Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 January 3: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:16, 3 January 2008

< January 2	January 4 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 22:26, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

List of oxymora

Nonsense. POV. Not encyclopedic. Take your pick. And when did oxymora become the plural of oxymorons? dictionary.com lists the plural as oxymorons. Rick K 00:04, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Keep First of all, no offense, but dictionary.com is useless. Merriam-Webster and American Heritage (the two true dictionaries) both list the plural form as oxymora. Besides that, this list is no less "encyclopedic" than many other lists we call articles. Saaga 23:05, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as not encyclopedic. POV, too, but that's to be expected since Neutral point of view is apparently an oxymoron. Philthecow 00:09, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Language changes, and many of the terms here would be accepted as oxymorons by most people. If I were looking for oxymorons, this is exactly the article I would be looking for. This article is no less encyclopedic, or less POV, than other lists which have passed unscathed through VfD. Agree this could be cleaned up, but deletion is silly. Denni ☯ 01:18, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
Strong keep. I see no logical reason for this very interesting, useful list to be deleted. Rename as List of oxymorons as appropriate. --Gene_poole 01:34, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but purge the POV ones like "Alberta environment minister" - SimonP 01:59, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, I think I've seen this before in the form of an internet joke. Microsoft Works? Funny, but not encyclopedic. Eixo 02:29, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, rename/cleanup as necessary. Kappa 02:34, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Neutrality^talk 03:08, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
And you could add motor sports too, but the booze and ciggies industries would be up in arms at such a slur on a manly activity. So yes, it's PoV and unencyclopedic. Delete. -- Hoary 05:19, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
Keep, Rename and Clean up. A list of oxymorons could be very encylopedic. This list has a lot of problems though. Needs to be purged of POV and false examples.
Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 06:17, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This is a rather funny and potentially useful article. — JIP | Talk 06:37, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Rename and POV-purge Lectonar 07:38, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Move to List of oxymorons. Purge POV phrases if they are not of note. "Military intelligence" may be a POV condemnation of the abilities of the military, but it's one of the most famous "humorous oxymorons" there is. Demi ^T/_C 07:51, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
Okay, the mora who created that plural should be whacked with pieces of ira. Anyway, this needs to be treated with extreme care as it's a prime target for adding jokes to. Merge the subset of interesting oxymorons onto Oxymoron#examples. Radiant_* 10:17, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
- What is the etymology of the word "oxymoron"? If it's Greek, then "oxymora" is the correct plural. I doubt it comes from the word "moron". As to your jocular plurals, note that "conundra" is a correct plural for "conundrum" but "kettledra" is not a correct plural for "kettledrum". — JIP | Talk 15:36, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - Yes, it's Greek. I love derivations like these, hence my jokes with them (also 'boxen', 'pentia' etc). For reasons that elude me, Latin words such as conundrum tend to keep their Latin plurals even in English, but Greek words get English -s plurals. There are probably exceptions to both, though, and double plurals like 'museas'. I guess this is similar to English dropping suffixes from nearly all classical authors (e.g. 'Homer' rather than 'Homeros'). And I'd love to have some dra in my room :) Radiant_* 16:09, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
    - The exception to the rule being "criterions". :-) Chris 21:20, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I don't have a pick to take, and the list as a whole is nice to have. As for the name, I suppose it doesn't matter either way. For the record, most OneLook hits don't give a plural at all, but those that do variously give both forms or only oxymora. So would seem rather futile to claim that one's right and the other's wrong. -- Smjg 16:45, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Ruakh 18:36, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I split the contents into categories, and remove some of the less humorous or more pointless examples. DJ Clayworth 18:57, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Especially with the recent category split, which better clarifies the nature of the entries. Dtobias 19:03, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep rewrite, but the previous version which did not differentiate between true oxymorons and the joke ones was pretty bad. -R. fiend 19:40, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect back to Oxymoron#examples. Keeping this "list of" as a separate article is just bait for vandals. Rossami (talk) 07:42, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep 212.50.160.44 20:50, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Oxymoron, along with some further cleanup. Several of the examples are not oxymorons. Arkyan 08:58, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 00:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Envy (pornstar)

Notability not established. Unreferenced. Vinh1313 (talk) 09:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD A7. Just another porn actor that fails WP:BIO —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBilly (talk • contribs) 10:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No awards and no evidence of substantial non-trivial third-party coverage.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and HisSpaceResearch. Redfarmer (talk) 12:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, lack of notibility not established in nomination for deletion. Also, I revised the article, added sources, and added discussion on the talk page. Please re-vote based on changed article. Fredsmith2 (talk) 07:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just a reminder that according to WP:BIO, notability is presumed for a pornographic actress when one of the following is met:

Has won or been a serious nominee for a well-known award, such as those listed in Category:Adult movie awards or Category:Film awards or from a major pornographic magazine, such as Penthouse, Playboy, or Playgirl, as well as their counterparts in other pornography genres.
Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography, or starring in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature.
Has been featured multiple times in mainstream media.Vinh1313 (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And as another reminder, here's the header to that policy: "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Fredsmith2 (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately, her stage name is such a common word, that searching for sources about her is extremely difficult. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per award nom. Epbr123 (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - these "awards" seem to be easier to come by than graduation certificates. Deb (talk) 12:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Starred in 214 films? That is notable. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete JForget 00:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Ferrari (pornstar)

Notability unverified. WP:BIO criteria not satisfied. Vinh1313 (talk) 09:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD A7. Just another porn actor that fails WP:BIO TheBilly (talk) 10:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no awards, no substantial coverage.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can't find any substantial coverage on her other than her own web site and web sites selling her videos. Redfarmer (talk) 12:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. JJL (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Emmeria

Nominating because it is the same unsourced material that is just... cruft. Nominating as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estovakia, similar topic revolving Ace Combat 6 by Namco Bandai. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 08:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, zero notability in the real world. Lankiveil (talk) 10:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete- non-Notable. Springnuts (talk) 12:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:N. Macy's 123 review me 20:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An admirable effort that is doomed to fail because of the lack of reliable sources. User:Krator (t c) 01:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is only a month old and apprently the creator is still working on it. We should probably help him, rather than discourage him. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is extremely unlikely that this article could ever be verifiable; it is original research Gwernol 03:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure how WikiProject Videogames does things, but I'd think that since the gameplay is the only way to verify this subject's material, it would be considered original research, as I'm sure the full plot of the game would not be leaked by NBGI because it would lose the point of beating out the game if you already know how it ends. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, I would advise everyone here to make a decision whether or not to delete the Estovakia article (as it is pure rubbish in my opinion). Please comment here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estovakia. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unsourced and, I believe, unsourceable (I deem it very unlikely that there will ever exist reliable books or papers about this particular fictional place). Goochelaar (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per some improvements. Bearian (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep considering the increasing amount written about games, i would not be prepared to say that this is usurcable.It does not take a whole book or an academic paper to be a sufficient source for notability. DGG (talk) 04:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - will change my mind if I see some independent, non-trivial, reliable coverage. Marasmusine (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the fact that it's game content does not automatically justify deletion (notability is only a guideline anyway, and therefore isn't really enough to justify deletion on its own) but I don't see anything here that couldn't be covered by a paragraph in the Ace Combat 6 article. Cynical (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Merge Suggesting a merge into Nations of Ace Combat. Apparently another editor has supplied a pretty good list of nations in the Ace Combat series. If this article's information can be verified, I suggest merging the information there instead. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 10:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No out-of-universe content, no evidence of real-world notability. There is no reason this can't be adequately covered in the article about the game. Pagra shtak 16:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. the wub "?!" 00:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enoch seminar

Delete An academic gathering cannot become a separate encyclopedic article. If you make a separate article for each and every seminar around the world, then wikipeida will be a mess. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)) Keep I am withdrawing my nomination as sources are given and sign of notability. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, source, and remove waffle - sources as indicated below show notability but the article is terribly tedious. Delete for non-Notability - fails WP:N. Springnuts (talk) 12:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC) Springnuts (talk) 09:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article shall not be deleted! The objections raised at the presence of an article on the Enoch Seminar in Wikipedia are obviously only based on some misunderstandings. The Enoch Seminar, founded in 2000 by Gabriele Boccaccini (University of Michigan), is not an occasional gathering of scholars but a permanent, well-established academic group supported by the Dept. of Near Eastern Studies of the University of Michagan and the Michigan Center for Early Christian Studies. The size and importance of the Enoch Seminar are comparable to the Jesus Seminar (to which Wikipedia has devoted a long article). Like in the case of the Jesus Seminar, this is a permanent academic institution, meant to last for many years to come. Among the about 200 members of the group are virtually all the most distinguished world specialists in the field of Second Temple Judaism, from Europe, America and Israel, including James Charlesworth, Daniel Boyarin, Lawrence Schiffman, John J. Collins, James C, VanderKam, Michael Stone, Paolo Sacchi, Hindy Najman, George Nickelsburg, Hanan Eshel, Martha Himmelfarb, Albert Baumgarten, Helge Kvanvig, Klaus Koch, Lester Grabbe, Robert Kraft, Michael Knibb, etc. etc.
The Enoch Seminar has already organized 5 international conferences and two graduate conferences and published 6 volumes (one by Brill, three by Eerdmans, one by Zamorani, and one by Morcelliana). This is not an occasional gathering of scholars, by an established and well-organized group, promoted and supported by the University of Michigan and the Michigan Center for Early Christian Studies, with a website, funds, and an ongoing program of biennial conferences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.18.136.73 (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And yet you don't cite a single source against which any of your claims can be verified. As such, the closing administrator has no reason to believe you. Sources! Sources! Sources! You'll notice that Jesus Seminar#References has quite a few. Uncle G (talk) 03:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You were perfectly right, but this can be easily provided. I checked and I saw that there is a vast bibliography supporting the claims of the article. I think I have now added the necessary references and external links to support the statements in the article, which were missing. It seemed to me that with these much-needed modifications, the article now meets the criteria of Wikipedia. The problem was the format of the article, not the contents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pibertal (talk • contribs) 16:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article on the Enoch Seminar shall not be deleted. The Enoch Seminar is not just an ordinary scholarly seminar, but a very prominent school or movement of contemporary theological and biblical thought similar to such theological schools, like the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule or Wissenschaft des Judentums movement which already have their entries in the WiKi. So it is natural to include an entry on the Enoch Seminar too. About the question of lacking the sources/references to the Enoch Seminar, it should be said that a lot of references to the Enoch Seminar are circulating in the paper publications, monographs, articles in refereed journals, closed databases of academic publishing, because of the copyright issues, but some of them can be found on the web. See for example here: http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/dsd --Enochmetatron (talk) 02:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading an article by Thomas Kraus about the Enoch Seminar in the Review of Biblical Literature. http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=4898 Thomas Kraus is not an attendee or member of the Enoch Seminar, and the Review of Biblical Literature has an established reputation as an academic, independent journal. In his article Kraus presents a history of the Enoch Seminary that confirms all the claims of the article posted on Wikipedia. The article should be cited as a conclusive piece of evidence of the notability of the Enoch Seminar, in addition to the many other references now cited in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gboccaccini (talk • contribs) 04:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly recomand to keep this entry. The Enoch Seminar had contributed significaly to the field of Second Temple period research. It allowed scholars from different countries and differnt background to meet and to discuss major topics in the study of Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. I believe that already more than a dozen articles were written because of those seminars. Those meetings are important because they allow scholars from the United Staes to meet scholars from Europe and Israel, and to share ideas and insights and to get to know each other. I hope that in the future these seminars will continue to contribute to my field of reseach. Hanan Eshel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.48.201 (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Quasar Project (band)

Seemingly non-notable band. Speedy declined by an admin on the basis that there is assertion (though i disagree – "releasing a self-titled EP" is not an assertion of notability, endless non-notables have done that) so here we are. tomasz. 08:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil (talk) 10:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy delete. No assertion of notability. I don't know how anyone can construe "released a self-titled EP" as an assertion of notability. That's not in WP:BAND anywhere. Having a record doesn't mean anythng, as anyone can self-publish or publish on a no-name label. WP:BAND clearly lays out requirements that they publish on a "major label or one of the more important indie labels", and it requires two or more releases (read point 5 carefully), so one EP undeniably fails here, and they don't pass on any of the other criteria TheBilly (talk) 10:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BAND doesn't apply to WP:CSD#A7. CSD A7 dictates that something must have no assertion of notability whatsoever and applies to speedy deletion only; the music notability guidelines state what consensus generally accepts is the standard for inclusion in normal deletion discussions. WP:CSD#A7 operates outside any notability guideline whatsoever, as the bar is "an assertion of notability", not "what guidelines say is notable". Daniel 10:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I realize this, and I can read. However, "released a self-titled EP" doesn't sound like an assertion of notability. That sounds like something that is very open to interpretation, so I'd call it "a vague implication of notability" TheBilly (talk) 11:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - "[A] vague implication of notability" is sufficient to avoid WP:CSD#A7 as written :) Daniel 11:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I must be the only one who thinks that "assertion" and "implication" are different words. The article doesn't argue that they are important because they have a release; it mentions they have a release, and then it's up to the reader to construe that as important, depending on whether you consider self-published releases important or not (wikipedia doesn't). "influential", "popular", "groundbreaking", "commercially successful", "innovative", would be assertions of importance. But, whatever, this is getting off-topic and polluting the debate which will turn out Delete anyway, just not speedy. For further nitpicking and abuse of the English language, please feel free to bring this to my talk page :) :) :) TheBilly (talk) 11:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - But "released a self-titled EP" is still neither such an assertion nor even such a vague implication. i could record four cover songs on my computer tonight, burn it to a CD tomorrow and give it to someone Saturday. This would be a self-titled EP. i would still be completely non-notable per WP:BAND and the fact that i had recorded this self-titled EP would not assert anything to the contrary. tomasz. 15:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, could speedy delete this without much harm. Non-notable.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - not notable. Funeral 14:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Estovakia

Unsourced, but I know this comes from Ace Combat 6 by NBGI (Namco Bandai). This article needs to be completely rewritten, as it is doing nothing but writing fiction on a fictitious country. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 08:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Associated AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of Emmeria. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 09:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons I noted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of Emmeria: this is inherently unverifiable, so its original research that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. There are plenty of places on the web where this information can be placed, Wikipedia is not one of them. Gwernol 03:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as completely lacking both context and assertion of notability. Goochelaar (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sourced and verifiable information, and give editors time to expand per these suggestions. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please take a closer look at articles before you vote keep. True, there is one citation in the article, but it is to a wiki, which is definitely not a reliable source. The article should therefore be considered unsourced. Pagra shtak 17:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have looked it over, though: [1] and [2]. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't understand what that response is supposed to mean. Per WP:SPS, Wikis are not reliable sources: "For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources" TheBilly (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm also confused. I said that there is one reference, which is to a wiki, then you provided the diff that confirmed my statement. Pagra shtak 16:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable secondary sources, no assertion of notability, no real-world content. Pagra shtak 17:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason as the other one; notability reasons (which, being based on a guideline aren't really enough to justify deletion) aside, there is simply not any content here that justifies a separate article from Ace Combat 6. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cynical (talk • contribs) 15:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possible Merge Suggesting a merge into Nations of Ace Combat. Apparently another editor has supplied a pretty good list of nations in the Ace Combat series. If this article's information can be verified, I suggest merging the information there instead. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 10:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. No reliable sources to attest to notability. No bias against recreation, should sources be found. Pastordavid (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Medicant Downline

Seemingly non-notable band. Prod removed by anon without comment. tomasz. 08:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bongwarrior (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional weak keep. I do believe that the conneticon connection should have generated at least some independent reliable sources on them, establishing notability. Mind, I haven't found them yet. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still haven't found anything. If someone else does, that might be the only thing that can prevent deletion for now. If nothing at all can be found, I switch to Delete without prejudice, as notability may arise at some future point in time. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete entirely nn, no sources, no tour, no album sales, no nothing! -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This band is completely non-notable. Tavix (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete Medicant Downline is cited as a notable example of the Coldwave genre in the Coldwave(USA) article. Therefore, Medicant Downline is a notable band and their article is significant and should remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.245.184.61 (talk) 06:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a reliable source per WP:RS, and other articles can't be used to establish notability of an article. If the claim in the other article is referenced by independent reliable sources though, those can be used for this article. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Brianga per CSD G1 (patent nonsense). --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bangajhong

Another nonsense article Alloranleon (talk) 08:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Nonsense: speediable. So tagged. tomasz. 08:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted by User:Uncle G. Non-admin closure. Lankiveil (talk) 10:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sankar nair

Nonsense article Alloranleon (talk) 08:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Recreation of recently speedy deleted page (I was confused when this showed up on my watchlist with "AFD"; I thought I just got rid of it!). As for the page content itself, it qualifies for speedy per CSD A7 TheBilly (talk) 08:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Completely agree with TheBilly and nom as obvious and patent nonsense. This is a no-brainer. Suggest WP:SNOW speedy delete to mitigate drain on editors time and energy. — Becksguy (talk) 09:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as vandalism, disruption, and a bogus copy-and-paste "move". Neverneutral (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another account of DavidYork71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Uncle G (talk) 10:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 denial

WP:OR, WP:POVFORK of 9/11 Truth Movement. While the view has merit, WP:SNOW applies. Weregerbil (talk) 08:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Changed my mind... I stand by what I wrote below about the similarities to Holocaust denial. However, if it's just a content fork with no clear plan to differentiate it from the original article then this was done in the wrong way (i.e. via a copy-and-paste move) rather than by a Requested Move proposal. The place for this discussion is not AFD as I insisted earlier but rather as part of a Requested Move proposal. --Richard (talk) 09:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There IS a requested move. Go look. And there has been a renaming discussion - see Talk:9/11_Truth_Movement#Retitling which has concluded with the outcome: retitle 9/11 Truth Movement to 9/11 denialNeverneutral (talk)

Speedy delete The view has no merit. Like you said, POVFORK, but also an attack. This is a copy of an existing page 9/11 truth movement, reworded to be disparaging to those considered part of the group "9/11 truth movement". Read the articles side by side. The user simply made small wording changes, disparaging this group as "denialists". I have no strong feelings about this or that 9/11 page, I merely saw +52,654 in the recent changes. When someone creates a 50K page out of nowhere, a reasonable person like myself tends to give it more than a cursory glance, and realize "golly gee whiz, I think maybe, just maybe, this isn't a legitimate page at all". It's not an "attempt at a neutral article", because it sprung up out of nowhere, with POV-based wording changes TheBilly (talk) 08:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is no more an 'attack' than Holocaust denial is an attack on Holocaust deniers. If you find the the article lacking NPOV in some aspects then freely accept the invitation to remedy it. But don't just smack down those who are bold enough to develop some distinguished content in the encyclopedia. And don't just reactively act to kill and suppress what emotionally you feel you don't like and can't control.Neverneutral (talk)
Comment - Reserving judgment for now, this comment simply presents my perspective on this issue. I disagree with Weregerbil that WP:SNOW applies.

It's the height of arrogance to say something is WP:SNOW -before- there have even been any votes on it. If that was the case then why have others come out here admitting that the Holocaust denial analogy has at least some persuasive merit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neverneutral (talk • contribs)

TheBilly's reasoning about 50K articles not reasonably appearing out of nowhere is valid. Clearly, Wikipedia should not have two pages with nearly identical content. The reason that I denied the speedy delete request originally was that I was not aware of the other page. However, after being advised of the existence of the other page, I still felt that it was not obvious which page title was NPOV and which was POV. Is it NPOV to assert that there is a 9/11 Truth Movement and POV to assert that this is really 9/11 denialism? If so, then why do we have an article called Holocaust denial? Why not call it Holocaust Truth Movement or some such title? At some point, Wikipedia's NPOV stance has to avoid giving a POV undue weight and reflect the consensus of scholarly opinion. That's why we have an article titled Holocaust denial which documents the phenomenon which exists even if the arguments of the Holocaust denialists are not generally accepted as valid. --Richard (talk) 08:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So it starts as 50k. So what. By critical evaluation it subsequently gets larger or smaller depending on what contributors coming by essentially must stay or must go. And the only reason it comes on the scene at first blush as rather large and with some content in common with the 'truth' article is that i'd made quite a few changes but then I saved it while I had to answer the phone and before I came back and made quite a few more changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neverneutral (talk • contribs)

Well, the reason I disgareed with you wasn't over the POV-nature of the article. I wouldn't try to delete Holocuast Denial, and I didn't try to delete 9/11 truth movement. I don't have a problem with those articles. They have a long history of a completely different nature, and any content and neutrality problems should be progressively worked on. The reason this article caught my attention was its highly suspicious nature, and the reason I nominated it for speedy deletion (which I would never think appropriate for "Holocaust Denial" or "9/11 truth movement") was not that it was non-neutral, but that it was non-neutral and part of an attack. If "denialist" isn't dramatic enough, then replace it in your mind with other accusations like "defeatist", "pinko commie", and so on. It seems clear that the term "denialist" was used throughout this new, slightly modified version as a politically polarized disparaging term like "liberal pansy" or "conservative nutjob". Unlike articles about abstract ideas or general classifications about beliefs, however, (liberl vs conservative, any given religion, etc), this is about a specific group (although apparently only loosely organized), and so since it was targeting a group with disparaging language, it seems to be an attack TheBilly (talk) 09:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- 'Denial' as a concept is not perjorative and you know that very well because we have Holocaust denial to cover people putting out false stories about the deaths of millions of people in Europe in WW2. Very unworthy also from that point on for you to be putting these other epithets in my mouth ('pinko', 'pansy', 'nutjob'). The article is about the acknowledged phenomena of 9/11 denial, not any other imaginative epithet you want to dream up.Neverneutral (talk) 10:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fork / copy of 9/11 Truth Movement. SQL^{Query me!} 08:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No. There is difference in the focus and terminology of it content.Neverneutral (talk) 10:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, seems like a very clear POV fork.P4k (talk) 09:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete because it's a copy pasted text from 9/11 Truth Movement with changing words from truth to denial (and other similar words). It's a biased POV from the creator. At first, (s)he tried to create the fork 9/11 denialism article, which I redirected to "9/11 Truth Movement" and I asked him/her to file a request at WP:RM if (s)he wished to change the article name. (S)he did and the request is still there at this time, while the article has been speedy deleted "(CSD G6: Housekeeping revert copy/paste page-move vandalism)". So this article is a re-created one and is still valid for CSD G6. Dekisugi (talk) 09:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No need to delete We have concluded a renaming discussion on the talkpage of 9/11 Truth movement and the outcome has been the recommendation (by at least 2-1 margin) that we will rename it as 9/11 denial. 9/11 denial is a real and acknowledged phenomena. Just imagine you were one of the families of the 3000 people who died and people went about trying to say that, effectively, they died for a lie. And you're all-too-speedy to try and stifle this awareness because substantial work has been done which distinguishes the content and focus of this article from that of the misnamed "truth movement". Seriously show some respect for the dead and have a look at yourself people. Deleting this and giving the opportunity and precedent for others to reframe/retitle Holocaust denial as the Holocaust Truth Movement. Is that what you are about?Neverneutral (talk) 10:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should give the discussion more than a day before suggesting that it's been "concluded."P4k (talk) 10:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kulaxingu Kambamjiji

Great lack of notability; Google search turned up only one obscure result. Alloranleon (talk) 08:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep king of a kingdom in Angola and an active politician. Jose João (talk) 08:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if and only if it can be established by reference to at least two reliable verifiable sources that

he's a King (ie an hereditary royal head of a non-trivial traditional political or administrative unit)
his name is spelt in a usual fashion for speakers of the English language

Alice^✉ 08:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete per WP:V - the official policy which overrides the notability guideline. Only one source - which is not enough for an encyclopedia article. His name turns up nothing in Google, Google Books, Google Scholar, Google News etcetera. What is he the king of anyway? The article doesn't explain that at all, and it doesn't have an article. Could be sly bogus references and a hoax, or might not be. But WP:V remains policy, so this can't stick around in its current state.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I'm assuming the references are legit now. It's indeed true that WP:BIAS particularly applies to subjects relating to a place like Angola - third-world, non-English speaking.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete same reason as User:HisSpaceResearch. There is only one hit of the subject on Google, while the place Baixa de Kessenge doesn't even have one hit! Stephenchou0722 (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How many kingdoms are there in Angola anyway? It doesn't say in the Wikipedia article on Angola. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Angola article kind of sucks (my bad). There really arent any kingdoms any more but back in the day there were a whole bunch. Jose João (talk) 05:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Comment I have changed my view due to some new info I found. Firstly, according to the cited source, it is actually King Kulaxingu, not Kambamjiji (that being the first name). Secondly, I have just found a reference to a King Kambamba Kulaxingo of Baixa de Cassanje, who died in January 2006, in an announcement on the UK Angola Embassy website. Based on these facts, there seem to be a chance that King Kambamba Kulaxingo is the same person as King Kambamjiji Kulaxingu. As a result, it would seem wise to further investigate the matter before deleting the article, as there might be more references on the subject. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V, as well. The single reference in that book is too fleeting and obscure. Maybe they simply transcribed his name in a non-standard way and that's why we can't find anything more about him. But it's not a good idea to have an article for that one reference (other people could copy Wikipedia and confuse the situation even more). • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 13:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based both on the (admittedly limited) sources found so far and on the likelihood of additional sources existing, even if these sources are not readily accessible by most Wikipedia editors. I think this kind of thing is one of the reasons WP:BIAS exists. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepHow many times do we have to go over this? Google is not an indicator of notability. Angola is neither Anglophone nor on the continents of Europe, Australia or North America, making it significantly less likely to have large internet resources. It has sources and theoretically could have more if we look a bit harder onto non-internet texts.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 real consensus, Keep -- jj137 ^♠ 02:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Trips

This article asserts no notability through reliable sourcing, and as such is just plot repetition of the occurances of the virus in various Steven King novels. It is therefore duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 07:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- "Captain Trips" is a term that is in fairly common usage. I believe that Wikipedia should be a place where someone can come to find the meaning of such a term. There is (essentially) no limit on the size to which Wikipedia can grow; if we can afford to have articles about anime characters, we can afford to have an article about Captain Trips. -- Atlant (talk) 13:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete should be covered either in a King wiki or in article on the entire Dark Tower story arc. Ridernyc (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- It's a main plot feature in The Stand as well; this cross-series usage is one of the reasons it has a free-standing article. -- Atlant (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's a plot device used in at least three of King's works and wouldn't be adequately covered in any one of the individual articles. There may be issues with some minor WP:OR, but that's fixable. Matt Deres (talk) 15:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Nice to see the Pokémon test is still alive, now using anime instead. Might have to tweak that a little. Redirect to The Stand. Hiding T 15:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Aside from the redirect, I'm going to also suggest delete based on WP:PLOT. Either that or start sourcing the article to page numbers and the like. Yes, we can source that it exists. We can source plot detail. What else can we source? If there's nothing else, it has to go. Surely Stephen King has discussed this in interview and we can improve the article with stuff from that? If so, let's do it. Hiding T 10:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per verfiability and real world notability. It appears in a major novel and miniseries and can be verified through reliable sources. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This subject is referenced in enough different works that it is notable, and wouldn't fit neatly into an existing article because of the need to be mentioned in the others. It is a major plot element in several important novels and short stories, in a well-known miniseries, and has been referenced in pop culture (example: the Anthrax song "Among the Living")Ghost of starman (talk) 02:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment: also, it's reasonable to assume that somebody might search for the meaning of the phrase "captain Trips", and Wikipedia should provide that information to them. Wikipedia is not paper, and this article is obviously useful and informative about the subject. Ghost of starman (talk) 02:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Placebo Effect (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hate Plague

This article asserts no notability through reliable sourcing, and as such is just an in-universe plot repetition of various episodes of the Transformers cartoon. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 07:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete! - Please, please. Completely non-notable, plot device used in a single (two-parter, granted) episode of Transformers. VigilancePrime (talk) 07:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, don't merge. Apart from being just plain stupid, plot renarrations of copyrighted fiction, when not used to support encyclopedic analysis in a way justified by fair use, are a breach of our non-free content policies and potential copyright violations. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable outside of the Transformers univers. Should not be merged as per user above me. Lankiveil (talk) 10:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: Let this page stay. We need this as one of the fictional diseases listed here. For all we know, it's Infection List is incomplete. Rtkat3 (talk) 12:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 15:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zlathûl-Itza Tehe

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plexus Systems, Inc.

Article created by company's marketing manager, seems non-notable. Jfire (talk) 06:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but cleanup; Google News turns up a few references, one from CNN Money (covers some information about the company as part of the article), Forbes.com has mention of them, and others. Seems to pass WP:CORP, although, I may be viewing these two references (others are there, I haven't looked at the half of them yet) slightly different than the guideline. If anyone else cares to join in, here is the Google News search. Aeternitas827 (talk) 06:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those are press releases from PRNewswire, most likely written by the same employee that wrote the article. Jfire (talk) 06:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For future reference, folks, beware anything that appears in a major mag but originated from PR Newswire. As Jfire so eloquently pointed out, they are written by internal sources with an intent to be positive or marketing spin. I know this because I supply data and information to my company's folks who write them :) Ψν^Psi_nu 14:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The company has won a statewide industry award[3] and its female president is in the "top 100" women in the auto industry, but that doesn't seem sufficient without any independent in-depth coverage. As noted, much of the search result is press releases or trivial mentions. --Dhartung | Talk 21:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per numerous improvements I just made based on the above discussion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the effort GRdC, but it just doesn't look like it meets the bar set by WP:N of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Of the references, #3 is a blog (specifically excluded by WP:V) and #4-5 are company press releases (specifically excluded by WP:CORP). That leaves #1 and 2, short blurbs in industry rags (and #2 is secondhand). IMO that falls short of notability, and I'm left with the fact that this is little else but self-promotion. Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Jfire (talk) 05:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should note the evidence for COI: article created by User:KimHayward, only contribs this article and some other links to the article/company, according to her LinkedIn profile, "SEO Marketing Manager at Plexus Systems, Inc.", job duty "to increase the visibility of Plexus Online on the web." Jfire (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete – clearly fails WP:N. KrakatoaKatie 03:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Original Magazine

procedural nomination—version brought to AFD: Went through a PROD-dePROD cycle in early December and rePROD in January '08. Second PROD nominator states "Does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia per WP:NOTE." User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 05:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -or- Merge to Student Media section of Pitt article. Fails WP:N, only sources that can be located refer to information on Pitt's own website (not an independent source), so definitely should not be a solo article, but I can see arguing for a mention in the article as above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeternitas827 (talk • contribs) 06:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Journalism has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost unverifiable magazine that's been published twice. Welcome back once it's better established. Pburka (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - concur. the magazine has only been publiched twice and its not even clear that it is notable within the student community for a merge. -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.TheRingess (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FSG Südkreis

The team plays only in 6th German division. It is almost an amateur team. The article is also deleted in German, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese wikipedia. Why should we keep it? Tosqueira (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Canley (talk) 05:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N (no subject coverage by independent primary sources, i.e. different than the club website). --Angelo (talk) 08:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. Woody (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete – clearly fails WP:CORP. KrakatoaKatie 03:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1iProductions

Doesn't appear to be verifiable. While the games might be notable, there's no trace of the company on google. (22 ghits total). MER-C 05:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The games have their own article, and from those and the hits on the games it doesn't appear that 1i Productions was the only one involved in it. No other works from the company are apparent, and the company appears to fail WP:N as no secondary sources reflect any information on this company. Aeternitas827 (talk) 05:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unable to find any reliable sources about the company. -- Whpq (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CORP. -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Placebo Effect (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SCAR (programming language)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Been some time since the prev AfD which resulted in no consensus.

I bring this issue up again because I believe that this program has no notability outside of RuneScape cheating (which, again, is not particularly notable in and of it self)

The claim that SCAR has uses outside of RuneScape is heavily debatable. "SCAR programming" has 3 hits on Google News, none of which appear to have anything to do with the program. The claim of number of users and usability (and how it gets people into programming) are unverifiable and irrelevant respectively. The getting people into programming argument could be made for a number of languages, HTML, JS, PHP, BASIC, shell, etc. all could be used to introduce someone to basic programming theory, i.e., if-then-else, loops.

In addition, the page lacks reliable sources to establish notability.

Although I am not particularly familiar with the SCAR CDE, nor Pascal, I would like to bring up what StephenP123 (talk · contribs) said in this diff.

I'd also like to bring up this quote:

SCAR's syntax and structure lie very close to that of its parent language, Pascal. A major difference in its use is that it is almost necessary to use routines from an inbuilt library.

SCAR appears to ~~potentially~~ (never mind "potentially", it says so in the first paragraph!) just be Pascal with a very nice internal library for RS cheating. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 04:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 04:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looking for something to satisfy the WP:N guidelines, I tried gsearch for "+SCAR +pascal -forum". Relevant hits run out after about page 4; nothing substantial from an independent, reliable source. Unless it's discussed in some programming journal somewhere, this one doesn't meet the notability threshold. Marasmusine (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cheating on Runescape is not notable in our universe. Malinaccier (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks any evidence of notability.--Seriousspender (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, wrong venue. I would have taken this to WP:IFD, but the image in question already has a G7 tag on it (not placed by me). Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Xbox logo.png

I'm not sure if I'm supposed to post this here, but here goes. I uploaded this image for use in a userbox before I was made aware of the poicy against doing that with non-free images. I, as the creator of this page, am requesting that it be immediately deleted. Thingg (talk) 04:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 merge suggestion can be addressed via talk page discussions, and using Template:merge). JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International Worship in English

Article tagged for CSD because of notability concerns. I deleted the article per CSD A7, but received a request to undelete the article for a procedural AFD, which I complied with, hence this AFD. I personally will remain neutral on the subject. Keilana^talk_(recall) 04:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, It asserts no notability but there are seemingly reliable sources. I honestly don't know about this one. I think I'll go with delete, just because the article itself doesn't assert notability. Just because it's Korean but in English doesn't make it suitable for inclusion. 04:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC) Change to keep, per Noroton below. It does have sources, and while it doesn't currently assert notability, it could in the future. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 04:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:N and WP:ORG with mulitple, reliable, independent sources. This is good enough even for a Wikipedia article about even a local chapter of a larger organization. Not much of an article now, but that may change and that's not deletion criteria. Perhaps the nominator could expand on notability objections. Assertion of notability is implicit when multiple sources are used.Noroton (talk) 04:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with Total Project Complete Basically, Kyung-Chik Han was awarded the 1992 Templeton Prize for founding Young Nak Presbyterian Church. And Bill Majors, an American missionary to Seoul, was made an Honorary Citizen of Seoul for creating an English ministry, International Worship in English, at Young Nak Presbyterian Church, an effort that was the final fruit of Han's achievement. We have two notable men, two notable accomplishments, and one vision. Han was born in Korea and studied in the US and Korea. Majors was born in the US and studied in the US and Korea. Both men worked together to shape a notable two-pronged organization that bridges countries and continents. Over the last ten days, I've tried to make the firm beginnings of four articles that tell this entire story, complete with all the necessary sources that prove both accuracy and notability. I apologize if I've been short or gruff with anyone, but I get upset when people seem to doubt my respect for the integrity of Wikipedia; I've tried my best to make articles that meet its ideals of accurate and important information. Davidabram (talk) 09:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Noroton and WP:ORG. In the interest of disclosure, there is a related AfD for Bill Majors, the founder of this Org. located here. Keeper | 76 15:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Young Nak Presbyterian Church. The church is notable, but I don't think three separate articles are needed. -- Dougie WII (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicktoons: Power of the Chosen Ones

Prod removed. Google's got nothing, no WP:RS so fails WP:CRYSTAL. Shawis (talk) 04:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per WP:CBALL. Once it comes out, let's see how it is. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 04:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the fact that the only ref (if the link is a reference) is totally unrelated. I'm sure we can come up with a much better article after (or if) the game comes out. -anabus_maximus (Talk to me) 05:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most likely a hoax, no reliable sources showing up in a search (in fact I get three - WP, a WP bot page which seems to have identified this as a problem article and something called 'wikirage', whatever the hell that's supposed to be). A lot of Nickelodeon's games seem to be published by THQ, a great big sumo of a publisher, very much doubt a genuine release would slip anywhere even close without someone reporting on it. Someone another (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:HOAX and there is no sources. Macy's 123 review me 20:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:CRYSTAL, wait until it comes out. Malinaccier (talk) 23:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definite hoax. We'll never see a Cartoon Network/Nick crossover game as this article claims, period. Nate · (chatter) 23:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally unverifiable, could close this per WP:SNOW.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Already deleted. Bduke (talk) 07:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J Keezy

Another Neologism! That's two tonight! J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 03:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Speedy Delete, Attack or Nonsensical I speedied it, they put it back, it got AfD'd before I noticed it again. It isn't a neologism - it's just someone screwing around. Ψν^Psi_nu 03:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So now it's something he made up one day. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 04:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - That day being today. Twice now. Ψν^Psi_nu 04:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - The creator of a page cannot contest a speedy deletion and should not remove the warning. --neonwhite user page talk 05:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This article is mostly a biography of one of the author's non-notable teenage acquaintances. If the article were intended to focus on Mr. Keezy's name as a neologism, the author would have taken the time to provide a definition for it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Result was Delete. --VS ^talk 05:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Game

Neologism, I've heard the phrase, but this article is basically just a story. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 03:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Somehow I suspect that the article creator User:Lawtonkid04 corresponds with K.M.L. in the article-story-thing, while A.E.V. is probably some associate who, apparently, is not as game as K.M.L. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 04:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Surely there must be reason to speedy delete that nonsense. --Mud4t (talk) 06:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 09:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm game is worth a dicdef at best. This nonsense (and it is nonsense, since I have used the phrase for much longer than either of these) must go. Emeraude (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly written, unsourced, and apparently incorrect Carlyle 3 Carlyle3 Contributions/Carlyle 3
- How so? Do we have a reliable source saying A.E.V is more game then K.M.L? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by J-stan (talk • contribs) 17:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Possibly Speedy as G1. Malinaccier (talk) 23:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete as patent nonsense Sudoku424 (talk) 03:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as patent nonsense. At best. Greswik (talk) 11:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SSS delete - that stands for strong, speedy, and snowball delete all in one. I just made that acronym up on the spot (although I have used the term "strong, speedy and snowball delete" before) but it's useful this kind of thing that obviously doesn't belong in the encyclopedia for any reason whatsoever (strong delete) yet doesn't quite meet any of the speedy deletion criteria, but almost does, (so we may as well apply WP:SNOW). The text here is almost totally incoherent, so a G1 nonsense tag is going on the page.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snowball Keep - non-admin closure - Peripitus (Talk) 00:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Doyle

Contested CSD for notability. He was involved in Australian politics, but I'm not sure if his level of involvement makes him notable. Strictly a procedural nomination, I have no preference due to my unfamiliarity with the subject. Keilana^talk_(recall) 03:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 04:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was a member of the Victorian Legislative Assembly, which is notable enough for me... although the notability of Australian state politicians is not, as far as I know, as clear-cut as that of federal MPs or Senators. Most of the article seems to be sourced from here, and that page lists several references such as Who's Who in Australia 1968-1983 and a 1978 book called Notable Australians. It looks like there's enough verifiable information to sustain a decent article in any case. --Canley (talk) 04:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep much the same as Canley. From WP:BIO "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards: Politicians who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature". Also as a Catholic in the Liberal Party in the 1960s he would be one of a very small group! -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with both of the above. Membership of a state parliament certainly allows notability. Frickeg (talk) 04:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As above. Passes notability test although the article could certainly be better written to highlight notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roisterer (talk • contribs) 05:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as a member of the Victorian State legislature. Nick mallory (talk) 08:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, members of state parliaments are inherently notable. Lankiveil (talk) 11:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep regardless of actual policy, anyone with a paliamentary biography should be sufficiently notable for us here. As it is, Doyle meets WP:BIO through belonging to state legislature.Ga rr ie 23:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:BIO (with no disrespect to the nominator, who acted appropriately). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Canley comment. I tagged an early version of this article for speedy-delete because it failed notability tests ... it was just about an Australian politician. Since then, the info about Victoria parliament (and other info) has been added, so it now passes WP:NOT. Truthanado (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Thater

Not notable artist. jj137 ^♠ 03:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (shrug) I speedied it, so I guess I agree. Ψν^Psi_nu 03:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she does appear to strongly meet the additional criteria for creative professionals in WP:BIO, i.e., both international exhibitions and awards. Her work appears to have been widely exhibited, with a work in the Guggenheim collection (impressed me, at any rate). I've added her Carnegie museum bio to the External links to help substantiate this, as the current links don't do a very good job. While I have no connection to the article I would urge my colleagues to retain it, on the basis that art and culture need to be reflected in Wikipedia. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Thater is more than notable: she's been in the Carnegie International, Whitney Biennial, Dia Center for the Arts, Museum of Modern Art, Walker Art Center (I didn't check the history of the page--maybe her exhibition record was added after the article was AfD'd). Anyway, she's internationally known and has been shown at numerous significant galleries, museums and biennial. The article does need more sources, but there should be plenty out there. A google search gives you 22,800 hits--pretty much all of it her. freshacconcispeaktome 22:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just checked the history: all the info on exhibitions was there before the AfD. Why would this had ever been brought up for deletion, Afd or speedy? Shouldn't it have just been tagged for references? Notability is quite obvious. freshacconcispeaktome 23:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Whitney Biennial, MoMA, Guggenheim Fellowship...--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep perhaps even a speedy keep per Freshacconci. A strange AfD nom, an even stranger speedy nom. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I am having a lot of trouble understanding why this would be up fpr speedy deletion. When I google musicains, actors and writers I see lots of entries. is there a bias against the visual arts? They may be less popular but that certainly doesn't make them unimportant. I can work on building more references but I still am unclear why it should be tagged for speedy deletionEddiesmom (talk) 02:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per all above. Nominator please learn from this! Johnbod (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Neıl ☎ 10:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Work 14: The Color of Money

No sources verifying the notability of these mixtapes. All they can be is a track list. It's not even clear whether these are official or not. I'm nominating these for the same reason:

Spellcast (talk) 03:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 03:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 23:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 03:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of these articles make any claims that these mixtapes were in any way notable. They mention only artists responsible, their release dates, and their tracks. RJC ^Talk 03:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As mixtapes, they fail to assert notability. Mixtapes aren't usually verifiable anyway. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bongwarrior (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

QIK

No sources can be found which affords QIK notability inline with WP policies. Russavia (talk) 03:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 03:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per WP:V. One Google Books hit, few regular Google hits.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Great improvement.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added references as best I can see, it is notable and seems to be a major reservation system used by airlines - Fosnez (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this seems to be adequately sourced now. — brighterorange (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the sources cited in QIK#References are sufficient to establish a presumption of this program's notability per the general notability guideline. John254 04:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Ebner

Nun that fails WP:NN. Additionally, no references cited except the copy-paste origin of the article. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The article is skimpy, but there does appear to be a degree of notability. Is there another article that this could be merged into?--Jeff Johnston (talk) 02:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google search turns up next to nothing aside from hits on various Catholic websites, which aren't exactly unbiased sources of information. Master of Puppets ^{Call me MoP!☺)} 03:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep gets quite a few Google scholar hits. RMHED (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If it incorporates text from an older public domain encyclopedia, then to delete this would contravene the aims of the WikiProject Missing Articles (WP:MISSING) which aims to have Wikipedia articles for every article in every other encyclopedia. The Google Scholar hits look promising. On top of all that, to be remembered from before the Middle Ages is a sign that you're notable.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Catholic Encyclopedia is a good source. Judging someone from the fourteenth century on google hits is slightly strange, discounting catholic sources about a nun because they 'arent' exactly unbiased' is very strange indeed. Someone remembered after seven hundred years for something she's written has proven her worthiness in my opinion. Nick mallory (talk) 08:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but only on the grounds that she is the author of a historical work. As a general rule, the Catholic Encyclopedia is NOT a good source because, as it happens, it isn't exactly unbiased, but in this case that's not important. (Incidentally, I've suffered an affliction which appears three times a year for much longer than the ten years she did. That's the problem with the common cold.)Emeraude (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment. Should we stop using sources by scientists about science? After all, there's a definite COI issue there ... --Paularblaster (talk) 13:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per h i s reasoning above. --Lockley (talk) 08:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lame drivers

No assertion of band's notability per WP:N or WP:MUSIC. No references could be found to indicate any album availability. Mh29255 (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unverifiable --Ryan Delaney ^talk 03:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't verify, fails WP:MUSIC. A Google search for "Lame drivers" turns up nothing except for their official site, Myspace and a few other similar links. Master of Puppets ^{Call me MoP!☺)} 03:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with everyone on this.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, fails wp:music. Funeral 15:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud (entertainer)

NN, Vanity. Cannot find anything that asserts notability. He seems accomplished, but doesn't appear to qualify him for his own article. References are links to his IMDB page and his website. EndlessDan 21:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found a sentence of praise in The Guardian, but nothing else. Filmerica seems non-notable. –Pomte 12:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searched Google, found nothing except for a few deviantart pages. Nothing to be cited, at least Google search for "Daniel Campos"). Master of Puppets ^{Call me MoP!☺)} 03:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The references don't verify the text - a common problem in articles written by inexperienced users - because they link directly to the home page of a .com website instead of to articles or pages within these websites.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund Darris

This article quotes no sources. Google produces no references which do not arise from Wikipedia. I believe the whole thing to be a hoax. Ian Dalziel (talk) 16:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost certian that this is a hoax. STORMTRACKER 94 14:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, most of the article is bogus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.132.123 (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references found on Google; if he has met Vaughn and King then you'd think he would be mentioned somewhere... Master of Puppets ^{Call me MoP!☺)} 03:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Master of Puppets. Madman (talk) 05:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. He has no biography at the All Music Guide. This is a pack of lies.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Non-admin closure. The Evil Spartan (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Rosenkranz

Seemingly non-notable. Little mentions of him on news. Previously prodded by myself Montchav (talk) 13:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notability as per se, with no reliable sourcing backing up any of the evidence. Rt . 18:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found quite a few reliable sources; He's been interviewed by CNN (twice), been in a USA Today article, and written an article for the New York Times. Seems to indicate notability to me. Of course, the article isn't in great shape, so a rewrite could be useful. Master of Puppets ^{Call me MoP!☺)} 03:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and his book was praised by Dick Cheney, who wrote a foreword for it. See here. I'll go about adding more information to the article. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 18:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Master of Puppets.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — Caknuck (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kids' WB's 2008-2009 shows

Unverifiable information that shouldn't even need its own article Matty-chan (talk) 20:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Because the network is going to be absorbed into 4Kids TV we don't even know there will be a Kids' WB come September 2008. No prejudice to this article being created in May 2008 when the new schedule is announced. Nate · (chatter) 03:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because of crystal ballery. Unless referenced by an offical site, this can't be proven. Tavix (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystal ball. As noted above there may not be a Kids WB in the fall, and it is not as yet a certainty that there will be any series commissioned for 2008-09 until the WGA strike ends. 23skidoo (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Doctorfluffy (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nickerson Farms

seemingly non-notable restaurant/bee farm. Previously speedied by me, rejceted by admin Montchav (talk) 13:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, seems to have a nostalgia value similar to Stuckey's, was most likely a notable (if kitschy) chain in its time. Best source I could find, however, was this. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 00:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Alan Fox

Seemingly non-notable. Claimed he is vice-chairman of a national organisation, and is seemingly a respected doctor, but not much to back up these claims Montchav (talk) 13:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Longhair\^talk 17:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I found this asserting that he was Vice Chairman on an independent site, problem is the link itself was not valid and I had to go to Google's cache. Lankiveil (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep this seems to highlight it for me. Twenty Years 01:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Twenty Years. Also being Head of Department of a major hospital is rather more than being a respected doctor. --Bduke (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article about an important person at a major hospital. Stormbay (talk) 02:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N; the only source so far produced is not independent of the subject. Jfire (talk) 03:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak keep 24 published papers in Web of Science, with the most cited being 70, 49, 35, 17 times. A borderline record for a medical scientist. Major hospital. but only Associate professor at the relevant university medical school. The 3rd para is a direct copyvio from the external reference. DGG (talk) 02:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC),[reply]
Delete. The publication record uncovered by DGG is below the borderline for me. --Crusio (talk) 10:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 22:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tri-mantic

Completely non-notable and perhaps even patent nonsense. There are only 11 Google hits, most of which are Wikipedia or its mirrors. Madman (talk) 01:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like original research.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — Caknuck (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Ewings

Contested prod, with no explanation offered for removal of prod tag, so this a procedural nomination. ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oops! I wrote "with explanation offered", but meant "no explanation". Now corrected. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be completely non-notable individual. No reliable coverage in independent third-party sources. - fchd (talk) 07:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So what is he? If I read right, a nurse who has branched out with a fancy title and got some work as a film extra when they filmed at his place of work. Doesn't seem notable to me.Emeraude (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Kannie | talk 18:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails the notability test. Terraxos (talk) 04:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 22:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vitality (magazine)

Article does not seem to meet WP:NOTE and has little context Alexfusco⁵ 02:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable. GJ (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've read it on occasion myself, but it's not especially notable — I'd frankly hazard a guess that almost every major city in North America has a pretty similar local publication, and content-wise it's only about one step removed from a Learning Annex course catalogue. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per A7.. jj137 ^♠ 03:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Djan

Article appears to have been created by the subject for purpose of self promotion. Article is about a non-notable child and thus should be deleted. Sassf (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In fact, I believe this should be a speedy. Madman (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Town Goon

Tagged for speedy deletion as a hoax, several links on WP about this. Unsure, a Google search doesn't turn up much. Keilana^talk_(recall) 02:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:V miserably. A Google search turns up nothing other than Wikipedia. It's a waste of time debating this as it's an obvious hoax and could qualify for a speedy as nonsense or vandalism.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no none wikipedia results for a google search indicates a hoax - Dumelow (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with all above. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
let it stay having grown up in the town, I can attest to it being a local legend and was careful to label it as a legend. I was also careful to state it has never been documented. However, like another reference I made in the underlying grant town article, the Telltale Lilac Bush is a local book of ghost stories--another topic that can't be documented, can be a hoax in some opinions, but is authenticated by a published book. Since Wikipedia contains other articles on legends, etc., I think this is an appropriate explanation of a local legend. Otherwise, delete Bigfoot. If the whole world was on google, why bother to edit? Burnsfessler (talk) 01:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Item Should Remain As a person in a neighboring city, I heard of this local legend from my father and Uncles who grew up in the town. I agree with the statment above about properly stating that it was a legend and not documented. I was very glad to see this on Wikipedia and have since sent the article to several people who know of this legend from that and neighboring towns. If required I would be able to obtain a picture of the place the legend is believed to be focused, and where many local kids ranging from middle through highschool go looking for the Grant Town Goon to this day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.189.220 (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC) — 68.33.189.220 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete There are sources for the Bigfoot article, there are none for this. Edward321 (talk) 03:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and others fails WP:V Alexfusco⁵ 17:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, completely unsourceable, violates WP:V. At worst a hoax; at best a non-notable local urban legend. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 because there is no consensus for the article deletion. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regular expression examples

Contested prod. This article currently offers nothing that isn't found on a thousand other simple regex tutorials and help files. If users feel the (currently Perl-specific) content is helpful, it can be moved to Wikibooks. Nominating per WP:NOT#GUIDE: Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook or textbook. Monger (talk) 02:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this deletion rationale is that the general audience reader (the target audience of all Wikimedia projects) has no clue what a Regular Expression even is. On that basis alone, the rationale for inclusion is pretty clear, we need to provide unfamiliar readers with some kind of context and a foundation.

For clarity, I will outline the specific problems with this deletion proposal:

This article currently offers nothing that isn't found on a thousand ... tutorials

That's a good thing, it means that it's consistent with WP:V and WP:RS. If there's any content within Wikipedia that cannot be found elswhere, then it shouldn't be in an article in the first place.

That was not the basis of my nominating the article for deletion. Rather, it was meant to imply that external regex syntax guides and examples can be linked to from the main regular expression article (and already are). Also, I'm not sure that the policy and content guideline you cited are relevant here. You verify a regular expression example by running it. Monger (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of any basis for deleting WP content simply because it can be found on other sites. Perhaps you can strengthen this point a bit b/c the logic is not quite grabbing me yet. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If users feel the (currently Perl-specific) content is helpful it can be moved to Wikibooks

That's a good course of action if you wish to expand the content into a full-blown book on how to program regular expressions in perl (or other languages as well), but that has nothing to do with whether this specific article on Wikipedia should be deleted.

Again, there are many topics within Wikipedia that are covered in more detail in Wikibooks and elsewhere. The question is not whether content is duplicated, the question is whether the content is appropriate on the basis of the material alone.

This again is not related to why I nominated the article for deletion. I simply mentioned it as a way to easily preserve the content for those who think it's useful. Monger (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, but then let's save that discussion for after you've justified the deletion. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook or textbook

Although correct, this point really does not apply to this article. Please take a close re-look at the content and notice that there is not a single sentence in the article that tells readers "how to". It's just a bunch of examples and explanations to help people understand the concepts and principles explained in the "regular expression" article.

What is example code if not a demonstration of "how to"? In any case, the current content is not even really based around examples. It is a (currently Perl-specific) regex syntax guide, with a basic example of using each construct that is introduced. Monger (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Example code is commonplace in Wikipedia articles. Category:Articles with example code. You do realize, do you not, that not everyone who looks at a snippet of example code is a computer programmer. Just as not everyone who looks at an excerpt of poetry is a poet. Just as not everyone who looks at a cookbook is a chef. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The use of examples in Wikipedia articles is a well-established and respected convention. Please see just for a quick example: Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(command-line_examples).

That's a straw man. I never argued against the use of examples in the main regular expression article. In fact, it already contains heaps of examples, which are generally quite relevant and useful. Monger (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O.k., now you seem to be contradicting yourself. Right after you said What is example code if not a demonstration of "how to" you also said I never argued against the use of examples. Please give yourself an opportunity to really get a solid and concise view of what you are really objecting to here. It will help focus the discussion. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, the rationale for having a separate article for this is also pretty straightforward. The Regular Expression article itself was getting very cluttered and crowded with examples, and this separation provided a good way to organize the content. In other words this was a stylistic and editorial decision that really had nothing to do with helping people "learn" how to program regular expressions. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. In fact, examples of all of the types of constructs shown on the regular expression examples page are already found in the main regular expression article -- quantifiers, grouping, character classes, zero-width assertions, etc. IMO, this article currently offers two things: an extremely basic Perl regex syntax guide, and a bunch of Perl sample code that is better suited to an article on Perl than regular expressions. Plus, as mentioned in the nomination, according to WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook. Monger (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're repeating yourself now. Unless you've something new to add, please feel free remain in your state of disagreement. Please also feel free to re-read the article and the point about Perl syntax being common to more languages than just Perl. All of your other (repeated) points have been directly addressed above. Cheers. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 02:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My closing line was intended to be humorously redundant, but it didn't really work (at least you agree I got the redundant part). For the record, I know a lot about both the Perl regex flavor and most of the high-profile Perl-derivative flavors (expanding my knowledge of the greater regex flavor/library landscape is sort of a hobby for me). In any case, while I don't think the flavor-specific aspect of the regexes themselves is really relevant to this discussion, I do object to the use of Perl code to demonstrate generic regular expression examples since I think that is more appropriate in articles about Perl or e.g. a section of the regular expression article dedicated to Perl. In fact, I don't think generic regex examples should be described in the context of any programming language, since their use is certainly broader than that. --Monger (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If your only substantive objection is the Perl-specificity, I'd actually agree with you on that also. The fact of Perl-emphasis in a RegEx article on Wikipedia is almost certainly more a function of expediency than completeness or academic rigor. To put it plainly, Perl gets more attention (in this context) simply because most people have at least "heard of" Perl and know it has "something to do" with regular expressions. Even people who don't know programming languages or regular expressions get exposed to this. That's just an artifact of history. On that basis alone it is a justifiable (if not optimal) choice to use Perl, if only because it's a familiar foundation that makes the article accessible.

That being said, a better solution to deleting the content would be to enhance the content. It would be *great* if this article actually touched on some of the broader use you elude to. The problem is once you "open the box" beyond the realm of widespread and mainstream programming language idioms, you immediately risk making the article a lot more turgid and incomprehensible to the general interest readers.

After all, lets be blunt, most people who have any interest in these articles are probably the types who are just trying to figure out some piece of code that looks like gibberish to them, and they don't want to look stupid when people in their organization talk about "regular expressions". Indeed, since WP is not a tutorial site, the primary beneficiaries of this and the main article are probably not even computer scientists or programmers (who already know there are better sites for language-specific specifications or tutorials).

Nevertheless, if you've got the acumen and sagacity to step out on that ledge and write up some solid, accessible enhancements, that do not confuse the general audience readers, I for one am cheering for you. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since I'm not sure if this is the appropriate forum to continue this discussion between myself and dr.ef.tymac and we seem to have a fundamental disagreement about what content is encyclopedic, I'll just let my comments here so far stand. However, whichever way this goes I'd be willing to discuss further after the AfD. Monger (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In this rather special case, the topic is notable and the article should be expanded. I am not sure the title is hte best one; but perhaps it can be best seen a a subarticle for regular expression. DGG (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete much of the content of this page also appears in Regular expression. Transwiki to Wikibooks may be an option. --Salix alba (talk) 10:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found it useful. Another option might be to merge it with the main entry for regular expressions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.1.167 (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki Its not a great article, but would make a great wikibook. transwiki to wikibooks RogueNinja_talk 16:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Regular expression. While long, this is not a topic that merits its own article. Examples of multiplication are found in thousands of math textbooks, but that doesn't mean they merit their own article. --Fabrictramp (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Also, the examples should be expanded, such as for use in text editors during search-and-replace. I am a computer scientist who has been using regular expressions for over 30 years, and I believe that the numerous, complex details to fully illustrate examples are far beyond the context of the overview article ("regular expression"). Dozens of examples are needed to explain the concepts, due to the complex interactions of various expressions and the subpatterns within. The examples for regular expressions aren't analogous to "multiplication" (or even long division) but rather more like examples of solutions (tricks) for partial differential equations. A wide variety of examples should be presented, which would be beyond the scope of the current overview article. Several scientists have complained that Wikipedia has tried to inhibit the presentation of knowledge within their fields. Forcing the numerous examples back into the main article would inhibit the presentation. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and Salt ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia Miguel

AfDs for this article:

This article was deleted via AfD about a year ago. The content of the current version is different enough from the deleted version that I'm not comfortable deleting it as reposted material, but the similarities between the two don't leave much doubt that it's the same person. The current version of the article appears to be notable at a glance, but it's a forgery. Most of the "modeling career" section was copied from the Alessandra Ambrosio article, along with the claim of being an ambassador for the National Multiple Sclerosis Society. Most/all of the references and external links were also copied from the Alessandra Ambrosio article, with the names changed to "Alicia Miguel". A google search for "Alicia Miguel" + "supermodel" = virtually nothing. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt: And to boot, those links in the article that aren't actually Ambrosio's are, unsurprisingly, broken. Let's put this hoaxer to rest, and I hope to a block, too. Ravenswing 06:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and maybe salt. So much of this is based on lies that it makes it impossible to verify what's true and what's not.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and maybe salt. This is ridiculousness. Flyer22 (talk) 08:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
D&S per above. —Moondyne 14:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt If notability changes there is a process to allow later addition of an article on this person.OneHappyHusky (talk) 06:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (nomination withdrawn). Non-admin closure by 12 Noon ^2¢ 21:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Watson (magician)

Claims to be internationally renowned, but absolutely no proof of notability. Was tagged for speedy as so assertion of notability, but I declined, as being internationally renowned sounds like a claim of notability. Nyttend (talk) 02:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found this [4] If the claims are true I think there's a definate arguement that he's notable, but I think it would have to be sourced from a different reference. This looks like a place to hire speakers and probably wouldn't hold up to WP:RS.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he might have some marginal notability amongst his peers, but no sign of any substantial notability in the wider world. RMHED (talk) 02:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to the rewrite it's now clear he has enough notability in his field to warrant an article RMHED (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

VIQleSthe2nd (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I took out the fluff. Take another look at it. GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definite notability in the magic world. I don't agree with RMHED's argument that notability needs to be worldwide to be valid. There's probably plenty of notable physicists or archaeologists that are very notable but don't make it into mainstream media. Tanthalas39 (talk) 04:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment true enough but as he's in the entertainment industry you could reasonably expect to find some mainstream media coverage. It's clear he has far more than marginal notability in his field, I have changed my opinion accordingly. RMHED (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to have strong notability within the magic community supported by the additional references cited above - Dumelow (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep, rather obvious where this is going :-) Withdrawing nomination. Nyttend (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was suggested merge to Tiësto's Club Life has already been completed. I see no reason why the redirects can not stay so the history is retained. Bduke (talk) 12:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tiësto's Club Life Episode 001

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Tiësto's Club Life Episode 001

Wikipedia pages for individual setlists of a radio show does not satisfy notability guidelines. Suggest merge any notable content into Tiësto's Club Life and delete. Jonathan Williams (talk) 01:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jonathan Williams (talk) 02:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all unencyclopedic and of no real value imo, unreferenced and nothing that establishes any kind of notability for each episode. RMHED (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Per RHMED and nominator. Malinaccier (talk) 02:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All per RMHED and nom. Mh29255 (talk) 05:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above. SQL ^{Query me!} 08:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All all are non-notable and not useful to include on wikipedia - Dumelow (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - non-notable articles. Macy's 123 review me 20:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - CSD G12. Mattinbgn\^talk 06:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marple Cricket Club

Non-notable cricket club playing at a merely local level. No independent reliable sources or any sources for that matter have been provided. Was tagged as speedy deletion but I am listing it here for further discussion Mattinbgn\^talk 01:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —Mattinbgn\^talk 01:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was a copyright violation from here and has been deleted per WP:CSD#G12. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Also, I have restored all revisions prior to the article being hijacked. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sid Bass (songwriter)

Rapper that yet to release an album. Therefore, not sufficiently notable for entry. Question: Is this Sid Bass notable enough? 650l2520 (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails to establish notability, and does not meet the criteria of WP:MUSIC. Mouchoir le Souris (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Mouchoir le Souris Madman (talk) 03:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Opening paragraph admits that although he has not yet released an album, he hopes he will get good reviews when it is released. The notability train goes downhill from there. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 04:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete. We're debating the notability of the music career of a 13-year-old boy without a record deal. We need not waste any more time.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tavix 23:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tavix (talk • contribs)
- Snowball delete - HisSpaceResearch is absolutely correct. Oli Filth^(talk) 00:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Seven Songs of Merlin

There is no notability shown, no content other than an unverifiable plot summary. I would just speedy this, but I haven't found a category to throw it under. American Patriot 1776 (talk) 01:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems that this is a part of a series of books made by T. A. Barron. I don't know how notable this writer is in America but his article doesn't state much notability. The nom might be interested in looking into The Lost Years of Merlin a related article that has plot problems as well. I will not vote for now since I do not have enough knowledge in American litt. I suggest more editors knowledgeable in American literature look this up. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The time between creation and this AfD was 7 minutes. Come on, give the editor a chance to write the article. This is his first writing at wikipedia. A quick google search on the part of the nom would have shown that the book likely has notability. I found a number of reviews of both the book and the series. You can't expect the article to be good to go in 7 minutes when written by a new editor. Nor should you put something up for deletion until you checked to see if it is likely notable or at least tagging the article for a bit and letting others fix it. Sorry if my tone is harsh, but this seems excessive to me. Hobit (talk) 02:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Stands up on his chair and applauds* --Kiz o r 10:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The most cursory Google search shows this book up, which is in Amazon.com's top 100,000 in sales; not too bad. Quite aside from my equal indignation at an AfD in seven minutes flat (which, I regret, is far from the record), I strongly suggest that the nom focus less on being the first to nominate any article that isn't perfect moments from first creation and spend the ten seconds it took to verify its notability. RGTraynor 06:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom. nothing there. --Jack Merridew 09:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oy, yet. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 02:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - agree needs some improving as currently I have no idea what it is about. Although I think the AfD nom was pretty speedy at least the editor will still be around to add sources for 5 days hopefully. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite The article is dismal, but it was written by a first-time contributor--please don't bite the newbies. As for the subject, it appears to be notable: this is a book that has gone through several reeditions [5]; the author has an article, and so does the previous book in the series. In its present form the article consists of nothing but a poorly written plot summary, but that is hardly damning considering that it is an editor's first article, and that it was aggressively listed for deletion mere minutes after being created. Give the author a break, and wait for the article to improve before shooting it down. Freederick (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seven minutes is certainly not a reasonable amount of time in which to determine the fate of an article seemingly written in good faith. That's why we have {{stub}}. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 02:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As a person who was bitten horribly when I first started to actively edit Wikipedia, I feel terrible that this AFD is up so soon. The book obviously meets WP:N. Keep it. --Shark face 217 21:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity All-Star Game

This article is about the 2007 McDonalds celebrity all star game, NBA. While the article has no sources it is verifiable with a Google search. My concern is notability - I don't think it deserves an article. CastAStone /^/(talk) 01:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While definitely verifiable, no independent, reliable sources are cited in the article, and Googling does not seem to yield any. Mouchoir le Souris (talk) 02:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2007 NBA All-Star Game. Independent, reliable sources exist -- see here -- but this doesn't need an article of its own. Zagalejo^^^ 05:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this hypergeneric title. 70.51.8.231 (talk) 11:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — Caknuck (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shen Junshan

Article subject is not notable--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There may be notability here, particularly if the subject has published works or research from his time as a professor at the university. I can find no evidence of this, but sources may prove me wrong. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 01:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not appear to meet the criteria of WP:BIO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mouchoir le Souris (talk • contribs) 01:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not much information about him. Michael Houang (talk) 01:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep article claims that he was President of one of Taiwan's "most prestigious universities". I find some on-line sources to back up the claim (e.g. [6]). that's good enough for me for now. Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Pete Hurd. Article is indeed not notable as it stands, but as President of a major university, the subject is. Article needs expansion and sourcing. --Crusio (talk) 10:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as president of a major university. I added the Chinese version of his name, as it was listed in the NTHU article (after checking Google to be sure that the names actually matched), and linked that article to this one. If someone here can read Chinese, this page at NTHU seems to be about him. His book (ISBN 957560749X) also appears to be relevant, perhaps a memoir; it's gone through two editions. Despite being in Chinese, is in several American libraries, and has about 3k Google hits when searching for its Chinese title and author [7]. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I expanded the article based on various Chinese sources. Notable for his political as well as academic roles. Unfortunately I'm completely clueless about Taiwan politics, but he seems to be important given that he's compared to someone like Lien Chan and called one of the "four princes" of the KMT. cab (talk) 06:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep presidents of major universities are notable, DGG (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree (see my keep above), but at this point, after cab's improvements, I think notability is obvious per WP:BIO without having to resort to generic arguments such as this. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstormers-Revolution rivalry

~~This page is a direct copy of Yankees-Mets rivalry. I don't think it meets a CSD crtieria, so I'm bringing it to AfD.~~ CastAStone /^/(talk) 01:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)(concern addressed)[reply]
This Article is about a non-notable baseball rivalry that has existed for less than a year--CastAStone /^/(talk) 20:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The content is completely irrelevant, bearing no relationship to the article subject (aside from the fact that both pairs of teams are rivals). Mouchoir le Souris (talk) 01:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC) Keep: My previous argument no longer applies: the article now does cover the subject. Mouchoir le Souris (talk) 00:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy Move to creator's sandbox for development; article was just created today and looks like a possible stub that is being modeled on Yanks-Mets. Creator is an established editor who should be given the benefit of the doubt.--12 Noon ^2¢ 01:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In light of the complete overhaul of the article, my comments no longer apply. It seems to be a simple notability issue now, of which, regrettably, is not in an area I feel knowledgeable enough to comment.--12 Noon ^2¢ 15:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per 12 noon, or redirect to Yankees-Mets rivalry. We'll have to see whether this subject deserves an article or not, but let's at least give it the chance. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 02:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bduke (talk) 12:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There has been significant editing of this article since the last comment 6 days ago so it needs more eyes on it before a decision is taken. --Bduke (talk) 12:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to work now. It could use some more sources but it looks like it will get there.Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above and 12 Noon. Rtac _{contributions} 16:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Seeing as these teams have been playing each other for less than a year, it seems premature to call this a rivalry. The only rivalry that could possibly exist is one manufactured by corporate advertising, and that does not suffice for notability. RJC ^Talk 19:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RJC above. A deep rivalry can't have arisen after just one season; and it's crystal-ballery to assume one will develop in the future. Therefore, delete. Terraxos (talk) 03:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one game doesn't equal a rivalry, I doubt sources will show up for a while Secret ^account 18:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Placebo Effect (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Redman

Contested prod. User has no notability. All links are to self published sites and don't contain any information for example one will say "Review" but leads to basically a blank bio page. I can find no sources to conform claims of notability, nothing on the people he has claimed he worked, nothing on international touring, nothing on his book. Also kind of strange that anon that claims to be a fan of his showed up 10 minutes before he logged in to blank his talk page. Ridernyc (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also recommend salting, since this is at least the second time this was created.Ridernyc (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm disappointed in that I prodded the article to give the creator time to come up with sources, and what I see don't seem to verify meeting WP:MUSIC. Dloh cierekim 01:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I could not find anything helpful on the web or in the news. As always, I'm eagerly hoping someone will find something I missed. Dloh cierekim 01:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now we have both checked. His own bio dose not even support the claims made in the article. Ridernyc (talk) 01:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My search also turned up nothing to indicate this passes WP:MUS. Doctorfluffy (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC; self-published book; his label Browneyes Records returns 5 ghits and the three that are actual references to the label are Redman's website, his MySpace page, and his Wikipedia article. That's when I stopped trying to find notability. Precious Roy (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kurt Shaped Box Speedy deleted per (CSD G10), was a attack page intented to disparage its subject. (non-admin close) —Travis ^talk 00:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fredrik Mozart Ingvaldsen

Apparent hoax as there are exactly zero ghits for this “person.” Wikipedia is not for people made up while listening to classical music one day. —Travis ^talk 00:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost screams hoax; for example, see this sentence; His symphonies are heavily influenced by major events in his life, and are mostly about death and flowers. Basically, major events in his life were death and involved flowers. It is humorous, I must say... Master of Puppets ^{Call me MoP!} 00:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of oxymora}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Envy (pornstar)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claudia Ferrari (pornstar)}}