Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 March 30

< March 29	March 31 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stray Ghost

Whilst I wish the artist much success, Stray Ghost does not yet seem to be notable -- one track has been produced, with others in the pipeline... – Stuart. (Sjb90 | talk) 17:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant releases yet (two self-released EPs, one single in the pipeline), no other credits that would bring him up to WP:MUSIC criteria. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WEAK KEEP Barely passes WP:BAND. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the music is interesting, I don't feel a 5-track download and a planned future album is sufficient to pass WP:MUSIC on releases, and I found no significant coverage.--Michig (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable musician. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say he has two self-released e.p's?

One is coming out on a label called DeadPilot...the other or Highpointlowlife which has its own wiki page! He is also linked with Matthew Rozeik who has his own wiki page... Keep I say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.12.234.1 (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable yet. Warrior4321^talkContribs 21:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.. - Philippe 19:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eyesore Angels

Article was PRODded, but the tag was removed without explanation. Band with no albums, only 2 self-financed singles. Won a local battle of the bands, the prize for which was a £500 shopping spree - hardly a major competition. Nowhere near meeting WP:BAND. Michig (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator.--Michig (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No major label albums, no chart singles, no reliable sources (at least among the ones in the article -- they look trivial to me); therefore, no chance of passing WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 18:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Article seems somewhat notable. Warrior4321^talkContribs 21:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is notable as the band won a music competition. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry dude, a local competition where the prize is £500 is not a major music competition. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Early Cassette Demo (album)

Contested prod. Aside from the fact that this title could probably be applied to thousands of so-called albums, the article is unsourced and probably doesn't exist. It also fails WP:MUSIC even if it does exist. UsaSatsui (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability guidelines for albums; wasn't officially released, reviewed, etc. and besides, it was just a demo tape. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Demos are rarely notable; this one makes zero claim of notability.--Fabrictramp (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Beeblbrox (talk) 19:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Early Cassette Delete JuJube (talk) 04:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Philippe 19:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DIKW

A statement on the article's talk page describes the situation perfectly:

"It seems to be original research and hard for the practical use. I also agree with critical observations of User:Mazer. - Unique reference is a personal webpage... See: WP:NOR and WP:NPOV"

Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 17:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article can be improved, but the underlying concept and initialism is in used in many books[1] and journal articles[2] so it is notable enough IMO. The article has a couple of journal references already. --Itub (talk) 09:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems obvious from the external links section (as of today) that there are substantial references to be found. Maybe it uses personal pages as links but it's not the authors of those pages that posted the article, hence this is not a WP:NOR violation. Heck, DIKW is in the acronym finder . Sbwoodside (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Canley (talk) 14:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bintube Media Player & Newsreader

Not-notable, would nom for speedy if there was a cat. No RS. ukexpat (talk) 17:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no independent reliable sources cited in the article to establish notability and I do not think there are any to be found. The product is still in Beta and doesn't seem to have garnered much attention from either the mainstream or specialist press. Guest9999 (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an advertisement. However, I am concerned that the article was nominated for AfD 11 minutes after its creation. —BradV 17:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the opinions above this article should be deleted too Unison (Usenet client), and many others can be singled out as well.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Byte backwards

Orphaned article since August 2006; no sources listed to support the notability of this term. —Bkell (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No proof that this is a notable term; doesn't appear to have been used in any reliable sources. Even so, it's a mere dicdef anyway. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I think this was used a "bit" in assembly-language programming, but the topic is covered at endianness. Most uses I found were not to internal byte order of a value but counting N bytes "backwards" from some point, i.e. not the meaning here at all. --Dhartung | Talk 21:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless references can be found. I could find nothing that didn't point back to this article. Hobit (talk) 01:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If anyone disagrees with the four persons above, I can only ask that they be civil about it... please, no backbiting. Mandsford (talk) 01:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment word to the wise, a bit of sarcasm can byte you around here. :-) Hobit (talk) 03:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if the term is real its rather obscure to have an article claiming its common. --BrucePodger (talk) 23:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 19:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Heavy Hitters

DJ crew with questionable notability, tagged as unsourced since June 2007. Has quite a few releases, but none of them strike me as passing WP:MUSIC. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 17:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, vandalism. - Bobet 17:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Global Banking, Inc.

Can one of "the leading and most powerful Banking firms in the world" with a "net worth of over $27 billion" really be so "low key, and very private" that it has no Google hits, and neither does its Chairman and CEO? I think this is a hoax; but if not, it certainly fails notability for lack of reliable sources. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3 Appears to fall under the category of blatant misinformation (hoax) to me. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Pure vandalism. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 17:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 19:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan bond

Potentially non-notable actor (Google search only turns up namesakes. No establishment of major appearances or proof of notable acting career. No references. Booglamay (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: references/external links have been added since the AfD notice was put in place. However, the link to the IMDB is to a Thomas Law, not Nathan Bond. ~~I'm confused~~ Comparing the two links, IMO the two people are different (most notably birthdates and credits do not match). Booglamay (talk) 17:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable actor—we'd need to see evidence of some significant roles in order to keep this. Has the feel of a vanity page as it stands... The original editor also edited the Thomas Law article—I suspect he added the new links in error. – Stuart. (Sjb90 | talk) 17:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The person who created the article has also vandalised other articles (here and here, for example), so it would seem that this isn't a serious attempt at creating a new article for Wikipedia. Also, the IMDb link added appeared to me to be an attempt to make the article outwardly appear to be about a notable actor (when, in fact, it was a link to somebody else). The Baroness of Morden (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 19:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Macauley Christantus

Contested prod (by an IP with no explanation). Player fails WP:BIO#Athletes as he has never played in a fully professional league. [3] Although he has appeared on the subs bench, claiming that he will play for them is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL, as for all we know he may get injured and have to retire before ever playing. In addition, consensus seems to be that youth caps do not confer notability. The article can be easily restored by an admin as soon as he does cross the threshold. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 16:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 16:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; in addition, the guy is actually named "Chrisantus", not Christantus. --Angelo (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I know the original article with the name "Chrisantus" was deleted, but now that this article is going thru AfD, I want to point out that this player was the top scorer of 2007 FIFA U-17 World Cup. Wouldn't he deserve an article for that? AR TYOM 17:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. He never played at a professional level, and playing at the under-17 level is definitely not notable itself, even if the subject happened to be topscorer in an international competition (which is something that disadvantages footballers who play in a role different than striker, by the way). --Angelo (talk) 17:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it didn't prevent Cesc Fabregas from winning the golden boot at the U-17 World Cup several years ago :-) ugen64 (talk) 03:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom BanRay 10:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is utter racism. Chrisantus played professional football in Nigeria prior to his move to Hamburg. Furthermore, he was the highest goal scorer and winner of the Golden boot in the FIFA U-17 World Cup. If Players like Fran Merida and Bojan have pages on this website, you have no serious grounds to say Chrisantus should not. I am going to create the page all over again and woe betide the person that comes here to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salamisa (talk • contribs) 19:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Pickett

This article was speedy tagged as {{db-band}}, but as the myspace page indicates this musician is on a national tour, I thought there might be borderline notability per WP:MUSIC. Thoughts? Skomorokh 16:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The band he played in is a red link and doesn't appear to be notable. The singer himself doesn't seem to have any notability yet per WP:MUSIC; no proof that he's currently touring, or that he's doing anything that might meet the criteria. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Who? NN Dreamspy (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. As TPH says... the band is red linked and is not notable. --Pmedema (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 19:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gator Stompin'

I am sure this event is great larks for the Florida students but bottom line is that it is just a non-notable university pub crawl. Can find no reliable sources beyond the local paper - google news has one hit for "gator stompin". nancy ^(talk) 16:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to University of Florida Beeblbrox (talk) 19:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment is there a corollary to the snowball clause for when it's obvious no one cares? Perhaps a tumbleweed clause? Beeblbrox (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -Neitherday (talk) 05:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nadim Dawod

Non-notable kingpin/trafficker/rapper. 2 ghits, 0 articles. Article fails WP:V, WP:RS. CSD was declined. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. {{nn-bio}}. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I tried that exact CSD, but it was declined. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently whoever declined didn't read that the "critically acclaimed" album wasn't sourced as being "critically acclaimed" Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in the speedy delete criteria does it say that the indication of importance/significance has to be sourced. Guest9999 (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that declining was the correct thing to do. The claim of notability is there, so prod or AfD are the way to go.--Fabrictramp (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSIC Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources in article to back up notability claims, gsearch isn't coming up with notability.--Fabrictramp (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NN. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD A7 and WP:SNOW. Daniel Case (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joginder Singh Bhella

Totally non-notable and pointless page Dixonsej (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. See WP:CSD, Criteria A7. No encyclopedic notability. WilliamH (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, falls under A7 - no asserted notability in the biography. JamieS93 15:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 for total lack of notability, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete; default to keep. - Philippe 19:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SCAA Family

This article on a "family" of mascots is an excuse to promote some blogs and other promotional websites. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. —Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete seems to be an add type work , fails its notability , at least not for English wiki . --Pearll's sun (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm neutral to the deletion, but someone pointed out in the article Talk page that the blog used as a source for the article is the official blog of SCAA, so while notability is questionable, I think the article is well-sourced. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The blogs sourced in the article are not promotional websites. They are official channels for Hong Kong football club SCAA for releasing news of the club. Checkiema (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then they are official promotional websites.... Phlegm Rooster (talk) 11:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Who cares? How can SCAA specifically benefit from it? Hikikomori.hk (talk) 01:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just like Kingsley Royal, a football club mascot's article can be kept here. Hikikomori.hk (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Kingsley Royal has third party citations or it would be deletable too. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then maybe you should suggest rewriting this page. Hikikomori.hk (talk) 08:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm sure the topic is non-notable, because I couldn't find any sources. Topics on non-notable articles are to be deleted. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 13:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Maybe you should learn Chinese language. Hikikomori.hk (talk) 05:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam, User:Hikikomori.hk is welcome to try and promote the SCAA Family on the Chinese Wikipedia, where it appears to be part of the SCAA page rather than having its own article. AnteaterZot (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jonny-m t 14:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note. This article has been tagged for rescue. The topic is encyclopedic, but it needs citations from independent, reliable sources. Deleting this immediately promotes the systematic bias of Wikipedia as being Euro-American biased; on the other hand, author of the article could be a bit more helpful in finding alternative citation sources - after all, wasn't Hong Kong under English control for about a century? B.Wind (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep hardly surprising that we're here on AfD given that the article creator has not bothered to cite a single intellectually independent, reliable source; some such sources (a few newspaper articles) seem to exist, but they're hard to find among all the youtube videos, blogs, and forum posts ...
- "南華吉祥物與市民接觸 (SCAA mascots get up close with city residents)", Ta Kung Pao, 2007-11-27; can't seem to access it directly but its headline shows up on their website [4]
- "南華吉祥物面世 (SCAA mascots make their debut)", Apple Daily, 2007-09-21; you need a subscription to access Apple Daily, but again, googling on the title of the article at least proves that the source exists [5]

Cheers, cab (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 19:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on current content. The article is sourced only to the team's web site and a blog (which apparently is the team's official blog), meaning there are no independent, reliable sources. The article also focuses heavily on fictional content (such as the personalities, birthdays, and favorite foods of these fictional characters) with insufficient real world perspective per WP:WAF, other than promotional/advertising content relating to the merchandising of the characters. Nevertheless, I can imagine that the article could be improved to at least the quality of, say, The San Diego Chicken or Phillie Phanatic. But anyone who wants to keep this article should work on rewriting it to focus on real world context with independent reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Provided the sources provided by cab checks out. The sources currently given on the page is inappropriate to establish notability. Taemyr (talk) 23:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have been writing most of the contents in this article. I understand the comments above and I am trying to find some relevant and independent sources for this article, which is very likely to be from newspaper (like those suggested by cab). I think the best action towards this article can be a rewrite rather than a pure deletion.Checkiema (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this user already expressed his opinion above. —BradV 23:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No assertion of notability (what are they known for?) and no reliable sources. —BradV 23:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability does not have to be demonstrated in the article. Where you thinking about importance? WP:N calls for the existence of multiple independent reliable sources in order for an topic to pass. This have been shown to exist, thus the article passes our notability standards. Taemyr (talk) 00:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article does not even exist in the Chinese Wikipedia: it is a subset of the South China Athletic Association article. —BradV 23:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: I suppose whether this article exists in Chinese Wikipedia does not add any reference value. There are a lot of articles on Hong Kong football in English Wikipedia which do not exist in Chinese Wikipedia. The non-existence of a separate article on this topic in Chinese Wikipedia may only due to a lack of people to develop an article rather than the notability of it.Checkiema (talk) 02:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per sources found by cab Hobit (talk) 03:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You'd think that a sports team's mascots would get some media coverage, but this isn't very much at all. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PLD Linux Distribution

Since the article quotes only primary sources (same for all foreign-language versions), it seems to fail WP:N. The article survived a mass nomination in March, but the discussion did not hint at any secondary sources, nor were any added to the article since then. B. Wolterding (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to fail WP:N. Google finds various lists of Linux distributions where it is mentioned, but no independent review. Google news finds nothing. So in the end, notability as per our guidelines is doubtful. --Minimaki (talk) 10:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Additionally, appears to be neither original/innovative nor popular.--Chealer (talk) 18:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Stop the insanity! Article references a well known linux distro package with historical value, a strong user base and an impressive search engine presence (DMOZ, MSN, Yahoo, Google, etc etc). While I don't have a definitive reference handy to prove notability beyond any question, I think it's a safe assumption that this software has been reviewed more than once in published linux related material. The top US google search results alone while not authoritative do show that this particular distro is the center of much discussion. And DMOZ has it's own subdirectory for PLD related sites. The original debate seems to present fair and accurate reasoning to keep the article and WP:N states "Notability is not temporary". Regardless, finding references is likely a simple matter of going to the library and doing relatively easy leg work in the computer related periodicals. Using only Google results (and then limiting it even further to the US .com server) to define notability seems very restrictive. To use the same measure, a query for "PLD" on the polish Google ( http://www.google.pl/search?q=PLD ) yields pld-linux.org as the top result with an authority hub listing (notice the full site map). It would be more productive to request references on the discussion page than dragging this article through another AfD. I'm sure they're not having this issue over at http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLD_Linux_Distribution where it's also listed as one of the primary linux packages. 99.229.222.154 (talk) 00:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The warning tag has been on the article since last May, that's quite a bit of time for requesting sources; none have been found. If you have some, please add them. Pld-linux.org is a primary source, which does not confer notability. Search engine hit counts do neither. For "insanity", please see civility. Thanks. --B. Wolterding (talk) 08:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree about WP:GHIT within it's own context and point taken regarding WP:CIVIL. Comment tone revised accordingly, initial exclamation left only for reply integrity. Sadly I do not have the resources (extra time, library access or polish language proficiency) to locate the desired references. Outside of the WP guidelines "authority hub" listing in google do confer that a site is an authority on a notable subject. Not exactly WP notability.. but notable in general. I have seen SEO'ed authority hub listing for less than notable subjects, but I believe this is highly unlikely in this case. There's whole user communities built around PLD which are listed in the DMOZ's PLD category, and the specialty periodicals dedicated to linux seem to thrive on publishing reviews on every linux distro they can get their hands on. We're not talking just hits.. there's a whole category in DMOZ the great grand daddy of search engines that creates the very foundation of google which has been reviewed by live editors. This isn't just the superfluous results of some automate algorithms. http://www.dmoz.org/World/Polska/Komputery/Systemy_operacyjne/Linux/Dystrybucje/PLD/ 99.229.222.154 (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think that Google's handling of a website is a good measure of notability of an encyclopedic topic. The accepted standard at Wikipedia is coverage in independent sources. Actually, these sources should be used to write the article from, otherwise a neutral point of view is hard to achieve. If you want to search for sources later, the article can be moved to your user space until you have found them. (You would however need to create an account for that.) --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 19:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edutising

Neologism with few ghits. Article appears to be an advertorial ... I mean, original research. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It appears to be a non-notable neologism. 99.230.152.143 (talk) 13:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references, reads like an original research essay; and third on Google, after two links to this article, comes "www.edutising.co.za", an advertising firm, slogan "The art of combining education and advertising". JohnCD (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. BWH76 (talk) 08:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. non admin closure Cenarium^Talk 21:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Space shuttles in fiction

This article's sole purpose appears to be an expanded version of those "in popular culture" sections that are essentially trivia sections, which are discouraged. While all of this information may be wonderful in articles about the various individual works, I don't see the purpose of having the big repository list, especially as it's not directly related to the real space shuttle program. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since it seems I was unclear about my reason for deletion, I am specifically saying that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, as well as no original research. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No reason given for deletion. In popular culture sections or articles are not discouraged, and are clearly not trivia sections (according to WP:TRIVIA). They show how notable things are referred to in notable works, where the form a key part of the plot, or the setting. The point of an encyclopedia is to collect information about important concepts in appropriate packages, and this approach is a perfectly good one,and rather common in the academic world. the article needs improvement--not everything is necessarily important,and it should have explicit sources. That's a matter for editing. The nom. doesnt like such articles, which is his prerogative, but not a relevant argument for deletion. DGG (talk) 14:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the reasons DGG gave much more eloquently than I could. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article appears just a random collection of films appearances of the Space Shuttle in Film and TV - it is COMPLETELY unreferenced, makes no attempt to distinguish between notable and non-notable appearances or indeed to make any sort of notbility arguments whatsover. It is in addition riddled with OR.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No substantive reason to delete has been provided. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article does need significant improvement (more references, less OR, make it less like a list) but it can still be turned into something useful. Additionally, as was mentioned above, "in popular culture" sections are not specifically discouraged. --Hydraton31 (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep i dont find a reason to delete it , if not found to be fit under wiki standard then we must leave it for other editors to fix it or clean it . so i think placing a tag if necessary would fix the solve the issue .--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As said above Warrior4321^talkContribs 21:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but source. Can't get far with an empty tank. --Dhartung | Talk 21:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the prose style of this article makes it easier to properly reference. I disagree that fictional portrayals of highly notable concepts are horribly unencyclopedic. --Canley (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No question that the article needs better sourcing and bit of a a rewrite but those are reasons to improve the article, not delete it. - Dravecky (talk) 23:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Dravecky and Canley. Space Shuttles are noteable. Lots42 (talk) 01:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Until someone publishes an article or book on treatment of space shuttles in fiction there is no reason to cover it here. Like most pop culture spinoffs, this article reflects a lack of courage to deal with out-of-control trivia lists. WillOakland (talk) 01:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sometimes people mistakes AfD for clean-up. If this article is not good, wikify it. Deletion is a very extreme solution. Zero Kitsune (talk) 03:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's extreme, but not inappropriate for an article that cites no secondary sources at all. WillOakland (talk) 01:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't like "In popular culture" sections, but I don't really have a problem with list articles, and this seems to be more like the latter. — Omegatron 22:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - It could use some sourcing, and is a little disjointed. That said...NASA, in fact, maintains a page specifically about space shuttles in science fiction for educational purposes. Isaac Asimov saw them as a significant enough theme in some science fiction to collect an anthology specifically about them (Space Shuttles by Asimov). This is merely touching science fiction; there are numerous articles on JSTOR about cultural references and fictional coverage of space shuttles following the Challenger disaster for example. Sources exist, the topic is important. Keep it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coanda-1910 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Coanda-1910. THE KC (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Keep: Valid subject. Article needs rewrite and sourcing, not deletion. The article is not trivia per WP:TRIVIA, any highly important fact (like space shuttle) depicted in popular culture and media are valid encyclopedic subject. Nom's rationale for deletion is vague and probably based on misunderstanding of wikipedia policies. I smell disruption on such unclear nomination. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At worst its a valid sub-article to avoid an overly long 'in popular culture' section in the main space shuttle article. --BrucePodger (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as sole delete opiner neglected to offer a justification, notability conferred by non-trivial coverage in reliable sources referenced after nomination. Non-admin closure Skomorokh 02:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher J. Ward

WP:BLP and more general notability concerns. Negative biography stub of a GOP activist and accused embezzler in a recent political scandal. No apparent claim of general interest before this one, yet-to-be-proven event, failing WP:NOT#NEWS. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article doesnt show the =national impact, but Google News does, and I've added stories to the article from the NYT and the Washington Post. BLP isnt relevant: there are excellent sources, and his career is quite possibly notable beforehand. DGG (talk) 14:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I know how big the scandal is. It takes more than a single burst of news to establish notability and until he is convicted, BLP applies. This is a premature-at-best BIO1E. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Everything in the article is sourced to reliable sources. --Eastmain (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Everything looks fine, it has sources. Warrior4321^talkContribs 21:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although the position of treasurer at the NRCC (or DCCC) would not normally be notable, the fact of a significant embezzlement from one of these committees is not only newsworthy but historic. --Dhartung | Talk 21:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 02:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Stanton (actor)

Article seems to lack notability, as well as context, but not quite to a sufficient level to qualify for either A1 or A7 speedy. It is, nonetheless, practically empty, hence I feel it qualifies for deletion, but feel a greater concencus should be reached. _Talk Islander 12:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the actor only had a string of one-time small roles I'd say let it go, but the actor has a recurring role on a television series. I think that's good enough to keep it off the block, but it does need to be expanded.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 12:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a recurring role in a TV series is notable -- Whpq (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 13:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baird street

Article about a street and its residents, no indication of what city it is located in, no indication of why it is notable outside its immediate surroundings. ~~Delete.~~ (see below) Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 11:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - A7 it's clearly a bit of fun by a a kid. --Deadly∀ssassin^(talk) 12:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, very non-notable and informal, certainly does not belong here. JamieS93 12:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per others. Very non-notable article. Probably a joke. Paul20070 (talk) 12:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt Bizarre - what on earth is it all about? -- BpEps - t@lk 12:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unfortunately I don't think A7 covers streets, but this is not notable. JohnCD (talk) 12:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G7 Author requests deletion. So tagged. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 12:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have speedy deleted it. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 12:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the page article is deleted but why is this discussion still continues ?? why dont we close this ??--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 12:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Istepanian

Was tagged for speedy A7; since there is some claim of importance I've taken it to AfD. The immediate problem I see is that it is largely unreferenced and the two refs provided are not independent sources. Marasmusine (talk) 11:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. has the article been deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolyn25 (talk • contribs) 12:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Much more than "some claim of importance" claims lead investigator of multiple projects with major funding, and over 150 papers--I have not checked them yet for citations. Is ed. of three books by major publishers. The web site is sufficient sourcing for the routine facts of a career, and the papers can & will be verified in Web of Science. However, I am not familiar with Kingston University, which appears to be a upgrade of Kingston Polytechnic, so I do not necessarily assume a full professor there is important. St Georges, similarly, is a respectable but not absolute top-rate London medical school. .DGG (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marasmusine. It's good that the article hasn't been deleted yet and I hope it isn't. Thre is also another thing. How do you write to people on their talk pages as I don't know how to being new user on Wikipedia. Thanks Carolyn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolyn25 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carolyn, try clicking on the talk link next to someone's signature, which will take you to their talk page, then clicking on the little "+" tab or the "edit this page" tab. I'll leave some other useful links on your talk page. Marasmusine (talk) 07:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although Kingston University is not a top-ranked UK university in this field, as far as I'm aware, he is a full professor and director of a research centre, co-editor of three books by top-rated publishers, on several academic editorial boards, guest editor of several journal issues, and lead investigator for multiple major projects, which would seem sufficient to meet WP:PROF. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The reason suggest to keep this page is because of the major contribution of Professor Istepanian in m-health. He is well known among the specialists in this field as first scientist to coin the phrase.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change Candidate

More of an essay based on synthesis than an encyclopedia article. Another editor put a proposed deletion tag on this with the reason "Poorly written effort that does not need to be an article in the first place; "change" buzzword can be described within the relevant campaign articles themselves", but I removed that because a proposed deletion had already been declined. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was the recent prodder, for the reasons I gave. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously written by someone who thinks that candidates didn't promise "change" until 2008. Go eat some Skittles. Mandsford (talk) 12:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The phrase does have some currency in the 2008 election, but has minor importance and is really just a label that the campaigns are playing keep-away with. This is literally a skeleton of an article. --Dhartung | Talk 21:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I make no bones about it when it comes to agreeing that this is a barebones article. Mandsford (talk) 01:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article is WP:SYN. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 19:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gabrielle Reeves

Was PROD'd, but, has a tinge of notability. Google gives 900 hits for "Gabrielle Reeves" + "editor". I de-prodded the article, but, felt it was best to bring here for more eyes. Neier (talk) 11:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is unsourced and lacks any real notable content in the hits I examined. There is nothing that makes her stand out over others in the industry. --Stormbay (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is written now. What award did she win? References? My threshold is very low for inclusion and this "article of a few words does not do it for me. Callelinea (talk) 03:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Google news searches indicate she had at least one Emmy nomination, but everything is behind a pay wall. Hobit (talk) 03:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 19:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kid Casanova

Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles Berserkerus (talk) 10:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim of notability in article; no professional reviews found at metacritic.--Fabrictramp (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. krimpet ✽ 07:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AntiPatterns

The article is promotional and has no good independent sources. We have a separate article on the topic Anti-pattern Colonel Warden (talk) 09:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If it really spawned the concept of anti-patterns doesn't that make it significant? But that image has got to go. WillOakland (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think it's marginally useful information. If it's kept it needs to be completely rewritten. It's both promotional and defensive currently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.23.39 (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Anti-pattern. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable book in the development of an important concept in software development. 248 citations in Google scholar. Reviews: [6][7][8][9]. It's used in courses. And it won an notable award. Jfire (talk) 00:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G11. Article written by Skip McCormick, one of the authors of the books which present the subject of the article. "AntiPatterns" seems to be a neologism that makes one of its first appearances in these books. Author of article in question has edited only this article and topics in his userspace. There are no independent citations here at all, except for an uncited mention of an award in Jolt magazine. B.Wind (talk) 02:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've cleaned up the article and cited the Jolt award and several reviews. It wasn't a G11 candidate to begin with, but now it's actually a decent article. And by the way, "anti-pattern" is a term that's some 15 years old now and well established in this field. Jfire (talk) 03:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am Computer Scientist and I learn about Design Patterns and also AntiPatterns in Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie. I read this book: it is main guide about anti-patterns. Another universities in my country uses this book also (in English!). Zero Kitsune (talk) 04:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the reviews constitute significant independent coverage, and winning the Jolt award is also distinctive. As a side note, I'm familiar with the term "anti-pattern", as are others I know, so the book must have had some influence =] Gracenotes^T § 05:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete A7 by User:Jonny-mt. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonny N' The Greaserz

I assert that this is a non-notable band and should be deleted on per WP:MUSIC Torchwood Who? (talk) 09:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal

Non-notable? That sir is an insult to the people of Northern Indiana! Jonny N' the Greaserz has an expansive street team and they have made the band known throughout the region. Places have been asking to book them for months now, but seeing as they recently lost their drummer shows have been impossible. A wikipedia page is but a small step towards widening the influence of Jonny N' the Greaserz on the underground scene.

I have seen second rate hacks and full out fakes get wikipedia articles but The Greaserz get shafted just because you haven't heard of them? that seems very close minded of you.

If CCCP Fedeli alla linea can get a wikipedia article why no Jonny N' the Greaserz?

Rebutting the Rebuttal This is no slight to the people of Northern Indiana. I've seen an on-going misconception amongst several groups, including those writing about musicians, that Wikipedia is some kind of stepping stone to greater awareness. This kind of thinking is actually contrary to the nature of wikipedia. A wikipedia article shouldn't be thought of as a status symbol or a means to attract more support for a group, company, person or idea. A wikipedia article is meant to educate the populous about subjects deemed worthy by community consensus guidelines, such as WP:MUSIC. To quote you "A wikipedia page is but a small step towards widening the influence of Jonny N' the Greaserz on the underground scene". This comment in itself shows that you are trying to use wikipedia as some kind of launching pad for the group and that type of reasoning is not productive when considering the scope of the wikipedia project. If this band achieves a level of notability that meets with the standards of the community I'm sure that one day it will have a wikipedia article, but for now I'd have to contend that this group is in no way historically significant. Just to be clear, a deletion here does not mean that the band is NEVER going to have a wikipedia article, it just means the time is not right for them.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 12:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete asserts its lack of notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC and does not have reliable sources. To the person who posted the rebuttal above, you're using the old If "X" has an article, then "Y" should too argument, which really isn't a solid argument for a keep. Bring in some reliable sources (from a major magazine, paper, website, whatever) or prove they pass one of the criterion of WP:MUSIC (which they don't seem to right now). 12:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 10:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skampoe

Contested speedy deletion for underground hip-hop artist. Can't find reliable sources and notability is questioned. Torchwood Who? (talk) 07:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I didn't tag this article for speedy, but after searching for anything I could find on this artist I endorsed its speedy deletion based on notability criteria.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 07:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not evident, fails WP:MUSIC, very unencyclopedic in tone and language. WWGB (talk) 08:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. Tone and information will be update so that notability criteria is addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UmpireRandall (talk • contribs) 08:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just another non-notable MySpace guy operating under pretentions of being "underground". JuJube (talk) 09:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources all seem to be self-published. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:MUSIC; non-notable. tim.bounceback 14:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 20:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW I'm begging someone to do a speedy close on this per snow. The article has gotten ridiculous with the main editor inserting nonsense paragraphs. The longer this stays up the stranger I feel this will become. I'm going to post ANI to see if someone can rush this.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 09:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, textbook CSD A7 indeed. Pegasus «C¦T» 13:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carmageddon (blog)

Lacks notability, seems to be a short advertisement Salavat (talk) 07:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. Tone and information will be update so that notability criteria is addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UmpireRandall (talk • contribs) 08:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Textbook speedy delete case. --erachima formerly tjstrf 08:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indeed. Debate seems unecessary. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - looks like an A7/website case to me; it's a blog that doesn't seem to have any considerable notability. JamieS93 12:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability and lack of third party sources--Torchwood Who? (talk) 12:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources. Who is this person and why is their blog worthy of an article? Possibly self promotion as both the author and the subject are called Geoff. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article creator Geoffeihinger and blogwriter Geoffrey Stephens may or may not be the same person. If they aren't, then delete, because you can't simply copy someone else's blog into a Wikipedia article. If they are the same, Geoff has the potential to write many interesting articles about NASCAR, Indy racing and Formula One. Mandsford (talk) 12:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As NN website. Andante1980 (talk) 13:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August Leffler

Temporary minor character in long gone TV show. I don't think this is notable. 650l2520 (talk) 07:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Long gone is not a reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Third rock will rerun forever. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs refs from particular episodes, and even better secondary source summaries, but show is notable and this would be undue info for the main article. Note that notability is not temporary; once something is notable it is notable forever. Joshdboz (talk) 12:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to merge into a character list once one is created. IMDb said this character appeared in 25 episodes, which is pretty much for a "minor" character. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of episodes that can be cited in this article. --Pixelface (talk) 09:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy DELETE (non admin closure) Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 18:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon vs Digimon

Main: WP:CRYSTAL. Problems with WP:RS. Essay piece. Taroaldo (talk) 07:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's a made up article. --erachima formerly tjstrf 07:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe this to be a clear hoax.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 07:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If it wasn't clear it was a hoax before, this vandalism pretty much confirms it. --erachima formerly tjstrf 08:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete made-up and a waste of time. Article creator (also named Pokemon vs Digimon) is likely a single purpose vandalism account who removed the content from this afd discussion. Doc Strange^{Mailbox Orbitting Black Hole}Strange Frequencies 08:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - made up essay. EJF (talk) 11:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. tim.bounceback 14:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Either a hoax or an essay. Clearly something made up one day. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above, WP:CRYSTAL, no sources, probably a hoax. Think outside the box 16:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Patent nonsense and tagged as such. Fails WP:N, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:MADEUP... take your pick... --Pmedema (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Deleted by me. Now. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 17:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Haemo (talk) 04:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cannibalistic Gothica

Delete. Unreferenced, dubious authenticity, zero Ghits WWGB (talk) 06:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like something made up by a 13 year old who watched too many gore films. I mean seriously, a cannibalistic demon vampire cult? It's either an outright hoax or someone forgot to mention the name of the series they were writing a fictional article about. --erachima formerly tjstrf 07:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I originally saw this article as "canibalists". First I tagged it as unsourced but after doing some research I found nothing for the phrase or for "Cannibalistic Gothica" so I redirected the page to cannibal. Although some of the information in article appears to coincide with the information in the cannibal entry I can't verify anything that makes this a significantly different term from cannibal nor can I find any evidence that the phrase Cannibalistic Gothica has ever been used.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 07:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at best a misunderstanding of some fiction, yet I feel the source is closer to record album notes than a book. --Dhartung | Talk 07:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sourcing, no useful Google hits for the term, no apparent real-world notability. - Dravecky (talk) 07:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Creator User:Michael Slater quotes "My source is from eye witnessess." Man... if I could use that as a WP:RS I'd have made alot of articles when I was smoking that stuff years ago!--Pmedema (talk) 16:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Michael Slater and and IP:99.234.235.244 are removing the AfD tags. They have been reverted and warned.--Pmedema (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The kindest thing I can say about this is unsourced. Edward321 (talk) 04:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:V. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily Deleted - Created by indef banned user. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gayelle (lesbian)

Proposed new term for lesbian. Non-notable neologism. Essentailly the article is spam for a clothes shop. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologism. The linked sources are just a bunch of blogs and the stuff from said clothes shop, nothing reliable to prove the term is in established use. --erachima formerly tjstrf 06:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still delete. After looking at the new version of the article, I'm afraid my concerns still haven't been addressed. The article is better formatted, to be sure, but it still lacks the necessary proof of notability. --erachima formerly tjstrf 13:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, standard failure of WP:NEO. It isn't a "clothes shop", though, it's just a cafepress attached to a pretty basic one-issue website. --Dhartung | Talk 07:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fail WP:NEO. Also, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --- Taroaldo (talk) 07:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NEO, sourcing is blogs and the for-profit organization pushing this trademarked term for a line of merchandise, some sources note this article as evidence of notability setting up a vicious circle. - Dravecky (talk) 07:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The blog that mentions wikipedia, mentions the disambiguation page Gayelle (disambiguation) and was written before this articleNewAtThis (talk) 09:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NEO, feels very spammy for the reasons Dravecky brings up. Also one of its references is UrbanDictionary. Which is a big no-no. Doc Strange^{Mailbox Orbitting Black Hole}Strange Frequencies 09:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Dictionary is not used as a source for this article it is simple in the external links.NewAtThis (talk) 09:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-notable term, i hear it on energy 92.7 all the time and it has received press coverage on Logo and CBS news. Can somebody look into it before they jump to conclusions?NewAtThis (talk) 09:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually only the source is listed, i need actual link to the CBS News and Logo sources. the only Google News articles I can find are to an unrelated cable channel in Trinidad and Tobago Doc Strange^{Mailbox Orbitting Black Hole}Strange Frequencies 14:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Note above vote is from primary editor of article. JuJube (talk) 04:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Actually the article is about a movement (Gayelle® is a movement [...]) not the word. The movement looks non-notable, but the discussion should about about that, I think. - Nabla (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Lesbian and add a small, sourced, mention in it. - Nabla (talk) 12:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that the name is presented as a registered trademark is proof enough to me that it is not a movement, but is in fact a marketing term intended to move product. DarkAudit (talk) 17:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a marketing term and it is not trade marked it is reserved, hipshe is trade marked and it is not presented that way. I simply thought that when a term is reserved or trademarked we are obligated to put in the (r) (tm) (C) alongside the name. I removed them. Move Product? what product? Its a term and social movement. I wouldn't say Hillary Clinton is trying to sell product for selling bumper stickers and t-shirts.NewAtThis (talk) 00:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WEAK KEEP Notable term Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the LGBT WikiProject discussion board. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Blatant advertising, and thinly veiled questions on the Reference Desk will not change this from being the case. Malcolm XIV (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, advertising for what? And second of all I have nothing to due with the gayelle or sapphic chic people. I'm not trying to advertise anything. I do think in the quest for all human knowledge we should mention things such as this. And when an editor makes a good faith claim that there are good reliable sources such as CBS to back it up maybe a good faith search and trying to back him up would be in order instead of trying to destroy a new article without giving it a chance. As for your accusations of my thinly veiled questions, veiled as what? What are you insinuating?NewAtThis (talk) 00:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've said this once and i'll say it again. You'll need to produce the CBS source for it to be used in the article. Simply mentioning it does not help. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As either a newly coined word or a reserved or trade mark, it is not appropriate as the subject of a Wikipedia article. If it turns out to be, in the future, a movement of substance, the encyclopedia will be here then to include it. ៛ Bielle (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Revision is not as spammy, but the term is still one created and pushed by public relations people, not by the community at large. DarkAudit (talk) 04:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more, however that doesn't have anything to do with notability. Perhaps this should be elaborated in the article. Do you have any sources for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NewAtThis (talk • contribs) 04:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not just notability. It's that the term is a neologism. The Wikipedia community, especially the denizens of AfD, do not care for neologisms. The movement is too new to give the term time to enter the general vernacular. Three months isn't enough. DarkAudit (talk) 04:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After being asked to reconsider the revised version I find it improved but still failing notability. Sources 1 and 2 are the same article in a slightly different wrapper, the bulk of the remaining sources are blogs or the self-interested Sapphic Chic website, and source 11 is the "Neology" blog which only goes to proving that WP:NEO applies here. None of this goes to proving notability, only that a few bloggers will respond to a press release for an attention grabbing "funny" story. If pressed again I will change my vote... to Strong Delete. - Dravecky (talk) 04:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per pretty much everyone, this seems to be another P.C. spin job. Also note that the primary editor, User:NewAtThis, has copied the page to his/her userpage. JuJube (talk) 04:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was going to ask if anyone else thought it bizarre that an alleged reliable source added to help disprove the position that the subject is a neologism was in fact a blog titled Neology. I see the thought has already occurred. There is nothing to warrant a change of my position. --- Taroaldo (talk) 04:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Same here. New sources are more reliable, but indicate only that the term is a protologism attempting to inject itself into the culture, not that the term has currency or any importance as of yet. --Dhartung | Talk 09:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with everyone above, None of the sources featured are reliable sources and User:NewAtThis has yet to produce the actual article from CBS News about the term. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 13:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:NewAtThis has also canvassed my Talk page to change my vote based on added "new" sources. I am not seeing anything much more than blogs and similar "every passing breeze" mentions. There is nothing new that would change my "delete" vote above. ៛ Bielle (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:NewAtThis's User page is ~~an exact~~ a substantive copy of this article. Would it be appropriate to tie the deletion of the content of the user page to the deletion of the article, should that be the concensus? ៛ Bielle (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a discussion best saved for later, but note Wikipedia:USER#Copies_of_other_pages is pretty clear. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP IT ON THE SUBJECT YOU WITCHHUNTERS!~~please don't let your personal opinions influence this discussion, keep it to policy, and don't bring my user page up. thank you.NewAtThis (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest Possible Delete per WP:NEO, WP:N, and also, probably, WP:V. Undeath (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, oh, yes, delete. It's a dreadful neologism. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'What's wrong with aussienews and the daily telegraph, they are legitimate sources, I think the advocate has brought it up too.70.1.209.112 (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They have? Then prove it. DarkAudit (talk) 04:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with Tango Magazine, Naughty Trends Magazine, Anodis, Aussie News and The Daily Telegraph as sources?NewAtThis (talk) 05:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about about.com NewAtThis (talk) 05:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seriously, please review WP:RS, WP:NEO etc. I cannot understand how anyone could suggest that those citations meet these criteria. --- Taroaldo (talk) 06:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neologism. --Alchemy12 (talk) 11:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as WP:NEO --Pmedema (talk) 13:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mention and Redirect - In reading the below suggestions, I think that that is fair. I agree with User:Friday that it may deserve a mention in lesbian but does not warrent a separate article.--Pmedema (talk) 16:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologism. Random question, though...why was this relisted merely two days after it started? There's plenty of debate and consensus to delete looks pretty clear... --Smashville^BONK! 15:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment, or radom answer... NewAtThis did it to permit more debate and for people to take a look at new sources provided and for more to be found at lexus nexus see diff. I delisted it as there is no need to duplication. If an admin looking at this believes more debate is needed s/he will relist, typically he will take the new info into account (and there's always Deletin Review if he does not) - Nabla (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge about one cited sentence to Lesbian, and redirect. It's a neologism that a few are writing about, but there's no need for a separate article. Aleta ^Sing 17:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Sources in article talk about the term and are non-trivial. Not sure it has really gotten beyond the neologism stage yet though. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
May be a good reason for this term to get a sentence or two at lesbian. I just don't see that there's enough for a separate article here. Friday (talk) 21:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicted. I think the subject meets the formal notability guidelines - it is a commercial organization that has filed a trademark for a new lifestyle brand it is creating and sells clothing under that trademark[www.cafepress.com/sapphicchic]. The trademark was filed a couple years ago by an individual living in the Bay Area, California. As part of that effort it has gained some publicity worldwide (with substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources) for promoting its brand name as a new term to describe its demographic. Or vice versa - it's a movement that trademarked its name and sells tee shirts. In any event the article, if it survives, should be modified and possibly renamed to be about the organization, not the neologism it's trying to create. However, this article was created by a sockpuppet of a prolific disruptive user, QRC2006 / Boomgaylove, who has made a mess of Bay Area, California articles about queer issues and geography. That clouds the whole issue. Wikidemo (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as content posted by blocked user in evasion of block. User:NewAtThis is not in fact new at this, but is a sockpuppot of a repeat offender, per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/NewAtThis. DarkAudit (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, creator is an indef-banned sockpuppeteer. Jfire (talk) 01:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sourcing issues are not a deletion reason, but rather an opportunity to fix the problem.. - Philippe 19:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities by surface area

Fails two of Wikipedia's core policies, Verifiability and Original Research. This list lacks a single cohesive source, but rather has been built up by individual editors adding their own cities. Some are completely unsourced, some cite Wikipedia articles as sources (I understand that's a no-no) and the rest cite a mishmash of municipal websites and national statistical agencies. How do we know that these are the world's largest cities, in order? We don't, not at all. Unless an external source can be found that actually ranks the world's biggest cities, by area, this is sadly both unverifiable and original research. A shame because it's an interesting topic. Aucitypops (talk) 05:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete due to sourcing issues. This is "notable", in that Mount Isa long held the Guinness record for this, but I have no idea now. The basic problem is twofold. First, how are they measuring area, and second, what is a "city"? When you have things like Hulunbuir, which even our article says isn't a "real" city (whatever that is), but indicative of some kind of metro government. Population and urbanization comparisons made by NGOs tend to recognize things like "built-up areas" for this reason. Unless we have a UN or other highly reputable NGO or almanac-type source, this is going to be a problem article. --Dhartung | Talk 07:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to the reasons above, "height of city" could mean the average height of a city or the height of the highest point in city, which will cause confusion. Lily1104 (talk) 09:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think that altitude is one of the thinks mentioned on the table. I agree with everyone, however, that there are problems with the sources for the individual facts. In addition, I think that the "single cohesive source" referred to by the nominator probably would exist somewhere, and would be more reliable than this constructed table. Mandsford (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since the Guinness Book of Records has something about this, we should see what they say. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly this is a notable list, and is little different than city lists by pop or lat/long. Bad sourcing is no reason to delete an article, just do a rewrite. Joshdboz (talk) 13:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Surface area is defined by: "political jurisdictions which (in their own language) identify themselves as cities". As this will be different for each country, comparing/listing them seems useless to me. Joost 99 (talk) 13:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Aren't all borders just political delineations? How would the list be any different than List of countries and outlying territories by total area? Perhaps the lead should be rewritten, but that doesn't change the topic itself. Joshdboz (talk) 14:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Borders for countries are (for the best part) internationally agreed on. The definition for cities is not. Please take a closer look at the list. There are 72 cities on the list of which 19 (!!!) are Finnish and only 2 are Russian (if the list is correct). This just tells me Finns have a totally different way of laying down their city-borders than Russia. Nothing more. Joost 99 (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even the nominator thinks its a good topic for an article, so sourcing issues can be address by editing.DGG (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perfectly viable and of value, not to mention easily verifiable as these are cities we're talking about; most have their own webpages, and cities are inherently notable meaning there's plenty of sourcing out there. 23skidoo (talk) 16:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nominator: people are suggesting the article remain with a new source. Please realise that as the list stands the whole thing will need to be removed, and as the article is pretty much just a list it will have no content until a new source is found. It is specifically the ranking that is unverifiable and original research, something that won't be fixed by just going to every city in the world's website as 23skidoo etc. have suggested. A single source is essential. - Aucitypops (talk) 20:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. The list is WP:SYNTH in a nutshell. There may be a source that says that Sitka, Alaska, is 4,812 square miles in area. But find me the source that says it's the "14th largest city in the world", by area. Although I'm sure that someone, somewhere, has published a ranking of cities by how many square kilometers each one is, Guinness certainly has not, other than to recognize a few contenders, based on varying definitions. Is this much different than one of us constructing our own ranking of "coldest cities" from different average temperature reports? Good topic, bad executon. Mandsford (talk) 02:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So, in the interests of clarification -- would you still voice a "delete" opinion if the table was missing the first column, the "rank" column? I agree, we don't know Sitka Alaska is the 14th largest city in the World. But, with reliable sources, we can verify that Sitka is smaller than Heyuan, Guangdong and larger than Huizhou, Guangdong. Geo Swan (talk) 23:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SYNTH. Could be rewritten as several editors have suggested. Vints (talk) 07:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- As others have said this article should be carefully sourced. As others have said, sourcing concerns should not be used as an argument for deletion. I think this list would be useful even if it were cut back to half a dozen well-sourced entries, which also listed those cities population. Geo Swan (talk) 23:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd change my opinion if the list were made of "cities of greater than 1,000 km²" or greater than 500 mi², or whatever standard is used. As Geo points out, removal of the ranking would remove most of the synthesis problems. The other improvement I'd suggest is to make the sources visible as endnotes, which is simply a matter of form. If there are sources that say that Altamira is 68,758 mi², and that Chonqing is 31,815 mi², that's encyclopedic information and a list of such large area cities would meet Wikipedia standards. Ultimately, I'm hoping that someone can find a published ranking, but until then, Geo's suggestion is a good solution. Mandsford (talk) 23:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Hobit (talk) 03:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Pajaro Valley Unified School District. Black Kite 07:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Hills Middle School

Completely unsourced, unverified two sentence stub without any external links. Does not assert notability. May not even exist.NewAtThis (talk) 04:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Way too short. Also not notable.--RyRy5 talk 04:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per aboveNewAtThis (talk) 05:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment The school does exist as a simple search would show. There are currently problems with WP:SCHOOL. Insofar as notability, there is neither a clear indication or assertion. If encyclopedic content can be satisfied, it should be merged into its relevant school district or municipality per these criteria in 'Failure to establish notability'. --- Taroaldo (talk) 05:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Length of an article is not a reason for deletion, a call for improvement is not the purpose of an AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 08:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think most of the listings in the category should be deleted. It is not notable that a school exists. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The current standard on Wikipedia is that middle schools and elementary schools are not inherently notable, meaning that you have to demonstrate that there is coverage about the school from secondary sources. This doesn't appear to be a class project on learning Wikipedia, and the two sentences in and of themselves don't show anything significant. Although, as Dravecky says, length of an article may not be a reason for deletion, subjects that aren't inherently notable can't get by with just a stub. Merge/Redirect to new article created by Terriers Fan about the school district. Mandsford (talk) 13:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't appear to have an article on the Pajaro Valley Unified School District, to which this school belongs. If anyone wants to create an "Education" section in Watsonville, California, schools like this one and Watsonville High School can be listed there; but I see no reason for substubs like this to hang around. Deor (talk) 13:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing opinion to redirect now that article on the district has been created and everything significant in this article merged there.Deor (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Pajaro Valley Unified School District per established prcedent. I have already merged the content. TerriersFan (talk) 15:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pajaro Valley Unified School District, where it can be placed in context of other schools until sufficient sourced content allows it to be broken out to its own article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Wikipedia:Notability (schools) to Pajaro Valley Unified School District. Notability isn't claimed in the article, and I'm not finding notabilty in a gsearch for this (or the several other) Rolling Hills Middle School, so Wikipedia:SCHOOL#Failure_to_establish_notability says to merge.--Fabrictramp (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete At this point I must suggest deletion. I am concerned about WP:RS and also the veracity of the article itself. I appreciate that the school district's page has been created, but on Rolling Hills Middle School's web page it notes that the principal is Rick Ito. In Rolling Hills Middle School's page it lists two other individuals as senior administrators. These names do not appear anywhere as senior administrators of any kind (that I could see) on the school's official page. This leads to a concern that, though the school is real, the page was created as a hoax. (Note also that the RHMS page creator has had no other contributions to Wikipedia.) I remain open to additional information. --- Taroaldo (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect TerriersFan, you're right of course. I am pouring myself a second cup of morning coffee now, as I ovbiously haven't had enough yet. Thanks. --- Taroaldo (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this has been fixed on the merged page. Whatever the intention of the page's creator a redirect is valid and deletion would serve no purpose. TerriersFan (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as schools are inherently notable (I can't see how a middle school would be any different in that regard than a high school). Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I motion to close and redirectNewAtThis (talk) 00:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After one day, and with a wide variety of opinions? Let this play out. - Dravecky (talk) 04:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and include in the district article. Middle schools are not inherently notable. They are different from established high schools, because high schools almost always have notable alumni, athletic or academic victories of some sort, news articles talking about the construction or expansion--all documentable. Middle schools there are many fewer such competitions, its usually not to identify notable alumni, and not even local papers pay them much attention. If of course something can be actually found for one then it is notable, but experience here shows that is rarely the case. This one is a good example: directory information only.DGG (talk) 14:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment note that nominator User:NewAtThis is an indef-banned sockpuppet who has made a large number of disruptive AfD nominations. Jfire (talk) 01:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case we should speedy close. We cannot allow noms made by a disruptive sockpuppet result in delete; it would send a bad message to those who engage in such activities. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, dry up, Pumpkin King. See my comment at [10]. Deor (talk) 03:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the nomination was intended to be disruptive, we should not humor the sock account by proceeding, especially in a no consensus case like this one anyway. Also, you may want to read Wikipedia:Civility. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing to merge. Maybe just redirect? Vegaswikian (talk) 02:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If we do redirect, then there's no reason to delete as well, as we might as well keep everyone's public contribution history intact. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In case you haven't noticed, a redirect preserves the article's history at the redirect page. Deor (talk) 03:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if it's a redirect without deletion. Sometimes the article is deleted first and then redirected without preserving the edit history. In thie case, though, if it is redirected, I don't believe the article should be deleted first. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this one line article into its district article. AnteaterZot (talk) 04:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Business innovation consulting group

NN - WP:CORP - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Business Innovation Consulting Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) should be added to the nomination - also on the same subject matter by the same editor. – ukexpat (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable as per nom. Significance not asserted; promotional; possible WP:COI --- Taroaldo (talk) 04:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not Notable. Per above.--RyRy5 talk 04:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability, reads like an advert. - Dravecky (talk) 06:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Talk about waving a red flag in front of a bull. . . - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dont delete Notability has been asserted per Wiki guidelines: references, notes and links. BICG's work on workplace strategies is on a par with Fraunhofer Society, which has wiki entry. Acorsin(talk) 19:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: {{reflist}} is mainly for in-line citations. Please reformat your references list to reflect proper usage. It is difficult to verify your sources otherwise and may count against the policy of WP:RS. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nothing here to show independent notability. Nothing to show that it's a "nationally recognised" team; winning some local competitions is not enough. Black Kite 07:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

West Chester East Academic Team

Semi-procedural nomination. This page was previously tagged for speedy deletion for not asserting notability. Problem is, the page DOES assert notability by claiming that the team is nationally recognized, and one of the editors, User:Headtechie2006, says they have a number of national titles (which are not currently specified in the article). In light of this, the page should be listed for a full deletion debate.

Personally, I'm leaning towards delete right now, but will change to keep if we can get proof of the club's national recognition. --erachima formerly tjstrf 04:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot locate WP:RS info to verify notability. Am open to change should reliable sources emerge. --- Taroaldo (talk) 04:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The school's article states "2008 Academic Team - National Quarter-finalists" and "2004 Academic Team - National Champions", but with no RS's to establish notability. Grsz 11 04:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Grez and Taroaldo. Non-notable.--RyRy5 talk 04:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - Need I remind you that this is the AfD/ West Chester East Academic Team. Leave any other articles out of your arguement.--Headtechie2006 (talk) 22:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok, so here is a notable, 3rd party "RS" http://www.cciu.org/NewsAndEvents/acachamps06 [11] this shows that the team has won championships.--Headtechie2006 (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you give me until the end of the day Monday, I can give a full report of our National record. For space reasons, the website www.qunlimited.com does not keep a full record of the past winners of nationals Lifelongpyro (talk) 13:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as User:Headtechie2006 has said, the judges are more than an "arms reach" away for us. In fact, Chip Beale is a former jeopardy champion and so is Brad Rutter^[1]. In fact, Brad Rutter defeated Ken Jennings to win $2 million. In addition all of the moderators have quiz bowl experience of some kind. This makes a team that won at nationals more than appropriate to post.

References
- [1] http://www.qunlimited.com/Pros.htm

Lifelongpyro (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The team cannot claim notability based on the notability of the judges. The sources provided are not truly independent of the subject. DarkAudit (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are not claiming credibility based on the judges, we are just trying to prove that the competition is credible and therefore the fact that our team won at the competition is notable. Lifelongpyro (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, notability is not achieved through association. You need sources, not name-dropping. DarkAudit (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to West Chester East High School. Claims are team is nationally recognized (which would give weight to merge), but text is not convincing. Not enough in article to show it stands on its own.--Fabrictramp (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Lifelongpyro. This article has shown than they are nationally recognized, an d have won many national titles. Those titles have been awarded by an 3rd party who is at more than an "arms reach" who is also highly qualified to judge groups such as this.--Headtechie2006 (talk) 03:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this quiz bowl team is on of 3 school's teams that are in a district that all are very proud of their teams. the district is one of about 12000 students^[2].along with the 12000 student in the school district, each student on the team has a family who also cares very much about this and all of the other quiz bowl teams. if you do some crazy math, there are thousands of people who I'm sure care very much about this article. that to me is notable, or worth of note. people take note of the schools academic team when they go to districts, states, and national finals. Also all of the alumni and parents of the alumni, and the boosters also take note of when anything major happens to the team. not to mention that quiz bowl tournaments are sometimes broadcast on television.--Headtechie2006 (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, insufficiently notable. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into West Chester East High School, obviously. TerriersFan (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- references

Delete, the sourced content can go to the school's article, but people are unlikely to type two extra words. Wikipedia's search engine should point them to the right place. AnteaterZot (talk) 04:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete; default to keep. - Philippe 20:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arafel (band)

Non notable band that fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V. No third party sources, other than the two Hebrew reviews. The fact that the reviews are in Hebrew make it tough, but I cannot read Hebrew nor can my computer translate it. Either way, the reviews, by the titles of them, and the length of them, seem as though they are not notable enough to keep this article. Lack of english sources to verify notability. Unsourced information has already been deleted, but the article is still full of unsourced information. Delete Undeath (talk) 04:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lack of English sources is immaterial to the group's notability, and the inability of the nominator to read Hebrew does not necessarily make them unreliable. Chubbles (talk) 04:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not the fault of the nominator that they cannot read Hebrew. Wikipedia guidelines may not require English-language sources, but they do say that translations should be made available so that editors can make a reasonable attempt at vetting the sources. DarkAudit (talk) 05:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If anyone can find the translation, go ahead. Even with the translations, I still do not think it will pass notability. A page, that I created, was deleted even though I had four reviews written in German. Foreign reviews are iffy, because if the reviewer was well known, then they would have an english translation for more coverage/readers. Undeath (talk) 05:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - What page was that? Can I see a copy of the deleted article? Chubbles (talk) 05:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - It was the page for Yersinia (band). I don't have a copy of the deleted text, but you can ask the admin who deleted it to get you the text. The entire review was on the talk page. Undeath (talk) 06:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I tagged this for notability issues and lack of sources a while back in the hope that it would be improved but there is still no clear pass of WP:BAND and no evidence of coverage in reliable sources. There's plenty around in the usual dubious/undiscriminating metal fansites, but nothing substantial looking.--Michig (talk) 07:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - seems like there are arguments both for keep and delete, and I'm voting here out of personal knowledge - having heard of this band myself and not being very interested in black metal, I think that it does pass WP:N. WP:V is another issue, although this is something that can improve, therefore it's not a good enough reason to delete IMO. I may change my vote if new evidence is brought up.

Hey I'm sorry, but that doesn't seem like a reason to put forward a weak keep, is there any reason why you think it meets WP:MUISC as that is the point of contention. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but an article is not obligated to meet any of WP:N's sub-pages in order to be on Wikipedia. Instead, WP:N (and WP:MUSIC) is a guideline of what probably should and should not be on Wikipedia. WP:V and WP:NOT are inclusion policies, both of which this article passes. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSIC is a guideline which must be followed. It does not state that a band is notable if an editor has heard of them. Undeath (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's just a guideline and should be followed. See both definition of the word "guideline" and WP:IAR. That said, I agree the original argument is weak at best. Hobit (talk) 03:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Personal knowledge does not count in AfD. Just becuase you've heard of a band, does not mean that everyone else has. That doesn't meet WP:N. Undeath (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails to meet the requirements for inclusion per WP:MUSIC. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The Tvangeste connection seems to meet WP:MUSIC #6, the SPG label seems to have been around since at least 1994 with a fair variety of artists, and the Sound Age label seems to have a non-trivial stable of artists. Respectable internet presence for a mostly Russian/Polish/Hebrew topic. I've added English language reviews, etc. to the article. Shawisland (talk) 08:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The CD universe and spirit of metal sites are non notable when describing a band on wikipedia. Undeath (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BIG Comment The new sources are non notable. Look at the reviews. The reviews were done by members of the sites. They are not official band reviewers.(is that a word?) Undeath (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I will probably nominate Tvangeste for deletion too. That band has nothing notable about it, and has not been improved since 2006. Basically, the comparison of notability of the band in this AfD to Tvangeste just furthers the fact that the band is non notable. Undeath (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. This band is among the better known bands in the Israeli metal scene. Of course, my personal knowledge shouldn't be enough for Wikipedia, but the current sources are enough to prove notability per WP:BAND. I can read Hebrew, and i testify that the reviews on Metalstrom and Metalist.co.il were written by the websites' staff members, not submitted by amateur contributors, so that counts as a professional review per WP:BAND. Also, at least one album that they released was notable enough for the AllMusic radar. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly qualifies under criteria 1: It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. A casual google search indicates that Arafel has been the subject on metal-observer.com, maelstrom.nu, metalmessage.de and metal-invader.com. These are not user submitted sites like metalstorm or metal-archives (both of which also mentions Arafel, of course). For those wondering, that's a website from Canada, USA, Germany and Greece respectively that have either reviewed or interviewed an Israeli band that's made up of Russian expatriates. Most importantly, the band is apparently notable enough to merit an entry on Rockdetector. The site's been down for the past few days but you can always look up google's cache. As an aside, I strongly feel that the nominator should have brought this up at WikiProject Metal to raise attentin among those of us who might be more experienced with the subject matter. --Bardin (talk) 13:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; I've stubbed the article, which can't make up its mind whether it's about the company or the drink. However, some of the Google News hits are just about sufficient to not delete this. Black Kite 07:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go Fast

Fails WP:CORP. The subject has no coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Nv8200p talk 04:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable per nom. Advertising. --- Taroaldo (talk) 04:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is in need of extensive overhaul plus advert and cruft removal but subject has received some coverage in reliable secondary sources. I have personally seen the company profiled on both Current and CNN in the last year but the generic name renders a simple Google News search unwieldy. - Dravecky (talk) 06:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with above. Needs spam removal, but rough Google Search/News Search establishes enough non-trivial secondary source coverage for notability. Joshdboz (talk) 13:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, all it would take is about 6% of these 50 Google news hits to not be press releases to establish notability. AnteaterZot (talk) 05:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by User:Nick Dowling. (Non-admin closure.) --erachima formerly tjstrf 05:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lords of the blade

Fails WP:N, WP:V, and I doubt seriously that either can be fixed. Izno (talk) 03:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is a gaming guild unlikely to be notable per WP:ORG. The article contains multiple implausible claims, and the only source named is a general page from a message board (a non-reliable source anyway) which doesn't even indicate any specific mention of this guild. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This whole page makes unverifiable claims out the yin-yang, none of them sourced -- because no sources have apparently written about these guys. Fails WP:ORG by a longshot. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:RS. --- Taroaldo (talk) 03:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.RyRy5 talk 04:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This is all a load of horse manure, and I'll be bold and declare them all lies and a hoax. Not even Nihilum has a Wikipedia page. They're a damn sight better than these... whatevers. DarkAudit (talk) 04:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 7-3 keep. Bearcat (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kingston Centre

Non notable mall, with little to no information actually in the article. No citations or outside links to verify any information provided. Sasquatch4510 (talk) 02:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable mall, no source. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Nom, Non-Notable, and not much about the mall itself. Thedjatclubrock :-) ^(T/C)
Keep. Size is 223,327 sq ft., and it also serves as a transit hub. See http://www.thewhig.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=931668 ("Transit officials also plan to speed up bus times along Princess Street between the Cataraqui Town Centre and the Kingston Centre during rush hour.") which seems to refer to it more as a transit hub than shopping centre.--Eastmain (talk) 03:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The local daily newspaper, the Kingston Whig-Standard, has covered the Kingston Centre redevelopment story extensively, but hides its archives behind a pay-wall. But to see the headlines, go to http://www.thewhig.com/Archive.aspx and enter "Kingston Centre" in the search box to see headlines like these:
- Mall employees in the dark: Kingston Centre retail workers are wor...
- Kingston Centre has been seniors' gathering place
- Out with the old, in with the new: Wrecking ball hangs over Kingst...
- Kingston Centre home of new bus terminal: Set to open Aug. 2
- Kingston Centre controversy: As owner of mall, Loblaws has right t...

--Eastmain (talk) 03:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 05:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 05:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. iMat thew 20 08 11:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This shopping centre site is under development, just like the article. It's geographic location, as a hub within the city, is what gives it importance beyond its current size. Let's go shopping! -Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to have received only local coverage if at all, no notability asserted. Just because it's a community hub doesn't mean it's notable -- malls are meant to be community hubs, that's part of the reason why they're built. My local mall was most certainly intended as a community hub, even though a.) it's down to about 15 stores, and b.) it's smaller than most Wal-Mart stores. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per addition of sources; barely asserts notability but it works. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a fairly large city, and many people seem to go there every, some for travel, just like Gloucester Road, which is notable. Basketball 110 03:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That basically boils down to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The main argument here seems to be that no reliable sources exist to verify the info in the article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Whig Standard info sufficient.

Also, comment: the length of an article is not necessarily relevant to any notability claim. --- Taroaldo (talk) 04:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is in significant need of expansion but should cover more than 50 years of history for the mall on that site. Notability established but a rewrite is strongly called for. - Dravecky (talk) 06:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whig articles plus already included sources are enough non-trivial coverage to establish notability, and I would assume that this new transit center will be included in this article. Joshdboz (talk) 13:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 20:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ilirida

This article is apparently about an "unofficial region" in the Republic of Macedonia. Yet there are no (real or imagined) borders for this region. After having consulted other users from Macedonia, I can conclude this article deals with a minor concept, which was propagated only by a few irredentists, and has/had not been discussed by any politicians in Macedonia, or any media. Also, most of it is a content fork of Albanians in the Republic of Macedonia. Back to the term, it isn't really a neologism as such, but this article is an attempt at popularising it, or a hoax trying to give undue weight to this concept. Balkan Fever 03:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY KEEP and DELIST clearly notable, well sourced, national regionNewAtThis (talk) 04:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: NewAtThis has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not particularly notable in the Republic of Macedonia, and not a region. It doesn't have any kind of borders. Balkan Fever 05:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my nom. Balkan Fever 05:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Uses ethnic maps as any real indication of this so-called "region". Köbra ⁸⁵ 09:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is an imaginated political unit.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 09:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is separatism, iredentism and nationalism. - Рашо ^(Yes?) 14:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'll just point out the fact that all the keep-s come from contributors from the Republic of Macedonia in some sort of a co-ordination effort to remove the article. I'm not sure if it's notable or un-fictional enough - it just strikes me as a fact. --Laveol ^T 15:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Then just give your opinion should Ilirida as article be deleted or not. Then we will have one Bulgarian view on the topic. (Toci (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Comment - Imaginary things are not welcomed on Wikipedia I think. If it like that Wikipedia loses the reputation and the quality, not quantity.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 18:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is a term used in Albanian Nationalism, article could use clean-up, but it's an actual term than exists beyond this article. Gets 66,300 hits on google, about the same amount as Greater Serbia and a ton more than Greater Slovenia's 357. It's notable if those are. Zazaban (talk) 21:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A place that exists in the mind only. I'm from Scotland, and there are some people, such as The Scottish Socialist Party who'd like to see a Socialist Republic of Scotland - no, we don't have such an article, because there's no such place...The concept can be covered in Albanians in the Republic of Macedonia. Also, beware of relying too much on Google (see WP:GOOGLE) - I get 754000 hits for "Brigadoon" - doesn't make it a place, and 1,030,000 for "The world is flat" - nevertheless, she's round. Camillus (talk) 00:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But there is such a thing as the flat earth society. Also, what those people want is actual Scotland. Zazaban (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is an article on United Ireland, which, although it is discussed, does not exist. Should that article be deleted? Zazaban (talk) 19:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You confuse Ilirida with Greater Albania. Balkan Fever 10:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 without prejudice to recreation if it happens. - Philippe 20:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future Dome

Unsubstantiated future project. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. May even be a hoax. See dreams – A Future Dome we have never heard from Nv8200p talk 02:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:V. The source appears to be a Dutch chat site here. If a reliable source can be produced then I should be happy to change my !vote but without such a source we should delete. BlueValour (talk) 03:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's interesting, but that's not an acceptable AfD argument. Problems with WP:RS; WP:CRYSTAL. --- Taroaldo (talk) 04:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A fascinating look through WP:CRYSTAL ball but this article is all "future" and "unrealized" and "estimated" without reliable sourcing. - Dravecky (talk) 06:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, from a bit of Googling, I see we have numerous skyscraper enthusiast sites agreeing on the basic info about the project, a bunch of concept drawings/renderings... and a complete lack of real confirmation that the project exists.
While I wouldn't put too much weight on the linked blog saying that Shanghai locals haven't heard about the project (the Chinese Shenzou program, for instance, was publicized everywhere BUT mainland China. They only got the information after the mission was a confirmed success.), we can't have an article that pulls its data out of thin air. Has anyone attempted translating the forum posts that the images were taken from to see if those have useful information? [12] --erachima formerly tjstrf 08:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google searches have led me to trustable web sites that prove such thing could exist in the near future. Until the building is completed. we can put a "future/upcoming" template on the article. Lily1104 (talk) 09:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Until its built it shouldn't be in Wikipedia. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as blank article. ... discospinster _talk 02:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.spoof's Quotes

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mr.spoof's Quotes

Doesn't make any sense and is just a random collection of quotes. I would've nominated for speedy deletion but it didn't meet the criteria of anything. Mm 40 _{Your Hancock Please} 02:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as nonsense. Tagged. -WarthogDemon 02:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's actually blank at the moment; I had previously deleted it under the criterion of "Vandalism'. Since there's nothing there now, I'll go ahead and close this AfD. ... discospinster _talk 02:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 03:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doni tamblyn

Asserts notability but no 3p sources per WP:RS ukexpat (talk) 02:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Currently problems with WP:RS and overly promotional, but seems as though it should be notable.

Comment. Folks, I am not denying notability, but as it stands the article (which by the way does not even purport to be a stub) has no third party RS, none. Links to the subject's books on Amazon don't count. Therefore it fails WP:RS. – ukexpat (talk) 13:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Asserts notability and seems to meet it. Needs a rewrite and better sourcing but those aren't issues for an AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 06:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be a notable author of quality work. Article should be moved to correct title. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable comedian and author. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Look at that name! She has, on her birth certificate, "Doni tamblyn?" She has a minuscule last name? Look at the "keep" votes, above: "notable!" Well, I see little to no evidence of this. The author is an online essayist, it seems, which is going to result in (guess what?) lots of web hits and yet no actual testimony to authorship equivalent to a book that sells. Forget all that, though: look at that name! I do wish folks would think before they "vote." Utgard Loki (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Based on the article, the lower-case start to the last name is a typo in article creation, easily fixed if/when it survives the AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 23:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wow...you're upset over this article Utgard... Articles here[13], one book here [14], some review of the book here [15], And another review for another book [16]. Everything I see satisfies WP:N and WP:V. --Pmedema (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I must also say: "Wow" childish much Utgard...? First, Tamblyn, even with a lowercase letter, is a respected surname in America--Where are you from? (Though it should be uppercase.) Second, Doni's FIRST published work, The Big Big Book of Humorous Training Games is in the BEST SELLERS list of McGraw Hill's Big Book series! Great fact finding work on your part, Utgard! Third, her second work: Laugh and Learn has received worldwide acclaim, and has been translated into more than 10 languages. And finally, why don't you give folks some time to add to the page and prove that Tamblyn is a modern day Marvel in many ways... 18:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.79.18 (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 no consensus to delete; default to keep. - Philippe 20:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bert Tatham

Fails WP:N. Wikipedia is not a news source, coverage was only temporary. ⇔ EntChickie 01:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Canley (talk) 03:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the spirit and intent of the consensus not to cover news events is that not every one-off news item or report is deemed worthy of coverage. In this case, the story was widely reported internationally, and was covered repeatedly over nine months. --Canley (talk) 03:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per above, this seems to be on the "keep" side of transient coverage. JJL (talk) 03:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The events are definitely notable. (Perhaps a title modification would help.) --- Taroaldo (talk) 04:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is notable and well-covered but this article needs immediate attention for wikification and encyclopedic tone. - Dravecky (talk) 06:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done! --Canley (talk) 07:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the nominator, this is not In the News. Is there anything about the biography that makes this person more than a news event? Not that I can see. He appears to be an official doing his job, and merely doing one's job is never sufficient for encyclopedic coverage. If the person is still being discussed in a year's time, there will be need of an article, but the fact that many people are saying the name today does not mean that the individual biography is notable. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Politicians are all officials doing their job, you can't say they're "never notable". As I said above, this has been reported on since April 2007, so for nearly 11 months. If we're going to set arbitrary timeframes that make people notable - and you've said a year - he's nearly there. Or did you mean another year from now? And then, where do we stop? Delete everything that's not being discussed any more? --Canley (talk) 22:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also remember that notability is not temporary. --- Taroaldo (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This is a borderline case in my opinion. Though it was covered in many media over several months, it still seems to be WP:BIO1E over one event, thus I'm not sure a balanced WP:NPOV article can be written and that it fails WP:BIO. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 20:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Plague

Non-notable. This person has been involved in everything from a band to vegan cooking, but doesn't seem to qualify under WP:N for any of them. There are several citations on the page, non of which meet WP:RS. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable.--RyRy5 talk 02:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs extensive editing for cruft and advert removal but seems to be a notable musician with a notable career. Reliable sourcing needs to be added to support this. - Dravecky (talk) 07:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to comment, I've done extensive Google searching and not found any reliable sources to back up the claims of notable musicianship. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: At this point, no way to make it past the bar -- as a regional/local journalist. In his previous life, as a musician, a number of small independent acts. They may or may not have had some influence, but they did not get significant sales. The article reads like a vanity or homage page and fails NPOV. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see how any link fails WP:RS, or would qualify as "cruft". Anyways, he been involved several bands which have releases on notable indie labels, and is/was an important in the genesis of queercore. Just check out how many pages already link to this article—and I didn't create any of them (though I did fix redlinks that had pointed to Mukilteo Fairies, etc.) Furthermore, Plague and his bands meet the following WP:MUSIC criteria

#1 "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable."(e.g.[17][18][19]),
#5 "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels,"
#6 "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable,"

Finally, fully aware of WP:GOOGLE, I submit that a google search brings up close to 6,000 hits for Plague/Ploeg and his projects. A google books search finds 3 books, a quote from of which I've just added to the article. Certainly this article could be improved, but certainly Plague is notable enough for inclusion in WP. Yilloslime (t) 19:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1 - none of those sources are a) reliable or b) about Plague
5 and #6 - Those may be true of Mukilteo Fairies, but they do not confer notability to Plague. The book quote is about MF, and the book doesn't even mention Plague/Ploeg. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The book mentions "the lead singer" of MK. All the sources are reliable. I contend that Plague, MK, and BTPNLSL are intimately related and best handled in one article rather than 3 separate articles. Therefore, if MK is notable, and MK is covered in the JP article, then that's an argument for inclusion of the JP article. But if you want to split out MK and BTPNLSL articles and delete JP, that might be a way forward, but I think WP is best served by having them all covered in the same article.Yilloslime (t) 20:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, fully aware of all the caveats in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I submit that—as troubled as it is—this article is in much better shape, both in terms of referencing and evidence of notability, than many (most even?) of the pages for other K records artist listed here. If the bar for inclusion is set so high as to exclude this article, then there are thousands more music articles that are going to need to go too. Yilloslime (t) 21:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't know about 6,000 G-hits ... I get a measly 177 unique hits from a directed search of "Joshua Plague" minus Marvel Comics (to clear out an eponymous comic book character). There's not a reliable source in the lot, and the traditional red flag of non-notability arises: the lead two hits are the fellow's website and the Wikipedia article. RGTraynor 20:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes his first name is listed as Josh and other time as Joshua; sometimes his last as Plague and elswhere as Ploeg, and the entry also covers his band Mukilteo Faires, hence the "advanced" google search including all these terms. Excluding "marvel" reduces the count, slightly to 5250, so I think my point still stands. I don't see how the sources in the article aren't reliable, and even they weren't, AfD is about notability, not about how well the article is sourced. There are plenty of WP articles with no sources, and none of these have been AfDed. Yilloslime (t) 21:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of reliable sources has already been addressed. As far as your take on AfD, I'm afraid you're very, very wrong. Troll down the list for any given day at AfD, and you'll find several causes proffered for nomination, among them the non-existance of reliable sources ... something that trumps non-notability, come to that. RGTraynor 19:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to comment here because I've previously edited this article. I edited it because Mr. Ploeg emailed the photo submission queue to submit and photo; in that same email, he also told us his birthdate with the intent of having that added to the article. Raul654 (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect/Merge (yeah, I'm fun that way.) I'm not seeing anything notable on him. However, Mukilteo Fairies are pretty plainly notable and article on them should be created. Currently they redirect to Mr. Plague, but should be the other way around. Above cites clearly make them notable. Hobit (talk) 03:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ... discospinster _talk 02:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard William Briginshaw

Richard William Briginshaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)No sources; the creator himself says this comes from personal knowledge which creates a conflict of interest and problems with original research which is all of what this article is. Notability by Wikipedian standards seems unlikely. -WarthogDemon 01:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination. I made this because I wasn't sure, asked an admin and they weren't sure either. Seems notable so I'm withdrawing. -WarthogDemon 02:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the article is accurate and he really was a life peer, then he's notable. Meachly (talk) 01:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I don't know much about peerages, but it seems that someone who was made a baron must have done something right. Perhaps the article would be improved if someone added the reason for his distinction? ... discospinster _talk 01:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Real and notable; see, for example Oxford Dictionary of National Biography Ma^t_chups 01:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for now, needs WP:RS. Being a trade union leader and life peer makes him notable per WP:N, but we need 3p sources, personal knowledge is not enough. See [20] and plenty of other Ghits. – ukexpat (talk) 01:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I am the primary author). Reason for adding this article was that I noticed that the name was linked to from the List of Life Peerages in wikipedia and from the page showing the leaders of the trade union NATSOPA. A life peer serves in the UK House of Lords which is analagous to the US Senate (analagous, being the upper house of parliament, but much less powerful). The subject would seem to meet prima facie at least one notability guideline from Wikipedia:Notability (people), "Any biography - The person has received a notable award or honor" (Life peer). Also as a politician, "Politicians - Politicians who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office" (A life peerage conveys membership of the House of Lords, which is a national legislative body). I felt it best to be honest about who I am (subject's grandson), and to put down only simple statements of fact about the posts held. See ukexpat's link for 3rd party confirmation of the peerage and [21] for third party confirmation of the subject as a leader of NATSOPA. --Briginsh (talk) 02:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has a long entry in ODNB, which is more than adequate both to establish notability, and base a decent article on. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 02:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Improper nomination. Go elsewhere to acquire discussion of this kind (examples: talk pages and RfC. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 00:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Walter

I created this article, but I'm unsure about genuine notability. I'm taking it to AfD for consensus. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 01:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Yes it is notable. It requires some clean-up though.--RyRy5 talk 01:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This was prematurely closed by SynergeticMaggot (talk · contribs) who argued, "Improper nomination. See reasons for deletion. This is not the proper venue for your concerns," and cited WP:SK. Taking into consideration criterion #1, and good faith for both SyntheticMaggot and HisSpaceResearch, I think the least harm is done by allowing a fuller discussion of the subject's notability. In particular, SyntheticMaggot has not proposed an alternate route for HisSpaceResearch to open up the subject's notability to consensus. I don't believe there is a more appropriate venue than AFD and an early closure just begs for an even more process-oriented meta-discussion at DRV which would likely be turned back to AFD in the end regardless. So let's just wait for a real consensus here in the interests of expediency and simplicity. --Dhartung | Talk 04:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I still feel this needs to be closed. The article is sourced and appears at least semi-notable. A request for comment or request for good article, or something similar would have been more appropriate. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I didn't cite speedy keep (that was the result). I cited policy, more precisely reasons for deletion, as the nomination contains no reason to delete. Cheers. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think an implicit rationale for deletion on notability grounds exists, and given HSR's contribution history I'm willing to take that on good faith as the intent. The DP "reason to delete" requirement is there because many times nominations that do not have a rationale grounded in policy are merely disruptive, e.g. "George W. Bush, who likes him anyway?" or at best may be mistaken about Wikipedia processes (e.g. someone escalating their own article to AFD after a PROD). In this case, we don't exactly have a notability noticeboard, so opening a discussion at AFD -- the next best thing -- seems appropriate. Discussion is good, process is (if taken as an end in itself) bad. There's no harm in letting two or three more people chime in that the article is clearly compliant, and either way WP:CONSENSUS is served. Cheers! --Dhartung | Talk 05:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Bio NB and RfC are two places I would have rather taken this. Just because the nom did it in good faith doesn't mean this is the right place to address his concerns. If I don't see a reason to delete from either you, or the nom, I'm closing it again. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 05:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment At this point there has been enough input that I feel consensus is satisfied, so I have no objections to a speedy close. --Dhartung | Talk 21:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable and if reliable sourcing can back up publication claims then notability would be unquestionable. - Dravecky (talk) 07:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 07:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The claims seem to hold up; I added a news story about an exhibit of his photos at Red Rocks. There's probably enough opinion here now for a speedy close, while still satisfying the nominator's desire for a second opinion. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the nom is withdrawn, then it can be a speedy keep, and all is well. Ty 07:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I certainly don't see why this should be speedily closed. Before the fifth reference was added, the article had no multiple, reliable non-trivial published secondary sources cited. But since that reference was added, I'm more convinced of genuine notability. I feel in these borderline cases, AfD can be appropriate place to take the article.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Speedy close" is simply the term for an AfD, when there are only keeps and the nom withdraws. You wanted feedback and that's been provided. It would seem to be a bit indulgent to keep it running further. Ty 12:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dayata

non-notable, nonsense ~ priyanath talk 01:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I believe this article was deleted once before. ~ priyanath talk 01:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Part unsourced dictionary def + part gibberish. Has been deleted before after a being prodded. Abecedare (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Some dicdef; some nonsense; previously deleted. --- Taroaldo (talk) 05:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This is a dictionary entry, not an encyclopedia article. - Dravecky (talk) 07:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete poorly written, unsourced, previously deleted, contains nonsense gibberish, dicdef... there's just too much wrong with the article to keep it. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 21:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pikmin 3: Invasion of the Pikmin Planet

WP:CRYSTAL Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 00:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally non-notable.--Mifter (talk) 00:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would have perhaps even speedy deleted it under the categoy of either patent nonsense or non noteable subject. Doctor Will Thompson (talk) 00:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable badly written article. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete "Invasion of the Pikmin Planet" turns up nothing at all outside Wikipedia. Either a hoax or very much WP:CRYSTAL, given the total lack of sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's either a hoax or wishful thinking by a fan of the series (which makes it fanfiction and/or fancruft which is still unecyclopedic anyhow) Doc Strange^{Mailbox Orbitting Black Hole}Strange Frequencies 02:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete An article based on one partial rumor? Indeed, "very little is known about Pikmin 3" except that this article fails every possible test for inclusion. - Dravecky (talk)
Delete - crystal-balling it would appear, or a possible hoax. EJF (talk) 11:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Someone tag this... I've already done my quota for today on this type of article. Article is WP:MADEUP possible WP:HOAX, fails WP:N and WP:V and in the famous quote in The King and I (film) Et cetera...et cetera... et cetera... --Pmedema (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to WP:CRYSTAL and slap whoever put 10+ tags on a stub with a wet noodle. That really is pointless and yet pointy all at the same time. Hobit (talk) 02:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Video Game Vehicle (VGV)

A neologism or an advert for The Game Coach - take your pick. Sources do not seem convincing. A Google search turns up hits like this one - doesn't seem to match the definition in the article. PROD contested without comment. B. Wolterding (talk) 00:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An interesting business idea, to be sure, but the page is pretty clearly just an advertisement right now. The google hits for "video game vehicles" that are just model cars from video games (like that linked in the nom's post) appear to be unrelated uses of the term. --erachima formerly tjstrf 04:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article reads like an advert for one company, fails to assert notability. - Dravecky (talk) 07:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Should be db-spam'd. It's an ad for the vehicle that Game Coach uses. --Pmedema (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 10:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:CSD criteria G11--Gazimoff (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 20:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict in Jerusalem (game)

I believe that this is an non-notable video game Marlith (Talk) 00:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Who decides whether and article is noteable or not? But it isn't a long article,very short actually, it doesn't say why it is noteable article.Doctor Will Thompson (talk) 00:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 13:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as has no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything on the game anywhere. The (sadly) common name doesn't help, but... Hobit (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
very weak keep as I can't see the articles Pixelface cites and I suspect at least one of them is a blog/user content. But may well have reasonable sources. Hobit (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I see sources[22] like The Salt Lake Tribune, The Kansas City Star, and The Dallas Morning News. --Pixelface (talk) 10:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 10:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - i checked out Pixelface's sources, and they're essentially reprints of the same article for local papers. They also cite the same source - Christian Computing Magazine. As a result I'd lean towards arguing that these aren't really third party, although I'm happy to be corrected, as I don't think CCmag can be counted as impartial third party in this case. --Gazimoff (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to Gazimoff's point above, looking at the snatch of text I can see, the subject is this magazine, which itself contains some details of the game. All well and good, but if it's not the subject of these articles then there's no actual analysis of the game, they're responding to the magazine - without multiple sources which analyze the game itself there's never going to be a passable article, WP:N aside. Someoneanother 12:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The external link in the article points to a page with a few testimonies, but they're not strong. Someone another 12:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ Delete - There's one reference. That's worth something. ~~Also, the article is very young. If we start deleting badly referenced articles while they're still in the cradle, we wouldn't have many articles. I think the PROD is premature.~~ But the article has been around for a year, with no effort to reference it. (My bad, I didn't check the year.) Time to let this article go. Randomran (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd missed that as well, did look at the history but still registered it as a new article. Someone another 19:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Earl

N.n. civil servant - head of short-lived agency that failed and had to be wound up. Not done anything else. Cutler (talk) 00:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There has been some media coverage about her [23][24][25] AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Head of notable government agency (Assets Recovery Agency) with coverage in several reliable secondary sources. - Dravecky (talk) 07:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources show notabilty. That the agency "failed and had to be wound up" is totally irrelevant to this discussion. A Wikipedia article isn't a prize awarded for success. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Perretta

AfDs for this article:

Does not meet WP:MUSIC; problems with WP:RS. Taroaldo (talk) 23:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be on the cusp of notability, what with a major label record deal and all, but still not quite there yet -- no chart singles, no album, no reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost, but not quite - needs to actually release the album first. As on the previous discussion, if he makes good, then recreate. Otherwise fails WP:MUSIC. Frickeg (talk) 03:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Oh so close and if it was significantly better sourced I'd have to ponder a flip to keep. Recreate (again) when the album is released. - Dravecky (talk) 06:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only coverage verging on significant found was the music week story reporting his contract, which is already linked to in the article. One for next year, perhaps.--Michig (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Pictures and descriptions of our unsurpassed staff of moderators and judges

[2] About WCASD

[1]

[2]