Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 May 1 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_May_1

< April 30	May 2 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FUCKUP

(Relatively) procedural nom per discussion on the talk page. Nothing significant or notable for this subject to deserve its own article. Already mentioned in The Illuminatus! Trilogy. -FrankTobia (talk) 23:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-Notable.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 01:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The_Illuminatus!_Trilogy? daveh4h 05:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Er... I wonder what the likelihood of someone looking this up and expecting a computer are...If it were my call, I'd redirect this to error. --UsaSatsui (talk) 10:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or redirect to...My userpage! (kidding, kidding...) daveh4h 16:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:FICT#Elements of Fiction. No coverage in secondary sources. Tnxman307 (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm completely guessing the percentages here but I would say that, with a margin of error of ±1%, 99% of all edits immediately following a Wikipedia search for FUCKUP will be some silly vandalism. I think someone just read the book and found the name of the computer very amusing and decided to write an article about it. The fictional computer is non-notable. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. JJL (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable fictional device which has not received significant coverage from secondary sources. Doctorfluffy (fart in my face) 04:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fancruft, or Merge into the main article for the novel, if this element plays a significant enough role. Regardless, it doesn't deserve its own article.--Shaggorama (talk) 06:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the book's article, because there is not enough to support a separate article for this element of the fictional universe. In the alternative, Delete outright.-- danntm ^T _C 17:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, esp SWik78. Eusebeus (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Illuminatus! Trilogy. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect without deletion as suggested above. Short enough to be justifiably included in the main article and legitimate enough to serve as a redirect that preserves the contribution history and leaves open the possibility of expanding if additional sources are found. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I find a merge unnecessary. The only information within FUCKUP is already found here and here. There are no other facts there that can be merged. -FrankTobia (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Deletion is much more unnecessary when a redirect location exists. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The_Illuminatus!_Trilogy and salt. I imagine this is a huge vandalism farm, judged on the name. Editorofthewiki^{review my edits here!} 20:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note Wikipedia:Merge and delete, so we can't merge and delete, we can merge and redirect and protect the page, if that's what you mean. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okey dokey then, just protect the redirect. Editor of the wiki^{review my edits here!} 20:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not-notable enough for it's own article, and it's likley to become a breeding ground for vandals. There's nowhere to merge to and a redirect would be pointless. Also, why not write out the abbreviation in the page title at least?--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 22:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It can be merged and redirect to The Illuminatus! Trilogy. I am not opposed to including the abbreviation in the page title. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Illuminatus, but without a redirect. The redirect will be confusing. DGG (talk) 03:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Illuminati trilogy. Redirect is probably best, to reduce vandalism the vacuum would almost inevitably attract. Frank | talk 18:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - I don't understand all these merge !votes. From what I can tell, there is no information in FUCKUP that isn't already in another article. Can someone elucidate what is to be merged? -FrankTobia (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - True enough. For my own part, my merge meant "keep the info; don't lose it in the process." Frank | talk 01:38, 7 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. Lara ❤Love 20:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Make 'em Art

Non-notable unsigned local band whose only output has been one self-released EP. I feel like a tourist (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete nonnotable. `'Míkka >t 23:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable band. Tnxman307 (talk) 14:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC non notable. Captain-tucker (talk) 00:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:03, 4 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 the result was delete as original research.. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 07:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wealthiest families in history

A morass of original research and synthesis from reliable and verifiable sources but suffering methodological problems, principally that of comparability across time and country. Worthy though it may be in itself, the way it's been constructed makes it improper to be a Wikipedia article, and its talk page already raises these concerns. Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is notable and should be kept Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Notability is not drawn into question here; original research and methodological concerns are the issue, and those points are well-taken. Pop Secret (talk) 23:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Original research and it suffers from a lot of compounding problems. seicer | talk | contribs 23:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the compatibility problems are explained there, and do not really amount to OR. They can be discussed further there. DGG (talk) 00:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: An author does not erect a shield from deletion simply because he has been forthright about the limitations of his article. The author has compiled of data from several sources (not all of which are identified) and has applied an unidentified and unsourced algorithm (endnotes 1 and 2 in the article are dead-ends). If this isn't OR/synthesis, what the hell is?Pop Secret (talk) 00:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, conflicting reasons given for nomination. Is it OR or is it competing methodologies? Doesn't look to be OR, and readers are not dumb, and could probably handle properly annotated conflicting methods, or you could add different columns for the different totalisation methods. MickMacNee (talk) 00:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Most of the stuff can be cleaned up but the REAL crux is the creation of both a list and figures for each family. Methodology IS the problem here. This is right on the edge, but a novel method for computing wealth in USD across time periods and governments is OR. A list of the 100 richest people in the US isn't OR because A: it has been done and published before and B: Even if it weren't published in that form, creating it on wikipedia would not require substantial transformative or creative effort. If the original author of this page wants to come on here and show how the applied formulas were applied by sources and that the page itself is not OR, then I might switch. Protonk (talk) 03:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clean up ~~If this is original research, then most lists are original research. Further, most WP articles are then original research.~~ Should take out the poor methodology and build a more straightforward list instead. ImperfectlyInformed | {talk - contribs}

The fact that it is listed doesn't make it OR. It is the fact that an unknown and novel formula is used to figure exchange rates, property valuation and inflation for each family in order to rank them on the list. Protonk (talk) 15:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After looking closer, I agree that the methodology is mysterious, which means it should be taken out. It pains me to see such an interesting article disappear. If it wasn't ranked, and presented its numbers in the historian estimated values at the same, I'm guessing we could keep it? I also don't think that calculating inflation adjustments (as long as the inflation measurement is made clear) or rates of growth is OR -- if such calculations are, then that should be changed. Calculations like that are not opinion at all, they're just a useful addition for the reader. It's like sourcing the universal laws of mathematics -- perfectly verifiable. Since we're a wiki, they're likely to be correct, anyway, since anyone can verify whether they were done correctly based on the sourced numbers. ImperfectlyInformed | {talk - contribs} 20:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is some worth to the article; but to take just one example, item 2 is the British Royal Family, whose wealth (as far as I can see) has been extrapolated from the year 1090 , let alone the problems of defining what constitutes "wealth" then compared with now; and how can an adjustment for inflation properly be made across that timespan? Likewise, The Medici, from the late Middle Ages. I'm wondering how any historical economist could give the article any credence in its present form. --Rodhull andemu 20:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well...not exactly. economics (especially historical economics) is not really pure mathematics. Even if it were, the new WP consensus on that is that original proofs and theorems still don't belong here. but in this case what is troublesome isn't the calculations, those are checkable and probably simple. In other words, it is relatively simple to take some fixed number in US Dollars in 1923 and correct for inflation (of course even then there ought to be some external work that does this, as the methods can vary). However, the assumptions behind the model are what may be suspect. How did the author decide to value property? How did they value fiefdoms for older families? Were contested holdings included? Does this valuation reflect the normal method of doing so in historical scholarship? honestly, these are not questions wikipedians can reliably answer. These are questions that scholars can answer and once they do, we should put the material up here. In this case we have a novel valuation system which raises questions that the WP:OR policy was written to avoid. Protonk (talk) 21:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about the methodology of inflation estimates is outside our purview. I agree that the methodology here is way off. I'm saying that we should be able to use, say, the US GDP deflator to adjust some US asset for inflation, as long as we say "Using the GDP deflator, that would be x amount of dollars in 2008." And sure, we don't want original theorems published on Wikipedia. But simple mathematics, like growth rates, reasonable inflation adjustments or percentage changes, are quite different from that. Maybe OR restricts us from doing that, but if so, I don't like the policy (I may have to abide by it, but that won't stop me from attempting to change it). ImperfectlyInformed|{talk - contribs} 22:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think OR would reject that (again, I'm just spitballing on what OR and SYn say). Any naive set of operations can probably be done (see the vairous lists of countries and cities by different metrics). However (and I think we agree on this), what is going on in this article isn't that. What we are seeing is a novel estimation of wealth from explicit measures and various unknown assumptions. More to the point, I'm not sure a list can be created without some significant novel work from disparate sources. Presuming that each family has a verifiable source, how to we concatenate that? Do we assume that all measures are accurate and just rank from there? Do we correct for inaccurate information? How do we adjust for differences in valuation and estimation? How do we rank families where the original work probably didn't list a dollar value, but left it as dollars and illiquid assets (consider the Windsors)? Those are the fundamental questions and the fundamental problems. there probably needs to be some clarification for WP:OR and WP:SYN for the problems you mention. But as it stands, we don't even need to ask those questions here, IMO. Protonk (talk) 00:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nominator with respect to OR and synthesis arguments. The problem is the methodology used to create the list. It's not just a simple combination and tabulation of data already presented in outside reliable sources, it's something more. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - blatant OR and synthesis. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless someone has done a proper study of this that we can work from this can only be original research and synthesis. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly OR, and why no Pharaohs, etc? :-) --Doug Weller (talk) 18:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. Undeath (talk) 07:02, 7 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 WP:CSD#A7--JForget 01:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan T. Miller

"Pole vaulter, cross country runner, lover, and a god among men." Nominated for speedy deletion per CSD A7 by Gtstricky, but creator objects. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete teenage vaninanity. --Finngall ^talk 22:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a little odd that this would last long enough to wind up on AfD. I would think this is exactly the sort of article {{db-bio}} was written for.--VectorPotential Talk 22:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only interesting thing about this particular AfD is that the nominator believed that an article creator's objection and use of the {{hangon}} template required resort to the AfD process. They do not. Pop Secret (talk) 23:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vanity article. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 23:54, 1 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 WP:CSD#A7 --JForget 01:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let Me Run

If this isn't a hoax, it's a wholly non-notable band per WP:BAND, no releases, some links to various MySpace pages. Descends into WP:BOLLOCKS. Delete it! Camillus 22:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Seems to be an actual band but its still non-notable, plus there seems to be some nonsense here (e.g. the Camel cigarettes sponsorship thing). Possibly some conflict of interest here too; the author (Davidfrenson (talk · contribs)) seems to be also responsible for the since-deleted Sparks Float (Google cache) mentioned in the article which suggests he knows the band members. All in all, I believe its covered for speedy deletion as A7 and have tagged it as such. Blair - Speak to me 00:16, 2 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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tsehai Publishers

Non notable publishing company, no independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N, along with no reliable sources.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 22:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - spammy, non-notable, no references either. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like an advertisement. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a spam article, unreferenced, about an apparently non-notable company.-- danntm ^T _C 17:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP, no secondary sources, non-notable --Captain-tucker (talk) 00:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ukexpat (talk) 04:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Chris M. (talk) 05:18, 7 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. A more detailed explanation follows.

Though AfD's are not a "vote," the numbers on the various sides of the debate are worth noting. I make out 19 keep !votes (a few of which are weak) and 13 folks in the delete camp (with a couple of those open to simply limiting the nature of the included content)—in other words, a fairly even split with a preference for keeping (some editors did not really provide a valid rationale for their view, but most did).

Predictably, the arguments in this AfD are much like those in other recent AfD's which involve BLP issues. Notability is not at issue here, and basically all keep voters are arguing that, because the topic is a notable one which we can describe with reliable sources, it should be kept. A number of the keep commenters make reference to the BLP concerns but feel the article is well-sourced enough to evade that problem. Most of the delete voters are not concerned with the issue of notability or verifiability, rather they are basing their arguments on our policy with respect to biographies of living persons (some with particular reference to the phrase "do no harm").

The debate here is a small part of a much larger debate (here, for example). That larger debate does not have a consensus as yet, and unsurprisingly neither does this one. There is clearly a sense among a large percentage of the community that these kind of articles are deeply problematic for BLP reasons and we need a different approach, however the specifics of that new approach have unfortunately not been worked out as yet. Until such time as a new way to deal with BLP articles like this one is implemented, and given the strong keep sentiment below rooted in valid policy concerns, in my view there is no choice but to close this as no consensus.

I would point out that, if our BLP policies are revised at some point, it would be more than appropriate to revisit this article at a future AfD if editors were so inclined.

While there is no consensus for deletion, the debate below was constructive and did produce some good suggestions and apparent points of agreement. It might be useful for folks who participated in the AfD to discuss some of the following issues since there will be some energy to do that (controversial AfD's often lead to article improvement), and working on this along the lines suggested below might alleviate at least some of the concerns of those in favor of deletion:

First of all, it's obvious that few disagree that this article is problematic in its current state and needs to be reworked in some fashion.
There seem to be two main alternative paths: either include prose and sources which describe the general phenomenon of celebrity sex tapes (thus moving it away from a list article), or turn this into a full-on list by moving it to List of celebrity sex tapes. Both options seem worthy of consideration and most seem to agree they would be improvements on the current situation.
There seems to be some consensus that a "rumored" section is inappropriate and should stay out.

Right now is as good (or even better) of a time to work on this article as any, and a few days of discussion and changes might turn this into something far less problematic. And to re-iterate, changes in our approach to BLP-related articles could easily alter the outcome in future AfD's for this article, so partisans of Celebrity sex tape should be motivated to make it far more up to par than it is now.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity sex tape

This article is a massive coatrack which doesn't explain what a sex tape is but rather a list of celebrities that have been in one. Per [1] (repeated in WP:BLP, so don't bother pulling out Argumentum ad Jimboium), this article is the antithesis of the entire BLP policy - it's tabloiding of the highest degree, given how much some of these celebrities have litigated to get the tapes destroyed - and efforts to reduce it to an acceptable form have been ignored. I really want it to be an article, but my hand has been forced. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Why don't you explain what a celebrity sex tape is and remove uncited claims? No one is trying to air the tapes, link to them, or divulge titillating tabloid details, just document that the such tapes exist. joshschr (Talk | contribs) 22:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. By "efforts to reduce it to an acceptable form", what Sceptre means is he blanked the page four times ([2], [3], [4], [5]) in a period of thirty minutes without writing a single word on the article's talkpage, and with no edit summary beyond "BLP concerns". He was reverted by three separate editors (myself included), and probably should have been blocked for 3RR, if someone had been quicker on the draw with a 3RR warning template. He also submitted it for page protection to keep people from undoing his blanking, protection which was declined by an admin. Anyway, the page is well sourced beyond BLP-worry terrain. Ford MF (talk) 22:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks well sourced to me so BLP shouldn't be an issue, though I agree that maybe some explanation on the nature of celebrity sex tapes would be a welcome addition. The fact that this went from a page blank to a nomination for deletion is almost enough for me to say speedy keep it, in fact. Strong keep it it'll have to be. --mordicai. (talk) 22:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well cited, often highly publicized events. If there are particular concerns with a source, use the Talk page. --Dhartung | Talk 22:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Begrudging keep.

At first, I was going to vote for deletion. Isn't this article akin to, say, an article like "Harvard Alumni Status"? There certainly is such a thing as the "Harvard mystique," just as there really is such a thing as celebrity sex tapes. Both are, I suppose, fairly well-known phenomena and always dutifully reported by the media. Like the celebrity sex tape article, my hypothetical "Harvard Alumni Status" article could only be a generic definition of the term, followed by a list of personalities with the relevant characteristic. Finally, I was going to ask: Is there any doubt that an article about "Harvard Alumni Status" should garner unequivocal support for deletion?

I regret to inform you that there are in fact at least two articles on Harvard alumni status: List of Harvard University people and Notable non-graduate alumni of Harvard University. In a perfect world, all of these articles, which exist more for the opportunity they give to users to flatter themselves as Wikipedia "contributors" than any actual encyclopedic demand, would be deleted. Nevertheless, it is by this time beyond doubt that these trivial, trivia-qua-list articles are here to stay. Reluctantly, I vote to keep. Pop Secret (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

those articles, and the similar ones for every university, list the people in that group who are the subject of WP articles or clearly notable enough to be. If an article for anyone on such a page is deleted, so normally is the listing. This is not comparable. DGG (talk) 00:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's bold blue for each bullet point of the celebrity sex tape list. So they are quite comparable. My worry is the proliferation of pages that serve as little more than indexes of the already eminently searchable Wikipedia, and what principled line we can draw for characteristics that should generate an index page and those characteristics that should not. You seem to think that going to Harvard is an example of the former and starring in a celebrated sex tape is an example of the latter. But why? Pop Secret (talk) 04:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (edit conflict) You've got to be kidding me. Verifiability doesn't mean we check common-f******-sense at the door, nor is it an excuse for ignoring other principles of Wikipedia. We must consider what Wikipedia is not. We must consider that we're discussing living people. We must consider whether the available sources and the framing of the topic allow us to make a balanced and complete article. That's just a few examples of what is spelled out in policy. We should also use the sense given to us by nature. The growing abuse of verifiability as the end-all be-all of article inclusion and content considerations needs to stop. Vassyana (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless you back this up with some actual arguments, this just sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. How, specifically, does this violate WP:NOT? Given how well-sourced it is, how is it a violation of WP:BLP? Since it's just a straight listing of confirmed facts, how does it violate WP:NPOV? And, most importantly, how does this violate WP:COMMONSENSE? Just pointing to a bunch of policies and harrumphing isn't an argument. See also Carptrash's law.—Chowbok ☠ 16:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I believe my statement, including its rebuttal purpose, was fairly clear and explicit. A number of keep arguments essentially boil down to "it's verifiable". As for BLP and NOT, Wikipedia is not intended for tabloid coverage. As for NPOV, the article most certainly fails. A NPOV article would discuss the phenomena, representing viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources; it would not be a coatrack listing of sex tapes. Please note, I am not disputing that the putative topic is notable. However, the article doesn't even make a feeble attempt to actually discuss the topic, instead just presenting a tabloid coatrack listing that runs counter to several basic principles. Vassyana (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - In that case, instead of attempting to delete the article, try inserting some prose. The article obviously supplies useful information on a widespread, verifiable phenomenon that does not necessarily conflict with WP:BLP in most cases. I've read articles noting how celebrity sex tapes have enhanced the notability of some subjects (e.g., Paris Hilton and Pamela Anderson). That third-party coverage and analysis should probably be incorporated and cited within the article, too. Deleting the article completely would be a disservice to the encyclopedia regardless of personal tastes, I think. J Readings (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If the sex tape has had an impact on the individual involved career-wise (positive or negative), then it should be in the article of the subject and this separate list is not required. If it had no impact on the individual involved, then it is not notable and does not belong on Wikipedia. Rumours do not belong in Wikipedia—period. In the past I have removed several of the entries here because their "sources" don't actually say what they are claimed to say, in particular the Barbra Streisand one, sourced to a Playboy article that, when printed out, didn't mention the hypothetical sex tape at all; however, it looks like everything I took out has been put back in, usually with the same references. Risker (talk) 23:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to fix what you're concerned about, but it doesn't actually seem to be the case. The Streisand entry, clearly labeled as false and listed in the section debunking persistent but untrue rumors of appearances in sex tapes, is sourced to three places, including The Village Voice, and the link for the Playboy interview indicates the following:
Take that porno film I'm supposed to be in. When I first heard the rumor, I thought it was a put-on. But these people you never can seem to find were selling a film and claiming it was me.
Perhaps you didn't scroll down far enough. Anyway, which part of this, exactly, violates WP:BLP or is unfairly defamatory to Streisand? You've gone a good job editing the article in the past, keeping out entries that were, in fact, unsourced and libelous, so I'm a little sad that you're arguing for deletion. Ford MF (talk) 23:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Ford MF, I used to try to keep this article cleaned up and finally took it off my watchlist when every time I cleaned it up the junk just wound up back in. There are six, possibly seven, entries on this article that are noteworthy: Hilton, Harding, Lowe, Crane, Chua Soi Lek, and Anderson/Lee, with Kardashian being a possible; there are mentions in their primary articles in each case, which is where they belong. News flash—people have sex, sometimes even with their spouses and significant others. The rest of these are not noteworthy. The rumours are inappropriate: Marilyn Monroe maybe had a sex tape that maybe someone bought, but maybe it isn't her, and maybe the sale never happened? Someone said there was a Lindsay Lohan sex tape but it turned out to be someone else? Good grief. That such entries are considered acceptable by many who are editing this article sadly confirms to me that the article cannot be properly maintained, and thus should not be here. I feel like a tourist and Protonk may have a point in making it a list of celebrities whose sex tapes are notable enough to be discussed in their main articles, but otherwise it's essentially a list of trivia. Risker (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:May I suggest that we turn this article into a mere list of celebrities who have been in sex tapes. This is completely verifiable and seems to be somewhat relevant (unfortunately...thanks, American culture). It seems like it could be worth keeping if converted into a list, which is basically all that it is now. I feel like a tourist (talk) 23:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP. Do No Harm. And per Vassyana above. the best outcome of this article could be a list of celebrities whose articles already contain information about their being involved in a sex tape. Protonk (talk) 23:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to preserve BLP information, but rename to List of celebrities in sex tapes. As long as it can be sourced, BLP isn't an issue. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't an issue on the individual biographies. I'm not at all opposed to ensuring that each piece of sourced information find its way into the appropriate biography, then making a category for celebrities with sex tapes. But in this case we have a POV problem. In the individual articles, the sex tape information can be threaded so as not to be used for attack or promotion. Here on the list, no such context exists. That is why I'm inclined to delete. Also, preserving information isn't a terribly persuasive argument. If the information is notable, then by definition this isn't the only place for it. Protonk (talk) 02:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hell, why don't we just delete all the BLP articles period and let people read newspapers like they did in the good old days? Screw it, let them get on a bus and go to a library if those bastards want easy, centralized access to information. Ford MF (talk) 06:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The literary reference is apt for consideration. However, you will not find information like this in "newspapers" or "a library". Rather, this is the kind of material one receives from scandal sheets in the impulse-buyer racks of supermarkets. Last time I checked, that's exactly the kind of content we don't want. Vassyana (talk) 11:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Does this count as a "newspaper"?—Chowbok ☠ 16:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Or, for that matter, Time Magazine, The Village Voice, BBC, Der Spiegel? Ford MF (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure! Because that's totally what I meant. If you're going to be sarcastic you should at least strive to be funny. Deleting a list of celebrity sex tapes because they may place undue weight on the existence or non-existence of the tape isn't destroying centralized information for the heck of it. Protonk (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please tone it down a notch. I wasn't being sarcastic and I didn't say that is what you meant. I said the comparison was appropriate to consider and then I gave my consideration of it. Vassyana (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I wasn't talking to you. I just posted the comment where I did so I wouldn't disturb the threading. That is why I also didn't indent it more than yours, so you wouldn't think I was replying to you. I guess I thought that context would have informed the reader that I was referring to Ford MF's post. Protonk (talk) 16:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, highly notable topic. Everyking (talk) 04:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what is "highly notable" about this topic? Risker (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Vassyana's well constructed reasoning. I don't see "celebrity sex tapes" being all that notable on a wider realm; it may be more fitting to allocate a briefing if it's notable when its attributed on the celebrity's page itself, but even then it is a stretch. This type of content severely degrades Wikipedia further into a tabloid or another E! channel. seicer | talk | contribs 13:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems like what you're trying to say is that it isn't respectable to have an article on such a subject. Everyking (talk) 14:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  It doesn't seem that way to me. Seems like he made an argument as to why he feels that the subject of celebrity sex tapes is not notable independent from the celebrity. Protonk (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Really? Sounded more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. Ford MF (talk) 06:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, noted phenomenon worthy of an article. Might want to moved it to List of celebrity sex tapes, though, or at least split it to there. ~~Vassanya's argument, by the way, is one of the least convincing I've ever read (c.f. User:Raul654/Raul's laws#carptrash)~~ (expanded on above).—Chowbok ☠ 16:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trivia list article in disguise and therefore a violation of WP:TRIVIA. WillOakland (talk) 01:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've mulled over the deletion arguments, and I do understand the concerns. However, in the end I find myself agreeing with Chowbok that this is pretty clearly a noted modern phenomenon that meets the article inclusion parameters. That being said, the article we have is not very good. There needs to be more discussion of the phenomenon and less listing of individual tapes. However, the wiki process often takes time, and I think this AfD will be part of that process.--Kubigula (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep It the, um examples, are keep to independently notable people, BLP is satisfied. However, the article has to refocus from the examples to discuss more the phenomenon in general.-- danntm ^T _C 18:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the list has always been pruned to include only those notable enough to have Wikipedia pages. Are you looking for some kind of supernotability that would differentiate sufficient notability to be included in Wikipedia, but insufficient notability to be mentioned on this list? Ford MF (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Worthwhile information. jengod (talk) 04:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial list. List of people connected only by a single, often minor aspect of their lives. Viridae ^Talk 12:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, entries should of course be worth noting, and entries relating to living people should be careful to avoid being a coatrack - there are entries which satisfy those criteria, so deletion is inappropriate. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most modern celebrities can afford video cameras. Given this fact, there are far more "celebrity sex videos" made than Wikipedia is ever going to find out about. The list is hopelessly incomplete and thus unencyclopedic.

Also, this is a trivia list. If a particular video is "significant enough" to be included in Wikipedia, it can be covered in the article about the celebrity, which is where someone interested in that celebrity would normally look. Wanderer57 (talk) 02:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the instances where it is documented and relevant, not just incidental gossip. this is not about every sex tape in existence, but about those which have caused significant public discussion relevant to the career. The "rumored" section is probably not a good idea. DGG (talk) 03:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the "famous celebrity sex tapes" because they are well-documented, verifiable instances of notability. Expand on the explanation of what a "celebrity sex tape" is, citing verifiable sources. It might be a good idea to lose the bullet points, and just go with readable prose. I also agree with DGG that the "rumored" list might conflict with WP:BLP. It's probably not a good idea to have that section. Everything else is within policy. J Readings (talk) 07:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete rumors section or delete entirely. Frankly I do find the article distasteful but I also recognize that such articles are a part of Wikipedia if properly done. The rumors section ought be removed. Although sourced it associates living people with generally undesirable conduct and perpetuates the rumor itself. Since we are to do no harm how can we justify keeping the rumors alive? At the point the rumors began to circulate one could argue that it was notable. But now, long afterwards, it cannot be considered worthy of coverage in this encyclopedia. Thanks for reading. -JodyB_talk 12:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a notable article. The article can be rename to List of celebrity sex tapes or something similar. It is an interesting article. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Take a chainsaw to it or delete I have started by removing the "rumors" section. We are not a gossip rag, we should not be regurgitating rumors, but presenting verifiable facts about living people. This is not the Enquirer or the local gossip mill, it is an encyclopedia. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no policy that says we can't report rumors. Everything you deleted was referenced and notable. Just because it offends your sensibilities is not a reason to delete it.—Chowbok ☠ 17:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I explained on the article talk page, such a section(especially one containing information about living people) is contrary to our policies on verifiability and BLP, not to mention WP:NOT. A referenced and notable rumor is still just a rumor. My sensibilities are just fine, I enjoy such videos myself, my concern is one of quality. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It has been explained and clarified in terms of policy. Rumor-mongering is clearly contrary to the principles of this place. "It's referenced" is not an excuse to ignore the rest of the principles and rules. If my clarification was insufficient, please let me know. Vassyana (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete, or is kept, remove all cruft. _→AzaToth 17:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since {{sofixit}} is not an option (article is hard-protected during a deletion debate? why?) I must make a motion to remove this page per do no harm. This article IS a massive coatrack and spends 90% of the time documenting people who have been the subject of a sex tape rather than explaining what one actually is. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, kids. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All the entries on this page meet WP:HARM#TEST nos. 1 and 2, and 3 isn't really relevant here.—Chowbok ☠ 19:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if it's sourced, delete if not. It is notable, not that I like this crap. Easy. Bearian (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, but article should be much more of a history of the phenomenon and how it has been covered in the press, much less a list of particular tapes. - Jmabel | Talk 22:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Needless to say, I think this article looks more like a tabloid magazine in the current state. Most of the stuffs should be removed. Like the above editors said, the fact that the article is referenced doesn't mean we can ignore other policies. But since the topic itself is notable, I do not support deletion. Instead editors should completely rewrite the entire article. All rumors or non notable info about any sex tapes should be removed. And then add more info about the definition, history, and the impact of these tapes. Only notable and well sourced examples should be used.—Chris! _ct 23:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is a coatrack, and as this is a constantly moving target, it is better served by a category. Frank | talk 18:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please no. If deleted please let's not create Category:Celibrities having a sex tape or something like that. A list for this is much better than a category. (I still haven't made up my mind if this list should be kept or not). Garion96 (talk) 18:18, 6 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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Yoshukai Karate

Notability seems doubtable; article tagged so since June 2007. Some users commented on the talk page that the topic is notable, but independent sources are still missing. In particular it's unclear why this warrants a separate article from Yoshukai karate. B. Wolterding (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP (in strongest possible terms)The subject of this article definitely is notable. There are two major Yoshukai Karate Associations in the United States; this is one of them. To delete this article would be an act born of ignorance of the history of Yoshukai karate and of the importance of this style in the lineage handed down from Chitose Senei. Squamate (talk) 00:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give some independent sources in order to show that the subject meets our notability guidelines? --B. Wolterding (talk) 08:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I added the initial tag, unless sources are added very soon it needs to go, it's been tagged for 6 months.--Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. No sources listed and the lead indicates that this is a regional group (southeast US). While regionality (is that a word?) doesn't necessarily mean non-notable, it doesn't help either. Maybe the info could be merged to Yoshukai karate?Tnxman307 (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable in the current state, although may be proved notable after further information/sources digging. Tnxman307's suggestion to save part of the info in Yoshukai karate makes sense! Pundit|utter 21:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CORP and WP:N in current state, needs secondary sources. --Captain-tucker (talk) 00:44, 5 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. Single sentence article about a certification offered by a non-notable business. No context and minimal content. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IC9200

A non-notable certification program from a n-n company (AfDed in November 2006) TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 21:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no evidence of notability. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:04, 2 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 unanimity of responses (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 15:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Display rules

Fails WP:V and WP:SOAP. Anthony Rupert (talk) 21:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this article lists several sources. It needs some clean-up, sure, but I don't think it should be deleted. Tnxman307 (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Several of the sources seem valid [6], [7], [8], does not seem to fail WP:V or WP:SOAP to me. --Captain-tucker (talk) 00:53, 5 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. Lara ❤Love 13:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wendell Bezerra

Delete nn voice actor. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable, no secondary sources. --Captain-tucker (talk) 00:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:06, 4 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 Commission for Taxi Regulation, as I don't see anything to merge - Nabla (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Doyle

Delete apparently this position is not a sufficiently notable one that its occupant is a public figure (i.e., notable) at least sufficiently so that we don't know when or where she was born, nor does WP have an article on this particular office or the organization it heads. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. See the article from the Irish Times. --Eastmain (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There used to be an article for the Commission for Taxi Regulation, but it was deleted as a copyvio. I created a new Commission for Taxi Regulation article with lots of references. --Eastmain (talk) 23:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Commission for Taxi Regulation. On the evidence so far, the commission is notable, but she isn't. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge to Commission for Taxi Regulation. Create Commissioner for Taxi Regulation redirect if necessary. Guliolopez (talk) 12:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Commission for Taxi Regulation. --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:01, 5 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. Lara ❤Love 13:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dj Anas

Doesn't assert notability per WP:MUSIC. asenine ^t/_c\^r (fc: f2abr04) 21:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to conflict of interest. The page was put together reasonably well, but it's still an autobiography at this point. /Carson 00:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of WP:RS, little evidence of notability, and as mentioned above, the article reads like a COI-covered bio. SingCal 17:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems to fail WP:MUSIC, WP:N, lack of WP:RS, non notable according to current article. --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:05, 5 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 G7 by Ilmari Karonen, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olcp development guide

This reads like a how-to guide, and that is what WP is not. Looks unsalvageable as an article. ukexpat (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its not only a how-to guide, but almost like an advertisement. Speedy delete would've have been easier, but this is alright too, just more work for Ukexpat. Meldshal42_{Hit me}^{What I've Done} 20:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I toyed with the idea of a speedy nomination, but decided consensus through Afd was a safer route. – ukexpat (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - now tagged for speedy per creator's request on article talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 21:15, 1 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. Lara ❤Love 13:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omega lithium

Non-notable band that I speedied under WP:CSD#A7 earlier. Recreated so best to discuss. Fails WP:MUSIC with just assertions of a future album. Pedro : Chat 20:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree. Fails WP:MUSIC, and is a MOS breach. Not very notable, I don't see any reason to keep this article. Maybe after the album is released and if it becomes popular, the creator might want to re-create. With, of course, references. Meldshal42_{Hit me}^{What I've Done} 20:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete I cleaned the article up a little bit and searched sources but I can't find any. The closest I can find is this interview. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable as per WP:MUSIC. asenine ^t/_c\^r (fc: f2abr04) 21:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MUSIC and poss WP:CSD#G4. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should this be deleted, please feel free to recreate the article in future if an album is released and it meets WP:MUSIC. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:MUSIC at this time.-- danntm ^T _C 19:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MUSIC, no WP:RS, should be re-created once it passes WP:MUSIC with sources. --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:07, 4 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. Lara ❤Love 21:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citizen Fish

British ska punk band. Tagged for speedy deletion a lacking an assertion of notability (CSD A7) by UnitedStatesian, but their discography seems extensive enough to me to constitute a sign of notability per se. Listing on AfD to obtain additional opinions. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Seems to meet criterion #5 with two albums on Lookout! Records, but I'm turning up few sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They've put out multiple albums on well known minor labels, have toured the world, and have a substantial fanbase. While they're not a mainstream band, they are significant and well-known in their genre. I see no basis for deletion. -R. fiend (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What the hell, full disclosure: I happen to know these guys. After seeing a bunch of their shows in the 90's and talking to them afterwards, we got to be on a first name basis. It shouldn't matter to this AFD but I might as well state it anyway. This isn't a case of some friends of mine forming a band, but being a fan of a band and later becoming friendly with them. -R. fiend (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable for their work in the genre. Editor of the wiki^{review my edits here!} 22:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, I am the original speedier. Could someone please point me to the sources for this article? Or is verifiability no longer a Wikipedia policy? (Note: an interview, a primary source, is not a reliable source) UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:MUSIC #5 as its had more than 2 indie albums. A quick search found [9], [10]. --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:07, 4 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. Lara ❤Love 13:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie Devistation Reborn

Finishing improperly made AfD. Text at top of aarticle "Please remove this article because does not exist any structure deck with these cards." indicates likely hoaxness. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am woefully uneducated in Yu-Gi-Oh, but that little message on the top of the article and the fact that a total of Zero ghits and a lack of reliable sources has me pretty sure that this is a hoax Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 22:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Title is misspelled, and otherwise completely non-notable. -FrankTobia (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searching for the name on internet only came up with this Wikipedia article and nothing at all when spelled right. Mathman1550 (talk) 23:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article title is misspelled, no sources, non notable. --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:22, 5 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. Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline requires significant coverage of the individual. The coverage of Malia, as has been brought up in the discussion, has been trivial. Also, as per Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Notability is inherited, notability is not inherited, and as any coverage of Malia is currently only as a result of the coverage of her father, there is no assertion of notability. Should significant coverage of Malia be found in the future, there is no prejudice against recreating a suitable article. -- Avi (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malia Obama

This is the result of a challenged prod.[11][12] Malia Obama is the 9-year-old daughter of U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama and as such has been mentioned trivially in reliable sources and the mentions have always been made in connection with her very notable father. Since mentions of her in these reliable sources has been trivial WP:BIO's basic criteria for notability and the primary argument seems to be that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and that she is notable because her father is notable. Neither of which, of course, are valid reasons to use to keep or delete an article. Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding Children of American Politicians, as it was created as a content fork to avoid deletion of the content in the original article. Grsz ^talk 23:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also adding children of candidates and a grandson. Cate Edwards, Wade Edwards, David Eisenhower, Vanessa Kerry. Michelle Obama added but may be re-created after she becomes First Lady. Watchingobama (talk) 23:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC) — Watchingobama (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

See diff. for context. - Ev (talk) 00:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now you're just disrupting Wikipedia in order to make a point. You know very well that there is a huge difference between Michelle Obama who actively campaigns around the coutry and regularly appears in the media and her daughter Malia who is out of the public eye. Do not, as you did, add AfD templates that point back here to articles unrelated to this discussion simply because you don't like the way this discussion is going. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought of it and wife Obama qualifies as an article. However, the other kids of politicians equally qualify or disqualify. So, like Grz, I am adding the names of the kids, but not Michelle Obama. Wade Edwards does not deserve special inclusion because he is dead because we routinely delete articles written about 9/11 victims. What I am doing is not making a point but developing specific criteria. So everyone get's treated the same, black and white, boy and girl, same articles kept, same article deleted. Watchingobama (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then nominate those articles for deletion individually, but leave it out of this process. They have nothing to do with this article or this discussion. Adding AFD tags to those articles that point back here is simply being disruptive. Accept that there is no support or consensus for keeping this article and move on. If you want to continue your crusade in separate discussions, have at it. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - non-notable, for sure. Grsz ^talk 20:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd support a redirect to her father's article as well though. Just being the daughter of a notable person doesn't necessarily make you notable yourself. Also this article is so full of fluff (she Likes Hannah Montana and Beyonce, and won't stay at a Hilton to protest Paris Hilton?) I could stuff a pillow with it. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can fix that Watchingobama (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC) — Watchingobama (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Redirect - to Barack Obama#Personal life. Notability is not inherited. Tnxman307 (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential relatives are the exception. See many previous discussions. Watchingobama (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC) — Watchingobama (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Where? Tnxman307 (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What current or former President is she related to? Even if she was, you'd have to point out those previous discussions, since I can find no policy or guideline that states this. — Gwalla | Talk 22:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Barack Obama. If Malia's father becomes President, there will probably be enough fluff pieces focusing specifically on her in reliable sources to justify an article, but right now she's just a 9-year-old girl. Give her a few more months of privacy at least, per WP:BASICHUMANDECENCY. Oh, sorry — that guideline doesn't exist. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no minimum age to have a Wikipedia article written about you. Watchingobama (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC) — Watchingobama (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

- Note — above !vote was cast before the creation of Children of American Politicians, which seems to be a pointless duplicate, attempting to circumvent the outcome of the Malia Obama AfD. Delete that too. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -
1. notable very, very close relative of one of the most written about politicians in the U.S. today.
2. Many, many other articles of presidential candidates' kids like Wade Edwards, Cate Edwards, Barbara Bush (daughter).
3. Several sources/article about the kid, not the father. These appeared in USA Today, People, New York Daily News, etc.
4. Notable information such as opposition to Hilton Corp. This is not just a stub saying "Malia is daughter of Barack, end of stub"
5. Bobblehead, Tvoz, and Scjessey have been blanking out so they should be counted as one vote.
6. Cate Edwards is not Crap so WP:othercrapexist does not apply.
7. Article hasn't been given a chance to be expanded.
8. Others have added information, templates, infoboxes, references, not just me. Malia is not an obscure school or rock band, she is one of the few senator's daughters that is featured in the news.
9. Also note that there is no minimum age that people must be for them to be included in Wikipedia. You don't have to be an adult to have a Wikipedia article. We are not showing a naked Malia or revealing her social security number. Watchingobama (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC) — Watchingobama (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. 1. No she's not, 2. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, 3. Trivial coverage only, 4. see #1, 5. WP:AGF, 6. see #2, 7. Doesn't need it...it won't, 8. No they haven't, yes she is. 9. Has nothing to do with anything. Grsz ^talk 20:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sweet mother of pearl, man.. I have not blanked anything. I've made three edits on the article. The first to {{prod}} it,[13] the second to remove two references for an unbelievably trivial comment Barack made about his daughter not wanting to patronize Hilton hotels because of Paris Hilton,[14] and the third edit to tag this article for AFD.[15] As for the rest, see Grsz11's response. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ delete both Unlike Meghan McCain, all the references to her are pretty much trivial. Probably will get more notice if Obama wins the nomination or presidency, but not notable now. --Bfigura ^(talk) 02:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People magazine is not trivial, unlike the National Enquirer. Also featured in major newspapers and national newspapers, like USA Today and the New York Times. Why not help write it, not criticize it? Watchingobama (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC) — Watchingobama (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Becuase all that is being report is that she likes Beyonce and doesn't like Paris Hilton. There's no other notability there, all the articles written supposedly about her are just fluff pieces about the campaign. Where does she have any other notability other than the fact her dad may be the Democratic nominee for president? Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(E/C) I think you misunderstand my meaning. I'm not arguing that the Enquirer is trivial. Rather, I'm saying the coverage was trivial. I.e., it was not an in-depth article about her. It seems like each article has a few lines about her, which is the definition of trivial coverage. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 20:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. Just because pops is famous does not make her so. Hannah Montana notwithstanding. I'd say redirect to Barack Obama. Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Wildthing61476 and Ali'i. I'd be OK with a redirect to Barack. Frank | talk 20:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not only lack of notability, but also I think it's not really appropriate to target a 9-year-old child with an article. Maybe an article if she becomes a White House resident (Amy Carter and Chelsea Clinton probably would have gotten articles at the time if WP had existed in 1977 and 1993) but not until then. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Josiah Rowe; privacy for nine year old child and WP:BASICHUMANDECENCY. (Why is there no essay on that...?)-PetraSchelm (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not applicable. Mother gave interview and revealed info. So no privacy concerns exists. Watchingobama (talk) 21:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC) — Watchingobama (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

See my comments to Josiah about that. ;-) --Ali'i 20:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to main article on Obama. More reasonably covered in the article about her father. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will try, but guaranteed it will be deleted. Article is too long (Mr. Obama) so Malia stuff is guaranteed to be removed. I'll quote you.Watchingobama (talk) 21:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC) — Watchingobama (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete This child is not notable in her own right. The sources are all, essentially, trivial mentions of her - they're really talking about her Dad. After deletion, a redirect is fine. ETA: and it's a coatrack - check the state of the article after this diff - that's after the author and before anyone else edited. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Not notable in own right. The article is simply minor trivia. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking news - The end result of merge/redirect will be information will be lost and deleted. Proof, I added parts (not the whole article) into Barack Obama and it was removed in seconds. Therefore, we MUST keep Malia Obama or some information will be lost. For those who like censorship, merge/redirect can be a ploy to get rid of information they don't like. That's not accusing all merge/redirect supporters of censorship, just that this is the end result. So KEEP and improve. Watchingobama (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC) — Watchingobama (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment You guessed it: Wikipedia infact, is a vast right-wing conspiracy. Grsz ^talk 21:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's sarcasm, right? Frank | talk 21:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What information, the fact she likes Hannah Montana? Again everything in this article is trivial and can be mentioned in the article about her father. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why would her being a fan of Hannah Montana be mentioned in her father's article? Even if there were enough non-trivial coverage about Malia to create an article about her, I doubt her liking Hannah Montana would be included. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's my point actually, there's nothing here for an article, and yeah I know that HM stuff wouldn't go into her dad's article. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why would it go in any article? It's important to no one besides Miss Obama herself (and Miley Cyrus's accountant, to a small extent). — Gwalla | Talk 22:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Being related to someone notable doesn't make you notable...... Dendodge.Talk^Help 21:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Barack Obama#Personal life, as suggested above. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try putting any of Malia's info in the Barack article and it will be deleted pronto. Malia is a kid, I know. Abuse her and attack her in an article, no. But famous children do have articles. Think it's trivial, improve it. There are so many google references, some with good information. Watchingobama (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC) — Watchingobama (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Speedy Delete: For the purposes of wikipedia, she is no more notable than Barack Obama's coffee mug which is also frequently mentioned by reliable sources. She is a biographical detail in his life, not a notable figure on her own. I would also support the redirect option. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NEW INFORMATION
See Cate Edwards AFD. Same facts. Some claim she is not notable and wanted the article deleted. It stayed. Fight race discrimination. If you keep Cate Edwards, you must keep Malia Obama. Watchingobama (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC) — Watchingobama (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - this nonsense has already been covered by linking to Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Note: I am not making a comment on the suitability of the other article, just pointing out that it has nothing to do with this AfD. Frank | talk 21:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nonsense indeed. There's a significant difference between a 26-year-old woman who has actively campaigned for her father and a 9-year-old girl who is presumably focused on spelling tests. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Merely being the daughter of a famous politician does not give one sufficient notability. --ElKevbo (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely and utterly devoid of any notability, save for being the daughter of a presidential candidate. Since notability is not contagious, I've half a mind to just speedy this as CSD A7 (non-notable biography), but maybe it's worth letting this farce play out. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only thing notable is her father. She can be covered on his page. Redirect Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 22:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless this particular 9 year old girl does something outrageous/outstanding/outspoken to warrant her own article. No evidence of this happening. Delete. As far as "search terms" go, I would be against a redirect also, as it is highly unlikely that some reader, looking for info on Barack, actually types the name of a 9 year old girl instead. Delete, no redirect. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Barack Obama. Could become notable in future as a first daughter. --Dhartung | Talk 22:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep quite sufficient notability already. DGG (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just being related to somebody famous, no matter how closely, does not make one notable. Unless and until she does something important on her own other than include half of a Presidential candidate's DNA, she doesn't get an article. — Gwalla | Talk 22:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. If her dad becomes president, then she may well become more notable, but for now, notability is not inherited. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect; if someone is looking for an article on this, it's important to have the redirect, which points them to all the information we have on the subject which would be in her father's article. Otherwise, she's just not notable in and of herself. Perhaps if Obama becomes president, she'll have enough notability, but today it's just tabloid news.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the article on her father. He's of course plenty notable. There's not that much to be said about her at this point though, and what there is is directly related to their relationship. Aleta ^Sing 23:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, without merging, to Barack Obama. Somebody apparently noticed there was no page on young Miss Obama and decided to inflate the "Articles I Have Created" portion of their user page. Pop Secret (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist seperately. Some are undoubtedly notable, like David Eisenhower (wonder where Camp David's name came from) and Michelle Obama, though I'm not sure about the rest. Editor of the wiki^{review my edits here!} 00:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Malia Obama" per nom & then redirect to Barack Obama#Personal life, as suggested above by Tnxman307. We have enough problems with biographies of living persons already to be adding trivial new ones about 9-year-old children.
Delete "Children of American Politicians" for the same reasons.
Relist the other articles separately. - Ev (talk) 00:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete for all the reasons above. Give the kid a break! Bellagio99 (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete As per previous comments regarding the conspicuous lack of individual notability Ecoleetage (talk) 01:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Malia Obama and then redirect to Barack Obama#Personal life per nom. Media coverage of Malia herself has been minimal; she is only notable in relation to her father and substantially all the coverage of her opinions, etc. has come not directly from her, but from interviews with her parents. The article does not even report the sourced information correctly. For example, the article states, In 2004, Malia publicly questioned her father as to why he was not running for vice-president. "Shouldn't you be the vice president first?" But the incident took place in 2005, not 2004; she didn't "publicly question" her father but rather was overheard by a television camera crew while talking to her father; and she didn't ask "why he was not running for vice-president". What the source actually says is: "Are you going to try to be president?" Malia Obama asked her father, giggling as a television camera captured the moment. "Shouldn't you be the vice president first?" There's no real substance here. Also, delete Children of American Politicians entirely as it is just a big mess. David Eisenhower is not the child of a politician since neither of his parents actually sought elective office. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to her father. She is nine. She can't even be anywhere without her parents. Most of the other children of politicans mentioned are at the age of majority and have done things on their own in life. Frankly, it would be better if she didn't have an article; nothing really good can come from it and that will be a serious article to watch. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete of both. (1)I strongly object to the Malia Obama article as the editor who changed it today wanted it to read (see here). I particularly point out the section titled "Political positions of Malia Obama", the nine year old child. Further, even after the ridiculous excesses regarding Hannah Montana, Paris Hilton, asthma, etc, are removed, I believe this article should be deleted, as the subject has absolutely no notability beyond being the young child of a candidate in an election. I don't object to returning to a redirect to her father as had been there untouched until today since 2005 for anyone who might come here and search on her name, although I think it is not particularly necessary to have even a redirect. (2)The second article is nothing more than a copy of what the editor wanted in the first article, and was set up as a conglomeration of several other articles about individuals who do have some notability on their own, apparently set up to make a point, not because it was valid. Tvoz/talk 04:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per official policy on biographies of living people. As a minor, it is especially important for us to adhere strictly to the official BLP policy. DrKiernan (talk) 07:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong information Thank you DrKiernan for your seemingly wise advice. Your advice is incorrect. Your reference link makes no distinction of age. IF Wikipedia policy states "Articles about children are prohibited" then I will abide by such rule. However, there is NO SUCH rule. All of the politician's children listed in this AFD are equally notable/non-notable. Note that I did not include John Kerry's other daughter as she is a filmmaker who made a famous film. Watchingobama (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have misread my comments. People notable only for a single event, i.e. the identity of their father, should not have their own articles, they should be mentioned in their father's article only. The policy makes no age distinction but I do. Minors deserve greater protection and privacy than is accorded to adults. The others listed are not minors (and in one case not living). DrKiernan (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - can't we close this (with immediate delete) per WP:SNOW? Frank | talk 15:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Any admin who hasn't contributed could do so. I'd be happy to see that. Certainly the disruption from Watchingobama needs to stop. On the other hand, the discussion hasn't been running for that long. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should try to call what you disagree with as disruption. We should treat all kids equally, Black and White. I don't want to change Wikipedia rules, just that we should delete all kids or none of the kids. The kids listed are equally famous or not famous. Those that are much more famous are NOT listed! I can go along with all the kids deleted or none of the kids deleted. Watchingobama (talk) 15:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except Malia is 9 (a child)...the others are adults. Grsz ^talk 15:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there are probably a number of good wikipedians who will want to have a voice here. It's worth running the full time. DGG (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin The majority of comments at this AfD have been made in relation to Malia Obama only, and not to any other articles that may have been listed in the meanwhile. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this non-notable bio, and the end-run WP:FORK that's been nominated with it. (And before any accusations are hurled, I want to point out that I'm running as an Obama supporter for delegate to the 2008 Democratic National Convention. I like her daddy; but she's non-notable, period.) --Orange Mike | Talk 15:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC) (4th Wis. Congressional District)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 unanimity of responses (non-admin closure). WP:PROBLEMS are not grounds for deletion; editors are reminded to pursue alternatives before nominating an article for deletion. Skomorokh 15:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of precomposed Latin characters in Unicode

This list has no definition on what it's supposed to list - while it claims to list precomposed Latin characters in Unicode, it actually contains many letters which are not precomposed at all (such as Ƃ) and even has an entire section on ligatures. Also, since it just uses the Unicode names, letters which are visually unrelated are grouped together (such as ħ and ł). Because of the lack of definition, I suggest that this list be deleted. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if there are errors, fix them. Discuss ambiguous one on the talk p. first. We do not delete everything that needs correction. DGG (talk) 00:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason why the problems are unfixable, though, is font differences. For example, the Ŗ can have either a comma or a cedilla, and people would be constantly edit warring because their fonts show the letter differently. Stating that one letter has this exact diacritic is harder than you think. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 08:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Edit wars over minor details is not a reason to delete a page, and the edit history shows no evidence of any such edit warring occurring. Your example seems easy to settle: the Unicode standard specifies Ŗ as "R with cedilla", so unless there is a reliable source saying that the character is, or could be, an "R with comma below" then any such claim would be original research. If a reliable source were to be found for such a deviation from the standard, it could be indicated with a explanatory footnote. DHowell (talk) 23:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. DHowell appears to have an accurate assessment of the situation. Mathmo ^Talk 03:19, 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 keep. Neıl ☎ 10:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology

Non-notable scientific theory. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence for widespreaduse ofthis term DGG (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure at this point, but leaning somewhat towards keep. I do not know anything about this field and would like to hear from more informed editors but preliminary evidence appears to indicate notability. A GoogleScholar search for "Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology" gives 372 hits [16], many with multiple citations of their own and GoogleBooks search for same gives 38 hits[17]. A GoogleScholar search for UTAUT Venkatesh gives 388 hits [18] and a GoogleBooks search for same gives 33 hits[19] including one to something called "Encyclopedia of Virtual Communities and Technologies". This seems to indicate fairly substantial use of the term in the scholarly community. For a model that was only introduced in a 2003 paper, that is not half bad. Nsk92 (talk) 01:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep, given the above evidence of some use. - Nabla (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep per the gscholar and books results. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Article is in dire need of restructuring (and at least one secondary source mentioning the term), but has potential of developing into a worthwhile article. I've just added a {{stub}} template as much more is needed to be done here. B.Wind (talk) 02:55, 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 - Nabla (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of acronyms connected with the International Baccalaureate

This article, with all the charm and sublimeness of an EU white paper annex, violates WP:NOTDICDEF. It is little more, and could never be more, than a list of two- to four-letter initialism and their expansion into delightful educrat-speak. Pop Secret (talk) 19:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Big old list of dicdefs, and as the nom states, it's educrat-speak. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've worked in and around IB for years. These terms are better defined inside the relevant articles, where the reader can see them in context. Thenkyn (talk) 14:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just how many items on WP:NOT can one article contain? ;-) Frank | talk 18:05, 6 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blowtops

This has been tagged for a lack of references since September. Google turns up little that would even remotely qualify as non-trivial or independent, mostly Myspace, a couple of press releases, a geocities page and not a whole lot else. The band apparently did have a European concert tour, (judging by this), but it looks like the tour wouldn't satisfy WP:MUSIC I couldn't find any actual coverage of the tour (only this list of dates) and the fact that most of the venues were bars makes the whole article look dubious. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 19:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage in reliable sources that I can see either; no significant mention of the supposedly continental tour, etc. I can't even independently verify that they were even signed to the only blue linked labels. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BAND. Doctorfluffy (fart in my face) 04:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for complete lack of reliable sources, much less satisfying WP:MUSIC.-- danntm ^T _C 20:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:10, 4 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. Spellcast (talk) 10:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Halide: Film Look System

Promotional article on unimportant software. EL to company does not even work. Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 19:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm - Nabla (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no demonstration of notability of a software plug-in. B.Wind (talk) 06:18, 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. Independent sourcing noted. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NoteEdit

non-notable software - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 12:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak/Neutral there appears to be some RS coverage, unfortunately I can't read the last two to know what they are. The two Italian business links have me leaning toward a weak keep. Would like to know more about the German sources. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: 4 Ghits, really? Hardly evidence of any notability. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response like I said, weak. To be fair, that's news hits, ghits actually abound for downloads, forums and what not. There's been some coverage of the software -- would love to know just what the German one says. This isn't a firm in either direction. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertation of notability. I can sort of read German, and from what I can decipher of those two German sources, neither is substantial in coverage. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is a review of NoteEdit at the Linux Journal. TheslB (talk) 04:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion is to keep. Just barely notable. Otherwise, merge to GNU LilyPond. TheslB (talk) 04:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Over the last few months, I've watched with dismay as the wikipedia articles for several pieces of software that I use have been deleted, for no reason other than a few random people deciding that the software isn't notable. These articles are very useful to many people such as myself (e.g. I didn't know about NtEd until a few minutes ago when I read this article), and no purpose is served by deleting them -- it's not like wikipedia is running out of space. This proposed deletion is particularly stupid: NoteEdit (it's sad to say) is currently the best graphical score editor that runs on Linux! How is that not noteworthy? So I'd like to make a personal plea: don't destroy all the useful work that's gone into this article, and others. Wikipedia has the potential to be an excellent repository of information about software (and free software in particluar), provided overzealous admins can be persuaded not to delete software *they* don't think notable. Finally, I'd like to encourage anyone reading this to undelete the Canorus article (or write a better one) -- Canorus will eventually replace NoteEdit. 71.132.158.69 (talk) 13:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep this article, if for no other reason that NoteEdit is free and provides an interchange mechanism for importing and exporting a large number of different music formats. As such, it provides a repository of music notation knowledge that might not exist elsewhere. Rmkeller (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - there are some secondary sources. --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep this article. The history of development of NoteEdit / NtEd / Denemo / LilyPond / Canorus is, I suggest, already time-consuming to collect from other sources. Google hits are, as for other Free / Open Source Software (FOSS), a very weak metric of notability, an assessment is better conducted by specialists in the field. Although NoteEdit development has stopped, the codebase forms the basis of the active Canorus project and as such this article is a valuable reference for the project's history.

Although I do not wish to see Wikipedia's very high signal-to-noise ratio reduced by unnecessary clutter, this is an informative article; the only one of the WP:DEL guidelines that seems remotely applicable is WP:N. I request that this article be kept until there is greater clarity on Wikipedia WP:N guidelines relating to software, and specifically to FOSS.

I've proposed that specific notability criteria should be applied to deletions of software articles on notability grounds and request that deletion / flagging as AfD of such articles be suspended until a consensus on an acceptable process is reached. ThomasNichols (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Linux Journal has much praise for the software. [20] I suggest that this qualifies as notable enough for a WP article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aylad (talk • contribs) 16:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I forgot to sign my post. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 16:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete backbone of article is copyvio of project home page, no cited independent sources (those who advocate keeping the article should put some in the article, not here!), undue emphasis on the development team (the article should be centered on the subject itself, not the unrelated future plans of one or more of the team), and virtually nothing on what NoteEdit actually is. Fails WP:N and WP:V because of lack of reliable sources demonstrating actual notability. WP:ILIKEIT, which seems to be implied above, is not a valid "keep" justification. B.Wind (talk) 04:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In support of my request to Keep - it seems there may be issues relating to definition of notability for FOSS projects. the "no cited independent sources" and RS criteria are extremely difficult for many FOSS projects to meet as long as definitions of notability are based upon publication in academic journals or mainstream publications; as noted by HatlessAtless in the WP:N talk page, consensus also contributes to "notability". For FOSS, this may be reflected on digg.com or Technorati as blog popularity, neither of which are currently acceptable measures of notability under current WP:N guidelines.

According to WP:N, we should consider for deletion articles "whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline" (emphasis added). Thus, notability may be shown by the content of the article, but equally to those familiar with the field the notability of the subject may be plain. By analogy, a very badly written and incomplete article on Thomas Jefferson would, I suggest, be unlikely to be flagged for deletion, since the notability of the subject is self-evident to those with any training in American history. Without such training (or in this case, without familiarity with FOSS development dynamics and the history of Linux music notation software) it could be considered to be just a personal family history page of the Jefferson family and appropriate for deletion.

Specifically addressing comments by B.Wind:

This cannot, I believe, be copyvio since a) there is no copyright in the HTML source of the NoteEdit homepage, and b) the software itself is issued under GPL. Furthermore, the article includes:

Although NoteEdit is still maintained, some of the current developers have started a new project, Canorus, to replace it, since the NoteEdit source code has certain limitations that make it difficult to maintain and improve. The original author Jörg Anders has also started a new WYSIWYG GTK+ musical score editor for Linux called NtEd.

This is exactly the sort of cross-project information for which Wikipedia articles are so valuable to the FOSS community. This is not just a copy of the home page.

"unrelated future plans" : much of the FOSS community is very alert to such plans. The original NoteEdit developer reportedly ceased development at least in part because of an unsubstantiated suggestion that the commercial Sibelius program, a competitor, was to release a Linux version. Although this subsequently proved inaccurate, it indicates that notes about future plans have direct relevance in such an article.

B.Wind: do you feel that there is an argument for removing articles which are of interest predominantly to FOSS developers? If so, I'd suggest that this should definitely be discussed on the WP:N talk page

Further discussion of 'cited independent sources' WP:RS and WP:V I will defer to the WP:N talk page, since I think it a more general issue, not solely relevant to this article.

WP:ILIKEIT is a valid justification neither for keeping any article, whether about FOSS or anything else, nor for favouring its deletion.

I am declining to make edits to this specific article to improve its WP:N ranking since as it stands it is notable from a FOSS-developer's perspective; I hope to encourage debate as to whether this measure of notability can be better aligned with WP:N.

ThomasNichols (talk) 10:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per TRAVELLINGCARI. --Oldak Quill 12:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Sources Added. Since many people voting for deletion primarily cite the article's lack of sources, I added some. The article has issues, yes, but WP:DELETE clearly states that "if the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." This is my suggestion. Failing that, I would like to add or merge with GNU LilyPond to my vote above. With respect to ThomasNichols, declining to improve an article on the grounds that it has inherent notability to a subset of Wikipedians isn't likely to help it, sorry. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 13:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested comment. While the Linux Journal source is good, my view would change if there was more than one reliable source (IT World doesn't seem to even be referenced elsewhere Wikipedia). If this article gets deleted and then more good sources are found, I am not oppsed to recreation. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's a start. :) Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 20:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, how about an article in Linux Magazine (notice that it's the cover story!) featuring ways to expand NoteEdit's capabilities using FluidSynth? I got marginally creative with Google and found more coverage. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 21:15, 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. Suggesting PROD next time for similar cases. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xotball

Non-notable game/sport, presumably made up at school one day. Booglamay (talk) 19:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 15:33, 5 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 and redirect to Paul Haig. The consensus was that this lacked sufficient notability for its own page. TerriersFan (talk) 12:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dub Organiser

No assertion of notability for the artist, and thus the album also. asenine ^t/_c\^r (fc: f2abr04) 12:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by TORCHOMATIC: I do not agree with you assertion that the Dub Organiser page sould be deleted. The article is suitable AND relevant as it is an important release in the career of Paul Haig. Deletion of this article would make his Wiki articles incomplete, which I believe is not what Wiki would like to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torchomatic (talk • contribs) 12:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I cannot understand why this Dub Organiser page has been singled out. There are many music pages on Wiki which have less content and less relevance than this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.213.235 (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Paul Haig. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Paul Haig as CD in question has not demonstrated sufficient notability per WP:N and WP:MUSIC. Torchomatic and the IP are reminded that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid "keep" argument (nor is WP:ILIKEIT, for that matter); to comply with WP:N and WP:V, citations from WP:reliable sources demonstrating notability must be included in the article itself, not here. B.Wind (talk) 04:34, 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 article is already tagged by author for speedy. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 19:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arkivlus

created by error Eli + 19:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. per nomination.Renee (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Why is this even here? There's never been any content and the creator is the deletion nominator. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete i would've deleted it if i could, Eli + 19:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC) (the creator)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lara ❤Love 13:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Gianelli

"Known" for being a middle school teacher (which he may well be) and a filmmaker, except the first three don't exist and the last shows no connection with his name. It's a TV show. joHn is a notable basketball player and/or musician, Jon appears to exist solely on wiki. Don't want to call it an out an out hoax since the man may exist, but no imdb listing makes me think, home videos rather than films. Oh and it's an autobio TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, no sources. Renee (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. 99.230.152.143 (talk) 00:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. evidentaly unnotable. I also made a film once. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources to indicate notability per WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- per research on non-notability of films by TRAVELLINGCARI. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 01:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of independent sources.-- danntm ^T _C 21:12, 3 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:NOT#DICTIONARY and WP:OR. GlassCobra 04:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rock en aragonés

Seems to me to be a pointless contribution lacking any real value to Wikipedia. Could be wrong, however, so i've placed this for an AfD instead of PROD. Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 19:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No secondary sources. Renee (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So be it. As the author of the article, I highly recommend deleting all those stubs that 'seem to be a pointless contribution' from a British point of view. Who cares if this type of information can't be found in other places and that makes these articles useful to many precisely because of that? Getting rid of this unsourced foreign stuff is clearly a healthy policy. I myself would have deleted my article before should I had known it was so pointless and intelectually annoying. Now I'd love to warn wikicops about two thousand unsourced stubs I've seen this month in order to keep Wikipedia clean and decent but I just don't have the time. Regards. --Estrolicador (talk) 15:58, 7 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. Lara ❤Love 13:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Narma Rajputs

Not a notable family, apart from one or two of historical figures. MightyWarrior (talk) 11:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads as gibberish. Was it translated from another site? Maybe can move to someone's user space if they want to work on it but right now it is garbage.Renee (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone salvages it. Punkmorten (talk) 07:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing worth writing about it.--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 03:10, 6 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. The consensus is clear but I must say I'm surprised at the result. The article has only one source (both current ext. links in the article are to the same story) which seems barely removed from a press release. Much of the content of that source is not actually about the organization but about different events and background on Taoism generally. All quotes are from affiliated members and founders of the association. If this was a USA association, I would categorize my perception of the source content as soft PR fluff. But that's just me and I'm just the AfD closer. Pigman☿ 04:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Research Association of Laozi Taoist Culture

Article about a recently founded association on China. We should wait until it does something notable. Damiens.rf 17:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just added a second external link. I think the founding of this organization is, on its own terms, notable. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Why would that be, in point of fact? Tens of thousands of organizations are created worldwide every month, and without reliable, third-party, independent sources giving some indication of notability, it's a WP:CRYSTAL violation to assume that this outfit will be. Fails WP:ORG as well. RGTraynor 00:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response Point taken. My view on keeping it: Because the Communist Chinese rarely, if ever, go out of their way to allow the creation of religious organizations. As for "independent" sources -- hey, we're talking China!Ecoleetage (talk) 02:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the first Taoist educational institution founded in PRC since the crackdown after 1949. --Esimal (talk) 13:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Would you mind sourcing that assertion? Heck, the Economist had an article this month [21] about how the PRC is pushing this "Yellow Emperor" Taoist cult to a surprising degree. RGTraynor 13:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing surprising, since Chinese central government is pushing the revival of all traditional religions, Taoism, Buddhism and folk religion included. Yellow Emperor worship has little or nothing to do with Taoism; it's a form of folk religion ancestor worship. CRALTC is the first academic institution which will provide studies on Taoism. --Esimal (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Taoists on Wikipedia, who've included the Yellow Emperor article in their "Series on Taoism" main infobox, might demure. RGTraynor 15:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the West there's huge misinformation about Taoism. --Esimal (talk) 09:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In which case I'm sure the folks who edit Taoist articles would be happy for you to help out. RGTraynor 12:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wafulz (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- but some real sources are needed. They should be findable. Other chinese sources must have discussed this at some point also. DGG (talk) 00:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't understand why the source is not regarded as independent. china.org.cn is not published by this organisation. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verifiable, sources available. --Oldak Quill 12:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously verifiable, notable simply for its role in Taoist culture. Editor of the wiki^{review my edits here!} 01:31, 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 14:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A roof for my country

No sources provided, unable to find any. No evidence of notability. Oo7565 (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 21:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note This article should be moved to Un Techo para mi País because that is their name. 134k ghits but they appear to be personal pages of volunteers. I would move but original author already botched redirect creation at that page. Someone familiar with Latin American news outlets should be able to find evidence of their work. Potatoswatter (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find any reliable news sources while searching under both it's english and spanish name, as such I think it fails the WP:ORG criteria and does not warrant it's own Wikipedia article, perhaps adding the basic information into an article about organizations helping latin america? Atyndall93 | talk 09:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wafulz (talk) 18:52, 1 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 and redirect to Daemen College. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gersh College

Outdated crystal ball article. As near as I can tell, this never happened as advertised, and the Gersh Academy has a relationship with a college, but does not have it's own college. Beeblbrox (talk) 06:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heloo? did I do something wrong? Am I the only one who knows this AfD exists somehow? Four days and not one vote, sheesh. Another candidate for my idea of a tumbleweed corollary to WP:SNOW. Beeblbrox (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SILENCE? Skomorokh 00:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. This has the makings of a suitable article, or at worst it will be merged somewhere. Progress on this article is limited because it is not the sort of place to be associated with wikipedians. Considering this, deletion would be an unfortunate exercise of systematic bias. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment But does an educational institution called "Gersh College" actually exist? Also I don't understand why you feel it would be biased to delete. Beeblbrox (talk) 15:50, 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, Davewild (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources can be found that verify that there is any such college actually open for business, rather than "announced". SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Daemen College. It apparently has opened, but according to this, had a planned enrollment of 15-20 students. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding that. It looks to me from that article that it is not really a stand-alone institution, but rather a special program at Daemen College. It seems to me that a rename to The Gersh Experience at Daemen College and a redirect is the answer. Beeblbrox (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not a crystal ball, it is not making predictions, but is based on reliable sources. There are more sources out there, found by google. The bias I alluded to has to do with editor bias. Other colleges are more likely to have students or alumni who are wikipedians. I felt that this AfD was motivated by impatience for improvement, but I had misread the article, I thought it was a closed college, not a yet-to-be opened college.

I don’t agree with SHEFFIELDSTEEL that a college needs to be opened for it to have an article. The appropriate criterion is that sources exist now.

I’d prefer not to see a merge to Daemen College as Gersh College is distinctly different. Note that it has a special claim of notability: “For the first time in the history of special education, children with neurobiological disorders can …” from [22] --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source you are citing is a primary source, the Gersh Academy website. Notability is established by coverage in reliable third party sources per WP:NOTE and WP:RS. Beeblbrox (talk) 18:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a primary source. The article's weakness is lack of secondary sources. However WP:N doesn't insist on secondary sources, allowing for other objective evidence of notability. The quote is certainly a claim of notability, and I don't think the truth of it is in question. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this really doesn't seem to be the kind of institution that is inherently notable. No proof is given for it being notable by sources being presented. Nyttend (talk) 13:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Daemen College#Gersh Experience. This is a tertiary, degree programme running at Daemen College. Though separate from Daemen, 85% of the faculty are from Daemen - see here. There is sufficient connection to make Daemen College a sensible home. I would add that a Gsearch on Gersh Academy provides plenty of sources for the controversy over the purchase of the premises described in the article - see here and here for example. If those premises ever opened as a tertiary college then the merged section can be split out again. TerriersFan (talk) 16:32, 4 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. Very borderline, but looks like an expandable stub where most of the sources will be print. I will have a look at this one myself if no-one else does. Black Kite 07:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abnak records

a clear case of a non-article ... it simply does nothing Oo7565 (talk) 05:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable record label. See Google News references at http://news.google.com/archivesearch?&q=%22Abnak+Records%22 --Eastmain (talk) 05:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 05:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 05:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That an article is a stub is not a reason for deletion--there will probably be more material in print sources.DGG (talk) 00:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial site. It's neither notable nor encyclopedic and most certainly doesn't merit an article. --Hu12 (talk) 17:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What on earth do you mean by that? There is nothing here that looks anything remotely like a memorial. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, needs some work but there are some sources. --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:59, 5 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. Lara ❤Love 13:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fire in the Straw

Delete unref'd 1-line article about a nn book by nn author, article written by likely WP:COI editor Username shares same surname as the book's author. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:NB. Not notable. Rnb (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non Notable, No reliable sources --Captain-tucker (talk) 02:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely non-notable. <30 hits on Google, consisting of a few booksellers and author's own websites. Fails WP:BK. Doctorfluffy (talk) 18:44, 5 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. Lara ❤Love 13:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gin (drinking game rules)

Original research Dalgspleh (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete made up one day. JJL (talk) 19:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR. Notability is suspect. Looking for reliable sourcing for such a topic is completely non-trivial, and from my preliminary search I doubt they exist. -FrankTobia (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, and this one even if is not made up by the author, still lacks more general notability. Pundit|utter 02:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Pundit's "not for things made up one day" argument. Non-notable game. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT.-- danntm ^T _C 03:44, 3 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. Most of the keep arguments are based on the notability of Edgar_Sulite. The AfD on that article closed with no consensus, so I am bringing that result here, too. Fabrictramp (talk) 00:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lameco Eskrima

Thoroughly non-notable; fails Google News test with only two minor mentions. Lots of stuff online, but nothing that appears to be neutral. Do we need a page for every single last obscure martial art? TallNapoleon (talk) 00:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep highly notable and influential Filipino martial art. JJL (talk) 19:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Eskrima is highly notable. Lameco eskrima is some guy's variant on eskrima, and is not necessarily notable. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment see also the related debate here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Edgar_Sulite#Edgar_Sulite. In both cases an Amazon search is instructive: [23], [24] (also try the alternate spelling "escrima"). These are very notable and highly influential FMAs. The case is made in for example this well-known book [25]. JJL (talk) 00:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin more sources have been identified in the related current debate regarding the art's founder: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edgar Sulite. Please consider those if necessary. JJL (talk) 14:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —JJL (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - eskrima of course is notable. But Lameco eskrima not necessarily. Currently, the article lacks sources, and some links are about arnis/eskrima in general (Bakbakan) or stick fighting and not necessarily even eskrima (dog brothers society). Pundit|utter 21:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - More in need of a clean-up than anything, so hard to asses, but appears to have some sources. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources available per JJL. --Oldak Quill 12:32, 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 Keep, but what a mess. Obviously, we cannot have one article about two individuals that are completely unrelated outside of sharing a similar name. Needs to be split. As for notability, it seems from this discussion that the doctor is notable and the engineer is marginal at best. Strongly recommend an Afd or prod for the engineer article once split. If both end up kept, recommend either a dab page, or at the very least hatnotes. Nothing getting deleted ATM. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Denny-Brown

Non-notable — Wackymacs (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Reverted~~ - I've reverted back to the article about the software engineer. I think that if the doctor has a separate article, it shouldn't be piggybacked onto another person. Tnxman307 (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It still stands, however. Both people are non-notable, regardless. (Especially that engineer...what makes him so notable?) — Wackymacs (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I do have my doubts about their notability as well. I think the engineer's claim rests on his development of XML (although surely he wasn't the only person the development team?). I was trying to be bold with my editing, however, I completely understand your revert. As the article stands, though, I say Delete. Tnxman307 (talk) 19:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It doesn't say he developed XML. --Dhartung | Talk 19:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - My mistake. More specifically "is credited with the development of both the MSXML XML processing engine, as well as the XMLHTTP ActiveX Control."Tnxman307 (talk) 19:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see strong case for notability of the software engineer. Although he may have been the first to code a certain XML engine and a certain XML browser control, just that this has later become standard doesn't make him notable unless we have secondary sources showing that his contribution was essential. I only found a couple of minor non-blog references to him, unfortunately. The neurologist, however, seems a clear keep based on paper citations and commemorations of him by his peers. His official bio show numerous routes to notability including major awards. This needs cleanup, not deletion. --Dhartung | Talk 19:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the neurologist beyond any doubt--the ref in the article explains the notability. As for the engineering, if he is "is dev lead for both MSXML & System.Xml." then he probably is notable, bnut I defer to the experts in that field. DGG (talk) 00:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. There is no way that we can sensibly discuss this when the article is currently about two different subjects whose only link is that they share a name. I would suggest that this AfD should be closed and the article should be split into two. Then if anyone wants to renominate one or both of the articles for deletion we can discuss things properly. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and start anew for the neurologist. The first part is not an article but a list of links (one might even call it linkspam); the second, unrelated "article" on the page doesn't demonstrate sufficient notability as it's presented. An article for the neurologist seems to be in order, but not this one. B.Wind (talk) 04:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the neurologist, verifiable. Weak keep computer engineer if claims are true. Separate articles, clean up and source. --Oldak Quill 12:35, 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 Redirect to IB Middle Years Programme. GlassCobra 04:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Project (International Baccalaureate)

Delete an essay basically explaining that a personal project is required to get this degree - no context, references, or anything to focus what we're talking about here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not sure what the criteria is since it's not OR. It's.... definitely not encyclopedic content TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would otherwise recommend merging, but there is very little here that can be salvaged. Moreover, the entire International Baccalaureate series itself is in need of paring down (Compare the IB series, devoted to grammar school and high school curricula, to Wikipedia's treatment of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) Pop Secret (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How exactly will "paring down" the IB articles help to improve our coverage of GATT? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to IB Middle Years Programme where this is covered. The personal project is a fairly major part of the MYP, and something which sets it apart from other curricula, so coverage is warranted. The article is presently written "to a student" with all the "you" references, rather than "to the general population" (which would use a third-person "students" reference). With the topic already adequately covered in another article, just placing a redirect should be OK. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. I doubt many people are searching "Personal Project (International Baccalaureate)" nor, for some reason, do I think a delete of this article will drown us in a sea of redlinks. Pop Secret (talk) 04:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason (well, my reason at least) for placing redirects on articles which have been removed is that a reader who has seen that there is an article here, and wants to access it again later, may be confused if the article suddenly goes away and there is no signpost to point them to the correct place. Since redirects are so cheap, we can place them liberally without all that much concern as to how many actually use it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteNot suitable for an encyclopedia. And pretty useless if you don't know anything about the IB already.--Doug Weller (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, as redirects are cheap, to IB Middle Years Programme, where is subject is much better covered.-- danntm ^T _C 21:33, 3 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. John254 01:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Lowdermilk

insufficient or questionable notability - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there are better sources for notability, I'll withdrawl, but the prod was removed without discussion. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk

Weak Delete Google search of "Brian Lowdermilk" has a few hits, but even so I don't see most of them as reliable, notability is questionble as well. If reliable sources are added, I may change my opinion Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} (R-OH) 18:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep per addition of sources and revisions to the page. Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} (R-OH) 01:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added two sources, one of which is more reliable than the other. The article is nowhere near GA, but I think notability is established well enough. -Seidenstud (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he's clearly won at least one notable award, the Richard Rodgers Award from the American Academy of Arts and Letters (one of two 2005 winners; note this isn't the better-known ASCAP Foundation sponsored award, but I still think it's notable). --Dhartung | Talk 19:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources added since AfD was started now assert notability. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is now, he is clearly notable. --Doug Weller (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reliable sources assert notability. --Captain-tucker (talk) 09:21, 5 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 per CSD A3: no meaningful, substantive content in a single sentence. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kpyal dark, mango sweet

Delete nn book by nn author, no refs showing that this meets WP:BK Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:45, 1 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. Lara ❤Love 01:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nudity and children

Hopeless confused mess of original research and trivia which has not improved in the year since last nomination. Maybe merge what little useful content is here into nudity or issues in social nudity.-PetraSchelm (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first nomination and debate is here. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as I agree it to be merged to nudity.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 22:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I think you're being a little harsh. There is valid info here. At the same time, I think the relevant info could easily fit into issues in social nudity. 64.246.212.53 (talk) 00:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this is me. I didn't realize I wasn't logged in. Keyok (talk) 00:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:OR and WP:V. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant topic with a multitude of available sources (some of which are already included, particularly in the Parental nudity section). --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 03:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fail to see the encyclopedic correlation between the two title subjects as much as I fail to see the correlation between onions and ice-cream. Can someone write an article about how different cultures feel about onion flavoured ice-cream? Now that's encyclopedic. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Child nudity raises issues that do not apply to nudity in general. Did you read the article? --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 21:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference? This is a lightning rod issue for people, your example is clearly not. Take for example how the issue of youth nudist camps played out. Wiping out a topic takes away an opportunity for people on both sides of arguments to make themselves be understood. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 04:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subjects are obviously related in a sociological sense. I would question why anyone would see fit to delete such an article - an article that goes about explaining the obvious with little bias or emotion. I would question what such a person is trying to do to the encyclopaedia. Lambton ^T/_C 20:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nominator and too much of a troll magnet. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you evidence the troll claim, and if so, why it matters? Lambton ^T/_C 21:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter. We don't delete things due to a potential for abuse. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Says you, but there is precedent, eg GNAA, and that is merely part of my reasoning anyway. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Precedent alone is not much of an argument. If something is against our principles here, the fact that it's been done before holds little weight. Again, we don't delete things just because they're an easy target. We also have ways of dealing with that -- protection, etc. This discussion should focus on the merits of the topic as its own article, not on how fearful we are that it'll get vandalized. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Its not vandalism that worries me, its POV pushing. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. POV pushing? People for and against have made serious arguments one way or the other in the legal realm and there must be a way for these arguments to be properly represented. There needs to be more legal/legislative information on this page. This article deserves to be kept intact and allowed to develop by different perspective viewpoints. You cannot have a decent understanding of issues unless there is chance for clarification on where people are coming from. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 04:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "POV pushing" argument aside, what are you talking about? What legal issue is this? Whether or not naked children should be legal? If there were such an issue, it would be perfect for this article, but there isn't. If you mean child nudity in art and photographs, then yes that is a prominent issue, perhaps deserving of its own article, once there's enough content for it to warrant more than just its own section in another article. But we neither have that amount of content yet, nor is this article actually about that topic. This article is about something more general and perhaps too ambiguous, as Rodhullandemu points out below. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to nudity or another such article (I'm not familiar enough with all the various nudity articles to suggest a better specific article). There isn't actually much there, and what is there isn't enough to warrant its own article. The only reason to keep it separate would be if it's too long to be contained in another article, and it clearly isn't. The useful content here could easily be contained in a section of maybe 3 or 4 paragraphs in a larger nudity article. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes well I would be happy enough to see it merged into nudity. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd go along with that also, subject to proper sourcing and avoiding OR after the merge. (My !vote above is listed as "delete") --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and Do not merge. Article is of special concern for legal, philosophical, cultural reasons, the topic is controversial and allowing a proper comprehensive legal, culture to culture and historical look at the topic would not be best met in an abbreviated form on the nudity page.User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 23:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Nudity as a section; the article as written doesn't seem to have a focus. However, there are issues with child nudity over various topics, such as sociology, art & photography, which this article is confused about dealing with. --Rodhull andemu 01:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Nudity as a section, per reasons given above. _Talk Islander 12:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a properly sourced aand NPOV version of this article into nudity.-- danntm ^T _C 14:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this train wreck of an article. This article was designed to be, is, and probably will always be a nest of original research. Herostratus (talk) 18:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Nudity and possibly Child Sexuality. I'm generally a strong Inclusionist but, as it exists, this article seems more like a loose - and somewhat arbitrary - collection of facts around a theme that hasn't proven its need to exist as its own topic. I disagree with those who complain about POV, though. In fact, it's precisely any sort of coherent message that this article lacks. There's potential for a worthy article here, and I recommend to anyone who wants to acheive that that they figure out what their agenda is, and modify this page to make their case. *Then* we can go about NPOVing it. --MQDuck 18:48, 6 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 recent improvements. Closed early by SNOW.--Rifleman 82 (talk) 03:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benzamil

Delete no refs to show that this one liner article is about a notable drug. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Give the article a chance to be expanded, first. Over 10k Ghits, so it must be good for something. ArcAngel (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article could be incubated in user space - it's not ready for prime time. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I can't make heads or tails out of the potential sources, but it seems that someone who understood chemistry/drugs better than I do could easily expand this article. -Seidenstud (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just needs more sources. --Dhartung | Talk 19:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, now its sourced and expanded!--Stone (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a fair stub article. Wim van Dorst (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Could use some work, but looks a-ok notable. Editor of the wiki^{review my edits here!} 22:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Benzamil was studied for quite a few years as a possible treatment for cystic fibrosis, although results were ultimately disappointing. This could be a nice little article with some TLC. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. I hope I'm allowed to do this :) —Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks like TLC was provided -- the article bears no resemblance to the one that was nominated for deletion. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:51, 2 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 05:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of basketball players

Incomplete and doesn't have any sort of specification as to who is included. Mm40|Talk|Sign|Review 17:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure listcruft. -Seidenstud (talk) 18:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What a weird article. Apparently this started as a list of famous basketball players who did not play in the NBA and has devolved into its current useless state. I suggest turning it into a disambig page... we have several lists people might be looking for: List of National Basketball Association players, List of foreign NBA players, List of Women's National Basketball Association players etc. --Rividian (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No criteria, could contain thousands of names, no verification possible, etc. As noted above there are already specific lists out there that cover most of the criteria anyway. 23skidoo (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The most useless article I have ever seen. There are way too many basketball players to name in one list. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 20:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Turn into dab per Rividian. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hopelessly incomplete. A dab might be okay, too. Editor of the wiki^{review my edits here!} 22:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Turn into dab for the other lists of basketball players as a likely search term. No reason to put a hole in our lists system, but an individual list of all basketball players is impossible; this should be a place that references the other, more individually manageable lists. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Turn into a list of lists, which is not the same as a dab page and should not be tagged as such. I have picked my nit for today. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No criteria given for inclusion. List (thankfully) does not come close to being comprehensive. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No context. I'm not sure that the dab page suggestion can be executed in a manner consistent with naming and disambiguation policies of Wikipedia. B.Wind (talk) 05:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Turn into a list of list, which include list of basketball players by nationality, by league, by club... Check List of people. Eklipse (talk) 07:50, 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IPdetect

Non-notable software with no RS coverage and ghits limited to download locations, forums and other non reliable sources. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 17:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, unverifiable shell script. -Seidenstud (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks requisite independent sources to prove notability, and avoid original resource concern.-- danntm ^T _C 15:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't seem notable, and has no reliable sources sourced or to source from. Also, the article reads very much like an advert. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 18:58, 7 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. Spellcast (talk) 10:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emmett Murray, Jr.

Local raconteur who doesn't kick up much on Google [26]. Was a doctor and a school board member, but without achieving the notability required by WP:BIO. Has two books out, but he paid to have them printed through Canadian vanity press Trafford; they both fail WP:BK. Appears to be a kindly old man, but alas, Wikipedia has not yet adopted the inclusionary guideline WP:NiceOldGuy. Qworty (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to be of only WP:LOCAL notability. --Dhartung | Talk 19:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not surprisingly, the books are in almost no libraries. DGG (talk) 17:05, 6 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inductive teaching methods

Delete reads like an essay, and smells like a copyvio as does this editor's other article nominated below. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - is this someone's term paper? -Seidenstud (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:OR. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per OR. -WarthogDemon 19:30, 2 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 Miley Cyrus. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Miley and Mandy Show

Delete is YouTube stuff created by and featuring a notable personality thereby notable? Don't think so, unless we want each advertisement for political office to have its own article. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miley Cyrus and add a brief paragraph or section about the show to her article. The show is borderline notable, but there are not enough secondary sources out there for the show to have its own page Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} (R-OH) 18:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miley Cyrus, for reasons stated above, with mention given in that main article. I believe that it is not a distinct enough topic or noteworthy enough as it stands to warrant an article of its own. *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 02:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above. Certainly not notable, but does deserve a mention. Editor of the wiki^{review my edits here!} 20:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miley Cyrus and some other sources also.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 00:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, non-notable on it's own. Chris M. (talk) 05:32, 7 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 (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Social interaction teaching methods

Reads like an essay. Possibly a copyvio of the book sourced, though I can find no matches on google. -WarthogDemon 17:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as essay, and likely copyvio - anyone creating an 18,000 character article from scratch in editing his or her second article - the first of which was a 14,000 character article from scratch soon to be nominated - is trying to be helpful, but may be less than familiar with WP:COPYVIO. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:26, 1 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. Spellcast (talk) 10:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ulstein og Hareid Dykkerklubb

Small diving club without second-party coverage. How did this article survive for 3 ½ years? Punkmorten (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N and nom. Chris M. (talk) 05:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability (bordering on speedy territory). Article's author "credited" only with this article and edits to Ulstein. Articles are usually orphaned for a reason. B.Wind (talk) 04:50, 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 Merge to Czech Technical University in Prague, as there is no assertion of independent notability. Lara ❤Love 16:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty of Nuclear Sciences and Physical Engineering CTU

Delete each faculty or department of a university isn't notable apart from its university - anything sourced and useful can be merged with the article on the uni, but this stand-alone shouldn't be kept - or we'll have hundreds of similar articles for each of the thousands of universities and hundreds of thousands of high schools... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per essentially what the nom said, "anything sourced and useful can be merged with the article on the uni, but this stand-alone shouldn't be kept" I'm not sure why it's at AfD but am presuming since he's an admin he has a reason for doing this rather than just merging TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 17:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge as suggested, but I note that there will be a few cases where the most famous university departments will actually have sources for notability. DGG (talk) 00:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- agreed, I can think of a few even off the top of my head, but this doesn't appear to be one of those cases TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why should it be deleted? There are hundreds, if not thousands, of faculties which are on wikipedia. They are not notable apart from their universities. They are not the most famous university departments as well. Why are those faculties kept and this one cannot be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasooon (talk • contribs) 14:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response I realize this is your article that you worked hard on, but just because other stuff exists doesn't mean it, or this, should. Articles are evaluated on a standalone basis. THere is no evidence that this specific faculty is notable. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Czech Technical University in Prague and do not delete the history which must be retained for GFDL reasons. TerriersFan (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable. Yopie 07:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopie (talk • contribs)
Keep, verifiable. Why not have articles on faculties if sources are available? --Oldak Quill 12:36, 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. WP:BLP1E applies here, and I am inclinced to close tight AFDs on living people with that in mind. If and when there is exceptional coverage (not "I think there will be") then this can be readdressed via WP:DRV. Neıl ☎ 10:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hootan Roozrokh

Delete nn criminal defendant accused of elder abuse - the rest of the more scandalous charges were dismissed - written very close to an attack page in tone but ultimately garnering little more than the expected publicity for a criminal defendant of this sort - i.e., not notable - so not notable we don't know when or where he was born, red flags of non-notability in a modern biography. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move the article to Death of Ruben Navarro on the principle of "cover the event, not the person". --Eastmain (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and and I think in this case the notability will be that of the surgeon. . A surgeon accused of hastening the death of a patient for organ transport is notable, & there is as one would expect national coverage. Obviously needs careful editing and watching. DGG (talk) 00:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Accusations are cheap and do not generally confer notability on the accused or accuser, as was eventually demonstrated by all the handwringing over the Duke lacrosse articles. One can make whatever scandalous, but here ultimately unproven and dismissed allegations, but that does not alter WP:BLP1E, and the death of the Navarro was not a notable event any more than any other. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the first-ever charge and got major media coverage.[27] Firsts are more notable than everyday cases. That said, DGG is right about the need for careful editing and watching; I'll put it on my watchlist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Those who are expecting this to be ultimately notable as the "first" of a possible future trend are forgetting that such an expectation is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. If the anticipated trend does indeed develop, this can be revisited at the appropriate time. B.Wind (talk) 05:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could see renaming it to The People of the State of California vs. Hootan Roozrokh,[28] in an effort to cover the event instead of the person, but the mere fact that a surgeon was charged with a crime in the course of his job is notable. ASTS believes that transplant surgeons recruiting has been harmed by these charges, and most OPOs are holding off on DCD work until the case is not only settled, but largely forgotten by state politicians. We don't need a crystal ball to say that it has already affected many people other than the defendant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:19, 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 - speedy, A7. Classic example of something that appears to claim notability, but actually doesn't. Black Kite 17:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kristine Hilderbrand

Delete seems to not have played in a fully professional league or at the highest amateur level of her sport. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, except the "fully professional league" comment. Punkmorten (talk) 17:27, 1 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. Neıl ☎ 10:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Navneet Singh Khadian

Non-notable? Prod'd, disputed, reprod'd. Let's let the public decide. UtherSRG (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - fails WP:OR, a nn person. The references mentioned are not proper & poorly sourced. The editors involved are trying to make close of other editors eyes by simply quoting Hindu news papers and all. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 17:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is well-referenced, and this is not a case of a person notable only for a single event. --Eastmain (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The article is well-referenced with 20 references, Navneet Singh Khadian was a notable person who was the chief-general of Khalistan Liberation Force. I agree with Eastmain that this is not a case of a person notable only for a single event.Singh6 (talk) 06:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where are those 20 references? --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 06:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respected Sir/Madam, please read the article. Navneet Singh Khadian was also known as Navneet Singh Kadian alias Navneet Singh Quadian alias Navneet Singh Qadian alias Pal, and hence various references with a slight change in the first two letters of his last name are available on the web. Also, I have deeply studied the references before adding them into the article because Kadian alias Khadian alias Quadian alias Qadian was name of his town so sometimes his name had appeared without his town name as well. Singh6 (talk) 07:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Serious Issue - Please note that someone with suspecious User talk:Mightyunit name, who has just created his wikipedia user account on May 1st 2008, is continuously deleting^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5] references of this article (most-probably) to influence user views on this AfD. He has even deleted warnings from his User talk:Mightyunit page to hide these acts. Why Wikipedia adminstrators are not stopping him/her atleast during this AfD? Singh6 (talk) 07:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources mention him only in passing. Being involved in Khalistani terrorism doesn't immediately merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Not very notable. --vi5in^[talk] 15:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Respected Sir, this is an encyclopedia, so even articles about so called terrorist groups have to adhere to WP:NPOV. Wikipedia administrator J.delanoy has clearly indicated it in comment 1 and comment 2 on Khalistani militants, hence! per WP:NPOV, you can not use word Khalistani Terrorism and you will have to a use words Khalistani Militancy only. Your using word Khalistani Terrorism indicate your POV views.Singh6 (talk) 13:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Secondally, he was not merely involed in militant ogranizations as you have stated, but provided new articles/references prove that he was chief of Khalistan Liberation Force, making him a notable person.Singh6 (talk) 13:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Administrators, Please note that wikipedia's has also decided to Keep another similar article of chief of parallel militant organization, involved in same Khalistan movement, fighting for exactly same cause.Singh6 (talk) 13:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or mention he was a terrorist.

Please do not get fooled by the number of references in the article. Half of these references do not even mention Navneet Singh: [29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37]

These references have exactly one sentence on Navneet Singh:

[38]: "Two other arrested along with me were Navneet Singh and Nirbhai Singh." (NOTE: ihro.in is a Khalistani propaganda site. Please see WP:RSN#ihro.in.
[39]: Sources disclosed that the other accused in the case, Navneet Singh Kadian, Manjit Singh and Gurjant Singh Budhsinghwala, active members of Khalistan Liberation Front, a terrorist outfit, were later killed by police in encounters.
[40] "Rajendra was rescued by the police from a house at the outskirts of Jaipur after a shootout in which terrorist Navneet Singh Kandia was killed."
[41] Out of six accused, Dayal Singh Lahoria, who was extradited from the US, was acquitted by the Special Court in 2001, while Navneet Singh Kadia was killed in an encounter with the police in Jaipur last year.
[42] He was rescued by the police after a two-hour gun-battle in which dreaded terrorist Navneet Singh Kandiya was killed. Police also recovered a bag containing RDX.

This reference has exactly two sentences about Navenet Singh:

[43]: "A key leader of the KLF's Navneet Singh Qadian faction, Bhap had reactivated contacts in the Jalandhar area in early May." "The last of these had been carried out to secure Deepak's release from prison, and a subsequent police operation resulted in the elimination of KLF supremo Navneet Singh Qadian."

It says "Navneet Singh’s associates were also involved in the abduction of Romanian diplomat Liviu Radu in the year 1992[12]to publicize their cause at the world level." But Navneet Singh himself was not really important in this episode. Please search for "Liviu Radu" and see if any of the news articles contain his name. The terrorists had kidnapped the diplomat because they wanted the Indian government to release terrorists who had murdered innocents[44]. When Indian government refused they still kept him to gain publicity. However, Radu was too unimportant a target for government to concede to their demands, so they had to release Radu unharmed.[45]

User:Singh6 is a Khalistani propagadist[46][47][48] and is trying to justify killings by terrorists. The article is written in a very propaganda manner to suit the needs of Khalistani apologists. The entire section "How he was affected by his surroundings" is synthesis of unrelated references that do not mention Navneet Singh.

If this article is not deleted, please mention that Navneet Singh Khadian was a terrorist (as clearly mentioned by all the references that mention Navneet Singh). 202.54.176.51 (talk) 07:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Khalistan Liberation Force as the totality of notability seems to be derived from activity with and in this organization. Citations should be included in the merged article; everything above this post dealing with "propaganda" should be discounted for two major reasons - 1) anything cited should be in the article itself, not here; and 2) there is some poisoning of the well that is essentially a red herring for this discussion. Merging the two article might also alleviate the "delete or declare" (that Singh is a "terrorist" - a POV term, by the way) demand that is also raising the temperature in this discussion. B.Wind (talk) 05:35, 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 of the debate was who knows, so long as it's not delete. Pretty even split for keeping and redirecting without merging. I'll leave it to the article's editors to sort that argument out, but it's clear there's no call for deletion (except for the nominator's vote-instead-of-nomination, ho hum). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

J.R. Writer

The text itself doesn't really assert notability, but since The Diplomats do (but I'm also going to add an AfD on that page next), decided I should use AfD rather than CSD. However, unless there is actual notability, speedy delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, [49]. PJM 07:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly keep, possibly redirect to The Diplomats, as he seems to be mostly notable as a member of the group. Note that search results are skewed by the existence of a game "Jr. Writer" - Google ignores punctuation, and AOL (as used above, for some incomprehensible reason) uses Google. — Haeleth Talk 19:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Diplomats. Gamaliel 01:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable as a member of the Diplomats.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.157.71 (talk • contribs)
Redirect to The Diplomats instead.
I Am Ri¢h! ^{My Rich Contributions}/^{My Wealthy Talk}
Redirect to The Diplomats, unless sufficient biographical info can be added. --FuriousFreddy 13:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is a notable member of The Diplomats Rtblaze 19:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Diplomats unless expanded. AdamantlyMike 22:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per AdamantalyMike. Stifle 23:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Oh for G... erm, delete. Obviously no point in wasting any more time on this. Black Kite 17:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus hair

Per OTRS ticket #2008050110014031, this is a complete hoax that was created to support an eBay scam [50]. Amazon has no record of a book titled "Christianity and Me" by "Jan van Helsing" and Google was also unable to find any pages with those two search strings [51]. howcheng {chat} 16:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete if what Howcheng says is true. We're not here to perpetuate hoaxes, no matter how frequently it happens on Wikipedia, unfortunately. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What a dumb story. Mandsford (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Library of Congress also has no record of the book. Hoax. ("Golden hair," forsooth!) AnturiaethwrTalk 17:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obvious hoax. This is almost laughable... -WarthogDemon 17:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - book doesn't exist, Ebay scam does, "van Helsing" was a character in Dracula and various vampire movies. JohnCD (talk) 17:39, 1 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 --JForget 01:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Going green

Consists of original research and advice. Was previously a redirect page but author has reverted my attempt to return it to that. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is simply a non-neutral essay stating: pollution and waste are bad, here are some consequences, and here's how we can save the environment. Wikipedia isn't a how-to guide, and I can't think of a way to clean this up that doesn't involve turning it into a content fork. (Although I would be open to a redirect to Green Movement or Environmentalism.) Bfigura ^(talk) 17:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Bfigura. Fails NPOV, no real refs, mostly assertions. UE. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete school essay Czolgolz (talk) 18:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once again another essay apart of this class. Wikipedia is not for posting your school projects and is not your private webserver. It is an encyclopedia. I urge the professor to use WordPress or LiveJournal or even Facebook to post these next time. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the essay but this pagename should be a redirect to Green politics, as "going green" is a phrase being used quite a bit of late: [52] --Rividian (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research --Dalgspleh (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR essay. I agree the name is probably worth redirecting, but I recommend it go to Environmentalism not Green politics as "going green" is a very broad term that is more closely associated with environmentalism. 23skidoo (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Environmentalism. All NPOV and NOR content of this article is already there. Nothing to merge. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 20:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete full or original research, not neutral, student essay. No objection to a redirect (which could be protected to stop the author readding the content). Hut 8.5 21:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Original research. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by hitting the keyboard with a baby seal. Totally SOAPBOX essay, completely POV filled, unsavable ranting. no thanks. ThuranX (talk) 00:46, 2 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 WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). Clear consensus that abundant citations attributed to the subject satisfies WP:PROF. Moved to Michael Taylor (political scientist) per naming convention. WilliamH (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Taylor (political science professor)

Just another professor, fails WP:PROF. Herostratus (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Herostratus (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cambridge doesn't publish non-notable academics (twice), Hero. Unless of course you have read his books and are prepared to argue just how his contributions are non-notable? Trachys (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since Community, Anarchy and Liberty alone has 226 citations on Google Scholar. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And The Possibility of Cooperation has 615. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to Michael Taylor (political scientist), which is somewhat more clear. He is notable for his writings, not for being on the UW faculty. --Dhartung | Talk 19:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

agree on that. It's the usual heading. DGG (talk) 00:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename He meets WP:PROF. Protonk (talk) 00:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add the additional material that is sure to be available, such as reviews of the books. Personally, I almost think we should start rejecting nominations or arguments containing the words "just another". DGG (talk) 00:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A thought on this: surely anyone who is a tenured professor will be notable, because by definition they will have made an impact in order to have reached that level? I can understand lecturers and senior lecturers (to use the UK terminology) not being considered notable, but I can't see how someone would make full proferssor and not be considered notable. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's usually the outcome of debates, but it is 100% possible to get tenure at a research university by keeping your head down and publishing journal articles that don't really have a great impact on anything. There is a good and a bad side to that. The good side is that a lot of professors contribute to the body of research on the same fashion as wiki-gnomes do to wikipedia. No bold claims, no new theories, just substantive science that fleshes out the discipline. The bad side is that the same system can be used by pretty mediocre professors to phone in just enough research to get tenure. either way, a full-professorship is no guarantee on notability. In a top school, sure. They don't tend to make hiring mistakes and they attract the very best, so their tenured professors are liable to be leaders in a field. But a mid level public or private university can't boast the same way. Protonk (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that's why its relevant that this is the University of Washington, a very high ranking flagship university. DGG (talk) 00:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I'm just saying it isn't true as a matter of course. Protonk (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cordless Larry's comments. Satisfies WP:PROF as the author of highly cited works. Nsk92 (talk) 21:26, 2 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. Neıl ☎ 10:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Millennium

Fails WP:FICT, fictional location/kingdom within the Sailor Moon series. Article consists of plot and WP:OR sourced solely from primary sources and fansites. Half the article is on characters already covered in other articles and on the Silver Crystal, which is covered with sufficient detail in Sailor Moon (character). Collectonian (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Collectonian (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's no AFD tag in the article -- did Twinkle mess up again? —Quasirandom (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Doh, yes, it appears it did. Fixing. Collectonian (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Describes a location, plot devices, and characters which are central to the story and which, despite what the nom claims, are not covered elsewhere. Valid as an extension of the main article and character articles. --Masamage ♫ 18:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this story--unlike most-- is notable enough that it justifies such articles. DGG (talk) 00:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero assertion of notability through reliable verifiable sources independent of the topic material. All sources present are fan sites and source material itself. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Pertinent information into main article, and redirect - Recall sometime back Soul Society was merged into Bleach (manga) earlier this year. The same reasoning would apply here. There is no real world notability to warrant a separate article. [note: can anyone find that AFD?] AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soul Society here ya go. Collectonian (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that AFD seems a little more contentious than I recall. Still support merge re-direct. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the subject's importance to a highly notabile series/franchise, this seems to skirt the edge of WP:FICT. I note that a fair amount of the information, important to covering the series in an encyclopedic manner, does not seem to be covered elsewhere (counting the stuff reliably sourced to primary sources) and should retained somewhere. Because of this and for size concerns, I'm inclined to a weak keep, though I would support a merge into the main article per the Soul Society precident (which is of reoughly comperable notability and importance). —Quasirandom (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I dunno. Looking over the main Sailor Moon article and how it's organized, do you still support a merge? It seems to me like this kind of thing would be excruciatingly out-of-place. There's already so, so much to cover there. --Masamage ♫ 23:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - What about a merge into Dark Kingdom arc for the Silver Millennium stuff (and rainbow crystal stuff) and Sailor Moon R for the Crystal Tokyo stuff? -Malkinann (talk) 00:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's not a bad idea, actually. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's not quite satisfying for me, because Crystal Tokyo is the reincarnation of the Moon Kingdom--they're both the Silver Millennium--so it seems like they should be together. Not only that, but both kingdoms have crucial importance in the last two arcs of the story as well as the first. This is especially true of Dream/Supers, where Nehellenia, the Amazoness Quartet, Elios, the Golden Crystal, and Princess Lady Serenity are all brand-new Silver Millennium concepts (past and present). It would be much more difficult to have to reexplain in all of those places what the Silver Millennium is/was/will be/represents. --Masamage ♫ 05:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per previous dicustions. It has Chacters that fit here best, it has locations we can't cover as our location page was deleated Lego3400: The Sage of Time (talk) 03:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While this topic appears to be more notable than many of the AFDs in the fiction cat, it still does not appear to have received significant coverage from sources independent of the subject matter. The listed sources are all primary sources, non-reliable fansites dedicated to in-universe content only, and/or simply passing mention. Also, the article is most plot summary with little real-world context or analysis. Without acceptable sources, this article cannot be improved to pass WP:FICT or WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy (fart in my face) 16:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Insufficient secondary sources is an argument for cleanup, not deletion. Sailor Moon has had academic papers written about it; I'm not convinced that every single one fails to mention its backstory. --Masamage ♫ 18:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - A lack of secondary sources indicates that notability cannot be established, which in turn indicates that a major part of Wikipedia inclusion policy cannot be satisfied. Simply put, non-notable topics, with notability defined as significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject matter, are not suitable for this project. Papers written about Sailor Moon that merely mention Silver Milennium are not good enough; again, significant coverage of the specific topic would necessary. And that's only relevant if you can find such sources in the first place, which generally don't exist for a specific element of fictional universe. On top of the that, this article is almost entirely plot summary with no real-world context or analysis, which fails WP:NOT#PLOT, and without suitable secondary sources it is not possible to add such content which doesn't violate WP:V or WP:OR. Once unencyclopedic, in-universe content has been removed from the article, there would be virtually nothing left. Hence, deletion is appropriate. Doctorfluffy (fart in my face) 18:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Lack of secondary sources indicates only that the article is low-quality, not that it is unsalvageably useless, and is not a justifiable argument for deletion. Furthermore, coverage of in-universe details of fictional subjects is completely appropriate and important where it helps explain the franchise; the Silver Millennium derives its notability and its real-world coverage by being a driving-force to the plot of the Sailor Moon series itself. This article bearing its name exists only because there is too much to explain about this aspect for it all to fit in the main article. Just because secondary sources are not in the article yet doesn't mean they can never be; in fact, the only thing that would stop such sources from being found and used to improve the article would be the article's deletion. (The same can be said of other English-language Category:Fictional locations articles that have this same problem. Clearly Middle-earth and Hogwarts need coverage, and each has certainly been written about and examined. The refs just need to be found and used. The same is true of the Silver Millennium, especially in Japanese-language sources--which of course take time to obtain, but we are doing our best.) --Masamage ♫ 21:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't know what to say except what I have already said. No secondary sources = no establishment of notability = no place on Wikipedia. Inherited notability is a contested issue (it's got its own entry on WP:ATA) and mentioning it will not likely sway anyone who doesn't believe in the concept already. You imply that this article is the result of WP:SIZE issue, which might be a valid argument if there was enough encyclopedic, policy-acceptable material for stand alone page, but currently the content is almost entirely WP:NOT#PLOT summary and perhaps WP:OR. You're not addressing the issue that the current content breaks policy at all. Lastly, you keep saying that sources might exist somewhere and they might be found at some point in the future, but that doesn't cut it. The article is currently on the chopping block and we are looking at it in its current state. It is very easy to recreate deleted material if and when appropriate sources are available. Doctorfluffy (fart in my face) 23:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. About quality and style, the article is IMO well written and it is the proper place to expand relevant information introduced in other articles. About references, the ones cited are IMO relevant and notable, as they come from sources that are authoritative given the nature of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.18.136.90 (talk) 23:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sources are first party or fan sites that fail WP:RS; ergo, it fails WP:N and should be deleted. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Ravenwood is a published academic in media fields who also maintains a Sailor Moon fansite.-Malkinann (talk) 04:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't refer to the subject of this article at all, but rather to the characters and the themes of the show, making it more pertinent to individual character articles and that of the show. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bits that are cited from Ravenwood's site pertain to Queen Serenity and the Silver Crystal, which are both covered in the Silver Millennium article. Rest assured, we have used Ravenwood's site as a source where appropriate elsewhere. -Malkinann (talk) 06:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which does not address my point. The subject of the article is the Silver Millennium. Her article addresses thematic elements of the series and specific characters. It doesn't provide notability for the subject of the article. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please reword your point, then? -Malkinann (talk) 12:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To note that one source that doesn't even address the article's subject (barely) passes WP:RS? I don't think I have to. As it stands, the article asserts zero notability. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 19:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you to restate your point in good faith because your point was unclear to me. The Silver Millennium article was created from the merge of a few different articles - Silver Crystal, Queen Serenity, Princesses (Sailor Moon) and Silver Millennium. They were grouped under the "Silver Millennium" name as a matter of organisation. They are all subjects of the article. -Malkinann (talk) 07:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article is what you place in the title. You're talking about the fictional place Silver Millennium in which these characters happen to reside. These characters aren't the subject of the article, this fictional place is. Regardless, having a lone source that barely passes WP:RS that doesn't address the subject of the article at all (heck the sentence it's used for is: "She is portrayed as having been a 'good ruler'." - so what?) doesn't make this article notable. It's not a bad piece for the main article in providing a source of reception for thematic elements, but it certainly has little to no relevance here. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as well sourced and well presented article about a topic from a notable franchise that meets are notability and verfiability guidelines and plicies. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and well-sourced. WP:FICT is void per WP:CREEP. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please elaborate on why notability guidelines on fiction would not apply to this fictional topic? Also, can you please explain how the article does not fail WP:NOT#PLOT? Doctorfluffy (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps everyone should realise that there are no agreed notability guidelines for fiction at this point. Essentially everything relating to those guideline is disputed. It would be very easy for me to claim there were established guidelines, and they supported whatever is my view, but there isn't even agreement over keeping the WP:NOT statement that WP is not a place for plot summaries, let alone how to word it. DGG (talk) 18:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If policies change then we can apply the new standards accordingly. The possibility of future modifications to WP:NOT should not affect how we interpret it at this moment. Doctorfluffy (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not even when applicable guidelines are under requests for comment? Please note this RfC is on the issue of what spinouts are appropriate and how much real-world information is appropriate in spinout articles. -Malkinann (talk) 06:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That RfC is dead and it didn't produce any results, but that's inconsequential to my point. What I said stands - the possibility of future changes shouldn't dictate how we interpret policy in this moment. I could easily make an argument that WP:FICT is currently too permissive and that it will naturally be changed to be more strict regarding content inclusion, so therefore this article should certainly be deleted. But I wouldn't do that because using speculated modifications to existing policies as the basis for my argument wouldn't make any sense. Doctorfluffy (talk) 07:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, WP:PLOT is being reworded too... Currently they're both unstable policies. -Malkinann (talk) 07:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't change what I've said. It would be illogical to apply anything other than the current version of the policies. Doctorfluffy (i can has msg) 15:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little illogical to apply the policy very strictly at all, I think is what she's getting at. At least not the parts that are obviously mutable and might be different next week. Sticking to the stable areas for now saves a lot of time and effort and argument and makes somewhat more sense. --Masamage ♫ 15:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I get the point, I just don't agree. Everything on Wikipedia is subject to revision. The only thing we can do is look at what the policies say right now and interpret them on a case by case basis. I hate to use analogies, but suppose congress is considering a bill which would amend an existing law. Should police start enforcing the new version of the law simply because there is a proposed change? It's entirely possible that FICT or NOT#PLOT (or anything else) will be changed, but until consensus forms and that change is actually made, we can really only go on what the policy current says. We're getting off-topic here though. I still don't see how anyone could argue that this article isn't entirely plot summary, and the sources are pretty terrible. As notable as the series may be, I see no evidence that Silver Milennium itself has received direct, substantial coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. Doctorfluffy (i can has msg) 16:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(reset indent) "I still don't see how anyone could argue that this article isn't entirely plot summary" -- Really? This confuses me, because most of it is simply not story information at all, but fictional-factoid information. Granted, it certainly needs more out-of-universe context, but most of the latter sections scarcely mention the plot; instead, they describe aspects and characteristics of things and people, explaining who they are and how they work.

I've just gone in and trimmed down some of the story-dump in the Moon Kingdom section, and I also removed some unnecessary fansite references. I hacked out a ton of OR when Collectonian complained about that some weeks ago, and as far as I can tell there's nothing egregious of that sort left over either. The only big problem I see is the lack of secondary coverage, but like I say, I'm reasonably confident that that exists and can be found in the near future. --Masamage ♫ 20:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I usually use "plot summary" to mean any information that simply describes objects, events, or people within the fictional universe, even if it's not direct regurgitation of the story. Merely reorganizing elements of the work in a different manner doesn't change that the fact that it's still summarization of what happens in the plot. Anyway, I think I've said all I can about this. I'm not seeing notability or real-world context. If you're certain sources will be found to remedy those issues then perhaps you could userify the page until such time. Doctorfluffy (i can has msg) 20:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've been saying "near future" and sources must exist for weeks, if not months. You used that claim to keep removing the notability tag from the article. Yet, still nothing has been produced, because its highly likely they do exist. You really think one decade they will, userify this, but it does not meet WP:FICT (nor WP:N for those who want to call FICT inapplicable), and no shread of evidence that it has significant coverage in reliable third party sources has yet to be produced.Collectonian (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've also seen the "in the future" argument placed before everywhere, and it doesn't work. It's notable now, or it's not notable. Doing otherwise falls under WP:CRYSTAL. This argument was posed for Akatsuki (Naruto) for months on end, and it was recently merged (this is weird, a few months ago I would have never dreamed of using the Naruto articles as examples given the poor state they were in, such irony). As it stands, the article fails WP:N, and that's not going to change until secondary sources are added to assert notability. Don't dodge around the point - you have sources or you don't. If you don't, then this article should be deleted. If you happen upon enough sources in the future, you are free to recreate the article in a manner that meets WP:N, and before then, I would be happy to userfy this page for you. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is that it is notable now, because it's a driving force behind the series proper. People have stated that they disagree with me, which is fine, but my own opinion stands unchanged. As far as I'm concerned, the series notability is sufficient to help the article survive the deletion attempt; afterward, it can be improved and fleshed out more and we can work up a real-world coverage section. And thank you, but I am perfectly capable of userfying pages for myself.

Meanwhile, Collectonian, please back up your accusation that I made any claim of the sort when removing the notability tag. My edit summaries state very clearly that I removed it because I thought that concern was covered adequately by the in-universe tag. You made no argument or response, so I assumed that you had accepted my statement and moved on. It's in unspeakably poor taste to step back at the time and then just lie about it later. --Masamage ♫ 00:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't step back, I didn't want to violate 3RR and you made it clear at that time that you weren't going to listen no matter what anyone said. Collectonian (talk) 00:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't get to make stuff up to explain my actions, particularly when I have already explained them myself. Furthermore, you would not have been violating 3RR, you could very easily have started up a discussion on the article's talk page and gotten more people involved, and your continued refusal to assume good faith from me dates back to when somebody else vaguely associated with me insulted you. I am absolutely willing to listen and have civil conversations, and I am hurt and offended by your repeated accusations to the contrary. --Masamage ♫ 01:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument that it is notable because it is "important" to the plot is ridiculous and unsubstantiated. You have no verifiable reliable sources independent of the topic that provide non-trivial coverage of the subject, and until you do, any claim you have that the article is notable is mere conjecture, which is not sufficient to push it through an AfD. Something is not notable merely because you believe or say it is notable. Anyhow, for the userfy comment, seeing as you aren't an administrator, you may find it a tad difficult to access the page after it's deleted. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am an in fact an administrator. And I didn't say my opinion rules the world; I only said that I have one. Since you don't make any factual claims about the subject's relative importance to the series and just attack my assertion as "ridiculous", I see nothing else here to respond to. --Masamage ♫ 01:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of proof lies with you. Topics are not considered inherently notable, and it not required to prove non-notability to be subject to deletion. In fact, it's the opposite. Notability is established through substantial coverage with multiple independent sources. Without such sources, a topic "defaults" to non-notable and, in turn, is not appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia. I believe that you know about the series and that you truly think this subject deserves an article, but your personal assertions of notability are insufficient. Doctorfluffy (i can has msg) 01:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your non-confrontational tone. I do understand all that, but I don't really get why this topic absolutely doesn't get to inherit its notability from the series itself. It's not about what I think, and I never said it was--if the series is demonstratably notable, which it is, and this is a demonstratably big chunk of the series, which it is, why shouldn't that be enough to justify an article? Especially since merging it in would lower the quality of the main article? --Masamage ♫ 02:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, "relative importance" is irrelevant and "ridiculous" would be a way to describe your argument - you're asserting that it's notable because you're saying it's important to the series, or otherwise, notable since it's notable. I apologize if I'm blunt, but that's essentially what your argument is. Multiple independent sources are how you definitively establish notability. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not my argument. It's not important because it "just is". What I'm saying is that it's notable to the real world because it's notable to a series that is notable to the real world. There are two different realms of significance operating here, real and fictional, and I'm saying they should interact to some extent (though not much further than this). --Masamage ♫ 02:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No article can really "fail" WP:FICT at this point, because it says at the top of the page, "The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. Thus references or links to this page should not describe it as 'policy'." Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N then. Semantics at this point. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:03, 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. Closed early per WP:SNOW. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advantages of medical tourism

This is just an essay. "Medical Tourism" might have a place in Wikipedia, but to save this would require a complete rewrite. I feel like a tourist (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There already is Medical tourism. This personal essay has nothing to contribute to the main article. Voceditenore (talk) 13:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Voceditenore. nancy ^(talk) 14:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge any salvageable content to Medical tourism. This article is an obvious essay, and most useable content is discussed elsewhere. As I feel like a tourist said, this article would require a complete rewrite to be saved. —MearsMan ^talk 14:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Very little is salvageable. It also happens to be extraordinarily badly written. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there doesn't seem to be anything here that's not already at Medical tourism. As it stands, this is just a less detailed and more synthetic duplicate Bfigura ^(talk) 16:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete essay adds nothing to the main article. 67.130.129.135 (talk) 00:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as essay, since Medical tourism already exists with the key facts and without the subjective opinion. --DAJF (talk) 04:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a how to guide or collection of essays.-- danntm ^T _C 17:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all of the above: very poorly written essay that is redundant with Medical tourism. Aleta ^Sing 23:18, 3 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 Redirected and withdrawn, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fifa world cup impacts on the economy

~~Personal essay, per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Use of Wikipedia for class project.~~ See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economics of the Fifa World Cup. Staeiou (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing my nomination per redirection and discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economics of the Fifa World Cup. Staeiou (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since there is a discussion on the same subject at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economics of the Fifa World Cup‎, I propose that AFD be the primary AFD and this one be decided after it finishes. If it stays, this article redirects to that one, if it goes, this article is deleted too. Staeiou (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I redirected it to Economics of the Fifa World Cup‎ a few minutes ago. This AFD is invalid and can go. D.M.N. (talk) 16:13, 1 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. Fails WP:BIO as no sources provided. I could find no verifiable sources - other than WP mirrors/forks, which have propagated in the year since the article was created - to confirm the claims made in this article. KrakatoaKatie 02:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Martinez

Contested prod, begun as a vanity/auto-biographical page. SOme very strong claims to notability in the article, but after being tagged for a year as needing sources, nothing has surfaced. Google news gives nothing, google is largely unrelated links (not that this is the only source of references, just pointing out that I looked. Pastordavid (talk) 16:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- promotional creation by SPA Israelatacbwebdotus (talk · contribs). Even if he were notable, which requires sources for verification, this is not the kind of article we would want. Jfire (talk) 19:51, 4 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. John254 01:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Famous army stores

Badly written article about a store ~~of questionable notability~~ with no links or references. ~~Should this store be deemed notable~~, the article would need to be completely re-written. I feel like a tourist (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick Google News archive search confirms the basic notability points (200-store chain, etc.) Here is a Telegraph article about the Blacks buyout. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Confirmed notability, will need to be rewritten more clearly. MrPrada (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Weak keep, must be formatted and expanded. Rob (talk) 20:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:25, 4 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Man Without a Gun

Contested prod. Television show that was on-air for two seasons. There are a couple of sources, but they do not seem to come up to the standard of WP:RS. No third-party coverage (that I could find) in reliable sources, does not meet WP:NOTE, and (although only a proposal) WP:FICTION. Is the lack of sources a question of age (i.e., recentism) or is it truly a non-notable show? Pastordavid (talk) 16:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nom Withdrawn. It seems that consensus is that nationally braodcast shows are inherently notable. I'm happy for the next admin who strolls along to speedy close this as keep, since there are no delete !votes. Pastordavid (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Sorry to contradict you, but this program ran for two full seasons on U.S. television, was produced by and syndicated through a major studio (20th Century Fox), and starred a well-known actor of the era (Rex Reason, best known today for the cult film This Island Earth). For online references, it is cited by three different entertainment-related sources which lists the episodes and unusual concept of non-violent solutions to rowdy behavior. If the show is not recalled today, it is due to the fact that TV westerns fell out of favor with American audiences about three decades ago (when I last checked, only the two longest-running series, Gunsmoke and Bonanza, are still being rerun on U.S. TV). Ecoleetage (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nationally broadcast tv shows are considered notable by their nature, and sources show demonstrate that this is not a hoax. Because of its age, this is one to sit back and let it grow slowly. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not trying to be argumentitive, but such a criteria of inherent notability for nationally broadcast tv shows is not found anywhere in the notability guidelines or proposals, nor is it found in the common deletion debate outcomes. Can you show me where such shows are exempt from the general notability guideline of having significant coverage in reliable sources? (And the article has been tagged as of questionable notability for 1 year with no improvement, how slowly are we talking?) Pastordavid (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response - Not to be dense, but how is it that a show with a two-season run on national television, a well-known star and a top Hollywood studio as its producer not be considered as notable? On Wikipedia, I've found entire articles related to single episodes of Family Guy -- how is it that one episode is considered notable but an entire two-season television series is not? (In the 1950s and 1960s, two seasons was considered successful for U.S. TV shows.) Ecoleetage (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. Yes, there is other stuff that is questionable. My reason for questioning the notability - as outlined above - is the lack of reliable third party coverage - which is the standard of notability. Pastordavid (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is a fair enough concern that, as a notability criterion, it's not very well documented. I have seen my argument used enough in AfDs that I've started using it myself, without having a handy shortcut. Adding it to common outcomes would be a very good idea. As an indicator (if not direct confirmation) that it is true, I note that WP:BK defines any work that has been adapted as a nationally broadcast tv show is de facto notable. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major-network TV series that lasted multiple season and had a notable star. Pretty clearly worthy of an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's some information about the show in these sources. Zagalejo^^^ 17:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NOTE is only a guideline and not sufficient to delete, the RS concern seems to have been addressed, I find it hard to believe there wouldn't be reliable sources for this. However you might have to check your local library rather than the internet. MrPrada (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Television series broadcast nationally and produced by either a major network or a major studio, or both, are inherently notable, no matter how long they ran. The fact this ran for two seasons affirms its notabily even more. This isn't a case of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS as this is based upon firmly established precedent and execution of WP's notability policy. It took me 10 seconds to find a listing for this show in one of my numerous TV series encyclopedia books, so I can confirm it's not a hoax, which is the primary reason for the whole RS thing. 23skidoo (talk) 18:57, 1 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). Nominator withdrew nomination following clear commentary that the subject passes WP:MUSIC. WilliamH (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Circus Money

~~Non-notable future album by non-notable band. I feel like a tourist (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Strong Keep - the article is a mess but it's definately by a notable musician (Walter Becker is one half of Steely Dan). Passes WP:MUSIC/Albums with a bit of a tidy-up and info. Booglamay (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake...I'm kind of embarrassed, I had no idea that he was part of Steely Dan. The article was so bad that I just assumed he was some local musician. Next time I'll do a little more research. Please, someone wikify this article. I feel like a tourist (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No worries, we all make mistakes - I've made a start on the article. Booglamay (talk) 16:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable artist, notable album. Definitely passes WP:MUSIC. Not sure I see the problem here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the improvement that's been made, this article is definitely worth keeping. Can this afd be closed now? I feel like a tourist (talk) 19:00, 1 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. Lara ❤Love 13:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ESK Clothing Company

This isn't a horrible article, but I can't very much information about this company to establish notability. At best, this article needs a bit of cleaning up. I feel like a tourist (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as self-promotion. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as self-promotion of non-notable company. TrulyBlue (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apparently they sell through Zazzle, which is along the lines of CafePress and such. I can't help but notice that "ESK Clothing" only gets 26 unique Google hits, and nearly all of those are people who can't seem to spell the suffix "-esque", as in "he was wearing pirate-esk clothing", etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just more spam from yet another non-notable company. Rob Banzai (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertisement --Dalgspleh (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:CORP, no sources. --Captain-tucker (talk) 09:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:25, 4 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. Needs work, but not deletion. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Economics of the FIFA World Cup

Unencyclopedic essay article. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One giant paragraph Czolgolz (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's a homework assignment from a class. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Use of Wikipedia for class project. See also Fifa world cup impacts on the economy. --John Nagle (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think this may be a decent article with some work. It lists sources, but is formatted terribly. Some wikification, paragraph breaks, a little paint . . . Tnxman307 (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I've put in some section headers and paragraph breaks to help with the readability. Tnxman307 (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Give the article a chance. It seems to have one or two adequate references. I also find that, nominating the article just five minutes after it was created is attempting to make a point. D.M.N. (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nagle. I feel that the article's claims are original research. Keep per changes made. I apologize for not checking the timestamp to see when the page was created before voting - should have given it some time. Also, article is duplicated at Fifa world cup impacts on the economy and I've AFDed that too. It looks like there is a discussion here, so I propose that this article be the site for discussion on this topic and delete the other if this one goes or redirect the other to this one if it stays. Staeiou (talk) 16:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear example of the sort of article our policies against original research exist to protect us against. Could it be cleaned up? Maybe, but it would require almost a 100% start-from-scratch rewrite and even then it would be better as a paragraph in the main article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel sorry for the students. Their professor, who ought to have more of a clue, made them do this. They write typical student essays on their assigned topic, and the whole administrative machinery of Wikipedia descends on them. It's not the students' fault. Still, these are essays, not Wikipedia articles. At best, the topic rates a paragraph in World Cup. --John Nagle (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. It's not valid to delete for formatting flaws or even stylistic ones unless the article is hopeless or patent nonsense and I don't think this one necessarily is. It also has some decent refs. In any case, I see that D.M.N. and [[Tnxman307 have now vastly improved it. I also agree with D.M.N. about the potential pointiness of nominating all the 'imperfect' Globalecon student articles within minutes of their appear‎ance. (Even though that 'project' is most ill-conceived) Voceditenore (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:IMPERFECT, WP:BITE and WP:AGF. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Even aside from any other consideration, AfDing anything but vandalism or attack pages four minutes after creation is obnoxious. Ravenswing 16:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't realise when nominating this that it had only been up for four minutes. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend checking next time. Ravenswing 16:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. I've also fixed the offset in my time settings, which wasn't helping. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This appears to be on a notable topic, and doens't have any unfixable NPOV or OR flaws. While some of these articles have really deserved to be deleted, I think this one can be fixed up. Bfigura ^(talk) 16:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup and merge to FIFA World Cup#Economic impact. I'll recuse myself from admin actions here. I think the topic is not worth a whole article, though it can certainly be a part of the larger FIFA World Cup or similar article. That said, the section on Africa should be removed per WP:Crystal ball. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree that the Africa section looks ahead, but it does cite sources for its speculation. I feel like this may be different than a case of an unreleased CD or movie or something of that nature. Tnxman307 (talk) 17:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete original research --Dalgspleh (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How? I see references on that page, so how's it OR? Yes, there needs to be more refs, but it's almost certainly not all original research. D.M.N. (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because its WP:SYNful. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 19:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. Yes, the tone is off. Yes, there's some WP:SYN in here. Yes, some parts read like an essay. However, overall, the subject matter is notable and encyclopedic and the article is not beyond repair to resolve its problems. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 19:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Can be fixed, notable, not a NPOV matter, and this AFD starting at 15:48, 1 May 2008, four minutes after the article was posted at 15:44, 1 May 2008, is absurd. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 19:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see Larry has acknowledged it was too soon to nominated. We need a software way to stop that happening... no article should be AFD'd until its been up at least x minutes, like 60, or 120... Lawrence Cohen § t/e 19:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely a great way to run afoul of numerous other policies, like SPAM and BLP, to set an arbirtrary amount of time such articles MUSt exist, and be accessible to the masses. ThuranX (talk) 00:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One could imagine this becoming an encyclopedia article (though it may eventually be merged into a parent article. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I've just done some cleaning up. There are references and so on, though there should be more. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, per Rifleman 82, supra. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pop Secret (talk • contribs) 00:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as homework, not article. Fails OR and SYNTH as well. ThuranX (talk) 00:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Shinmawa and Lawrence. X Marx the Spot (talk) 01:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep current revision notwithstanding, it seems to me like a notable topic. Needs improvement, cleanup and wikification, not deletion. The fact that it's a homework assignment is irrelevant. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly needs improvement, not deletion. Also, apart from real rubbish articles should be given some time before deletion is suggested. --Reinoutr (talk) 08:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 09:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Excellent article, needs a criticism section for NPOV, such as the MasterCard stitch up and the mass selling of TV rights to Koesh(sp?), iirc there were rumblings of an EU competition enquiry. Anyway, on the nomination, I wish any of my homework assignments had been this detailed. Articles get improved around here, not graded. MickMacNee (talk) 13:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Notable. Not a hopeless start. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.130.129.135 (talk) 01:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - vastly improved since it was nominated for deletion. Carcharoth (talk) 22:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is starting to turn into a snowball. D.M.N. (talk) 07:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly has RS, could use more citations. --Captain-tucker (talk) 09:47, 5 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. Neıl ☎ 10:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elliot and the Magic Bed

non-notable play - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep behind a pay gate btut there appear to be two non-trivial articles in the Post-Gazette. I'd like to see them first to see if they're substantial coverage TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 17:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable play. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article promotional in nature, cites no sources, written by a single purpose account, and shows no demonstration of notability. B.Wind (talk) 05:40, 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 delete. Sandstein (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Global marketing strategy in the automobile industry

Non-encyclopedic essay. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dito as CL Czolgolz (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now. The article is very US-centric, and definitely needs style changes, but it has references, and the topic doesn't appear to be covered yet. It could be salvaged or possibly merged. It's too soon to tell. The article has only been up for two and a half days. Voceditenore (talk) 16:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another of the articles from a school project that isn't interested in working within WP's format. User:Globalecon/Global_Economics LegoTech·(t)·(c) 18:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Strong delete, look like someone "cut-n-pasted" a section out of a college text book. Rob (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has reliable sources, and I've revamped it a bit to remove the more essayish components. It needs definite expansion to be a great article, but the pieces are here. Karanacs (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've just notified the author of the article. Just because the prof isn't running the project well doesn't mean we should bite the newbies and not even inform them that the articles were nominated for deletion! Karanacs (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that. You're right, it's not the individual editors' fault. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, though at the very least rename: it's actually about "global marketing strategy" in the US automobile industry. However, I don't believe this topic needs a stand-alone article. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-encyclopedic essay written as school assignment. --DAJF (talk) 04:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now. With a bit of work, this could be made into a respectable stub. If it does not improve soon then it should go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.130.129.135 (talk) 01:22, 3 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. Done. Can be restored to article as and when it's aired/has lots of sources to draw upon. Neıl ☎ 10:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

America's Next Top Model, Cycle 11

Per WP:CRYSTAL, this show, although it is scheduled, isn't gonna air until September, and casting isn't even done yet, as far as I know. I checked the criteria for speedy, and none of them really fit..... SKS2K6 (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to America's Next Top Model. Normally I would delete per WP:CRYSTAL, but since this is so closely connected to the ANTM page I think a redirect is better for the time being. I think that in about a few months there will be reliable sources for Cycle 11 (as there are for 10 and below), but not yet. The casting call has gone out, but all I can find are reprints of the press release for that, which aren't enough. When Cycle 11 gets its own sources it should get its own article, but redirect it to the main ANTM page until then. Staeiou (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I did clean it up a bit and make it look like America's Next Top Model, Cycle 10, just to be fair. Staeiou (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main article for now, until more information is available. As I understand it, these season articles are the equivalent of episode articles, and as such WP usually frowns upon articles on episodes that haven't been broadcast yet. Such is the case here. Since it's been announced, this isn't a WP:CRYSTAL situation, but it's still premature to have an article. 23skidoo (talk) 19:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Chris M. (talk) 05:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above to preserve location of inevitable, yet-to-be-written article. Deletion would be a worse option; when sufficient sources provide enough information for a new article after redirecting, the already-existing infobox, etc., can be easily restored by simply returning to an earlier version rather than creating it from scratch again. B.Wind (talk) 05:16, 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. Neıl ☎ 10:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broadmoor (album)

Per WP:MUSIC, this album and its constituent songs never charted, therefore this album is not notable. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failing WP:MUSIC ArcAngel (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:MUSIC. Also, from the article: "That's as far as it got." Not exactly a ringing endorsement. Tnxman307 (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - can you please explain me how does the article fail per WP:MUSIC? Read Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Albums. That full-lenght demo album arouse the interest of worldwide famous metal band and Byzantine got a record label only because of that demo. And it was the first album with the new drummer. I can show enough of sources about that album. So according to Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Albums it is notable, because it was very important in the band's career. There was also a speedy deletion on 2000-2001 Demos under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion...But that criteria says "A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on". So the speedy deletion was against the policy. Can you please explain me how could that happen??? LYKANTROP 16:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was speedily deleted under {{G4}}, not {{A7}}. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC) See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2000-2001 Demos[reply]
  - That argument is totally obsolete and does not match anymore. The article was not a copy of the old version. I have never seen the old one. If I show reliable sources it is notable according to Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Albums.-- LYKANTROP 16:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - So where are the reliable sources? Black Kite 17:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Was the demo on any significant chart, such as Billboard? No. Did the demo win any awards? No. Right there the album fails two criteria of the section you mention. If there was significant news coverage, you need to reference it in the article, if any exists. ArcAngel (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - 2000/2001 Demos sources - for exapmle here (also in the biography), here or here. I am not creating this article again. Just the speedy deletion was against policy.
      - Broadmoor/European Sampler - for example also here (and in the text), here or here and of course also here in the official biography. Can you tell me which policy talks about significant chart and awards?-- LYKANTROP 18:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I am applying Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Songs here, as individual songs make an album, and I don't see one on that album that has done anything worthy. ArcAngel (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Are you serious? Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Songs is for articles about songs, not articles about albums.-- LYKANTROP 06:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Songs make up an album, so if any song on that album charted, then there might be a case to keep the article. As it stands, no songs have charted (since the album is a demo), and therefore falls under the demo section of Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Albums. If you can find better coverage for this album (such as AMG, for example), then as I stated, there might be a case for keeping. ArcAngel (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Who says that those sources are not enough? They represent the importance of the album.-- LYKANTROP 22:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Where does WP:MUSIC say that album must chart to be notable?-- LYKANTROP 06:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable. The album after it is the same album, but with a different name and released a year later. I suggest someone writes about Broadmoor in The Fundamental Component entry. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 18:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nothing in WP:MUSIC indicates that an album must appear on a chart. Have y'all read WP:MUSIC? If Blizzard Beast's comment above is correct, then the correct action would be a merger rahter than a deletion. -MrFizyx (talk) 06:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:26, 4 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 Green Party of England and Wales; redirects are cheap, and this is a potential search term. GlassCobra 03:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge Green Party

Appears to be purely self-promotional Jayen 466 14:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - advert article. Tnxman307 (talk) 14:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Green Party of England and Wales, this isnt a seperate party as it clearly states in the lead. --neonwhite user page talk 16:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge same as Neonwhite Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my view there is nothing much to merge, since the page only has content specific to one city. We do not usually have pages for party organisations specific to a particular city. There is no London Green Party, Birmingham Green Party, nor Cambridge Conservative Party or Boston Republican Party, for that matter. Jayen 466 15:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the 'organisation' section can be sourced, there nothing to stop the main party article having sections on local groups. --neonwhite user page talk 20:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that the Green Party of England and Wales article would benefit from the addition of the names of the Cambridge committee members. If we wanted to add such names of local committees, I would have thought that Cambridge – a city with a population of 115,000 or so, ranked 171st in the UK according to our article on it – would not be the first U.K. city we should start with. Jayen 466 23:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:27, 4 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. The two references in the article are not reliable sources. Fails WP:MUSIC. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep this particular article. KrakatoaKatie 02:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Recordings

Per WP:MUSIC, unreleased albums/demos/etc. are not notable without substantial coverage in reliable sources. (Technically, this isn't really a demo or unreleased album, but it's similar enough.) No reliable sources included, none found. (Prod expired but article was not deleted.) Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ArcAngel (talk) 14:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I will not comment on whether or not the article meets our inclusion guidelines or not, however, I will state that the article was deleted due to an expired PROD tag, but User:K8 fan later objected to the deletion. I restored the page out of courtesy. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I should have checked. AfD nom stands. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete generally speaking, demo/unreleased/bootleg recordings (this is all three to some extent) even of major artists are not notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You sure?. You really sure?. You really really sure? --Oakshade (talk) 23:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am aware that other articles exist which may or may not fail WP:MUSIC's guideline that bootlegs and unreleased albums are generally not notable. I'm working on it. The "unreleased albums" category on 19 March 2008 had 84 albums listed. 10 of those were miscategorized. 28 (so far) have been deleted. 8 more are working on deletion right now. Most of the rest seem to pass the guidelines at WP:MUSIC. Then it's on to the bootlegs. Some are certainly notable (The Grey Album comes to mind), some certainly are not. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Recording by extremely popular international star in itself demonstrates notability. Wikipedia has a whole catagory for for bootleg albums and another for unreleased albums --Oakshade (talk) 23:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wikipedia:Music#Albums says "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." This one does not have significant independent coverage in reliable sources. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:28, 4 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 (default to KEEP). To clarify. Article quality and COI are not grounds for deletion, but are issues which certainly need addressing, and should deflect a future nomination. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vattikuti Urology Institute

Articles fails WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article is an Advertisment and was created by multiple Promotional PR Accounts and IP's editing from Henry Ford Hospital;

Sciencefirst (talk · contribs)
Robotic Surgery (talk · contribs)
150.198.150.245 (talk · contribs) - IP from Henry Ford Hospital

Accounts have no other edits other than related to Vattikuti Urology Institute (Henry Ford Hospital related). Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article.-- Hu12 (talk) 14:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. User:Hu12, is there a way you can explain how you found out the location of the editors? I'm not really the brightest when it comes to IP addresses...Thanks! --Do you know me??...then SHUT UP!!! 14:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the reasons noted by nom. ArcAngel (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in among the press releases there are a number of RS including procedures first performed there TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the refs found. COI does not necessarily prove the subject is non notable. Concentration on the pursuit of spam can lead to this sort of misjudgment. The remedy is for more people to help the nom. on this essential work. DGG (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fundementaly misunderstanding Wikipedia's objective in keeping with neutral point of view policy and What Wikipedia is Not Would lead to this type of misguided conclusion about Conflict of interest and Accounts used for promotion. Unfortunatly Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Content that does not belong in an encyclopedia is removed. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising". --Hu12 (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

we do not remove the articles, we remove the advertising. We only remove the articles when there is nothing left otherwise. A factual description of a famous company or organization is not advertising; encyclopedic description is equally right no matter who writes it. If one interprets the meaning of "promotion" in an over-expansive way, the effect of any article about a important company or organization can be seen as promotion. NPOV is the result, not the motivation. DGG (talk) 03:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per my nom. Sadly, those arguing for the value of material that was spammed and information which is substandard, inadequate and unencyclopedic and suggesting that such articles be kept regardless of those facts damages the credibility and future success of Wikipedia.--Hu12 (talk) 18:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think that's accurate. What the keeps, or at least I, am saying is that the company is notable per WP:CORP using RS, but that the article needs clean up. Clean up is not a reason for deletion TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've done some clean-up and removed the worst of the spam. There's a lot more out there but I don't have access to some of the scholarly resources or the Detroit papers. The point remains, just because something is bad now doesn't mean it needs to be deleted. The institute appears to be a well-known research facility that has accomplished signficance in the world of prostate surgery and is notable for same. Why doesn't it deserve an article? You haven't addressed that in your nom or !votes
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, while COI edits may be a reason to revise the article, taken alone that is not sufficient reason to delete an article on an independently noteworthy subject. older ≠ wiser 15:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment It is not irrelevant that this is a very well known institute in famous hospital. DGG (talk) 03:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. At most worth a mention on Henry Ford Hospital, however Wikipedia shouldent be cluttered with Vanispamcruftisements that do not matter to the general usership. We don't need an article on every area of Henry Ford Health Systems. Wikipedia is not a junkyard for hospital spam--Hu12 (talk) 04:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I've substantially re-written the article, reducing, but not eliminating the reliance on primary sources. I believe the advert/COI issues have been dealt with and notability established. I'd appreciate it if you, Hu12, would address any remaining issues with the article Talk to_Cari^{the Busy Bee} 03:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article has a promotional tone and it appears to contain medical claims that are sourced to mass media reports. WP:MEDRS would expect us find peer-reviewed professional journals to justify any claims about the quality of the surgery. No objection to recreation of this article with the proper quality of sources. EdJohnston (talk) 02:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

not that we couldn't find them, but popular notability is notability, even for a hospital. I'm a little at a loss to understand the opposition here, This is not a private surgery clinic with some local newspaper spam, or propaganda from a fringe medical organization. DGG (talk) 03:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found them, will 400 GScholar results do? I'm not familiar with urology but their work is documented. I'm with DGG here, this is a mainstream clinic at a mainstream hospital. I'm curious as to what you think I, who have zero ties to the facility and only been to the airport in Detroit, am promoting in the re-write _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin if this is deleted, please userfy to me and I'll work on it further. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Henry Ford Hospital to address COI issues. Its primary source of notability is the hospital itself. B.Wind (talk) 05:10, 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 deletion. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Salute day

Unsourced article about a celebration created in 2005 by a group of people at a radio station. Google finds hits for things such as "Blue Star Salute Day", "Just Salute Day", "Madonna della Salute day", “Freedom Team Salute Day", "Israel Salute Day", and "Senior Salute Day", but no apparent matches to this celebration. The event is not even mentioned on the website for the radio station that supposedly started this event.[53] Delete as per Wikipedia is not for things made up one day unless proper sources provided to establish verifiability of article subject. --Allen3 ^talk 14:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per research done by nom. I checked as well, I don't think this is a hoax, but the difficulty in establishing the existence of this event shows its lack of notability. No sourcing on this. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced original research.--Rtphokie (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete strictly self-promoting spam. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ArcAngel (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if it exists at all, it's certainly not backed up by any reliable sources that I could find. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MAINTAIN As this date is only two years old and will not be evidenced in your limited searches, the page is only a few hours old and the information is not all there. A list of the participants will be added later as well as a further explanation. The link the the Website was removed and only placed in the first place as it was an attempt to put as much information on the site as possible. Gospodin Baseball is not correct in removing items and "closing ISSUES"

Lastly, look up LPAM and LPFM to find a list of stations that exist in this nation. There are hundreds of thousands and this movement is spreading like wildfire. There are an expected 3000 participants this year and that is why we felt it worthy of putting up a page. If the names of the originators are bothersome, that can be easily removed, but that is how this came about.

Thanks for your time, which you seem to have plenty of.....

Thank god you guys were not around when Francis Scott Key was scribbling on a piece of paper....

Gary De Pury

US ARMY Gary De Pury 17:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

- Key's poem was printed in newspapers within a week of his writing it. This is the electronic age, the internet age. If your growing movement hasn't showed up in the internet at all in two years time, what other conclusion are we to draw as regards its notability, except that it has none? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - My point is that if you were around Key may have never been published because you would have attempted to stop it. And many things do not see the light of day for many years. For instance Trademark Laws, like using trademarked images and saying in your name. Take it down, I will just put it back up next month with a list of 3000 participants, many newspaper articles and further evidence, or you can wait. I also prefer that folks not remove the discussion edits that demonstrate your bias, Tovarish. Gary De Pury 17:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

- - - You might try to explain what the "Tovarish" reference means, as it makes no sense to me. Otherwise, you need to understand that wikipedia does not originate information. In 1814, we would have demanded a reliable source - and we would have had one: the newspapers that TSSB was published in. Where are your published sources for this event that you're promoting? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN in the extreme. — Music Maker 5376 17:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Now tagged with {{db-author}} after recent blanking. --Onorem ♠Dil 17:40, 1 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Adams (mechanical engineer)

I A7 speedied this once. It's back, with more information and references. But... despite all it says, the notability appears to me to be, at best, marginal. And when you get right down to it, it seems to me to fall below that margin rather than above. A hard call, but at this point I have to still suggest that it be Deleted. TexasAndroid (talk) 14:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So, to summarize the current references: A biographical dictionary... does not establish WP:NOTE, I would like to know to what extent the Calvert, Ferguson, and Sinclair sources actually talk about him. The history of ASHRAE document just confirms that he served as an officer... for what it's worth, in the blurry charter image, he is listed first of 75 "charter membes" in 1895 (but it helps that the list is alphabetical), with address given as Washington, DC, at least consistent with the current bio. Sourcing too much info from henryadams.com is obviously not recommended. The obituary for his son doesn't seem relevant. So the big question is how much do those three (Calvert, Ferguson, and Sinclair) sources say. I would say this would need to get trimmed down if it is not delete. --Marcinjeske (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think that a biography that appears in a biographical dictionary does establish notability, and on that basis I think the references are sufficient. --Eastmain (talk) 18:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you sure about that... because in that case I have copies of Who's Who Among American High School Students and Who's Who in Science and Engineering from years back that I would like to OCR into Wikipedia... I would finally have my very own BLP.

I would say listings of certain professions, in this case published by a professional organization (ASME)... do not a NOTE make. I would note that ASME does not list the subject on the online biographies of Mechanical Engineering Biographies Throughout Time. I think if there is notability, it is in those offline sources. --Marcinjeske (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have to say I am not seeing notability in the provided and accessible sources. Looking for others is complicated by his common name; a contemporary Henry Adams wrote books on mechanical engineering, but he was British. --Dhartung | Talk 22:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The three sources Macinjeske lists do not turn up anything about Adams via the (limited) Google Books search. --Dhartung | Talk 22:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep President (and founder) of the major professional organisation in his field. DGG (talk) 00:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment he was one of many presidents, and his term was brief. As to founder, that is a very broad definition to include all 75 engineers who payed their dues at the first meeting. No one seems to have noted his role in the founding of ASHVE.--Marcinjeske (talk) 07:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and every one of those presidents will be notable. similarly for all the major national associations of anything. (but agreed, now that I see there were 75 charter members that this by itself isn't sufficient--you';re right on that one. ) DGG (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete Unless Sources Establish Notability~~ He was one of 75 charters members and served one year as president and there is no source for any significant role in founding the society. Besides the web site of his consulting company, there is no source for any of the information except that he was "a heating and ventilating engineer in the Supervising Architects Office" and worked (not alone) on government buildings including Ellis Island and the Capital. Regardless, where are the independent sources? Where are the newspaper articles about this notable person? Where are the third party biographies. In 100 years, no one seems to have bothered to write much about him except for the company he founded and named.--Marcinjeske (talk) 07:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources now show he was credited with designing heating systems for several significant buildings, testified before Congress, and founded a company which has media coverage. I do not agree that the ASHVE presidency contributes to notability. There are a lot of professional organizations, with many years of many leaders. Unless some reliable sources covered a person because of the position. But nevertheless, there is enough for now... although we should make sure that this entry does not get confused with the guy who wrote the mech eng book. --Marcinjeske (talk) 07:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment additional information has been added, which does seem to make the notability clearer. He apparently designed, among other things, the mechanical system for Ellis Island. DGG (talk) 14:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references now in the article are enough to establish notability in my opinion. I would be curious to know what is in the NY Times obituary. I wonder what they considered to be the highlights of his career. The current article, which highlights the offices he held in his various associations, sounds a bit like a resume. It is more interesting to know what he actually did. What was his congressional testimony about? EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment having succumbed to that weird Wikipedia phenomenon of getting sucked in by a subject of an article (I placed the original speedy deletion tag when this was just a link to the company, but in the process of investigating notability, I ended up adding references and content to the article), I can address this question. The specific congressional testimony cited was part of an investigation into the costs and performance of the mechanical plant at sites including Ellis Island. I have added the link to that testimony on Google Books, and you can read the article's talk page for more details. As for the obituary, unfortunately the New York Times does not have it available free yet, but you can read a number of excerpt from the obituary on the article talk page. I have made some effort at limiting the resume-ness, but for many professions their organization membership is pretty defining... plus it gives good pointers if someone wanted to research further. In terms of what he did - well, design heating and ventilation systems, and analyze them. For the Feds, he did work on Ellis Island, The Capital, and surely many other structures, then later on the building mentioned in the article. I think though that to delve too far into that would just be mundane... I picked up the hints of some kind of scandal in the congressional testimony, but without media coverage, I don't really have the information to go into that with any kind of fair coverage... regardless, I think we have a consensus against deletion?, so maybe someone would like to close this up? (Mr. Chairman, I would like to call the question?)--Marcinjeske (talk) 05:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Adams' was a mature professional in Baltimore before the Great Baltimore Fire of 1904. Because of his service and interest in the compulsory legislation comittee of that group, role as an engineering educator, and stature in his profession, I would expect him to have had some role in the creation of the Baltimore building codes that were demanded following the fire. (Prior to the fire, mechanical engineers at ASHVE and many other groups were involved in efforts to improve the living conditions in city tenemants.) There was a huge building boom in Baltimore following the fire. Buildings after the fire were re-built larger than before, and with modern mechanical systems. --Teda13 (talk) 17:34, 6 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. Lara ❤Love 13:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sister Ruth Dixon

Unsourced article on a local radio host with no evidence or assertion of notability. Had been A7 speedied, but restored at author's request. --Finngall ^talk 13:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BIO. 13 Ghits; only two refer to this person and they're both Wikipedia articles. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. ArcAngel (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article fails to establish why this radio personality is notable. If verifiable sources can be located and added to this article, then I'd gladly change my vote, I haven't been able to locate any. All google searches (news, image, web) bring up nothing other than this article. --Rtphokie (talk) 13:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. This may be one of those situations where a salient person has been neglected by history and/or historians. However, Wikipedia is not the place where one can redress such neglect. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources, no proof of notability --Captain-tucker (talk) 15:25, 5 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. Lara ❤Love 14:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cf Turbo

Non-notable, unreferenced, and the article's creator is unable or unwilling to address these faults, having removed tags twice -- the second time was after an explanation was left on his talk page. No point using WP:PROD first, as this editor has deleted prod on other articles without justification. Fayenatic (talk) 12:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Article is mostly nonsense and non-notability. Also does not cite any sources. Tnxman307 (talk) 13:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ArcAngel (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just rv'd a third removal of the AfD tag. Editor is obviously unwilling to make the article fly. -- Fullstop (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability established. A google search for "'Cf turbo' LEL" brings up only two hits related to wrestling: this article and another one deleted for being non-notable. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No notability established per WP:BIO, and fails WP:V and WP:RS. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 15:52, 4 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 and snowball keep. Canley (talk) 04:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

百万智多星

Duplicate of 'Who wants to be a Millionaire' content, this show is just a national variant of the format. Fallenfromthesky (talk) 11:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are also:

Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? (UK game show), Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (US game show), Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? (Australian game show), Lotto Weekend Miljonairs, Qui Veut Gagner des Millions?, Stani bogat, Kaun Banega Crorepati, Milionerzy Kubek15^{(Sign!) (Contribs) (UBX)} 11:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- You are the article creator, obviously you are going to vote keep - and the existence of other similar articles does not justify the existence of another unnecessary one. Fallenfromthesky (talk) 11:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You did leave a note on Kubek15's talk page saying their opinion was welcome in this discussion. There's no need for a comment about "obviously" voting keep. --Canley (talk) 12:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, keeping in mind WP:OWN there's no prohibition on an article creator defending same against AFD. 23skidoo (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nationally broadcast television series are inherently notable, and the article in question isn't that much different than those linked from List of national variants in Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?. Where I have issue is the non-English format of the title. No one is going to search for that and most WP users don't have a keyboard capable of creating those characters, so I would recommend substituting the Anglicized version of the title. Of course sources should be added as well. 23skidoo (talk) 12:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's all very well to object to a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but I don't think the nomination adequately explains why this national variant is not notable compared to the others. This is probably the most viewed version! I would move the article title to the English transliteration however. --Canley (talk) 12:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article could do with references to establish notability, but I can't imagine that a nationally broadcast television show would fail to qualify. I agree that the nominator has not articulated a reason for deletion, other than, the unpersuasive objection that this is the Chinese version of the show. I agree that the title is inappropriate, I'm going to check the MOS real quick then boldly move it. Xymmax (talk) 13:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not really seeing a reason to delete, though it should be moved to a more searchable title. Maxa megalon 2000 13:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Page moved to Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? (Chinese game show) as that matches the MOS and the format of the other versions. I saw that the AFD notice had gotten lost a couple of edits back, I've restored it. Xymmax (talk) 13:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in light of changes made by Xymmax. Staeiou (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the page move, above justifications and which are probably RS if anyone can read them TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Canley, 23skidoo & Xymmax. KTC (talk) 03:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If kept RENAME, non-ASCII title, and the renamed page is wrong. Just looking at the English on the logo shows just how wrong it is. Who deserves to be a millionaire? appears to be the correct term. "deserves" not "wants" 70.55.84.13 (talk) 05:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I understand that the new article title is not an exact translation of the Chinese title. However, our naming guidelines state that we should use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject, even if it differs somewhat from the local form. Xymmax (talk) 13:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I've just reverted the early non-admin close of this discussion by User:Kubek15 which had the reason "The result was Keep (non-admin closure) because of 9 votes to keep and 1 to delete and move done by Xymmax.". Looking at the above !vote (which included mine), this may well be a snowball, but certainly shouldn't be by the original creator of the article. KTC (talk) 10:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nom withdrawn WP:SNOW Fallenfromthesky (talk) 02:08, 3 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. Lara ❤Love 14:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Number-one hits(20) of 2003(PL)

This article is only half completed, and on top of that, there is no content of what this list is supposed to be of, as there are no external links (i.e. WP:V, WP:RS.) — Κaiba 11:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - article is not clear what it is about. The list is meaningless. It is also unlikely to be expanded upon - the main editor of this page hasn't edited since the middle of last year. StephenBuxton (talk) 11:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't know what is that. It's not something like Polish National Top 50 number-one hits of 2007. Kubek15^{(Sign!) (Contribs) (UBX)} 12:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources, no context, obvious signs of abandonment. 23skidoo (talk) 12:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to the Polish Wiki where it would be more appropriate. ArcAngel (talk) 15:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What content would be worth moving? It is an incomplete list without sources to back up what it says.. — Κaiba 15:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is apparent to me the article is being worked on as we speak. I feel this list would be more appropriate on the Polish side since it is a list of number one songs in Poland. But give the benefit of the doubt for the article to be completed. ArcAngel (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me how the article is being worked on 'as we speak'.. The creator and primary author of this article is User:Bijanse, and he has not edited Wikipedia since 2007. I highly doubt he, or any one else, is currently writing anything on the article. — Κaiba 16:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Adding my 2 cents, given that the article hasn't been worked on in a year, it might be worth just starting a new one from scratch if one feels there's a place for it at the Polish Wiki. 23skidoo (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this list has no added value, and it is not even clear what its purpose is.-- danntm ^T _C 23:49, 3 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. Lara ❤Love 14:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They Say

It was NOT confirmed by any band member to actually be a single. The current sources are not notable. gracz54 ^(talk) 09:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 09:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as current sources go to personal website and myspace. Tnxman307 (talk) 13:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:MUSIC ArcAngel (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Delete I don't contest it anymore after reading the above stated guidelines.— Dæ dαlus^T@lk / Improve 16:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable --Dalgspleh (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:V, WP:RS --Captain-tucker (talk) 15:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:36, 4 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. Neıl ☎ 10:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Politics

Lacks notability and reliable sources THobern 08:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't have a chance to research this yet, but it looks like this group may have achieved at least some notability in the Austin area. I'll check it out in the morning. However, if this page is kept, it needs to be rewritten so that it doesn't look like a vanity page. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional blurb about a band noted only in Texas, although they have had a tour of the American West. Article seriously lacking in actual citations showing notability of their recordings (if any). B.Wind (talk) 05:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea but have left a note on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Texas page, so leaving it open another 24-48 hours'd be prudent. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:34, 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dance of the Dead (2007 film)

I speedied this as general nonsense but restored it after a request from the creator. Appears to be about a marginally-notable movie that's been shown on as many as three screens in Atlanta. Stifle (talk) 08:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems notable. Independent news coverage here, indepentent reviews here and here. 96T (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in addition to 96T's, I also found this on the cast and this. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Despite the aforementioned links, none of them, bar one, seems all that reliable. [54] suggests trivial coverage. In order to meet WP:MOVIE and basic WP:NOTE, there needs to be significant coverage from multiple sources. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 18:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 18:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If it got released in theatres and people paid to watch it, I think it deserves an article. I hope I am making sense. Lots42 (talk) 04:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - My thinking is the same as Lots42. It's a movie. It's just a poorly written article in desperate need of cleanup and expansion. J Readings (talk) 20:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not really, this is why we have WP:MOVIE. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 21:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: True. Yet, the film is still notable. A simple LexisNexis database search generates ~~225 articles~~ either mentioning the film or writing specifically about the film. (NB:My apologies. I should have honed the search to specific times in order to avoid overlap with other films. There appear to be 5 articles which specifically discuss this film. Another 18 or so which mention the film in passing somewhere in the body of the article.) J Readings (talk) 21:26, 4 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. Lara ❤Love 14:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ninni Morgia

Non-notable musician, no reliable sources, and it fails WP:MUSIC. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 08:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both I and Gonzo have reviewed this and feel it barely misses A7, but barely. Simply just not notable enough. Pedro : Chat 08:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Probably has regional/local popularity. Lack of WP:RS is a sign for improvement, however, [55] suggests a failure of WP:MUSIC. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 18:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 18:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass WP:MUSIC, and the sources provided aren't reliable making it non-notable. Milk’s Favorite Cookie ^(Talk) 22:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well sources provided isn't really what determines notability (although it can be a conjunctional meter stick)..it's WP:V outside of what is already presented. Just as a comment : ) Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:15, 3 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. Lara ❤Love 14:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jacewon

Rapper that falls WP:MUSIC due to google news and [56], where the latter just reveals non-notable mentions including myspace and forums. I see no significant coverage in second or third party sources. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 06:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Obvious, blatant self-promotion. Just look at the user name of the original author: User: Jacewon Music. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is also a WP:COI issue here. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 07:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:MUSIC, WP:COI. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 09:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. ArcAngel (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 17:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 17:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertisement --Dalgspleh (talk) 18:49, 1 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 white fluffy items descending from the sky. No doubt about this one, I think. Black Kite 17:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recyling plastic and how it affects the economy

Essay about how to recycle, but contains no encyclopaedic information. PeterSymonds | talk 06:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Aside from the obvious statement that this is an original research-y essay, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. While this class has brought us several decent articles, this needs to go. Bfigura ^(talk) 06:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a how-to. Stifle (talk) 08:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 09:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poor repetition of existing article. Czolgolz (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An environmentally friendly Delete - At least no trees were cut down to create this article. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced :) --Bfigura ^(talk) 16:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hopeless OR essay filled with stuff like "We really need to keep our environment a priority so that way we will not loose all that we have." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then delete again. Trachys (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried to edit this article into a manner fit for merging into Recycling plastic#Economic impact. I was even prepared to clean up the unencyclopedic second-person style of writing. But after trimming all the extraneous parts, there was nothing salvageable left. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:32, 1 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 --JForget 01:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Valentino

The article attempts to make the subject sound notable, but it appears that the closest thing to notability is a book that hasn't been written yet. Google doesn't appear to have heard of this person either. If someone else can find more info than I can on this topic, please do. Thanks. Rnb (talk) 05:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. With no sources provided or easy to locate, this person is basically unverifiable. Although the article claims he is an attorney and implies that he still lives in California, no person by this name is admitted to the State Bar of California. [57] (It's possible, for example, that he might have been admitted to practice in another state but chosen to pursue his partying lifestyle in Los Angeles instead of practicing law. But without details, who knows?) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above. Non-notable. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Non-notable autobio. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Despite being a fairly long article, there's no real assertation of notability in there. No reliable sources either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable --Dalgspleh (talk) 18:49, 1 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. John254 01:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Otto (park ranger)

Utterly non-notable park ranger. No WP:RS whatsoever presented, though that's really beside the point since notability is not even asserted, therefore there's nothing to source to begin with. The article was previously extensively edited by a guy who's published a non-notable book about the non-notable park ranger with notorious vanity press Xlibris. He keeps re-inserting his personal spam into the article each time he edits it. User has received the usual warning for WP:COI, so let's hope he doesn't start warring on it. Qworty (talk) 05:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are actually a plethora of sources that assert his importance. More than satisfies the primary notability criterion. The fact that someone has, a century later, written a vanity press book about him should in no way prejudice us against the century during which many reliable sources were written covering his life and major accomplishment, that is, the founding of Colorado National Monument. --Dhartung | Talk 05:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Numerous sources turn up when searched, including books and newspaper articles. Prior to being removed, the article listed two references: Kania, Alan J. John Otto of Colorado National Monument Roberts-Rinehart Publisher and Kania, Alan J. John Otto: Trials and Trails University Press of Colorado. It mentioned that the third edition of the John Otto of Colorado National Monument was being reprinted through Xlibris. I presume that this is where the confusion over "vanity press" came from. - Bilby (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think I agree. Qworty's coming down hard on this guy, but it's cited as a source in several of the works I've looked at. --Dhartung | Talk 09:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notability seems to be established within the article. COI issues need to be discussed on the talk page (as the tag says). I agree that the publisher of the "non-notable book" shouldn't be allowed to spam the page but, the subject of the article itself meets notability criteria. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reasons discussed above. I have also looked over the article, and as it has been heavily edited and sourced since the self-promotional edits occured, I see no reason to keep the COI tag there, so I removed it. StephenBuxton (talk) 11:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For all the reasons listed above. This is more Quorty hyperbolic nonsense. 72.241.99.251 (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Express whatever opinion you like on an AfD or elsewhere, but please read WP:NPA, and do not blank a page when other users warn you about it [58]. Qworty (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Forgive my lack of knowledge, but where does it state we are not supposed/permitted to blank our own talk pages? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - comment Can I remind everyone please, that this is an AFD - take anything outside the scope of an AFD to Talk pages. StephenBuxton (talk) 11:30, 2 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. Lara ❤Love 14:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hero Certified Burgers

Lack of notability, only 13 restaurants.Electricbassguy (talk) 05:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A couple claims here and there but no real assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nation's Giant Hamburgers has been deleted twice and has 24 locations. People use the 24 locations as reason to delete it, so 13 locations is a reason to delete this one. Electricbassguy (talk) 05:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, you don't need to provide a delete !vote as well. Also, please read WP:BIGNUMBER. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless notability shown by reliable sources. (A single restaurant location can be notable, so there's no reason thirteen can't. But we need sources.) --Dhartung | Talk 06:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable.--Berig (talk) 07:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

not notable,delete. jamesgibbon 11:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable --Dalgspleh (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:38, 4 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 User:Seicer. There's already one other Knuckles in the comics, so I can't imagine there being another. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Knuckles

Appears to be a joke. FCSundae (talk) 03:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G3 Appears to be pure hoaxness. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:DOGSHIT ^.^ JuJube (talk) 03:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that above or below WP:BOLLOCKS? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:54, 1 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 --JForget 01:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sex and Beauty

This article appears to be nothing but non-neutral original research, and is not in the least bit encyclopedic.I feel like a tourist (talk) 03:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:OR/ This is a bit of an essay, rather than an article. I declined speedy to prod in hopes that it could be saved. Looking at it again, i'm afraid i don't see that there is an article here. Dloh cierekim 03:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hopeless and unsalvageable essay. --Dhartung | Talk 06:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, Horribly written essay. Original Research and nothing else. Electricbassguy (talk) 07:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I tried to speedy this last night, but I guess I tagged it wrong (I'm still learning the ropes around here). An admin. told me that this was not a candidate for speedy because original research is not valid criteria for speedy deletion. The admin was correct, I guess it was my fault, but I felt there were many other reasons why this article definitely deserved speedy deletion. Anyway, that's how we ended up here. I feel like a tourist (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above.--Berig (talk) 07:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' - Original research, appropriate for a blog maybe Francium12 (talk) 08:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - As per previous comments.

Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 13:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ArcAngel (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PERNOM. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 16:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A great piece of art, a great writing, but has nothing to do with anything with "encyclo" or "pedia" in its name. :-) --NetRolller 3D 17:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research --Dalgspleh (talk) 18:50, 1 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. John254 01:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parish (Band)

This is a contested speedy which has apparently been deleted before. I'm listing it here for more discussion, but removing the hangon tag (speedy tag had already been removed). I am neutral at this point, not having tried myself to find notability. Aleta ^Sing 03:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:MUSIC#C6. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:MUSIC#C6. The members were once part of two notable bands. PeterSymonds | talk 05:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:MUSIC#C6. I mentioned this on the talk page, but two of the founding members of Parish are also not only current members of, but also founding members of, Crimson Glory, a hugely influential band in the Progressive Metal genre... which, I believe, satisfies a notability requisite, does it not? 6wolf2112 (talk) 08:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sort of borderline here, but it meets #6 of WP:MUSIC (members of otherwise notable bands). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incredibly Weak Keep It has improved since the last deletion, but it still fails to assert notability. The only thing going for it is that its members founded a marginally notable band whose own article happens to be a redlink hell. Trusilver 15:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:39, 4 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. Lara ❤Love 14:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flashinpon's Quest

A speedy tag (not mine) on this article was declined. Upon my adding the reflist tag so that references could be viewed, two turned out to be blacklisted, the third is a personal page where the game can be downloaded, and the fourth -- www.tor.com -- returns zero hits for any link to the title. Similarly, there are precisely three Ghits. I will take no position here, having already been accused of bullying the article's creator, but leave it to the community to decide. Accounting4Taste:talk 03:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete also look at User generated games which is related. JuJube (talk) 03:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty new to wikipedia, but I dont think any discussion of RPG's is complete without mention of the underground RPGmaking by the gamers themselves (my own username is taken from the Flashinpon's Quest series) I admit I'm a bit of a newb when it comes to editing/creating wikipedia articles. I've read up on the deletion rules and everything they sent me, and still think this is a viable topic. Granted, most of my sources are e-sources, but we're talking about an e-phenomenon. Omitting this from Wikipedia would be tantamount to removing "Numa Numa" or other e-sensations that swept the globe, except this trend is still growing and has had millions of dollars poured into it. I have been accused of citing 'blacklisted sites' as sources, but reading up 'notability' did not provide any such site list. If there is such a list, I would appreciate being sent a copy so as not to make that mistake again.

It can be debated that the 'notable games' don't need their own pages, but to act like the entire subject is irrelevant to our time is sheer ludicrous. If gaming isnt your thing, maybe this will seem insignificant to you, but I guarantee you you've worked on some articles that I would find boring and pointless too. I dont know if this comes to a vote, or what, but that's the way I see it. Flashinpon (talk) 05:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Without comment on user generated games in general, this game specifically does not appear to be notable, based on an apparent lack of interest via Google. The page you download the game from only has a thousand hits, and three of those were me trying to figure out what I was looking at. Rnb (talk) 06:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional delete - I'm the one who declined the speedy, as the forthcoming book is IMO enough of an assertion of notability (Tor is a "real" mainstream publisher, not a guy-and-his-printer vanity outfit). However, there doesn't seem to be a reliable source for the book's existence and without that, there isn't enough to warrant keeping the article. If the book is genuinely forthcoming, I'd suggest either userifying the article or for the closing admin to explicitly grant permission to recreate the article once there is a legitimate source added. — iridescent 15:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I agree -- if the book is forthcoming, then notability will be definitely worth considering, and I'd agree with the recreation of the article for further consideration if a reliable source can be found. The fact that the Tor site returns zero hits for the game's title makes me dubious, though. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only claim to notability is that it's supposedly to be made into a book, but no reliable sources confirm that, and even if it eventually becomes true the book would be more notable than the game. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added new ref, author's home page Flashinpon (talk) 05:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm the one who nominated for the speedy, but understand why that was declined. However, the alleged book offer is unsourced (and may be a hoax) and the article as a whole is lacking in sources or any other claims of notability. The primary editor's nick seems to indicate an obvious COI. The article is grossly inaccurate about RPGs, claiming 'Like all RPGs, the heroes are sent on one quest after the other, slaying monsters to gain experience until 'leveling up', which grants even more power and abilities.' (The claim may be true of this game - it is not true of all RPGs.) Edward321 (talk) 04:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not demonstrate notability and a search is turning up no reliable sources to bolster the article. At this moment in time the Tor publication hasn't been demonstrated as a tangible reality - even if it were to happen it would not help construct a viable videogame article, the exact ramifications would have to be examined at the time. Someone another 13:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
response to edward321

1. I already read up on the COI rules, and they explicitly state that having experience with a topic doesn't create a COI automatically. 2. Your claim that 'it is not true of all rpgs' could use some backing. Name a single RPG that doesn't involving questing, monster-slaying, or leveling up.(even if you can come up with some examples, a simple edit from 'all' to 'most' should suffice) Flashinpon (talk) 22:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even 'most' is probably wrong, considering how may games don't include at least one of 'questing', 'monster slaying' or 'leveling up'. To pick a few examples that include none of the three - Boot Hill, Traveller, and Champions. There are also games that don't include 'heroes' or where the leveling up doesn't come from monster slaying. Edward321 (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Settle for "many"? I've never heard of any of the 3 games you mentioned, either they're really obscure or I'm just out of it... Flashinpon (talk) 01:46, 6 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. Article needs some work, but that, in itself, is no reason to delete it. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Mahon

This article is a blatant puff-piece for a gonna-be-famous-sometime-soon film director, writer and producer; if kept, the article needs a massive tidyup.

I'm not familiar with how film biographies are usually handled, nor with the places to look for coverage, so I don't know whether this article should be kept or not, but it looks to me like someone who doesn't yet meet notability guidelines, but may do so if all his projects take off (see his IMDB entry). I may be completely wrong in this, but I bring the article here because I don't know what's left beyond the hype. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as either G11 - blatant advertisement created by an SPA, or A7, completely unremarkable person. Collectonian (talk) 03:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Declined speedy as notability established although it needs cleanup. Mark is an actor and there are several credible sources that can be parsed through. seicer | talk | contribs 04:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although cleanup is recommended. He appears to have won the top prize for Best Film at the Boston Film Festival last year [59] which suggests notability for a director. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His film Strength and Honour won 2 other prizes [60] in Boston (including best actor for Michael Madsen), and he also won a prize in AOF [61] film festival.Caiaffa (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems his last film, Strength and Honour, was subject to quite a lot of reviews from all the top papers: the hollywood reporter [62], the New York Times [63], Variety [64], Chicago Tribune [65], Irish Independent [66]. Also, according to this article [67], it seems pretty probable that he'll direct a film with Di Caprio.--Aldux (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are reviews of the film, which do establish the film as notable (and we already have an article on it). The issue here is the notability of Mahon himself, which is a different issue; the New York Times review, for example, devotes only 30 words to Mahon, blaming him for the fim's alleged banality. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Reviews of the film are sufficient to establish the subject's notability per WP:BIO: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Phil Bridger (talk) 23:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phil, I think that you have misread that clumsily-worded clause. It refers to a situation where there is a book or a film about the person's work, not to a situation where someone has directed a film themselves. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It also refers to the the case where there are multiple independent periodical articles or reviews of a person's work, as is the case here. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. Multiple independent periodical articles or reviews of a significant or well-known work. Strength and Honour doesn't appear to be either significant or well-known; the newspaper reviews are scathing, and it gets a near-pefect rotten tomato (only only 7% rating at rottentomatoes.com). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Then the subject is notable for getting scathing reviews and rotten tomatoes. The existence of these reviews is precisely what makes the subject's work "significant or well known". A Wikipedia article isn't a prize for getting good reviews: bad ones are just as valid for establishing notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phil, you are confusing notability with "significant or well-known", which is something else. The film got a few reviews (mostly short, and all bad so far as I see), but that's enough to establish its notability. However, when it comes to a bad film, the issue here is not the notability of the film, it's whether the film is "significant or well known". There are lots of bad films produced every year, so being bad isn't of itself particularly "significant" unless it's a spectacular failure, and I don't see any evidence that this one stands out amongst all the bad films. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I just noticed that I didn't include this word in my previous comments, so here it is in case anyone wants to count votes. The rottentomatoes link provided by BrownHairedGirl adds to the notability of the subject rather than subtracting from it as she seems to be claiming. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it doesn't. You're still confusing the film with the director; see above.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanup per WP:VAIN --Ave Caesar (talk) 02:40, 5 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 technically delete, but the article has since been rewritten, moved, stubbed and merged, not necessarily in that order. Deleting it now would be pointless, so I'm just closing this as a delete of the original essay for WP:CSD#G4 purposes, and allow continued editing (or merging, or whatever) of the rewritten content. Sandstein (talk) 19:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How Geothermal Energy Can Benefit Developing Countries

Delete as an essay that's a textbook case of synthesis and original research. The article starts by forking from renewable energy, speculates on how this technology could be used in the third world, then looks at the potential pro's and con's. (FYI, this brought to you by the same university class). Bfigura ^(talk) 03:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (E/C) Delete as nom, for the reasons listed. PS: thanks 10lbhammer Bfigura ^(talk) 03:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research. Enigma ^message 03:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Original research and original synthesis. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Geothermal power, not deleted. The article already had a margeto tag on it before the AfD was initiated. --Eastmain (talk) 03:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just like over a dozen others, this is another inappropriate student project. The professor continues to work against our policies, by actively promoting the inclusion of OR and SYNTH in our articles. Perhaps there's a MarshallWiki that they can abuse. ThuranX (talk) 03:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per mergeto ukexpat (talk) 04:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete maybe this guy will get his university an IP block and an email. We can hope. Protonk (talk) 04:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the tag that previously existed on the article. Just because it is part of that class doesn't mean there aren't things in it that may help the other article. Shouldn't be allowed to stand as an independant article though. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per previous comments. Ecoleetage (talk) 10:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and if there's anything worthwhile in the article add it to geothermal power. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We should not delete articles because they are imperfect or because we do not like the author. There are abundant sources for this and in skimming these I found a book on the subject which I have cited. This demonstrates that this is a substantial topic worthy of an article. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that we shouldn't delete because of the author. (After all, the class has produced several good articles). However, we generally don't keep articles that are entirely synthesis and original research. (And while geothermal energy in the third word might be okay, the current title is rather POV). --Bfigura ^(talk) 15:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per previous comments. Czolgolz (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As it is, this article largely replicates (rather badly) some of the material in Geothermal power. The two sections which actually deal with the topic are unreferenced personal opinion type stuff. At the moment there's nothing useful to merge. Plus, the current title "How Geothermal Energy Can Benefit Developing Countries", is inherently POV and non-encyclopedic. Having said all that, perhaps it could be re-titled Geothermal power in the developing world, and marked as a stub with appropriate clean-up banners. With the right title and collaboration from other editors, it has the potential be a substantial topic congruent to similar articles, e.g. Geothermal power in Iceland, Geothermal energy in the United States. I agree with Colonel Warden, we shouldn't delete articles because they are imperfect or apply different standards of deletion simply because in this case, people are (rightly) annoyed by the ill-conceived GlobalEcon project. Voceditenore (talk) 12:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research --Dalgspleh (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The "How" that starts the title is rather a giveaway to the fact that this is an essay, rather than an encyclopedia article. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please recreate. The current article does not meet inclusion standards as noted above; however, it could easily be a notable topic per Colonel Warden. I encourage someone to create a viable article at the location suggested by Bfigura. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article was moved to a better title (Geothermal energy in developing countries‎). --Bfigura ^(talk) 16:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete everything mergable already exists in geothermal. --Lemmey talk 03:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as essay. Geothermal power already contains the key facts without the POV opinion, so merging does not make any sense here. --DAJF (talk) 05:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we seem to be getting more and more essays.--Doug Weller (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as another essay.-- danntm ^T _C 23:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Aleta ^Sing 03:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Synthetic essay, not an encyclopedia article. I would say merge, but I don't think there's anything to merge from it. Aleta ^Sing 03:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure original research and a POV statement. Nsk92 (talk) 03:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another Globalecon essay. I don't think the professor grasps this: Wikipedia is not your free web host Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 13:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV and Wikipedia is not your free web host CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 14:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under new title. Is no longer inherantly POV and can become a fairly good article. If not that, merge, but it does have references, just not inline. Editor of the wiki^{review my edits here!} 10:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect (already done) (DO NOT DELETE TO PRESERVE GFDL, I HAVE MERGED A FEW SENTENCES.) I was bold and found the few sentences that contained facts and put them all into Geothermal power#Africa, where they are helpful. The references provided don't seem to have this information (but it's likely verifiable), so they don't have to be merged. Mangostar (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the logic here. First, why is a separate stab article, called Geothermal power in Africa, needed when there already exists a good article called Geothermal power? Isn't that a bit of content forking? If there are a few new references in Geothermal power in Africa, why can't they be just added to Geothermal power? Second, even if Geothermal power in Africa is kept as a separate article, why should there be a redirect to it called How Geothermal Energy Can Benefit Developing Countries (if that is what you are proposing)? The latter is a terrible title for a WP article. Nsk92 (talk) 00:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a couple sentences (the only worthwhile sentences in the article) to Geothermal power. (I had first renamed this one to be about Africa, because that's all it covered.) To keep the history for the GFDL, we need to either keep a redirect or someone should make a dummy edit indicating where those few sentences in Geothermal power came from (that is, who wrote them). I think there should perhaps be a redir from Geothermal power in Africa to Geothermal power, but agree that How Geothermal Energy Can Benefit Developing Countries is kind of a silly thing to keep around (except for legal/GFDL reasons). Mangostar (talk) 13:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that all the moves and redirects that happened here are making me dizzy. Since you have added the relevant new info to Geothermal power, I think it is better to simply delete all the remaining move/redirect mess which is already quite confusing. Nsk92 (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep under the new name. usually one wouldn't drastically redirect while at an afd, but I think it made sense in this case to show how the article could be started on the way to rescue. Previous comments here should be reconsidered. DGG (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Geothermal power. The current stub has little that hasn't already been put into that article, and there's no need to have a separate stub for that. Aleta ^Sing 13:40, 7 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 WP:SNOW delete nancy ^(talk) 18:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surrogate mothers in Anand

Another non-neutral essay that's mostly synthesis and original research. As a result of the tone, this ends up sounding like spam for surrogate mothers in Anand, India. Bfigura ^(talk) 02:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator, for the reasons above. Even if surrogacy in Anand is notable (which I question), this isn't the article we should have on it. Bfigura ^(talk) 02:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ArcAngel (talk) 15:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non encycopedic Czolgolz (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable --Dalgspleh (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Original Research essay written as school assignment [68] --DAJF (talk) 03:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hut 8.5 18:13, 2 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. KrakatoaKatie 02:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avatar State

This article is about a defense mechanism in a fictional show. It has no notability whatsoever. In fact, the only time this topic would come up in any article would be in a plot summary. In addition, there are absolutely no third-party sources (let alone reliable sources) for this article. — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 02:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 02:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, completely non-notable. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 09:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant details to Avatar: the Last Airbender article Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Aang. The Avatar: the Last Airbender article is already large while the Aang article does discuss the Avatar state. Web Warlock (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable fictional element which has not received significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Doctorfluffy (fart in my face) 04:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThis is an article about a very small part of a TV show. That alone should clinch it. Also, not that much information and no notability from third party sources. Not like other aspects of the show. SkepticBanner (talk) 20:45, 5 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, as a WP:OR and WP:NPOV violation, as well as WP:RECENTISM. Orange Mike | Talk 18:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Gas Price Crisis

Even though it has sources, it's an original commentary in violation of WP:NOR, and expresses the author's opinion in violation of WP:NPOV. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, this disruptive project needs to be stopped. Wikipedia is not a free web host. Nakon 02:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this essay is pretty much just original research and synthesis with a non-neutral tone. And I'd agree that the bulk of these essays have been rather less than I'd hope for from univ. students, but we have gotten at least one decent article out of it. Bfigura ^(talk) 02:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur with the assessment of NawlinWiki and Bfigura. This is also a POV fork of Energy_crisis#Emerging_shortages. The subject could be more objectively dealt with there. As it sits, it is too soapy. Dloh cierekim 02:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what is useful with Oil price increases since 2003. This article does have at least some references. Noble Story (talk) 02:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- As per earlier comments (or in this case, adding fuel to the fire) Ecoleetage (talk) 03:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good one. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV title (how recent is recent? is it really a crisis?) and original research/synthessis. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research and per the comments at all the other related AfDs. Enigma ^message 03:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per above and per nom. BoL (Talk) 03:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article seems more like an essay, and violates WP:OR, gas has been rising for years not just recently. Dwilso 04:56, 1 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) There is a half-hearted but very real consensus that the article demonstrates sufficient notability to meet our standards. Darkspots (talk) 23:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snafu Comics

This article was previously considered for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TIN The Incompetent Ninja. Dloh cierekim 03:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of reliable third party sources - I could not find any using Google News WhisperToMe (talk) 02:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fancruft for a webcomic that utterly fails WP:WEB. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per JJL's source. If more can be found, I'll switch to keep too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep surprised by how many reviews there are for e.g. "TIN The Incompetent Ninja" on Google. Enough hits to make me think it may be notable ([69]) so I lean toward keeping this detailed article. JJL (talk) 03:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The publisher's weekly article is a good find - If you find more reliable sources I can withdraw the nomination and instead focus on cleanup. Right now I don't think one source is sufficient, but if more are found then it is reliably documented. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Could use better sourcing and more real world significance, but is better sourced than the last AFD two years ago. Perhaps someone more familiar with web based sources can find something significant among the multitude of forums? Dloh cierekim 14:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It does need better sources, but their is a lack of infomation on the web for it. Supergodzilla^20|90 21:07, 6 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, no assertion of notability that meets WP:BAND, and yes, an administrator is telling you to stop. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confirm The Kill

Don't appear to meet any of the criteria at WP:BAND. Claim to notability is coming in second at a battle of the bands (despite equipment trouble...) Onorem ♠Dil 01:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of info on talk page:

==Notability==

Over a hundred people attended their FIRST concert. The event made the news basically saying a battle of the bands took place at Club Diablo said the winning band and said "Even with equipment troubles Confirm The Kill finished second at the event." As per WP:BAND "Notability is met if the musician has been the subject of a broadcast by a media network." this gives it enough notability to desrve an article. I will fight the deletion of this article as long as I possibly can, which is basically untill an admin tells me to stop.

Gamer9678 (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in no way convinced that being mentioned for coming in second in a battle of the bands is equal to notability, but I'll take it to AfD instead of tagging it for speedy deletion. --Onorem ♠Dil 01:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gamer9678 (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on just leave the page up, woulden't it just be easyier. Also there second gig is this weekend, they are opening for a more notable band. A DVD is supposed to be compiled, which could be considered a release not by them. --

Gamer9678 (talk) 01:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A7 No assertation of notability whatsoever per WP:MUSIC. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:04, 1 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. Lara ❤Love 14:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Rock

Other than amateur essays that have been posted on Amazon.com there appears to be no verifiable evidence from a professional publication that this genre of music exists. Article should be deleted as original research or re-directed to the parent Gothic rock article. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 01:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gothic rock isn't the same like Dark rock. It's not the "parent article". Dark rock means dark popularly alternative rock music. Gothic rock is a genre with a strong punk and psychedelic rock influence and a deep bass guitar line. Bands such as Zeraphine, Sream Silence, HIM, Lacrimas Profundere play definitely no Gothic rock. The term Dark rock was coined by Nick Holmes (Paradise Lost) in 1999. --Ada Kataki (talk) 07:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Genre does not appear to really exist or is at best a little used neologism. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge - Relevant details should be merged to either Gothic rock or simply Rock music and article deleted. Tnxman307 (talk) 13:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like original research that treats a descriptive expression as a genre term. I see nothing that should be merged. --Bardin (talk) 06:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OR. Let it go the way Dark Metal gone. Garret Beaumain (talk) 12:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this it's not a real genre. Opinion based not fact based.Crescentia (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No chance. Dark rock is definitely not the same like Gothic rock. Listen to Paradise Lost's "Host" album. A redirect is the wrong way. --Ada Kataki (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.Nick has used it as a description of PL's sound in 'Host' not as a real genre.And actually 'Host' can easily be classified as synth rock.

Xr 1 (talk) 20:57, 4 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. KrakatoaKatie 02:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O'Reilly Media book covers

This is already covered in the O'Reilly Media article. There is no point in having another article. I say delete, but a merge might be okay too. I don't know if there is really any information to merge though, as most of it is already on the one article. Undeath (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's nothing to merge. All notable information on this page is already on O'Reilly Media. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 05:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:43, 4 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. Lara ❤Love 14:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ExtraLives

Article on a Swedish games company. I've performed some searching, but I can't find any third-party reliable sources to demonstrate notability or verifiability. Gazimoff ^Write _Read 11:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Info is rare, but it can be found. E.g. here http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2001_Sept_26/ai_78631854 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.197.18.42 (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 00:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if no third party sources can be found. Undeath (talk) 01:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP due to lack of reliable secondary coverage, for instance the press release linked above is specified as unusable in establishing notability. The games they've created seem to pass notability, but there's no indication that the company itself does. Someone another 12:35, 5 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. Discounting the SPA that came here to vote, and taking in account that Undead Warrior prefered deletion if no other sources could be found, which has been since then, and also taking into account that verifiability is the issue, not if the article is currently verified by sources (which can be fixed without deleting the article), which reduces the weight of the comment by Coccyx, the result is keep. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Computerman

Insufficient notability, and reasons provided in talk are unsourced/untrue Tenacious D Fan (talk) 00:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Band appears to be notable, see coverage by the BBC. Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if no other sources can be found. One source, in my opinion, is not good enough. Undeath (talk) 01:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See also: this, this and this coverage. Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless notable sources can be found. Tavix (talk) 02:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There also seem to be articles about them in the Leicester Mercury and Europe Intelligence Wire, although pay (or library access) is required to view online. I've never heard of this band, but then I'm in New Zealand and they're in the UK. But there are plenty of articles about them, some from reliable sources including the BBC. Don't understand what the doubt about their notability is, Google finds ample coverage.Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be enough coverage of this band to make it notable. A note to the nom, check the history if a speedy tag disappears- it looks like you retagged A7 the very edit after another A7 speedy by you was declined. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. There may be sources, but they're sure as hell not in the current article!! Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 16:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's your reason for deletion, why don't you add them instead? Articles shouldn't be deleted for reasons that can be fixed by simple editing.Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability. DigitalChedz (talk) 17:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC) — DigitalChedz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment DigitalChedz has only made one contribution and that is to this AfD. Undeath (talk) 11:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please scrap digitalchedz. I haven't brought him here, and I don't see what business he has voting if he has no contribs. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established or even asserted in article. Not all bands are inherently notable. --Ave Caesar (talk) 04:51, 5 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. Lara ❤Love 14:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caryn Massey

This is a hoax article, on a google search cant find anything on this supposed award winning country singer and actress BigDunc (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:V. --Dhartung | Talk 22:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in gsearch, nothing on metacritic, allmusic, or imdb. How amazing that a singer who has won so many awards has been overlooked by these reference sites. ;-) --Fabrictramp (talk) 15:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hoax, no hits anywhere, with and without middle name. --Captain-tucker (talk) 20:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax. Name and gender confusion (different 2nd names in infobox and header, Nicolas as second name but referred to as "her"). The label "Philys Unlimited" does not exist. Debate (talk) 20:37, 5 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. Lara ❤Love 14:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni picarazzi

Non-notable pro wrestler in a minor independent promotion. Judging by the article creator's username, it looks like self-promotion. Title is badly capitalized, to boot. — Gwalla | Talk 23:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, let's delete it because of the poor title formatting. Also because this professional wrestler only gets 54 ghits and most of tose appear to be YouTube. Fails WP:BIO Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —— Gwalla | Talk 23:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources appear to exist, and fails WP:BIO. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 23:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity article; only mentions found through search engines are youtube, myspace, etc. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable and possible vanity article. Nikki311 22:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, This article fails at the internet. AndarielHalo (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and likely vanity. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE The article says: "Soon Giovanni will be wrestling for World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) as he is headed for an interview towards the end of this year, in Stamford, CT.". Most likely self-made. --sonicKAI (talk) 11:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete horrible article not to mention likely self-promotion.Freebird Jackson (talk) 18:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:N, only references on ghits are youtube, myspace. --Captain-tucker (talk) 20:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but needs serious re-write I have heard of this person. Not a hoax. Badly written prose is not a criteria for deletion according to the rules. JerryVanF (talk) 06:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The real issue is that there are no reliable sources referenced in this article to backup any of the facts in the article. Take a look at WP:BIO#Basic criteria, if you can find sources you can edit the article to add them. --Captain-tucker (talk) 09:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nom and all reason stated above, not notable in the least. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:22, 6 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.

[1] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Navneet_Singh_Khadian&diff=209408154&oldid=208950017

[2] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Navneet_Singh_Khadian&diff=209578385&oldid=209559415

[3] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Navneet_Singh_Khadian&diff=209583084&oldid=209582252

[4] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Navneet_Singh_Khadian&diff=209646825&oldid=209645672

[5] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Navneet_Singh_Khadian&diff=210736211&oldid=210331044

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]