Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 June 2: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 11: Line 11:
__TOC__
__TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
==AfD nomination of Get The Fuck Up Radio==
[[Image:Ambox warning pn.svg|48px|left]]An article that you have been involved in editing, [[Get The Fuck Up Radio]], has been listed for [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deletion]]. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Get The Fuck Up Radio (2nd nomination)]]. Thank you. <small>Do you want to [[Template:Bots#Message notification opt out|opt out]] of receiving this notice?</small><!-- Template:adw --> [[User:SuperSuperBoi|SuperSuperBoi]] ([[User talk:SuperSuperBoi|talk]]) 03:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phoeno (rapper)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phoeno (rapper)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric W. Sawyer}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric W. Sawyer}}

Revision as of 03:02, 2 June 2008

< June 1 June 3 >

Purge server cache

AfD nomination of Get The Fuck Up Radio

An article that you have been involved in editing, Get The Fuck Up Radio, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Get The Fuck Up Radio (2nd nomination). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? SuperSuperBoi (talk) 03:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It'd be safe to say that there's nothing keepable in there. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 04:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phoeno (rapper)

Phoeno (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The Apprentice (Phoeno album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable artist, likely COI issues at play. Also listing his album. Recommend Delete both. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 02:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. — Scientizzle 15:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eric W. Sawyer

Eric W. Sawyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This person doesn't meet the WP:BIO notability standard. The three references that the article provides don't cover him, they cover this one opera that he happened to write, and he is mentioned as an aside. In addition, the references provided aren't reliable seconday sources required by WP:BIO. Gets nothing in Google News. Therefore, Delete. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm inclined to let this one slide. For one thing, he shows up in Google News a little more often as simply "Eric Sawyer", see e.g. here, here, and here. While it's true that none of these links is, for example, the New York Times Arts section, I think that one doesn't just "happen to write an opera". My inclination is to say that if the opera is notable, so is the composer. Nandesuka (talk) 03:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being mentioned in a few (reliable?) sources falls far short of the significant coverage requirement. There's isn't one source that directly gives him any coverage. Your inclination to say that "if an opera is notable (accepting for this argument that the opera is notable), so is the composer" directly conflicts with WP:ENTERTAINER, which requires substantially more then being the composer of one quasi-notable opera. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My main point is that your original claim that "Google has never heard of him" is overstated. Better biographical information is found on his own web site (which I googled for as "eric sawyer" "composer") here. He claims he "has received the Joseph Bearns Prize, a First Music commission from the New York Youth Symphony, and awards from the Tanglewood Music Center and the American Academy of Arts and Letters, and has held fellowships from the MacDowell Colony and Harvard University." He also has a number of CDs unrelated to the opera listed on Amazon. Not being an expert in music, I'm not sure what the significance of those various awards, positions, and recordings are. But it seems to me that what this article needs is better sourcing, not necessarily deletion. Nandesuka (talk) 03:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Touché, you did a better job at googling. However, nothing that can be done if there's zilch in terms coverge of him in reliable sources. There are literally millions of people out there that have had moderate success in their profession like him, and rightfully, they aren't all in Wikipedia because they don't meet the notability requirement of significant coverage in reliable sources. The "significant coverage" requirement specifically weeds out these bios, otherwise Wikpedia will turn into the facebook for anyone who has ever accomplished anything. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The New International Year Book by Colby, Churchill, Wade, and Vizetelly (1938) describes the Joseph H. Bearns prize as "One of the most valuable annual American awards for composers." Possibly outdated, but a useful indicator of significance nonetheless. Nandesuka (talk) 03:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • More than "possibly outdated". If the award was as notable as it was 70 years ago, we wouldn't have major difficulties finding significant coverage in reliable sources of him having recieved this "award". Indeed, Wikipedia:Reliable sources was meant for situations like these, where the truthfullness of him even having recieved the award isn't clear-cut. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sawyer is an assistant professor of music at Amherst who studied with Pulitzer prize-winning composer Leon Kirchner and won honors for his compositions at the Tanglewood Music Center. The Washington Post said Sawyer "weaves powerful statements into" his music, while the American Record Guide called him "a composer of considerable skill and stature." Sawyer's work has been released on the Albany Records label.

  • So, the Washington Post and American Record Guide consider him noteworthy and a "composer of considerable stature," respectively. I'll stack this one up against a badly done google news search. His works are performed in concerts alongside those of rahms, Beethoven and Chopin.[2]
  • Additional claims in the AfD says he's only mentioned as an "aside" in the sources. Wrong. He's mentioned prominently in the second sentence of the first source, so far away from being an aside, that the article includes off topic information about him. An aside means that, "oh, by the way it was composed by..." This isn't what it says, it says, "Composer Eric Sawyer, a member of the composition faculty at Amherst College, is the founder of Live in Concert, a nonprofit organization dedicated to expanding the audience for new music by presenting works by living composers in combination with other artistic media, including dance, poetry, film, and computer-assisted technologies." Not an aside. The second source also gives information about the composer, doesn't merely list him as "an aside. So, what's the guiding light for this AfD, that in one of three sources the composer is an aside? I'm going to conclude that the conclusion that the three references aren't reliable secondary sources is as accurate as the statement that he's only mentioned as an aside in them. Yawn. Keep. --Blechnic (talk) 05:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please provide the link to the Washington Post article proclaiming that he's a "composer of considerable stature." If this is true, this afd is a waste of time, and he's obviously notable.
  • "Mentioned prominently in the second sentence of the first source" is not coverage. There's no coverage in reliable sources, the basic requirement for meeting WP:BIO.
  • Admins don't decide WP:RS policy. This guideline that you mention, "three non-reliable sources = one good one" must appear somewhere in the WP:RS guideline. I doubt that it does.
  • Studying with a Pulitzer prize-winner (not sourced) doen't make someone notable. See WP:NOTINHERITED--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that's not what you say, you've nominated it for deletion because the sources mentioned don't cover him and they do. Did you want to change your nomination and relist? Feel free. But your current nomination is simply false. So there's no reason to support it. --Blechnic (talk) 06:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS I'm not sure why you're posting "NOTINHERITED" as there's nothing in the article about Sawyer's studies with a Pulitzer prize winning composer. However, that's three strikes as far as I can see, nothing in this AfD seems to be related to the actual article. --Blechnic (talk) 06:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a "discussion" about Eric W. Sawyer's notability or lack thereof. You mentioned above that he "studied with Pulitzer prize-winning composer Leon Kirchner". I assumed that you mentioned this information becasuse you were trying to prove notability. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, just to forestall that conclusion from anyone, I clearly presented, after the blockquote, the reason I felt that paragraph established notability. "So, the Washington Post and American Record Guide consider him noteworthy and a "composer of considerable stature," respectively." Feel free to read the whole thing. --Blechnic (talk) 06:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all the improvements made. Bfigura (talk) 00:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bilby's amended article establishes notability for mine. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even the improved version of Bilby seems to fall short of satisfying criterion 1 of WP:MUSIC. Very few reviews of the subject's work are mentioned, one of them is in the Amherst magazine (a college newspublication), and another one in Fairfield Citizen News, which seems to be a small local newspaper. There are some references to Boston Globe, Washington Post and san Franscisco Chronicle, but it is unclear from the article how much of in depth coverage they contain (and I would still say that their number is too small to signify notability). Nsk92 (talk) 19:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - yes, that's the problem with having to rely on newspaper archives, as you can't link to them, making it hard for other editors to judge the context. In the hope it might help either way: a couple of the (non-linked) references I used are trivial (as were many of the hits), so I just used them to establish a performance date. About 5 or 6 of the newspaper references are non-trival, but not extensive, including the Washington Post (typically a paragraph or, at most, two, as part of a review of three or four pieces performed that night). The better ones I just managed to dig up - the American Record Guide review is extensive and very positive, the first San Francisco Classical Voice piece is reasonable (but not long) and very positive, and the second San Francisco Classical Voice is long and very negative. :) I gather that there are a couple of reviews of his printed work in Strings magazine, but I don't have access to them. Overall, I still lean towards saying he's just notable (the American Record Guide helps on that for me, as is the presence of a published CD just on his work, and another featuring some of his pieces) - not incredibly so, but enough for an article. Your mileage, of course, may vary. :) - Bilby (talk) 01:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Criteria 1 doesn't even apply to these references. The criteria concerns "musicians and ensembles", and these references concern a play, not a musician or an ensemble. Although he might have been mentioned as the writer of the play, the coverage was not of him. There has yet to be shown one reliable source that specifically covers him, therefore falling far short of the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources standard, the very basic Wikipedia notability requirement. One who writes one semi-notable play just doesn't deserve a whole encyclopedia article about him. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I agree that "musicians and ensembles" doesn't apply. While he is a musician (pianist) that isn't what he is noted for. So he'd be under the "Others" sub category of Criteria for composers and lyricists. That section relates primarily to music, which fits with the references provided, but I think is a tad tricky to apply. I'm not sure I'd regard his opera as notable yet (that looks too much like WP:Crystal for me), in spite of (mostly short) reviews of the early performances, but I think he just meets the criteria due to repeated performances of some of his work, CDs, reviews (especially the American Record Guide, and potentially Strings magazine), and various mentions here and there. I don't think it is entirely clearcut, though, which is why I see these debates as so useful. - Bilby (talk)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Spartaz Humbug! 21:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Steve Allday

Dr. Steve Allday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There is nothing in the article to suggest notability. —G716 <T·C> 01:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ETA not MOS but Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people), knew I'd seen it TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 20:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snow? In June? (deleted) Tony Fox (arf!) 03:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Growing Up In : The N.Y.C.

Growing Up In : The N.Y.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Puakeni - Sweet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I.R. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No claims to notability. Band that is making the album has no article and various articles about them have been deleted previously going by the article "owners" contribution history. All references are Youtube, or group owned blogs or Myspaces. Most of the article is also crystal balling. Incidentally also created by user who appears to be the artist in question. Canterbury Tail talk 01:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete both, fails WP:MUSIC as the band is a red link. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge to List of One Piece chapters. Please note, I'm not performing the merge myself, I'll leave that to interested editors. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One Piece side comics

One Piece side comics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:FICT and WP:N completely. List of the side stories from included in the One Piece manga volumes, which are not notable and not anything generally mentioned within anime/manga articles unless they are relevant to he work itself. Failed PROD removed by an IP with no reason given. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - possibly merge some of it to List of One Piece chapters, but probably largely just not notable. Doceirias (talk) 01:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of One Piece chapters mentions of each side story into the list of chapters for the volume it's in. (Assuming you can parse that -- sleep deprevation does bad things to my clarity.) —Quasirandom (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of One Piece chapters, and/or List of One Piece episodes for the side stories that have been animated. {{Justyn (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)}}[reply]
Merge Too long, but notable. Otherwise i concur with the 2 Merge-voters Shoombooly (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 00:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

York Hiking Club

York Hiking Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable organization, just a small local club. Article does not contain any references, just a single external link to its own site. Though the article states the organization has been around for what amounts to be more than 75 years, age is not a criteria for notability, especially for an organization that is generally not considered notable under Wikipedia guidelines. Besides, there are no off-site references provided to document this. Hellno2 (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a nn local club that doesn't pass WP:ORG. Bfigura (talk) 00:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Complete absence of third party independent sources confirms lack of any notability whatsoever. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save. Updating page is ongoning with other data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.28.64.254 (talk) 13:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC) — 208.28.64.254 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Save. Did not know that there was such a time factor our supporters will do best to meat your needs. It is not a small deal as we have 1200 people visit us weekly and we have a "ridge runner" (Safety Ranger) and the first to ever do the A.T. and many more things that make us the most active club for hiking in South Central PA. We have people up from MD. and down form Duncannon,PA. We have over 250 people. And have had our members and club published many times.Hikingb5 (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC) — Hikingb5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Third-party coverage from reliable sources would be helpful. Please note that existence does not imply notability. --Kinu t/c 00:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And also, numbers do not mean automatic notability either, as in numbers of members, or age as I originally mentioned.Hellno2 (talk) 04:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Will keep on trying. Still do not understand, I have looked around and Wikipeadia has 1-3 years old entries on same type hiking clubs as us with less or no ref data and one bought two domain names to cover their trail building work and those are their two ref. listings. They refer to their own web sites as ref or third party info. I have seen dozens of trail clubs with 3-8 sentances for their entier entry on Wikipeadia. We are part of the "Susquehanna A.T. system of hiking/Trail clubs" just like the other one you have on Wikipeadia south of here. Guess there could now be a gap in your coverage of A.T. suporting trail building clubs documented.

This is why we and our suporters have till now not pushed to add all this info as till this week we did not know this. Now that we are under the light we will try our best to be more than equal to the many other Wikipeadia hiking/trail pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.28.64.254 (talk) 12:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • We have been published in the local two newspapers for our helpfull website that suported the countys parks before they had a website and on the clubs many works in trail building and all. But they are not on the main newspapers websites any more due to months or years since published what can i do to use this info? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.28.64.254 (talk) 12:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The "references" that have been added to the article over the past day or so seem more like advertisements for the club and its events. An advertisement is not a valid reference. A local retail business that advertises in the local paper is not considered notable on the basis of these ads, neither is a club. Hellno2 (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Guess I am just dumb as a post! Will keep on trying. We have held meeting tonight to try and figure out what to do. Will talk with our friends at the The Appalachian Trail Conservancy and KTA (ALL hiking and trail clubs group) who told us to expand the wiki page you at wiki started. Guess my mistake was not thinking it was all about information and helping the reader and now is it about writing it like a biography of a dead person or a river. If we are such a bad listing for Wikipedia then why did I find our clubs name listed without any data? Why are there so many others listed just like us? I will try by just adding more and you can tell me to remove it. Or keep it. I have spent hours reading your rules and from what I see 30% of Wikipedia content does not meet the criteria. This is harder than doing my taxes and I have done web work for 11 years. Guess I need to stop using other wiki pages as a guide as they appear to be all wrong found at least 25 all hiking/trail clubs. So frustrating. May just delete it mayself as it may not be worth the humiliation and time.Hikingb5 (talk) 01:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In all, this page, and its references, seem mostly like an advertisement. Some of the references now given do not even mention "York Hiking Club" in a search. A good reference would describe the club's importance to the world or at least to its region at a neutral point of view, not promote it. Also, the one user who has been writing here, Hikingb5, has been saying "we" here throughout, thereby implying s/he is a member of the club itself (a Conflict of Interest). The account seems to be a Single-purpose account dedicated to saving this article. Hellno2 (talk) 05:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. I know notability has nothing to do with level of fame or popularity. But just making a point, I live in Timonium, Maryland, which is only 40 miles away from York, and I am a hiking enthusiast, familiar with all the trails in the area. Yet I have never heard of the York Hiking Club until I randomly came across this article one day recently.Hellno2 (talk) 05:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please, this is a no-brainer for deletion but also a case where the editor involved obviously does not understand WP policy or notability guidelines. Maybe we can spend some time educating the editor so they at least understand why their club can't have an article here. --Laser brain (talk) 05:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking to the author on his/her talk page now. Ideally we can find references to prove notability, if it exists, and if not, explain our policies. Creating a new articles is a daunting & difficult task for any new editor, so we shouldn't be surprised if an editor unknowing errs in the process. --Bfigura (talk) 13:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are corectI expanded this yhc entry to help Wiki and found myself in this pile of delelte dletete delete. I assumed that if so many other clubs have long standing entrys with no real refrances etc and that our name was there I should fix it by making it more than a sentance long thing. I am not trying so much to save it as not have someone mess with it in a negative way. As I said my big mistake was using 25 plus other hiking club entries as templats of what to do and add to this page. Guess if they are all wrong then our page is all wrong. We die and they live as they are not being deleted.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.28.64.254 (talk) 12:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • bye you win!
    • Just hope you may even for a second belive that I am not the evil one you all think I am. I did not understand what Wikipedia is even though I have used it for years. At this point I have learnd that I a webmaster and web user of 12 years have no clue as to what Wikipeadia is. Guess it is like the old Referance vol. 1-13 books of the 1970s. I made the muistake of thinking it was an all knowing about all things.
 Our club is as important to the beginings of the Appalachian Trail and 120 mile Mason Dixon Trail as the PATC that you have listed on Wiki. We have built it from the beginings and give many things back to the comunuity for public hiking. Without us and KTA and other groups there would be 3,500 fewer miles of trail in PA!
 Guess some day I will figure you guys out. Do you have somthing that does not look like a 50 page leagal doc that I could read to gain a clue. All I have been linked to so far read so lawer like are hard to get a feel for what Wiki really is. Any info pages that are people friendly and not leagle stuff?Hikingb5 (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • BTW having this Wiki page does nothing to advertise our club or website we get over 1200 hits a week and this page only distracts from the Google/search listings for people to click on us. I say this to respond to those that think we did this for advertisement reasons. We did it for one reason to keep someone ells from creating it and thus they could have flamed the group for the fun of it. I had seen how other clubs pages had been flamed or edited wrongly. That's all we did this for was to keep it factual. And keep control over our name.208.28.64.254 (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am actually reviewing those other articles on hiking, canoeing, and other outdoors clubs that Hikingb5 is talking about, and I have found several of them do exist, yet do not seem to meet notability requirements. In the next week or so, I am considering putting them into a bundled AFD. Hellno2 (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_June_2&oldid=216542865"