language, and Khandeshi language which lead to questions on the reliability of those articles. Edward321 (talk) 18:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a quick look around, and between JSTOR and Google Books I've found mentions (I'm sure I could find good sources if I had the time) of all of those except Shilhe, which seems to be another name for Tashelhiyt; it looks like they're not hoaxes, at any rate. AnturiaethwrTalk 03:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per anon and the guy above me. --Pwnage8 (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By "the guy above me," do you mean me? 'Cause I was just saying those others look legitimate; I still think this one should be deleted. AnturiaethwrTalk 02:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was as the article has been moved to the Foundation, no action taken at this time.. - Philippe 02:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benji Hillman

Contested prod. A clear example of Wikipedia is not a memorial. Fram (talk) 08:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing to close AfD, as the page has been moved to Benji Hillman Foundation. I hope we can give User:Chaffchaff sometime to build up the article according to policy. I see that he is already getting help in this from User:Amire80. Hoping that my bold moves are OK :)Prashanthns (talk) 14:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep & improve~~I just did a clean-up using the existing material. He seems notable enough to have an entry, right? It was only the way it was written. I hope the clean-up will at least make the article workable. I declare that I have no interest in the subject itself and restored the AfD tag removed by the original author, before cleaning up. Prashanthns (talk) 10:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per User:Chaffchaff and other suggestions, changing vote to Rename to Foundation with some re-write, which I am sure, User:Chaffchaff will do. Prashanthns (talk) 09:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unfortunately, this article makes no claims of notability. There is one reference cited, which links to the foundation established in his honor. The foundation may be notable if there are sources for it, but I do not think this article is. TN‑X-Man 13:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't know. How's that for an unhelpful vote? Consensus at Wikipedia in the past is that soldiers who die in the line of duty aren't notable just for that; that is what soldiers do, and there are many thousands such, most of whom are covered in the news somewhere- we've agreed that soldiers who die in war aren't notable unless they are notable for having some other historical significance. There are sources discussing Hillman, like this one, which describe him as one of the first to die in this particular conflict. One of the first, not the first. Does that make him notable? There's the foundation named for him... does that add enough to make him notable? I'm honestly not sure; this is right on the borderline, in my opinion. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ddhuh...sorry for the minor point, but I was under the impression that we are debating WP:NOT and not notability. I thought that the general notability guideline already applies for this person, as there are hundreds of reliable sources that come up on googling his name. Is notability an issue with this subject? Prashanthns (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the gist of Wikipedia is not a memorial- "subjects must be notable in addition to being fondly remembered." Lots of googlehits, but most of them just cover his death, without claiming special importance for him beyond that. Soldiers do die, in wars, and newspapers do report that they have, and it's very sad, but not all of them are of encyclopedic importance. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah...thanks for the clarification. Points about notability of soldiers and reporting noted. My feelings for keeping the article are coming down to a mere I like him(which is hardly a reason) but will keep my vote for now (for having invested in the clean-up at least ;)). Prashanthns (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Chaffchaff (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC) Excuse me but yesterday (nearly 2 yrs after his death) there were 2 radio broadcasts (IBA News 12:00 and Channel 7 16:00) and one television interview (Channel 10 07:00) about Benji and his posthumous contribution through the foundation created in his memory. As this is a one of a kind Foundation it is both notable and of interest to Israelis and Jews around the world alike. Basically the idea to have a page for Major Hillman is to show the positive , important impact his death created.--Chaffchaff (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then chaffchaff, wouldn't you rather have a page on the foundation than for Benji? Prashanthns (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair question Prashanthns. I originally though about doing this, but after watching the interview yesterday morning and later checking online, I came to the conclusion that Benji Hillman will be imortalized by the foundation and not vice versa. This may sound like a platitude, but, even a one hit wonder deserves recognition as he created one great piece of work. In this case it is important to remember that this unique Foundation and project stems from one officer`s actions and beliefs in his life that have become the base for a National project. It is more than possible that a page for the project and foundation will be created at a later date.--Chaffchaff (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for all the reasons discussed above.--Chaffchaff (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~. Does not seem to meet Wikipedia:MILMOS#NOTE (which has tightened its definition of "a substantial body of troops", and I don't think a company qualifies). The Foundation is possibly notable under WP:ORG but that is not the primary content of the article. --Dhartung | Talk 16:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dhartung - A company in this case is half a battalion, which is by all accounts extremely substantial in the military world (i am a former soldier). Please rethink your decision, a company is a large body of soldiers with a Major ( high brass in the field !) at its helm.--Chaffchaff (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My decision tracks closely with the wording of the guideline, so I'm comfortable with it. I checked US casualties in Iraq as a yardstick. Four Colonels; fifteen Lt. Colonels; and fifty-seven Majors. I cannot imagine a situation where all of those individuals are notable enough for Wikipedia purposes; we would need something more. As it happens, only one of the four colonels has an article, and that primarily because William Wood (U.S. Army officer) was the first of his rank to be killed in Iraq, not for anything he did in command. Should Maj. Hillman have been awarded one of Israel's highest service medals, he would be all but automatically notable. --Dhartung | Talk 02:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the Foundation that has been created to carry on his legacy makes him stand out, do you not agree ? There are no other soldiers from this war (that I know of), who have had National Foundations created to perpetuate their legacy. It is not only the bio of Major Hillman but his ongoing legacy which as become a celebrated national cause. --Chaffchaff (talk) 07:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case per WP:ORG, then a sourced article Benji Hillman Foundation is called for. But notability is not transitive. --Dhartung | Talk 22:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vote changed to weak keep on the basis of refactoring. Still needs serious cleanup to comply with WP:MOS and WP:NPOV. I'm willing to give this article and editor a chance.--Dhartung | Talk 17:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Deaths are sad, to be sure, and when young people die (military or otherwise) it's possibly even more so, but such deaths are not notable by themselves. Frank | talk 16:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the consensus has been that only Major-generals and up are assumed notable, not majors. Not colonels. Brigadiers (UK)=US Brigadier Generals sometimes, but not always. certainly not majors unless there is something special, and there isnt. DGG (talk) 01:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - foundation is probably notable, and an article on it can include all the info currently in this article. Although, it should be about the foundation overall, and not Hillman himself. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Question If I dig up the info (from accredited sources about Foundation) and change the focus to be about the Foundation (but still include the existing information), will the Editors above agree to keep the article ? If so, I will get started on this. How can I change the name of the article ? I need some help how to proceed from here from some veteran editors. Please advise...--Chaffchaff (talk) 19:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question to Editors who commented here - If I were to create an article about the Foundation , would you see this as an acceptable article according to WP policy ? Thanks for your feedback.--Chaffchaff (talk) 08:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Shuki (talk) 19:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As it is, Delete, because indeed Wikipedia is not a memorial, as sad as it is. If it would an article about the foundation, i'd say Weak Keep. Googling its name in Hebrew (עמותה בנג'י הילמן or קרן בנג'י הילמן) comes up with some non-trivial results, but i'd like to hear a second opinion about it. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 06:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newbie Question - So can I go ahead with a rewrite or do I wait to get an okay it will not be deleted ? How do I change the name of the Article ?--Chaffchaff (talk) 11:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Article and talk page have been moved. If your account is WP:AUTOCONFIRM then even you can move pages using the move tab beside history tab above the article. Please do read the help page for moving pages. Prashanthns (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep newly added sources are good enough to establish notability per WP:ORG. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 02:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Talerico

A biography of a Canadian football player playing in a not notable local league (the Illawarra Premier League) in Australia who does not meet the criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia per WP:Athlete. A speedy was removed by an IP who said (on the talk page), "this article is signifcant because this person is significant to his hometown". Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I dunno if it's actually relevant to the AfD decision at all, but does this guy play Canadian football or Canadian football? I'm confused...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He supposedly plays proper football, I'm certain the Canadian football link is an error, as there is no such position as centre-back in American/Canadian football --Jimbo^[online] 11:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence that he meets WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 12:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The AfD tag has been removed ~~twice~~ three times today. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't satisfy WP:ATHLETE. asenine ^{say what?} 00:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 02:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

House of Gentry

Apparent hoax - a third chamber of the UK Parliament that was wiped out following a massacre in 1505? I think not. No refs, needless to say, and a quick look on Google and in my Oxford History of Britain fails to reveal anything. Bencherlite ^Talk 07:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Even more ridiculous is this part: "the St. Catherine's Day Massacre wiped out all (emphasis added) the landowning families". Clearly a hoax. --MQDuck 07:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. St. Bartholomew's Day massacre "traditionally believed to have been instigated by Catherine de' Medici" is not St. Catherine's Day Massacre. The other article produces no Google hits and references only to SCDM which refs only to itself. I'd vote hoax or severely mistaken editor. --Faith (talk) 12:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have studied the history of UK Parliament and this is total bunkum. -- Roleplayer (talk) 13:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Both are creative, to be sure, but apparently hoaxes. TN‑X-Man 13:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G3. Oore (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Note that St. Catherine's Day massacre cites itself as a reference --Dhartung | Talk 16:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete for both. Pure bull***t - should have been created on April 1! Enaidmawr (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoaxalicious. Edward321 (talk) 18:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 author request under WP:CSD#G7 and the current consensus here. For what it's worth, I agree that calling it a "weak" law school was unnecessary.--Kubigula (talk) 03:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Randy M. Grossman

Not notable. He is just an adjunct professor at a weak law school and a minor sports agent Blahblah5555 (talk) 07:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He may not be as important as your Mormon polygamist, but he is fairly renowned in the world of sports and has links on Wikipedia. Hotcop2 (talk) 11:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This comes pretty close to a personal attack on the nominator based on the first linked article on Blah's userpage. Please stick to the topic of notability and back up claims with sources for the most credibility. --Dhartung | Talk 16:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - OK, I looked around for some sources. I could not find anything significant and could not find links to articles in NY Times or the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. I think this may be a case of notability not being inherited, as Dave Winfield seems to be the notable subject here. Maybe this info could be merged into that article? TN‑X-Man 14:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, being a sports agent for a notable athlete does not automatically confer notability, even if some sports agents do become notable. --Dhartung | Talk 16:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete please remove immediately. That solves that. As far as "close to a personal attack" -- I'm reacting to his snippy remarks (in the same snippy voice) about the man and the law school. Why don't you delete the page on the "weak" law school while you're at it?Hotcop2 (talk) 02:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for WP:CSD#G7 per page blanking and above comment. --Dhartung | Talk 23:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 02:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legend of a blue-sun

Speedy was declined on this one, for the usual categorical reasons, so here we go. This violates WP:CRYSTAL and there's no notability whatsoever asserted. Line up for the piñata. Qworty (talk) 07:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The phrase (with or without the hyphen) turns up no hits on Google (minus Wikipedia), Google Books, Google News, Amazon, or the Library of Congress. Why I bothered searching all of those is beyond me, since this is a very clear case of WP:CRYSTAL. AnturiaethwrTalk 11:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not on official Black Library site under coming soon Faith (talk) 12:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - should be speedy as un-notable. TrulyBlue (talk) 12:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Books, movies, etc. are not speediable under WP:CSD#A7 to allow for a more thorough examination (after all, there are almost innumerable niches for fictional content). Although I declined the subsequent G11 speedy, I'm going to go with delete per WP:CRYSTAL now. --jonny-m t 01:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Doctorfluffy (i can has msg) 04:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Close as delete. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. AfD listed after I deleted the article. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bangalore traffic problems solution

Seems to be some sort of team. If it is relevant to Wikipedia (which it isnt) it should only be in Wikipediaspace. Since it is not relevant to wikipedia, this sort of thing has to be done off of site. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a webhost, and as thus not a thinktank in articlespace. asenine ^{say what?} 06:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 02:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SplendidCRM

AfDs for this article:

Queried speedy delete. Since this page was AfD-deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SplendidCRM) before, it has been recreated with much more information added: its author claims that he tried to keep it NPOV. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep was tagged for speedy as being spam for a non-notable company. The article is a combined article for a product/corp, and includes multiple independent references. Some of the references are pretty weak, and I'd like to see the article cleaned up a little more, but I don't see any valid grounds for deletion as it stands. -- Mark Chovain 06:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has weaknesses, but is far from needing to be deleted. --MQDuck 07:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article still has a lot of hype and such, but it appears to have generated the required notability from reliable sources. Wrs1864 (talk) 13:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A non-notable, non-consumer software package. The references appear either to be blogs or blog-like sites aligned with either open-source software communities or the "customer relations management" business, and as such may not be reliable sources or really independent. "CRM" is frankly a problem area, with too many vendors seeking the search engine conspicuousness that a Wikipedia article provides. The article still reads like advertising: ... new breed of Microsoft based open-source projects. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's to be expected that an open-source CRM package will generate coverage in media that focuses on open source software or CRM. We don't delete articles because they need clean-up - we just clean up the spammy bits, and end up with a better article. We don't delete articles just because they relate to "CRM". -- Mark Chovain 00:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not sure where you're going with this the "customer relations manaagement" business line. CRM is an established subset of business software at this point. It isn't some sort of quasi-scam like search engine optimization. --Dhartung | Talk 03:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When an article relates to some sales-related TLA and contains advertising style language, my opinion is usually to err on the side of deletion. For what it's worth, "customer relations management" software seems to boil down to an electronic Rolodex, but the fact that computers are involved allows the vendors to add all sorts of wondrous claims as to what their devices can achieve. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I admire your cynicism; as a networking consultant I see more TLAs in a week than most people see in a year, and every project is a wondrous solution, although the problem it solves is not always evident. But we are discussing notability according to sources. --Dhartung | Talk 22:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not the best place to talk about it, but we may need more stringent notability criteria for marketing, management, and non-consumer business software topics, just like we do for porn stars. The likelihood of abuse is very high, the quality of writing is abysmal, and the conflict of interest meter jumps to 11. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's no SugarCRM, that's for sure, but it meets WP:SOFTWARE just barely using the provided references. There are more available on Google News Archive, and I encourage broadening the article's sourcing, as well as improving citation formatting. --Dhartung | Talk 03:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. --Pwnage8 (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 02:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raccoon dog fur

Doesn't look like an encyclopedia topic. delete UtherSRG (talk) 05:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also the discussion on talk:Raccoon Dog from where it was spun off. - UtherSRG (talk) 07:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. POV essay with heavy dollops of original research drawn on primary sources. I don't think I found a single secondary source in the article. --Dhartung | Talk 06:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An editorial, not an encyclopedia article. --MQDuck 08:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above Faith (talk) 10:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an essay.--Berig (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn.. Discussion revealed that subject is notable as an Olympic athlete, merge discussions can occur on the appropriate talk pages. Nonadmin close. Xymmax (talk) 13:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fay G. Moulton

Sorry. Probably a very nice man but not notable. Just as a large company's 5th head marketing director of the eastern region would probably not qualify for a wikipedia article, so shouldn't a 5th coach of a school qualify. Did he also coach an olympic team? no. JerryVanF (talk) 05:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete JerryVanF (talk) 05:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC) I remembered that I have to inform the author of the AFD. Now that I have done it, it feels like I just punched the guy in the stomach. So I will hold off AFD's for now. As far as this one, I abstain. He may be very notable, who knows! JerryVanF (talk) 05:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Dhartung | Talk 06:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Today Kansas State is a Division I team, but I'm not sure that makes coaches from a pre-NCAA era automatically notable. --Dhartung | Talk 06:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't feel bad about it--that's the way it's supposed to work. You think it isn't notable, we all talk about it and form a consensus.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and Merge: Wikipedia:WikiProject College football consideres all head college football coaches (past and present) notable. See arguments listed under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Gottsch. HOWEVER, this notification let me to realize that someone has created an article about Fay Moulton the olympic athelete from Kansas. I think that it just about has to be the same person and we should look in to merging the two articles--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Based on the above comment and the fact that the nominator struck through his !vote, I'm going to treat this as a withdrawn nomination and close. Xymmax (talk) 13:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 02:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hindemburg Melão Jr.

There was a contested prod for this article (the prod had been placed by User:DGG as "non-notable chess player and self-styled genius"). Lots of claims to notability in the text of the article but on closer inspection it does not seem to me that they hold up. 1)The high IQ societies stuff: the societies mentioned themselves are not notable. 2) Guinness records (longest checkmate in a blindfold match or something like that). Possibly notable, I am not sure. Does not seem to have received substantial mention or coverage anywhere else except for a mention in the Correspondense Chess News article mentioned in this WP entry. Still, could be the strongest claim to notability but I am not sure what to make of it. Guinness has a lot of weird and not notable stuff like people with the longest nose or whatever. 3) Possibly a notable chess player. Again, based on the sources presented, it does not quite look like that to me. The same Correspondense Chess News article mentions that his FIDE ranking is quite low, at 2164. He does not seem to hold a Grandmaster rank or even an International Master or a FIDE Master (at least I have not seen it mentioned anywhere). 4) There are a few more things in the entry like inventing some new IQ test and some kind of new university exam tests but these claims are thin on references and do not appear to be notable. GoogleNews (all dates) gives 2 hits[30]. A little bit of everything in this article but it is not clear if any of it adds up to notability per WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 04:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete :I do not often use the word vanity, but this is one of the times. We are not an extension of Guinness; and less than notable in a lot of things adds up to less than notable. That would be if everybody put the best face possible on their resume and added it up in some numerical fashion, as a ranking, but we mean having some notable accomplishment. DGG (talk) 14:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination and DGG. I would regard even a FIDE Master, without more, as non-notable, and he's apparently not even that. Membership in Mensa and the like is surely non-notable. This is an article desperately in search of a reason for existing. 15:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC) Krakatoa (talk)
- Having read the Correspondence Chess News article on Melão and having looked in Chess Informant, he sounds somewhat more notable than I gave him credit for. He had a game (Melão-Van Unen) that made the list of the 30 best games (tied for 17th-20th) in Chess Informant, Volume 80, and a different game (W. Bunk-Melão) that made the list of the top 10 theoretical novelties (10th), also in Chess Informant, Volume 80. See Chess Informant, Volume 81, pp. 6-7. Those are hard lists to make, especially for someone who's not well-known. The late International Grandmaster Edmar Mednis wrote in a letter to me, which I have someplace, that "Chess Informant is a very status-conscious publication" (they nonetheless published the game I had sent to Mednis, and ranked it 8th-9th on the list of theoretical novelties).
- A search of ratings on the International Correspondence Chess Federation website shows that Melão is an inactive player with a rating of 2489 (ID No. 70781). 2489 is a high rating (if he were an active player, a 2555 rating would place him number 200 in the world, so 2489 would probably be in the world top 300 -- again, if he were an active player). I cannot find him on any of the lists of ICCF title-holders (Grandmaster, Senior International Master, International Master). If he had an ICCF Grandmaster title, I would consider that notable; lesser titles, arguably notable -- but he appears to have no ICCF title. Based on his current accomplishments, I would say he is non-notable and adhere to my "Delete" recommendation. Krakatoa (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here is his FIDE rating information. It says that he has no title, so is not a master. Bubba73 (talk), 16:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His chess accomplishments are not notable. His FIDE rating is really low (lower than a lot of members of the Wikiproject Chess, for a start). He could become strong in correspondence chess one day, but it still has to be. The claim about "one of the best novelty" is just vanity. SyG (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable.--Berig (talk) 18:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How does someone with a ELO 2489 rating not become an FM or an IM? Quite unusual, but not notable for the chess. This guy might be notable for whatever record is suppose to be in the Guinness book of record, although it doesn't say any more to help find out. SunCreator (talk) 22:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I explained below, 2489 is his correspondence rating, not his FIDE rating. I don't know how ICCF's system works but I assume that if he'd played correspondence chess for a longer period of time, he could have become a correspondence IM or better. (They don't seem to have a correspondence FM title.) btw, since it's not named after the Electric Light Orchestra but after Arpad Elo, it's "Elo rating," not "ELO rating." :-) Krakatoa (talk) 03:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, it should be Elo, habit makes the mistake. Same thing in much chess literature like BCM. SunCreator (talk) 00:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. I believe his ELO is 2164 not 2489, or am I missing something? Brittle heaven (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- His OTB Elo (per FIDE) is 2164. His International Correspondence Chess Federation Elo is 2489. Krakatoa (talk) 03:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not-notable. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Guiness stuff, non-notable and vanity —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tosqueira (talk • contribs) 18:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition to these: "Sigma Society" Spam. Tosqueira (talk) 19:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - PT-Wiki deletion: pt:Wikipedia:Páginas para eliminar/Hindemburg Melão Jr.Tosqueira (talk) 19:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable! --Nice poa (talk) 07:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, group with no assertion of notability (and apparently only one member); also fails WP:NFT -- "This belief was Created by Benjamin Wilbur, a Cheyenne high school student from North Las Vegas, in 2007." NawlinWiki (talk) 04:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sci-christianity

Clear, self-purported case of something made up in school one day. Unspeediable as vandalism. FrankTobia (talk) 04:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

"

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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), because its WP:DAB value is confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

Tractatus de superstitionibus

Neither of these works has a page. No need for a dab. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{huh}}? Keep of course. The entire point of WP:DAB is to point people to the article they are looking for. People typing "Tractatus de superstitionibus" may be looking for either the Nicholas Magni or the Martin of Arles article. Because of the two works with the same title, the page cannot just be a redirect. --dab (𒁳) 05:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see how this violates WP:DAB. There is no requirement that disambiguation entries lead to an article where the term is the primary topic. --Dhartung | Talk 06:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I suggest, if there are no objections, changing the heading to read "Tractatus de superstitionibus may refer a printed work by one of the following:". It makes the disambig a little clearer and gives a little info about the work. TN‑X-Man 14:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've gone ahead and made my suggested change. TN‑X-Man 19:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the solution resides in creating articles to dab to.--Berig (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - perfectly reasonable disambiguation page. Aleta ^Sing 00:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This type of disambiguation is important to have, both for those new to the topic and "old hands". We can write/fill out the articles later.Ron B. Thomson (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't have any problem with this usage of a DAB page. TN-X-Man's change in the heading is an improvement and makes the DAB more clear. EdJohnston (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 02:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major League Wiffle (MLW)

Nonnotable local sports league. Claims to have been recognized by notable sources, but no citations are given, despite the article having been prodded for that reason for a day (author removed the prod tag without providing citations for the claimed reliable sources). NawlinWiki (talk) 04:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis sport has its own stadiums, where thousands of people gather to watch very week, its obviously notable. This league has hundreds of players from divisions stretching from, New York to Texas. You could no more delete this article than you could Major League Baseball—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurowoofwoof111 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 8 May 2008
- Can you support this with evidence? "All MLW games took place on a cul-de-sac, cleverly named “The Sac”. Each season consisted of a 20-game regular season and culminated with a best-of-seven Sac Series." There is no evidence of it being nationwide or having hundreds of players. It was a group of people playing wiffle ball on their street. 76.100.210.208 (talk) 11:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep there's evidence of RS coverage, including the stadiums mentioned above. Better question is whether it can be covered adequately in Wiffleball, in which case, m/r _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 04:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This individual league has been noted by ESPN The Magazine a very notable and big name. (Ref. now provided) Notability as a singular article should not be a question.Kuro Woof 05:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurowoofwoof111 (talk • contribs)

Keep. For the reasons stated above. --MQDuck 08:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coverage in the articles is hardly non-trivial. One sentence in a magazine is not the coverage we require for notability. Seriously, this is a group of kids who played wiffle ball on their block and decided to call it a league. This article (which is just a local article as a result of the brief sentence in the magazine) shows that there is no huge league, nor any intention for a huge league. It's just a bunch of kids playing wiffle ball on their street. Delete this, and it's close to being a speedy delete. 76.100.210.208 (talk) 11:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "This sport has its own stadiums, where thousands of people gather to watch very week, its obviously notable. This league has hundreds of players from divisions stretching from, New York to Texas." is just bull. The news evidence of the "stadiums" is of one local recreation park in Belleville, Illinois. And, as noted above, the ESPN mag. mention is one (obviously humorous) sentence. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And that stadium in Illinois has nothing to do with this league. That's part of the "United States Perforated Plastic Baseball Association" they just use the major league wiffle ball in the stadium's name. 76.100.210.208 (talk) 11:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, claims of notability are bogus. Corvus cornix_talk 23:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Torn (wiffed?) The league is possibly notable, but all the sources are to the MLW website itself, instead of to the purported "coverage" from reputable sources. The "ESPN" link in the article leads to MLW's site, with a "thanks ESPN" for your coverage. Why not a link to ESPN's coverage, if it exists? If it does exist, keep. If it doesn't (along with the other major publisher's that are attested, including Minneapolis Star-Trib), delete. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The "coverage" with espn is that one sentence that's shown in the league's website. Even if the source can be found off of espn for this article, it's still a one sentence trivial mention and not the significant coverage required by notability standards. 76.100.210.208 (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not disagreeing with you 76.100...., but the article also attests that the Star Tribune, Albany Times Union, and a TV station, have also covered this particular wiffle-league. I don't have the time to search myself, therefore, I'm torn. Seems notable (at least by the assertions given in the article), but I'm very convincible either way. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - In this case, you tag the article for third party sources, not go to AfD. Keep per above. --Pwnage8 (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
note has anyone found anything that shows that this is a league that goes beyond just a few people playing wiffle ball in the streets of new york? I don't see how that's notable at all. 76.100.210.208 (talk) 19:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, group with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burnsifarian

I originally speedied it as nonsense but it was then given some context. Sounds like a religion I'd enjoy seeing as I'm quite enamored with chicken wings, but WP is definitely not for religions, however fun, that are made up one day especially since this one is the wrong type of food ;) _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 04:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is am amazing web page and its a true religion. I have experienced it myself and follow it as faithfully as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.7.245.88 (talk) 04:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ETA whoops, wasn't my speedy that I removed but rather someone else's who had tagged it following the creator's removal of my own. Regardless, not sure whether it's speedy eligible so it's here in the event it isn't _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 04:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as uncited, non-notable, thing thought up by a few friends. I would obviously be willing to change my !vote if I were to receive chicken. DMacks (talk) 04:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete for G3 - blatant misinformation. Wikipedia is not for something made up. — ERcheck (talk) 04:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete; default to KEEP. - Philippe 02:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of experiments from Lilo & Stitch

This is a trivial list of indiscriminate data, and I'm at a loss as to why we're hosting it. (jarbarf) (talk) 04:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unverifiable, indiscriminate, fancruft extreme. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Previous AfD from 2006 resulted in keep. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'll more or less repeat what I said two years ago: The television series episode plots center specifically around this list of experiments, so removing the page will remove a large chunk of information pertaining to the show. The list is different than the List of Lilo & Stitch: The Series episodes as the episode list contains airdates and shorter experiment appearance lists. As for the claim of fancruft, I have strived long and hard to specifically keep it free of speculative list cruft (though I admit that I'm getting rather tired of doing so). Unfortunately, Disney made maintaining the list extremely difficult when they decided it would be fun to list the name of every experiment at the end of the last movie (Leroy & Stitch). So the names are available, but unless Disney produces more cartoons, the descriptions will have to remain blank as no information is available. All the information is from the shows or movies and speculative descriptions are removed almost immediately. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Not much of a case has really been made for deleting this. It's obviously not "indiscriminate", so it's difficult to tell what was meant by that, and trivia is entirely allowed on Wikipedia. It's been made clear how it's verifiable, and references are listed by the article. This AfD should be closed immediately. --MQDuck 07:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial list --Faith (talk) 10:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivial list of non-notable info. Belongs on a fansite but not in an encyclopedia. Nsk92 (talk) 02:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gogo Dodo. --Pwnage8 (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Jung

Listed with maintenance tags for references and notability, prodded by me on the grounds that no attention paid to the notability tag, prod and maintenance tags removed by unregistered editor without any improvement. Only edit by article's starter, so probably fails WP:COI Richhoncho (talk) 22:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I can find lots of things by Fred Jung, but nothing about him. This is a common problem for journalists and critics, unless they write a book which receives multiple reviews. Perhaps Wikipedia's notability criteria for journalists and critics need to be reconsidered. --Eastmain (talk) 23:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Tiptoety ^talk 04:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to comply with WP:Bio#Creative_professionals. Evidence of output is not evidence of notability. A journalist, by the nature of his or her profession, will have a volume of material out there in the public realm and may therefore generate significant Google hits. Nonetheless, Google hits alone are not evidence of notability. Debate (talk) 13:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources, fails notability, agree with Debate --Captain-tucker (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete dead end, orphaned article (no links in, no links out), no sources, unformatted mess of a one-paragraph resumé. B.Wind (talk) 07:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn, and guess who needs to brush up on WP:MOSDAB? Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Johnson (disambiguation)

Dab page with only two entries. Situation can be remedied with hatnotes, no need for a dab. (For the record, one of the news broadcasters at my local radio station is named Bruce Johnson, but he's not notable enough to be included here.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not strictly necessary, but harmless. It's a reasonably common name and there are bound to be more than two entries eventually. --Dhartung | Talk 06:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And I wasn't surprised I could find at least one more entry (someone born Bruce Johnson who uses a stage name). --Dhartung | Talk 07:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily Closed (non-admin closure). Content merging can be dealt with at the article's talk page and is not grounds for a deletion discussion, per WP:ATD, "this should be solved through regular editing". WilliamH (talk) 13:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wunderlich Intermediate School

Article about an Intermediate school that does not assert its notability. Per this AFD on another intermediate school in the same district, I propose a merge of useful information into Klein Independent School District and then deletion of the article. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close (and keep) the GFDL does not permit merge+deletion, and standard consensus is to redirect these articles in the first place. (jarbarf) (talk) 04:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Klein Independent School District as stated in the nom, so why are we at AfD? _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 04:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 02:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Sebastian Mason

This one makes a couple of extremely weak stabs at notability, both of them falling far from the mark. He once managed a local political campaign, but has never held office himself or done anything else of political note, thus failing WP:POLITICIAN. He's published a mystery novel under a pseudonym, but he had to pay notorious vanity press AuthorHouse to get into print, and his book fails WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 04:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Youngest campaign manager is a difficult claim to source and not a great claim of notability either, as campaign managers at the Congressional level are not generally notable, and that's really it, I guess. --Dhartung | Talk 07:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sourced or unsourced, it isnt even remotely notable.DGG (talk) 02:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 02:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filipino wave

Original research/neologism. Tagged for notability since January. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. This article is merely a list of pop culture references to anything related to Filipino culture. As far as is made apparent, the idea that there's a "wave" of these references exists only in the mind of the User:Patrick2480. Also, check here. Someone called "Patrick I." says: "You all heard the phrase Korean wave[...] well I just coined the phrase Filipino wave, and hope the rest of the world gets in on it." --MQDuck 06:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:OR if ever I saw such. Frank | talk 17:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Definitely WP:OR! It appears the author has made up the phrase and written an article to support his new phrase. Nk.sheridan Talk 21:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Lenticel ^(talk) 07:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Filipino bias aside. Sources found from Google search are either forums or blogs which are not reliable. Anyways it might be a good redirect to a future Filipino Diaspora article.--Lenticel ^(talk) 07:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OR, obviously. Unless, of course, someone along the likes of Korina Sanchez or Jessica Soho picks it up and features this dubious notion on their pseudo-magazine shows. --- Tito Pao (talk) 04:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, though if someone wishes to transwiki I can give them the information. Wizardman 14:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drift (railroad)

Dicdef, no way that it can be turned into more than that. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, this could probably be sourced but it verges on how-to, i.e. we wouldn't have an article specifically on careening, but on boilers or steam explosions generally. Do we have a list of steam locomotive or railroad terminology? --Dhartung | Talk 07:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary, then delete. This can never be more a dicdef. B.Wind (talk) 05:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 04:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, withdrawn by nominator. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 14:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red espresso

AfDs for this article:

Originally tagged as a copyvio, infringing material removed. That being said, this is about a non-notable brand of tea/ coffee substitute. Google turns up mostly advertising, nothing independent, and apparently this was speedied a little over amonth ago as spam. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 03:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I didn't do enough of a google news search, a few of these are definately non-trivial. I'll clean up the article/ remove some of the bias. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 14:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable WP:COATRACK for the producer's company. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Red Espresso" is apparently the patented name for a method of making rooibos tea, stated here to be the "best" method. The Rooibos article already mentioned "red espresso", and this article doesn't really add any extra information. --MQDuck 04:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article passes WP:NOTE. I found several reliable sources through googling: NewsObserver, SeattlePi, Cape Town Bussiness News, etc. They are not yet used in this paper (perhaps editors can include them). Dekisugi (talk) 07:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm changing my vote to keep. However, I added a bias tag to the article. --MQDuck 08:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 02:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Ryski

Works for a company that's so non-notable that it's been deleted twice: [31]. Non-notable businessman fails WP:BIO. He was a finalist for an award once, and he shelled out some money to pay notorious vanity press AuthorHouse to print up some copies of his book, a tome which roundly fails WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 03:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BIO - no significant coverage....--brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable business man. Blahblah5555 (talk) 07:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable.--Berig (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, GoogleNews (all dates) gives only 4 hits[32]. Fails WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 00:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 330 references to his book on Google [33]. either on-line websites, such as Amazon and Target selling his book, to news articles about the book. The book is the only book on the topic of retail traffic and customer conversion [34]. The Ernst & Young award he was a finalist for is the world's most prestigious business award [35]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darazon (talk • contribs) 00:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

300 Ghits is no indication of notability since they were gotten by a general google search and most are simply commercial links concerning where the book is being sold. In fact, these days even a sneeze gets a few hundred hits on Google. GoogleBooks is a mich better measure here and a GoogleBooks search returns just a single hit[36], to the book itself. Thus no indication that the book has been cited in other books as of now. You would have to find some independent reviews by reliable sources, per WP:RS, to show that the book is notable per WP:BK. Even if the book does manage to pass WP:BK, it does not make the author notable per WP:BIO unless sufficient in-depth independent coverage of the author himself is available from reliable sources. The only serious indicator of notability that I see so far is being a finalist for the Ernst&Young Award (although this[37] link is better here than the one you use). That is pretty good but not quite enough by itself, in the absence of other coverage. WP:BIO is fairly specific here: "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them". I think if he had actually won the Ernst&Young award, that would be enough to pass WP:BIO. As things stand, unless more reliable sources talking about him specifically are produced, not quite. Nsk92 (talk) 00:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 02:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St Mary Of The Assumption Church, Newcastle

Borderline advertising for a non-notable church -- no sources seem to exist for this place. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable church. Qworty (talk) 03:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article argues the architectural distinctiveness of the church at some length. Is there an architect who might care to comment? --Eastmain (talk) 03:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If an Irish town deserves its own article, its Catholic church might as well have one too. As "the" Catholic church in the town, it's notable in that context (and the article name makes that context clear to any reader). I also think "advertisement" is a bit too cynical an assessment. Anyway, I don't think there's any reason to remove this page, so keep is my vote. However, an alternative might be to merge it into [[Newcastle, County Down]]. --MQDuck 03:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 03:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 03:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Newcastle, County Down. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Much of the article is taken from the parish's copyrighted web page. Furthermore, no independent reliable sources have been provided, nor have I been able to locate any myself ("St. Mary of the Assumption" seems to be a common name for churches, and "Newcastle" is not an unusual name for a town). Wikipedia precedent is that all towns are notable enough to merit articles -- but churches and other religious congregations must establish notability through coverage in secondary sources per WP:ORG. This one has not. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability, no sources, possibly a copyvio. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 06:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, local orgs require independent RS coverage per WP:ORG, this church doesn't have any. Most churches aren't notable, there's no evidence thie one is any different _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 14:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't see anything to show how this is notable. Thanks to Metropolitan for making a good summary reply. Nyttend (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant independant coverage, and most of the article is a copyvio. Epbr123 (talk) 01:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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), because notability is confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Johnson

Non-notable former executive of a small company that no longer exists. Not much more to say about this one. Qworty (talk) 03:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this is deleted, Bruce Johnson (disambiguation) would have to be deleted as well since there would be no purpose for the dab (only one other name on it). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Intuit Canada still exists and is not exactly small. Notability does not expire; if Bruce Johnson was notable when he was president of Intuit Canada, he is still notable today. I added a reference. --Eastmain (talk) 03:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 03:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 03:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Eastmain is correct. Johnson was not just an exec but the founder and CEO of Intuit Canada, which still lives, and many people did their taxes this year on the latest update to the program Johnson wrote. Eastmain has also tidied the references to make some significant coverage in reliable sources more clear. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, really does look notable per origination of Wintax (see Intuit Canada#Profile). I think this article would be best moved to something like Bruce Johnson (tax software) or (computer programmer) or (executive) to distinguish him from Bruce Johnson (politician) (whom I just moved from Bruce Edward Johnson per WP:NCP), leaving Bruce Johnson (disambiguation) free to be moved here. --Dhartung | Talk 07:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 02:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Wiley

Three assertions of notability are made, and the article fails on all three counts. His notability is asserted as a politician, but he has never held office, having failed twice to be elected to Congress; he therefore fails WP:POLITICIAN. His notability is asserted as an author, but all he's ever done in the world of letters is pay notorious vanity-press AuthorHouse for publication (which is something anyone with a checkbook can do), thus failing WP:BK. His notability is asserted as a radio personality, but he was at a small local station that doesn't place him over the WP:BIO bar. His greatest claim to fame is that Hillary Clinton's brother once trounced him in a primary, but bear in mind WP:NOTINHERITED. I just don't see notability in the cards for this one. Qworty (talk) 02:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Good call. A bunch of small claims to notability that just don't add up to meet the WP:BIO standard. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well-reasoned nomination. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 `'Míkka >t 06:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Episcophobia

Non-notable or newly coined neologism; google only pulls up nineteen results, and few of those are relevant. There are virtually no reliable secondary sources for this term, therefore I believe it should be deleted. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 02:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems more likely to make a dictionary definition than an encyclopedia article. I found some mentions of the term, but one was as preference to ignore the Epistles (not what this article described), and this one suggests not an irrational fear but just a dislike of the power of bishops, this one looks like a hatred of "higher clergy" for some policy they had in the East. In all, a very disparate set of usages suggesting that the term isn't in common enough use to have solidified a meaning. A few mentions that don't form a pattern do not establish notability. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The foregoing links attest that this has been around for a long time which ipso facto makes it notable. The different interpertations are all the more reason to keep the article. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But they're all just passing uses of the term, there's nothing substantial. WP:Original research would be required to create an article out of them. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep GBooks and Scholar hits show its in use. I don't think OR is needed to put together an article on the term's historical use. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 04:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The reason I suggested that OR would be required is the few references found are all primary sources. No secondary sources have been uncovered that interpret what the term means. So we'd have to interpret it ourselves, which is OR. Especially given that they are mostly historical uses, requiring historical interpretation. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources or not, this is a WP:DICDEF. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As may see in google/googleBooks, this is a very occasional coinage, no encyclopedic content whatsoever. Laudak (talk) 14:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If one or more documents came to light that discussed the phenomenon described by this term in reasonable depth, then it might be notable and wouldn't be a WP:DICDEF. That's the only circumstance I can see whereby this article should be kept. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A non-notable neologism. Also, per WP:DICDEF. Nsk92 (talk) 02:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I doubt the article can be more than just a dictionary definition. -- Taku (talk) 04:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 02:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gutter (comic)

Seems to be a nonnotable comic, that's hasn't got a single source. Graevemoore (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like vandal article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurowoofwoof111 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as a non-notable publication, no sources listed. TN‑X-Man 15:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google turned up nothing. Doubtful that sources exist to verify content or even the existence of this comic. The list of characters leads me to believe this might be a hoax. Doctorfluffy (i put on my robe and wizard hat) 04:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No demonstrated notability. No references. All the points above are valid. Could be patent rubbish. Truthanado (talk) 00:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I created this page and i have the proof the comic exists it wasn't very well known and only lasted about a year but i'll upload a picture of it very soon! Jack haywood (talk) 23:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 02:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chilton Crane

Only roles on IMDb are bit parts. No reliable sources to be seen. Insiufficient context. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Nice amount of work, but no major roles. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lots of non-notable roles. A glorified extra, really. On some shows where she's appeared more than once, she hasn't even played the same character, suggesting that she's more or less part of the scenery. Qworty (talk) 03:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. She played Susan Farrell on The 4400 for 12 episodes, the4400wiki.org, as the sister of Tom Baldwin, a main character, and the mother of mother of Shawn Farrell (another main character) and Danny Farrell. While not in a lead role herself, she'd be at least a secondary character on the show's first season. --Faith (talk) 12:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp (talk) 00:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Falling In Love

Not a notable song; didn't chart, was only performed at a concert once it seems. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ira Losco. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely trivial, utterly failing WP:MUSIC. Qworty (talk) 03:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Aerosmith has a song called "Falling in Love" that did chart. JuJube (talk) 03:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to the pop-up search bar (which I hate on most days) "Falling in Love" is also the title or part of the title of Falling in love (emotional state, note the capitalisation), Falling in Love (a movie starring Meryl Streep and Robert DeNiro), again note capitalisation), the aforementioned Aerosmith song, Falling in Love (film) (the abovementioned Streep/DeNiro film), Falling In Love (TV series) (a Singaporean TV show) Falling in Love Again (a disambiguation page), Falling in Love with Love (a show tune), and possibly many more. A complicated solution is required: Redirect to the emotional state, create a disambiguation page for the many and varied uses, and list this song on the dabpage referring and linking to the associated album. -- saberwyn 05:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I've created a disambiguation page at Falling in love (disambiguation) and added everything but the article currently under discussion. I've also merged the two movie articles, and redirected the unqualified term to the general page. This article should either be moved to Falling In Love (song), or redirected to Falling in love (the emotional state). Either way, it should be listed on the disambig page, either at the new title, or without a wikilink for the song and instead linking to the related album or artist. -- saberwyn 06:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Falling In Love" was by Hamilton, Joe Frank, & Reynolds, right? At least that one charted, this one didn't. Not notable. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and dabify. The following were all Billboard Top 40 hits with some variation of "Falling in Love" in their titles (my sources go only into the mid 1990s):

"Fallin' in Love" - Hamilton, Joe Frank & Reynolds (#1 in 1975)

"Fallin' in Love" - Souther-Hillman-Furay Band (#27 in 1974)

"Falling in Love (Is Hard on the Knees)" - Aerosmith (#35 in 1997)

"Falling in Love (Uh-Oh)" - Miami Sound Machine (#24 in 1986)

"Could It Be I'm Falling in Love" - Spinners (#4 in 1973)

... and the immortal "Falling in Love Again" by Marlene Dietrich (1939). B.Wind (talk) 06:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 02:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laxey Browside Tramway

Very little context, I can't figure out where this water wheel and tramway even are. A search for the title turns up nothing outside Wikipedia. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with TPH that the article as written is poor. Nevertheless this does appear to be a real tramway with at least one reliable source available. I will attempt to find more sources and expand it. I do believe this is likely to be notable. Gwernol 02:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to somewhere in Transport on the Isle of Man. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Browside Tramway or merge to Laxey Wheel. [38] appears to be a reliable source with some details on page 12. I believe it is the red line going north from the wheel on page 8. The bottom of [39] has some photos. --NE2 09:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The funicular definately existed, even if only for a short time. It could be merged into an article covering Funiculars in the Isle of Man if someone was to create it. The fact that little is available online should not prevent details of the line existing somewhere within Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Having done a search for it, i could only find information on the Manx Electric Railway website and the Laxey Visitor's Guide. I would therefore say merge with Laxey. Simply south (talk) 09:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because there's no online refs, who says there aren't any. I'm off to expand it. - BG 7 13:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Laxey Wheel. It ought to be mentioned somewhere, although it seems unlikely that it would be worthy of an article in its own right (certainly not in its present condition). As the subject seems to be inherently connected with the Laxey Wheel, that seems to be a sensible merge target; of course, it can be mentioned in other, related articles too (with a link to the appropriate section). --RFBailey (talk) 23:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 02:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton Haskins

WP:BLP1E here. Only notable for one thing it seems. Tagged for cleanup since 09/2007 with no improvements. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:BLP1E.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; definitely WP:BLP1E, no independent notability. --MCB (talk) 03:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E, nuff said. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 06:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What a tragedy, but exactly what WP:ONEEVENT was created for. --Dhartung | Talk 07:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, WP:BLP1E. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable.--Berig (talk) 18:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Denison, Texas. Fabrictramp (talk) 00:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Munson Stadium

This is a non-notable high school stadium with few Google results and none that I noticed that were in any way promising enough to satisfy the notability criteria with reliable sources. I attempted to redirect to the high school, but I was rebuffed by the article creator and therefore submit this here as the alternative. Erechtheus (talk) 01:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article about a high school's stadium, and future articles about its lunchroom, gym, bathroom, etc. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Denison, Texas#High School Football per Eoin, below. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the local school district, Denison Independent School District, or the local city at Denison, Texas#High School Football ~ Eóin (talk) 03:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I must have tried to redirect to the city, not the school. Erechtheus (talk) 03:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this case I think a redirect to the city would be best. The high school only redirects to the school district while the city article has a whole section about the school's football team. ~ Eóin (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge...somewhere :-) Frank | talk 17:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Denison, Texas#High School Football as per the above. Merenta (talk) 03:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I created this article,So you can go ahead and delete it. Wildman74 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 snow. First delete vote calls for more work, and keep if notability is established (it has). Second delete is for speedy (doesn't apply). Third delete has withdrawn their opinion. Whats left is sufficient cause to keep. Great work on improvements. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malin to Mizen

Non-notable journey between two points in Ireland. Deleted via prod, apparently restored after (slightly confusing) "late" contest. Deiz talk 01:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Gnevin (talk) 10:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no encyclopedic value in this article. Ejg930 (talk) 02:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC) [reply]
After reading other votes, I am revising my vote to Possibly Delete - if content can be added to increase the noteworthiness of the article, then by all means keep it. However, if nobody is willing to work on it, delete it. Ejg930 (talk) 01:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Should've been speedied as patent nonsense. Qworty (talk) 03:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete this is as indiscriminate as they come: name two places, insert 'to', and hey preso! Potential for an infinite permutation of articles. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. The article now appears to adequately justify why there are grounds for keeping. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the history of this article, it's clear that there's more than one person who thinks there's something significant about "Malin to Mizen". I suggest to anyone who wants to keep this from being deleted that they let us know what that is. I say we give people time to make that case before we go deleting this or voting to delete it. --MQDuck 05:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, let's say... 5 days? That's kind of the point of AfD. Deiz talk 07:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFDs last five days, which is ample for sourcing. In any case it has been here a month and should have had sources by now. --Dhartung | Talk 07:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Googling makes it clear that this is a well-known challenge route, and I have added a ref to a 2006 article about an attempt to break a record set in 1993 for cycling the route. It appears to be the Irish equivalent of "Lands End to John O'Groats". PamD (talk) 07:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I've found (and added) a quote in the Irish parliament using it figuratively, indicating its notability. PamD (talk)

Keep. Google News Archive results indicate many reliable sources from which the article could be expanded. Route is used for charity walks, runs, bikes, and even stilt-walking, and probably has a long history. "Malin to Mizen" and variants are also used as an Irish "coast to coast". --Dhartung | Talk 07:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per PamD and Dhartung. --MQDuck 08:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Irish version of Land's End to John o' Groats .

Keep. Though it appears not to be as well established as Land's End to John o' Groats, there does seem to be enough evidence (now added to article) of notability. But it would be nice to have the views of an Irish Wikipedian! Mhockey (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the Google search above confirmed, this is a well-known challenge route between the opposite ends of the island of Ireland. (Mhockey asked for view of an Irish wikipedian, and I'm one of them. I don't think that Malin-to-Mizen s quite as notable in Ireland as "Lands End to John O'Groats" is in England, but it's way more than notable enough to satisfy WP:N. The article itself may require cleanup, but that's a different matter). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.--Berig (talk) 18:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung. There are secondary sources indicating notability and we have source material to start with a decent stub. --Oakshade (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A well-known challenge route [40] which as stated above is Irish equiv. to Great Britain's Land's End to John o' Groats. Plenty of secondary sources indicate notability. Nk.sheridan Talk 21:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've done a little bit of work to the article. Nk.sheridan Talk 23:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks like it's WP:SNOWing here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ...would be much improved with a section on how long it takes to hitch-hike from M to M with a small fridge in tow (sigh).Red Hurley (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A non-admin closure of this discussion was reversed due to the three delete "votes" that started it. I wonder, is there anyone left by this point who still wants to vote for a delete? --MQDuck 00:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Anthony.bradbury (A1 - insufficient context or too short to understand article) . Nonadmin close Xymmax (talk) 12:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal sparks

Non-notable character from a hardly-notable book. (Don't get me wrong, though. I love Frank's work.) Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 01:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hangman's Curse (I'm assuming that "Hangman's Horror" in the article is a mistake. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same thing, until I noticed that no "Crystal sparks" is mentioned in the Hangman's Curse article. It's possible that she was simply overlooked in the article, but I've never read the book to know. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 01:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 02:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Lyman

Fund raiser for Ron Paul who built a blimp and apparently fails to meet WP:MUSIC for his music career. Article is a WP:COATRACK for Ron Paul's presidential run. Relavent information is already in the Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 article, and at best, this is a case of WP:BLP1E. Burzmali (talk) 01:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Moneybomb. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to moneybomb - per WP:NOT#NEWS. Only notable for the moneybomb. --Ave Caesar (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course, lots of editors on this piece have felt he was notable for many reasons, including the blimp's connection with groundbreaking interpretation of FEC rules. There are eight news cites of sighting the blimp alone. Implications that this is a coatrack, that (all) "relavent" info is already elsewhere, or that Lyman is only notable for the moneybomb fall apart upon examination of article(s). Consensus at moneybomb was that this notable info did not belong there. More later. JJB 02:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete. One of about 10 million political activists on the Internet. WP:BLP1E. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect or Delete:~~ If you strip all the excess puffery and verbiage from the article -- and there is a whopping lot of it -- there's a serious lack of notable content. RGTraynor 14:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep: A great many of those sources are blogs, self-published, represent trivial coverage or quotes or otherwise not reliable sources. A number aren't. WP:BIO aside, this is a prima facie pass on WP:V. RGTraynor 15:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have notified the other editors of this article at this point. JJB 14:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
As adverted above, here's the longer argument.
- Basic notability rule: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Thirty sources to date.
- Fully notable per WP:BIO:
  - "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject."
  - "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A)." Emphasis added.
  - "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique."
  - "The information is so large that this would make the [event] article unwieldy."
  - "Sources have written primarily about the person, and only secondarily about the event."
  - And, I believe, "the person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field."
- Not excluded by WP:BLP1E or WP:BIO1E (which is not a deletion argument but a merge argument; no merge proposal occurred):
  - Lyman is not someone who "remains of essentially low profile".
  - Sources do not "only cover the person in the context of a particular event"; there were two moneybombs and six weeks of blimp sightings, and now he is getting coverage on his own.
  - We're not dealing with "marginal biographies on people with no independent notability".
  - He is not "associated with only one event, such as for a particular relatively unimportant crime or for standing for governmental election". He came in with a marginally notable music production company, and has now founded Basic Media for a much wider purpose than the election.
- New notability factors since article was more active (seeking reliable coverage):
  - His new social networking site (yes) is taking off, breakthematrix.com.
  - He has signed with a cable company to start a new channel in the DC area.
  - He is coordinating efforts to plan several new TV and radio shows.
- Other arguments of deletionists are insufficient:
  - "Fund raiser for Ron Paul who built a blimp" attempts to hint nonnotability but fails.
  - "Fails to meet WP:MUSIC" is a strawman, nobody argues his notability is primarily due to music.
  - See WP:COAT#What is not a coatrack's astronaut example. Article is about Lyman, not a race. WP:COAT is not a deletion argument but a WP:SOFIXIT argument in this case.
  - Campaign article does not and need not mention Music Submit, Televising the Revolution, Free State Project (Operation Live Free or Die), Basic Media (Break the Matrix TV), Renew America Man of the Year, or Golden Dot Award, each of which are separately reportable items.
  - Redirect to moneybomb is even worse, because in addition to above does not mention the many blimp articles.
  - There are not 10 million political internet activists. Certainly not who have raised (ahem) $10 million in two days.
- Finally, nominator did not make any use of WP:DP alternatives to deletion (editing, tagging, proposing merge, or discussing), but has jumped to AFD out of the blue and out of process. There is more. JJB 15:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep I have a feeling those nominating this and those calling for its deletion have not followed Ron Paul's campaign. While Lyman was associated with the money bomb, he was also associated with the Ron Paul Blimp. Both of these things were considered revolutionary for campaign finance and campaign advertising. He has personally been in several interviews and described in detail by multiple articles for his involvement in both the blimp and moneybomb. He's not notable for a single event but at least two events. Also his notability is established by numerous reliable news sources reporting on his relation to those events. Something I didn't know, mainly because I haven't been looking at the Ron Paul stuff lately, is that Lyman and others have set up a media corporation and will actually have a channel in Maryland. Certainly this would add to his notability because it takes his internet activism into real-life activism which was already sort of done with the blimp. I think all these things indicate his notability.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was considering his efforts from November - January as a single event. If you check google news, you'll find the articles from mainstream sources fall only within this time frame, with only the more fringe media outlets carrying more recent stories. Even then, most of the stories concentrate on the Money bombs themselves or the blimp, not the person behind them. The "media corporation" is a crystal ball at this point, it has been anything notable yet. Burzmali (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can't consider them a single event. That's just plain ridiculous. Also it's not a "crystal ball" over whether the idea is notable as several articles have touched on that very matter. Also while many articles deal with the moneybomb or blimp they also often spend a while talking about him and several articles exist where he's the one talked about, not to mention interviews he's had with news organizations. The moneybomb and Ron Paul Blimp are both distinct things and can't be put together. Lyman is seen as the face of these things or the brains behind them. Both of these things are regarded as revolutionary developments. As was pointed out detailed biographical information on Trevor Lyman and others involved in the moneybomb concept was shot down, but Trevor Lyman is clearly notable as an independent person because he is seen as related two distinct and revolutionary concepts.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Clearly no one ever thought to raise money on the Internet or advertise on a blimp before. Burzmali (talk) 21:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's obviously not it. You're belittling what was done. Ron Paul raised $20 million in the fourth quarter, more than any other Republican. Half of that came from two days, November 5th and December 16th, moneybombs. They were the largest single-day donations at the time. They are still the largest in pre-primary fundraising. That was done because a large number of people saved up money and donated a lot of it on a single day pre-chosen. That was the revolutionary aspect of it. By doing this Paul was able to get a great deal more exposure than if those had been spread throughout the quarter and netted more donors as well as more coverage which improved his poll standings and brought new donors afterwards. It was also all organized at the grassroots level, not by the Paul campaign. It used a sort of viral advertising campaign on the Internet by spreading YouTube videos and being spread on MySpace and Facebook. It was entirely different from other things in the past. The blimp was financed through a for-profit corporation making an end-run around campaign finance laws. Both of those things were entirely different and this is what makes it notable.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, it might make them notable, but notability isn't inherited. In the end, Paul still finished last in all the polls that mattered, so in a historical respect, how notable could the PR flak who came up with them be? Burzmali (talk) 19:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Is that a vote for merge to moneybomb, Ron Paul Blimp, and Basic Media? I'll compromise on that! Also please watch your descriptions of living persons and POV about which polls "mattered". JJB 19:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
        
        Actually I would think that since the policy on notability says specifically notability for one event the general conclusion would be a person who is notable for two events would likely be notable, notwithstanding that notability can be established for a single event. Considering Trevor Lyman is central to both of the events and neither event or idea can be put together in one article it seems reasonable to think he would be deserving of his own article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he's clearly notable (established in the article), but let's get Paul's picture off the page and avoid the coatrack argument. Frank | talk 17:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments perhaps misplaced at Talk:Trevor Lyman (the first looks like a slight bit of an SPA): JJB 20:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely think that he is notable. He helped organize one of the largest grass roots campaigns in u.s. history as well as the cable news network he is working on. Cheesecake42 (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is foolish. How is Trevor Lyman "not notable"? If so, what is James Blunt notable for? Nothing. This man did something. He deserves to be noticed!! Adufig2000 (talk) 19:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A subject is notable if they're the subject of multiple articles in reliable secondary sources. An article is worthy of inclusion if it passes the "perfect article test," where theoretically enough sources could be found to make it neutral and establish its importance. Looking at the references this article has, it passes both of these criteria in spades. If there weren't any sources, then the nominator may have a point, but their arguments hold no water in light of the extensive citations here. Buspar (talk) 22:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep per KleenupKrew(who would think I'd ever get a chance to say that?) and Buspar. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Frank , the article needs some improvement but establishes notability. Jeodesic (talk) 12:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quit deleting every single God damn article that isn't notable enough to be included in a paper encyclopedia! Less important articles don't magically diminish more important ones! Sheesh! SteveSims (talk) 04:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa there, don't have a heart attack. See WP:CIVIL. --Ave Caesar (talk) 20:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I've been strongly opposed to notability witch hunts recently, since four articles that I've created or heavily edited recently were deleted because they supposedly weren't notable enough or didn't have enough references. I understand that I don't own the articles, but still, people need to chill out with deleting things. Though the free encyclopedia should not become a stubfarm, people need to remember that "less notable" Wikipedia articles don't diminish more notable ones as they would in a paper encyclopedia.. SteveSims (talk) 01:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia is NOT Fox News, let's keep it that way.James1906 (talk) 07:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everything above. --Pwnage8 (talk) 15:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Warhammer 40,000. - Philippe 02:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blackstone Fortress

Just a summary of how a fictional ship has appeared in a fictional universe, i.e. plot summary. Not permissible under WP:PLOT.

Note that this has been unreferenced for about six months, so this nomination should hardly come as a surprise. Graevemoore (talk) 00:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Redirect to Warhammer 40,000 or other suitable page. Fails WP:FICT in addition to WP:PLOT. Burzmali (talk) 01:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Already transwiki'd to the 40k wiki. --Falcorian ^(talk) 01:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's doubtful that reliable secondary sources exist to indicate this topic is notable, and the article is entirely plot summary. Doctorfluffy (i can has msg) 22:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - blatant attack page. — iridescent 22:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bojocore

Delete. Neologism with no widespread usage. Google search results in 9 hits. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 00:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Probable hoax. If not, its still unencyclopedic.--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ref provided is a forum where is states "Only a couple of days after I coined the word ...." --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - weak attempt to start a meme/neologism. Marasmusine (talk) 07:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would almost say this qualifies as a speedy (patent nonsense), but there is an attempt at a source. This falls under WP:MADEUP. TN‑X-Man 15:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO.--Berig (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR cruft. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable neologism. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted as an attack page — iridescent 22:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 02:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noureddine Elhani

Notable? You decide. Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 00:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely no assertation of notability, and likely CoI as well. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I know the Google test isn't the ideal, but if there's zilch....--brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable artist. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article does claim notability (won a national award), but does not provide sources to back the claim up. TN‑X-Man 15:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - article is a good start, but...notability is just not established. Frank | talk 17:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable.--Berig (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the article suffers from lack of wikilinks, sources, and slight POV, these are maintenance issues, not grounds for deletion. The article isn't that bad for something that started out as non-english! Give it a chance. You delete this, and you throw away the contributions of the editors who've worked on it. It claims notability. That should be enough of a reason to keep it and give people the time to find the sources. --Pwnage8 (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 in view of the article lacking any context as pointed out by B.Wind. If someone wants to place a redirect here, go ahead, but if a full article is desired, a redlink might be more effective at encouraging a rewrite. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Heart Convent School,Ahmednagar

Delete unreferenced oneliner about a school with no indication that this school is a high school and therefore by default notable, or otherwise Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Before viewing the article I thought "maybe a keep if it has notable alumni". I clicked and it does assert such, but provides no references. If the article's creator can promptly name these people I would not be opposed to keeping it. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 00:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect if no notability can be established, redirect to Schools of the Sacred Heart and include it in that list. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 04:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Schools of the Sacred Heart and do not delete. The article can be re-established if sourced content is added in the future. TerriersFan (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. No content, no context. B.Wind (talk) 07:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Neil (G12 - copyright violation). Nonadmin close. Xymmax (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kenefick Ranch Winery

Non-notable winery. Google comes up with quite a few results, but none of them seem to be independent and non-trivial. Most appear to be advertising and press releases. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 00:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the only hits on Google news are allegations of questionable hiring practices [41].
Speedy Delete. The first problem is that its a copyvio. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on catching the copyvio. Speedy Delete Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 03:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This provides basic information about a winery. What's the point of keeping information from a person who drinks a bottle of wine and decides to look up the maker on Wikipedia? This is an example of the worst kind of application of the notability requirement. --MQDuck 05:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio issues aside, the article doesn't explain why or how the winery is notable, or give independent non-trivial sources to prove that notability. Wikipedia is not a directory. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 06:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's notable because they produce a product that people buy. A bit of Googling shows that it's discussed on wine websites and so presumably generally available. It may be possible to argue that it's not notable enough (though I would disagree), but what's the point? Try to be more concerned with helping and not hurting Wikipedia than following the policies strictly. --MQDuck 06:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non- notable winery. Just because people buy a product doesn't make it notable. I went to the store today and bought pens from two different companies but they don't need wikipedia articles either Blahblah5555 (talk) 07:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about you tell me why not? --MQDuck 07:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN. Copyvio. Advertisement. Wikipedia is not a directory. Anything else? -- Alexf⁴² 09:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Copyvio, advertisement, should probably be speedied. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My position is still not "delete", but you're definitely right that it reads like an advertisement, and it doesn't really have distinguishable value beyond that. I just find it hard to believe how disinclined people are to recognizing notability. Anyway, can you or anyone else explain to me how this violates copyright? I see "copyvio" thrown around a lot these days. --MQDuck 11:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted, yet this process hasn't completed. As the only one who voted Keep so far, I'm not gonna bother taking it upon myself to get it overturned, but it should be restored until the AfD process is complete. --MQDuck 11:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Checking the history of the page, the article was deleted as being as copyright violation from the winery's website, which is ground for a speedy deletion and completely appropriate. To be honest, the AfD was also heading to a a consensus of delete as well. Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 02:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erich Reimer

Since a few months this person has held an office in a high school student organization of unknown size which was founded two and a half years ago - I am not convinced that this entails encyclopedic notability. In any case, the article in its current form fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources (no independent sources whatsoever). High on a tree (talk) 00:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete No demonstration of notability through use of WP:RS, per nom. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 00:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Young Democrats of America High School Caucus. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think such a redirect would be useful for readers: There is no biographical information about him on that page; just his name in a list. Regards, High on a tree (talk) 03:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable high-school student, Come back in a few years, maybe, and we'll see. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteHaha a high school student thats hilarious. Blahblah5555 (talk) 07:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above Faith (talk) 10:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. High school student, not notable. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable.--Berig (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Young Democrats of America High School Caucus. As a national officer in the Democratic Party's youth branch, no article but redirect seems reasonable. Being in high school doesn't disqualify one from mention - there are hundreds of wikipedia articles on high school students or even 3 year olds, just look at the "1990's Births" and so on categories. Having a wikipedia article or wikipedia redirect for a high school student or young person is not uncommon. 74.70.144.72 (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

74.70.144.72 (talk) 17:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfy per request; otherwise, DELETE. - Philippe 02:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution of Music Management

Contested Prod. Essay about music management. Sourced, but largely an opinion piece. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 00:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as essay. JJL (talk) 01:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Should've been speedied. Not even remotely encyclopedic. Qworty (talk) 04:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essay. Reads like a class report for school. Is this another dump from a college econ 101 class? KleenupKrew (talk) 11:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Someone (presumably XQueenzx) obviously put effort into it but this is clearly an essay, not an encyclopedia article (it even ends with a "Conclusion" section). I suggest the author not feel discouraged and that they find an appropriate way to contribute their knowledge to Wikipedia. I'll bet they can help improve articles like [[Music industry]]. --MQDuck 12:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost pure WP:OR. Nsk92 (talk) 18:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to me This has potential. Shame it wasn't even tagged for being an essay but went straight to AfD. I will take it upon myself to construct a neutral encyclopedia article out of this. Talk to me. --Pwnage8 (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -Djsasso (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of contributors to The New Criterion

This magazine is obviously notable, but it would be impossible to maintain a list of contributors. This is a monthly magazine that has been around for 26 years, and the example cover has 17 different authors. So that's a list of ~5304 authors (if there were no repeats). This is just an impossible and unmanageable list to maintain. Mangostar (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indiscriminate information and a sea of red links. As the nom states, thousands of people have contributed to this mag, but they don't need to be listed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've hated this article for several months now. It's an invitational dumping ground for WP:AUTO. Qworty (talk) 03:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Wikipedia is not a directory of everyone who has written for the magazine Ohconfucius (talk) 06:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory, verification might also be an issue. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 06:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lots of redlinks who will/should never have articles. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As Wikipedia is not a directory, this article does not belong. TN‑X-Man 15:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Berig (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think its snowing! Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 15:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and I agree it's snowing... Frank | talk 17:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would it not be better to have a category for this, for those already notable. Dloh cierekim 20:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe 02:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Feinstein

non-notable as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Bonds 714th home run Misterdiscreet (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2008 NBA Draft... he's getting some media attention but is obviously not notable on his own. Nevertheless he may be a memorable side-story of the draft. --Rividian (talk) 22:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge Not notable, he seems to just earn a joking mention in some sports blogs, but no real major sources. There's tons of stunts like this out there, no reason this one is any different. The359 (talk) 07:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because he is only famous for a single event. -- Taku (talk) 05:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We'll reconsider when he actually gets drafted. Amnewsboy (talk) 08:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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