Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 June 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gront (talk | contribs) at 06:41, 11 June 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< June 10 June 12 >

Purge server cache

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elin Modeling Agency


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Dweller (talk) 12:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Agoda

Agoda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested speedy. No references, no assertion of notabily. Blatent WP:ADVERT from single-use account. Thetrick (talk) 05:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrightsoft

Wrightsoft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails notability I sense, only 24 employees. Complicated article and company 23 years old, which made me pause and ask AfD not CSD. SGGH speak! 12:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep article doesn't currently have reliable, third party references, they're all from the company's website, but they exist. Here are some I found: [1] [2].--Serviam (talk) 13:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. Both the above "reliable, third party references" are directories confirming the company exists. Existence does not equal notability. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: a software development firm for the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) community is serving a small, non consumer niche market. No case is made in the article itself for general notability outside the HVAC trade, and as such the article fails the business notability guidelines. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Found some specific sources on this company in some of the HVAC trade journals (via EBSCO, library database), they seen notable within their industry
    • Wrightsoft Is 20 Years Old. Air Conditioning Heating & Refrigeration News, 11/6/2006, Vol. 229 Issue 10, p6-6; From abstract: The article focuses on the accomplishments of the Wrightsoft Corp., which has celebrated its 20th anniversary, to contribute to the heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC) industry with many software programs.
    • Wrightsoft wins design award. Contractor Magazine, Aug2007, Vol. 54 Issue 8, p26-26; From abstract: This article announces that Wrightsoft was given the 2007 Dealer Design Awards.
    • Innovation Awards 2004 Winners Selected. ASHRAE Journal, Jan2004, Vol. 46 Issue 1, pS14-S15, 2p; From abstract: Lists products that won the 2004 AHR Expo Innovation Awards. York UPG's Sunline MagnaDRY; Ice Energy's Ice Bear-50; Vulcain Alarm 301 IRF refrigerant monitor; Wrightsoft's the Right-Suite Residential;
    • BITS & BYTES. Engineered Systems, Jan2007, Vol. 24 Issue 1, p122-122, 1/2p; (AN 23835654) From abstract:The independent panel of 45 contractors chooses the Wrightsoft Corp., in partnership with Uponor to win a gold medal award for its innovative design of the Uponor System Design software.
    • HR Expo 2005 Innovation Award Winners. Supply House Times, Feb2005, Vol. 47 Issue 12, p28-28 From Abstract: The article announces the winners of the Air-Conditioning Heating Refrigeration Expo 2005 award. The winners of the award are Wrightsoft Corp. and Danfoss AS.
    • HVAC-City: A home on the Net. Air Conditioning Heating & Refrigeration News, 10/13/97, Vol. 202 Issue 7, p19 From Abstract:Reports on the Air Conditioning Contractors of America and Wrightsoft Corp.'s development of the HVAC-City, a full service Internet site.
    • Software Products That Boost Profits Win Raves From The Contractor-Judges. By: Skaer, Mark. Air Conditioning Heating & Refrigeration News, 7/19/2004, Vol. 222 Issue 12, p32-34, 2p From abstract: Highlights the winners in the contractor services and software category of the 2004 Dealer Design Awards for the U.S. heating and ventilation industry. Right Proposal Plus Module from Wrightsoft Corp.; Luxaire Business Analyzer from York Unitary Products Group.
    • Winners Have the Right Stuff. By: Preville, Cherie. Air Conditioning Heating & Refrigeration News, 7/17/2006, Vol. 228 Issue 12, p52-53, 2p; From abstract: The article announces awards given to outstanding heating & ventilation products in the contractor services and software category in the U.S. The company Wrightsoft Corp. has won the gold award for its Uponor System Design Software.
    • Software Winners Selected. By: Preville, Cherie. Air Conditioning Heating & Refrigeration News, 7/16/2007, Vol. 231 Issue 11, p46-46, 1p; From abstract: The article announces that Jonas Software has won gold, Wrightsoft Corp. has won silver and FastEST Inc. has won bronze award at the 2007 Dealer Design Awards ceremony in the contractor services and software category. --Captain-tucker (talk) 20:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as the references provided by Captain-tucker indicate sufficient coverage of Wrightsoft in third-party reliable sources as to establish a presumption of its notability per the general notability guideline, which provides in relevant part that:

    If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.

    John254 00:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed; even those who impugn the credibility of trade journals could hardly gainsay the reliability of The Boston Globe. Furthermore, not all of the citations provided by Captain-tucker are to articles in trade journals:

    ** Innovation Awards 2004 Winners Selected. ASHRAE Journal, Jan2004, Vol. 46 Issue 1, pS14-S15, 2p; From abstract: Lists products that won the 2004 AHR Expo Innovation Awards. York UPG's Sunline MagnaDRY; Ice Energy's Ice Bear-50; Vulcain Alarm 301 IRF refrigerant monitor; Wrightsoft's the Right-Suite Residential;

    The "ASHRAE Journal" is not a trade journal at all, but rather a professional society journal published by the prestigious American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). Thus, it has been established that Wrightsoft is the subject of significant coverage in at least two clearly reliable sources, thereby satisfying the requirements of the general notability guideline. John254 21:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from article creator: There is no doubt finding substantial sources can be trying for a small HVAC software company. Yes, much of the citations are from trade journals, but that doesn't mean they are false (libel, anyone?). I find it interesting that the users who wrote keep actually seemed to do a bit of research, rather than to add their own biased opinions on the reliability of a trade journals or whether Wrightsoft passes the celebrity test in order to remain a part of Wikipedia. Regardless of your personal thoughts on the notability of a small-niche company, I chose to write this article on Wrightsoft, as its founder and president Bill Wright was hand-selected by the Air Conditioning Contractors of America ACCA to build the very first Manual J load calculation software. For me, that's pretty notable.--JLevangie02420 (talk)
Comment Okay I'm confused. Is the article meant to be about Bill Wright (as JLevangie02420 states or about the company?? Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Jasynnash2, An excellent point! I admit this page is not in the shape I wish to have it. I didn't anticipate the AfD, and though I fervently hope to be able to add to the article soon, I realize publishing this before it was ready has caused a mighty headache. The article is about Wrightsoft Corp., as the particular part of Bill Wright's life I wish to address started with an ACCA partnership, and the resulting establishment of Wrightsoft. Wrightsoft is an established innovator in software created specifically for load calculations. Not really note-worthy to the common-folk, I suppose, but if you are an HVAC contractor who needs to be code compliant, chances are this company is very well-known and notable.--JLevangie02420 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marco A. Diaz

Marco A. Diaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

After a discussion with wimt, I believe that a few minor appearances at iMDB does not satisfy notability guidelines. The article was also created and has been edited almost entirely by a user with a username very similar to the article title (Marcodiaz13 (talk · contribs) vs Marco A. Diaz) leading me to believe this is a possible COI/self promotion.

I originally Prodded the article, but the notice was removed with no explanation as to why in the edit summary or on the talk page. During this removal, my {{biography}} and {{coi}} tags were also removed (diff). ChaoticReality 05:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment from article creator: I have created this page to try to illustrate the success and hard work of my cousin. I did not know that wikipedia discouraged the creation of pages for people at a early stage of success in their career. I have created the page with no ill intentions of hurting anyone, so If my edition and contribution is not welcome I will gladly delete and persist in my efforts. I apologize for trying to create the page, and did not know that only strangers may create a page for someone. Thank you for your advice and lesson.Marcodiaz13 (talk) 05:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Marcodiaz13[reply]
and for Blaxthos i would like to see you get some IMDb credits, see how tribal and simple it is.
  • Delete - Seems to fail WP:N, as there are no reliable references beyond tivial listings at imdb. COI aside (cough), come back when career has been more sufficiently covered. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although I commend Marcodiaz13 for his efforts the subject of the article doesn't meet the notability and verifiabilty standards set out in policy and guidelines. IMDB isn't a reliable 3rd party source because anyone can edit it (any many have done just that to try and mess with projects like this one). Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -* 'Is IMDB a reliable source for its polling and statistics in a film article?

Two groups of editors have gone around in circles on this one. There was a consensus that it wasn't a reliable source in a previous discussion at WikiProject Films. But trying to remove references to it led to this backlash on Talk:Films considered the greatest ever, with another group arguing that IMDB should be considered a reliable source.

It is a reliable source for the statement "IMDB users voted xxx". We don't have to show that it's considered a reliable source in any other sense, as IMDB is notable enough to be included on its own merits. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC) Besides, IMDb has strict rules that only films gone to major screenings can go to the main page, you need a special account and it takes weeks to get your name there. It is reliable and can be proven to be honorable on its own. [3]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Fling (band)

AfDs for this article:
The Fling (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination. The previous AfD was closed as "delete," but the subsequent deletion review demands a relist. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Still seems to lack sufficient sourcing to establis notability. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I said this before but got no response. One of the criteria for meeting notability standards was that a member of the group was a part of another notable band. One of the members was in Letter Kills. They have a wikipedia page with a link to The Fling. Also The Fling has been mentioned in multiple third party sources. With two on the page already and more to come. Blue Gillian (talk) 08:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on label and member from a previous notable band. GtstrickyTalk or C 14:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I don't have any idea who any of them are and I think the articles both need work (expanding and such) and I don't totally understand the rationale behind some of the notability criteria (if one member was in a different notable band than... etc - only because I can see some nightmares (I'm thinking Pete Best and any band he played with) but, it does appear they meet the criteria as written. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete. Local band with no full length albums and a tenuous connection to a minor band with an article. Gamaliel (talk) 22:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment References have been updated and the article has been expanded.Blue Gillian (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. No "keep" opinions, very poor article, WP:OR problems, etc.  Sandstein  20:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Pakistani sentiment

AfDs for this article:
Anti-Pakistani sentiment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article has been nominated before but in my opinion the narrators have failed to present the proper reasons. The article is completely filled with information about the Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent during the 1200s. Pakistan was not even created until 1947. The other information are personal opinions, which is aganist Wikipedia:NOR and the article also lacks WP:N

Sources 2,3,4 and 5 are falsely cited in the article. They have no relation to the sentences in which they have been cited with. Leaving only 2 source, one of which is a lengthy quote meant to take up space. None of the sources also use the term "anti-Pakistan sentiment" The rest of the article is filled with Indian resentment of Pakistan which is also against WP:COAT.

Might I also mention that the term "Indophobia" can also apply to Pakistan since "Indophobia refers to hostility towards Indians and Indian culture and prejudices against South Asian peoples, including Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Sri Lankans". --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 03:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: Moved here from second nom; it works now. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 04:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Neutral I appreciate the nom's effort to distinguish this from previous deletion debates, which is rare, appreciated and entirely appropriate. Nonetheless, there does seem to be significant scope to expand this article and consequently it is, in my view, worth keeping. There is no doubt that there is resentment in India against Pakistan (also, arguably, in other countries including the West), for some legitimate reasons but also arguably for some less legitimate reasons. Regardless, while I note the reference to WP:COAT I don't think that this concern is sufficient to justify deleting the article which in this instance which can be improved per WP:BOLD. There are a range of cross-cultural tensions on the sub-continent that are worthy of encyclopedic coverage, although I agree that this particular example is inadequately treated by the current text of this article. Debate 木 08:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What cross-cultural tensions? The only tensions mentioned here are between Pakistan and India which are not cultural but political. They should not even be in this article but instead in Indo-Pakistani relations.--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am changing my view to neutral on this one. I've spent a fair bit of time looking over English language sources and I'm finding surprisingly little reliable, secondary or tertiary material. The lack of independent analysis is particularly surprising to me since, as just one example, the racially abusive term 'packi', is commonly used by the more racist elements in Great Britain. I note, however, that in my view there has been little in the way of argument in this AFD to date that would justify outright deletion in preference to simple, bold editing. Debate 木 04:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. The concept of anti-Pakistani sentiment is notable, but this article does not deal with the topic substantively. The quote used most prominently in the article is a negative characterization of Hindustan (not Pakistan) which was written by a Muslim emperor almost 500 years ago, and over 400 years before Pakistan was created, and so its relevance is unclear. If the article got a complete rewrite, it might be worthy of being kept. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The sources don't support the point of the article, and no effort has been made to improve the article since the AfD began. The central quote is still there and still makes no sense in this particular context. It would be like using a quote from a Canadian deriding France as an illustration of Anglophobia. This deletion should be without prejudice to creation of a better article, but unless we try to delete this one, progress toward a better article is unlikely. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the five online sources are not relevant to the topic of the article, the offline one is supporting the irrelevant quote from centuries earlier. While an article might be possible on this topic; the current article and history offer little hope that one will be written and a blank slate would be better than this. GRBerry 20:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Yes, the nomination may have been a bit quick, but as there has been no improvement of this article in the last 5 days there is no reason to suspect giving it more time will result in further improvements. Shereth 18:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jillian "Cowgirl" Pearlman

AfDs for this article:
Jillian "Cowgirl" Pearlman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:INUNIVERSE article about a fictional character in Green Lantern. Unverifiable and unsourced. Google pulls up about 1,000 hits, but not many reliable sources for this article. Mizu onna sango15 Public (talk) 03:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete g11, article is an excuse for the spam links at the end. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toys, Other Baby Items to Soothe A Fussy Baby

Toys, Other Baby Items to Soothe A Fussy Baby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is nothing but a how-to article intended to instruct parents on how to "soothe a fussy baby". Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Mizu onna sango15 Public (talk) 03:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep after Metropolitan90's rewrite and sourcing. --MCB (talk) 08:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'47

AfDs for this article:
'47 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article does not state notability. It says it is a publication owned by hundresds of the best writers and artists of the day yet does not have any sources to back it up. tabor-drop me a line 02:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to album, non-admin close. --Onorem♠Dil 13:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Miller Rag

Susan Miller Rag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. This is a non-notable B-side that does not meet WP:Notability (music)#Songs. TN‑X-Man 02:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirect to Dear America (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Love Thy Neighbor: The Tory Diary of Prudence Emerson

Love Thy Neighbor: The Tory Diary of Prudence Emerson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not meet any of the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (books): No sources which give more than a simple plot summary; no awards; not adapted for theatre or film; not a subject of instruction at any schools; author not historically significant. Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 01:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect. Unfortunately no one really suggested a target so I am redirecting to Enemies in The Legend of Zelda series - but this article is being discussed at AfD, as well, so if an interested editor wants to change the target somewhere else, that is certainly acceptable. Shereth 17:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redead

Redead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an article solely on a fictional enemy from The Legend of Zelda. This article cannot stand alone as it fails WP:FICT, and Enemies in The Legend of Zelda series covers it more than enough. It also has no sources. Artichoker[talk] 01:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails the general notability guideline. Nothing makes this particular enemy worth its own article. Note, however, that if there's a list of Zelda enemies with info missing about the Redead, a merge may be more appropriate. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 01:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it is not missing information, this link contains all the information on ReDeads that is needed. Artichoker[talk] 01:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ReDeads are popular enemies for Zelda fans. And Octoroks? Or Stalfos? They don't even have their own articles! Its just plain sad! 76.97.95.228 (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect - Artichoker, your link does not contain all the info needed. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to have EVERY SINGLE BIT OF INFO POSSIBLE! By the way, I didn't play Majora's Mask much, so can someone add some MM info on ReDeads? 76.97.95.228 (talk) 20:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Well, then you thought wrong. Wikipedia should only contain discriminant and notable information, see WP:NOT. And do you know what "redirect" means, because it seems like you are opting for the wrong thing, given your opinion. Artichoker[talk] 20:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Shereth 17:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

East Bay Hardcore

East Bay Hardcore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete neologism, without any indication that this purported subgenre is recognized by any authorities or what its characteristics are, why its notable, etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETE as complete nonsense. JIP | Talk 04:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tumour initiation factors

Tumour initiation factors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete barely enough context to realize the topic, but without references such an article, if it could be written, doesn't begin with this... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Shereth 22:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Viking metal

:Viking metal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) This page contains a grand total of three sources, one which does not work, another is not in english and as far as I can tell, states nothing on the subject of the article. Finally, the last source is a fansite which cannot be defined as reliable. And this to the fact that a majority of bands in the list of bands are also folk metal bands, I suggest that page be deleted and merged into the folk metal article.I am also nominating the following related page:

List of Viking metal bands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Johan Rachmaninov (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I withdraw my nomination, in light of the fact that the article has had alot of work done on it. I fully support to Keep this article.Johan Rachmaninov (talk) 17:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect I'd considered merging it with a more general genre if any sources can be found. --neon white talk 01:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 02:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is overlap of "Folk Metal" here, just as there is overlap of "Heavy metal music" here. This article's subject is sufficiently distinct to have a separate article, and this article is rated as a high-importance article under WikiProject Metal. A lack of reliable sources alone is not sufficient reason to delete if reliable sources can be found. At a minimum, I would ask for this deletion to be put on hold for a sufficient time to allow a serious cleanup effort. Wilhelm meis (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep Lack of sources is not an acceptable reason for nominating an article for deletion. It is a reason to improve the article. The folk metal article originally featured zero sources until I came around and improved it to the high standard it has today. As the person who pretty much rewrote the folk metal article in its entirety, I can also state with certainty that Viking metal is not the same thing as folk metal and to merge the two article would be as ridiculous as merging heavy metal music with hard rock. Yes, there are many Viking metal bands that are also folk metal bands but there are also many that are not, including almost all the early pioneers of Viking metal like Bathory, Enslaved and Einherjer. Viking metal is a well-known and established subgenre of heavy metal music, one that is recognized by even mainstream sources like allmusic and in books like this and this. I've long had the intention of improving this Viking metal article but I've been busy elsewhere improving other articles. --Bardin (talk) 03:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability requires detailed second party sources, lack of these is a reason for deletion/merge. Not all sub-genres are notable unless they have significant coverage. Not every subject needs a seperate article. Sub genres with little available sources are better merged to a parent genre so they are present in some context that will help the reader. If you believe that this can be sourced i'd suggest marking it with a 'rescue' tag. --neon white talk 13:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me explain this more clearly: articles on notable subjects that are missing sources should be improved and not deleted. The fact that you and some others might not appreciate the notability of this subject matter is a separate issue. If the article was on the political leader of some country, for example, you would not question the notability of the subject even though the article might not have any sources whatsoever like this one. No sources and no verifiability. Yet I do not think a nominating that article for deletion would succeed and I can imagine that the good people of Andorra would quite rightly feel rather pissed off if someone dare suggest that their first Prime Minister is not notable enough for an article on wikipedia. Would you tell them that their article should be deleted or merge to the main Andorra article because "notability requires detailed second party sources" and "lack of these is a reason for deletion/merge"? Moving to heavy metal music, there are plenty of other subgenres with articles that are as poorly sourced as this Viking Metal article was, including power metal, progressive metal, speed metal, nu metal, doom metal, symphonic metal and industrial metal. Should we wipe them all off and merge them with heavy metal music? After all, the reason for nomination above would be valid for each and every one of these articles as well as others like, say electronic dance music? The relevant criteria for deletion here as stated wikipedia's policy is "content not verifiable in a reliable source." That's verifiable not verified. In other words, the acceptable reason for deleting an article along this line of verifiability is where "all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed." That's the exact phrasing used at WP:DEL. What that means is if an article can be improved, it should be improved and not deleted. Verifiable not verified. Perhaps you think this is a mere neologism but a mere casual search on google would easily reveal that this is a widely recognized and established subgenre of heavy metal music, easily deserving of an article on wikipedia. I've already cited two books above that discusses the genre. Even the New York Times recognizes the existence of Viking metal. Let me stress once again that the folk metal article was originally devoid of a single source when I first came across it. Now, it has a Good Article status - something that would not have been possible if someone had came along before me and nominate it for deletion along the same line as this Afd. The gothic metal article was in as poor a condition as this Viking metal article was but just look at it now. I'm not capable of working on every single heavy metal subgenre article at the same time. That's what we need: time to work on this and other articles across wikipedia. Trigger happy nominations like this are a hindrance to our efforts. And for the record, Viking metal is not a subgenre of folk metal. --Bardin (talk) 14:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody can 'appreciate' the notability of a subject if the article does not assert any notability. The criteria for this article is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Some subjects have additional criteria this does not. The purpose of an afd is to allow time for sources to be found. The rescue tag is apecifically for this purpose. The odd mention now and again is not the basis for a good article and the sources so far only point towards it being a neologism rather than a defined genre. It sources that can contribute to the article without the use of original research. --neon white talk 16:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hits on a search engine aren't criteria for notability and this is the perfect example why as the term is used in many different contexts. For example there's a company called 'Viking Metal Detectors', another company called 'Viking Metals' that manufacture guttering [4] and another called 'Viking Metal Cabinet Company' [5] out of the total results, there are only a handful that are relevant and i can't find one that is verifiable. A search on Google Books comes up with metal work of the viking and one use of the phrase in a quotation. --neon white talk 16:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 82.40.252.40 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

The result was merge any useful content to Oak Bay, British Columbia, but since I'm not certain what would be worth merging this is functionally a redirect closure - history is preserved so the information can easily be merged by more involved editors. There is clearly a consensus that this topic does not warrant a standalone article, but there is no solid consensus as to whether deleting it or merging it is preferable, thus my selected compromise is the redirect/merge. The arguments for keeping this seemed to hinge largely upon an argument that police departments should be considered inherently notable and thus above the need for reliable sourcing to demonstrate notability. While that discussion may be an interesting one, it is not the sort of thing that can be covered in a single AfD. Shereth 17:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oak Bay Police Department

Oak Bay Police Department (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Local police department with no evidence of notability and ghits that just confirm its existence. Prod/Prod2 removed on the grounds that, essentially, "other crap exists and more will exist soon." Still not a reason to keep this, no evidence it meets WP:ORG just like the other police/fire/ambulance companies. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 00:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 1

Keep: Neither the existence nor the deletion of similar articles should govern this1. This municipal2 police force has existed more than 100 years,3 it is frequently referred to in local4 and sometimes in national news sources5, has had to deal with some serious crime6 in a usually low crime municipality recently7 and is central to the question in Vancouver Island politics about whether various municpalities, like it, surrounding the provincial capital of Victoria should be merged together8. It doesn't claim to be NYPD, but it does warrant a separate article. --KenWalker | Talk 01:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 2

  • Keep: Does not need to be of any minimal size to be notable. General Wikipedia guidelines allow for geographic-related topics to be notable, regardless of how small they are. This includes local government agencies (or comparable privately-operated ones) that provide civil services, like police and fire departments, libraries, schools, hospitals, and public transportation. Not each individual location within such an agency (e.g. Northwest Seattle Precinct 3 or Boston Library Mission Hill Branch) is notable, but the whole system covering a municipality generally is (e.g. Los Angeles Police Department, New York Public Library, Atlanta Public Schools) Sebwite (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a geographic entity such as a mountain or a town. And as can be seen at the debate over Fritzpollbot, not everyone thinks that all geographic places are notable. And many a school and library has been deleted/redirected. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment please look at the AfDs I linked above. While precedent doesn't rule current discussion they highlight the fact that often these are not deemed notable. Large ones often are because they go beyond WP:ORG but in the majority of cases, small gov't agencies are not. Elementary and middle schools are often not notable either, whereas high schools are. Hospitals seem to be the exception to this because they garner enough coverage, Mayberry police departments tend not to. There is no inherent notability. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 00:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Why are hospitals an exception and who do they garner enough attention from?? I googled Oak bay Police department and came up with plenty of hits. Exactly who does an organization need attention from to be notable? Local press? Regional? State? National? I think that this PD has enough notability to stay if many hospitals do.EMT1871 (talk) 01:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment While it isn't concrete, I think part of it has to do with the fact that hospitals tend to treat patients beyond their immediate city/town whereas police departments are limited by jurisdiction. Hospitals then garner the reliable source coverage needed for WP:ORG rather than ghits, which don't necessarily establish notability. Proof of existence!=notability. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 01:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge As per previous comments on this solution. --Ecoleetage (talk) 07:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and protect the redirect but keep history to facilitate merging and/or recovery if consensus changes over notability of police articles. Ask Wikipedia:WikiProject Law Enforcement to come up with a reasonable notability guideline for police departments that are sub-organizations of a larger government entity like a city or country. What they come up with should be somewhere between "they are all notable" and "they must be famous," and should require significant press coverage that comes from more than "just doing their job." For example, the New York City Police Department easily qualifies on multiple grounds, including being featured as the central theme in multiple television shows and movies, being at the heart of multiple major events, etc. Likewise, the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the United States and Metropolitan Police Service in London are also clearly notable. The Los Angeles Police Department is notable but in a bad way. Whatever the criteria they come up with, if more than a few hundred or maybe a thousand municipal police departments in the United States qualify, the criteria are probably too easy. However, if more than a few police departments in cities of over a million people fail to qualify, then the criteria are probably too hard. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This article has been listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law Enforcement#Proposed deletion of Oak Bay Police Department with a solitiation to "go to the articles page to help keep this article." 21:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: From WP:CORP:
  • Even though the parent organization may be notable, individual chapters of national and international organizations may not be notable enough to warrant a separate article.
  • Local chapter articles should start as a section of the parent organization article. If the parent article grows to the point where it may be split to a new article, and notability can be demonstrated using the general notability guideline, then it can be split. This should occur as a top down process.
In this case, the city is the parent organization. Has this police department done something notable that is not common for other municipal departments in this city and not common to similar police forces in Canada? If so, then I may be persuaded to change my opinion from merge to keep. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it can be shown to be notable from third-party, reliable sources. I couldn't find any. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: In general, I think that police departments should be kept (see User:Pee Tern's vote above), unless they are notably non-notable. Cf. User:Dep. Garcia's comment at WP:AfD/Floral Park Police Department. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What does notably non-notable mean? If it was notable for its non-notability it would be notable, meaning it wasn't non-notable, meaning it wasn't notable any more....which would make it notably non-notable. This is quite a puzzler - Fritzpoll (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also confused, Dep. Garcia said, "Someone should find sources for this. Otherwise, delete it!" Sources confirm it exists, not that it's notable. Simply existing doesn't equate with encyclopedic notability. They're important as lifesavers in the community but as a whole are non-notable outside that area with the exception of large PDs, as have been discussed somewhere above. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 19:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, what happened there was that I originally agreed with User:Dep. Garcia, but then I read User:Pee Tern's comment and was persuaded by it. Having thought about it some more, I would not strongly oppose merging the police department into the city. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Police departments in most cases are not generally notable--their functions are usually routine. police departments in large cities probably are notable -- they will have been sufficiently involved in major events. The appropriate unit of aggregation for small governmental units is the basic unit. This town has a population of just 18,000. The content of the article shows the lack of notability--just directory information,. Elaborate article structure, but nothing to say. DGG (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Completely non-notable local police force. The fact that police are "good" or "important" has nothing to do with inclusion on Wikipedia. Subject of article simply fails WP:ORG, and none of the above keep votes address this failure. This should be a straightfoward delete close. Tan | 39 20:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, WP:ORG is a guideline, not a policy. This does not mean we throw it out the window whenever we want. It is a "generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Tan | 39 20:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 3

An inspection report? Looks like the British Columbia police had an internal audit and this is the result. Am I missing something? Tan | 39 20:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Tan on this one, I can dig up inspection reports, audits, and the like on just about every government entity, non-profit organization, or business on the planet if I try hard enough. While it can be used as a source, it cannot be used to establish face="Papyrus">Tan]] | 39 20:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - refactored Fritzpoll (talk) 21:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no evidence presented that the audit and inspection service of British Columbia is not properly accurate and independent. By its nature, such a report is likely to be more thorough and neutral than a news report, say, since journalists tend to be sensationalist and have a vested interest in selling stories. Moreover, a report of sufficient weight to be a book is clearly a non-trivial source and indicates that the subject is worthy of notice. The idea that a complete police department for an area is insignificant seems utterly absurd. The comments above seem to confuse the idea of notability with the idea of importance. This PD is obviously not as important as Scotland Yard or the RCMP but it doesn't have to be to be worthy of notice. We have a fine little article here and I am not seeing the slightest reason for us to delete it as the facts it presents seem reasonably verifiable, neutral and unoriginal. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you are serious, you just lost all credibility. If you aren't serious, you just lost all credibility. Take your pick. Tan | 39 20:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This may be one of those cases where the letter of the WP:V and WP:N policies would indicate it's an acceptable source, but the spirit does not. The spirit of the policies is that something is notable if it gets significant coverage from people who 1) don't have an agenda to push, i.e. 3rd-party, and 2) aren't covering in a trivial or pro-forma manner, i.e. significant coverage that is "optional" on the part of the entity covering it. While the audit in question is arguably independent, and definately non-trivial, it is very pro-forma - every police department is expected to have audits or similar documents created merely because the department exists. They are hardly optional. The same can be said for police-blotter sections in newspapers, a mention of the police department budget requests in newspaper articles that cover city council meetings, etc. Those don't carry much weight if you are arguing for notability.
Nope, even the letter of WP:N says that the source must have no affiliation to the subject to be considered an independent source. If there is an affiliation, as here, then the source shouldn't be used to assert notability Fritzpoll (talk) 21:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of argument, I'll concede that point. But even if it had no affiliation, it would still fail WP:NOTPROFORMA. I wanted to make that point clear, so a mom-and-pop child-care business couldn't use government reports on it to say "look, we are notable, here are 3 different sources, one from the city, one from the province, and one from the national government, all with significant coverage" when it turns out that in that business's country, all similar businesses have similar government reports. NOTPROFORMA or some form of it needs to be explicitly added to WP:V. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - I just didn't want someone arguing that it was ok, even within the letter of the guidelines!  :) Fritzpoll (talk) 21:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is quite ok by comparison with other types of sources. News reports tend to sensationalise their subject. Scholars have a vested interest in their topics, as do the authors of books. An inspection report is better for our purposes because the inspectors will have an explicit duty to be independent, just as the auditors of a company report have a similar legal duty. The source can therefore be expected to be reliable on matters of fact and adequately fair on matters of opinion. As for pro forma, this is only a substantial objection if you can show that it compromises the source in some way. A company's annual report is a reliable source since it is demanded by law precisely for this reason - so that investors and shareholders may have good information. Of course, company reports are not perfect but no source is perfect. And are you the same Fritzpoll who is going to create millions of pro forma article on every village in the world using census data? You do realise that a census is pro forma too? Colonel Warden (talk) 07:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I'm doing at all - I'm actually creating articles from a variety of sources, not just census data. You have failed to address the point in WP:N that sources used to assert notability should not be affiliated with the subject. My point was not that the data was pro-forma, but that it did not satisfy our independence criterion as stated in WP:N, whcih says, so that you don't have to click through and find it - "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject... Fritzpoll (talk) 07:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have already addressed the point of affiliation so let me amplify this. WP:N states Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. The inspection staff of the British Columbia Police Services Division are clearly non-affiliated in this sense because they are (a) not part of the Oak Bay PD (b) not paid by the Oak Bay PD (c) not engaged to promote or otherwise make the Oak Bay PD look good. Government inspections are usually considered quite challenging since they will tend to be made in a somewhat critical manner, seeking to find fault by reference to government codes and regulations. On matters of fact, such as the number of staff, their data will be of the highest quality since government bureaucracies are notorious for their meticulous records. As for the pro forma point, we need to clarify whether the objection is to the standardised format of the document or its supposedly perfunctory nature. The latter objection seems inapplicable as a report of this size is obviously not perfunctory. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've only started looking for sources. The huge inspection report seemed ample but since there are objections to this, I have taken a second look and find that there are abundant sources which might be used to source and develop this article. See, for example, Google Scholar for a selection of good sources. Since it is now seems apparent that other editors have failed to make any proper search, this AFD proposal is shown to be groundless disruption. I am therefore changing my !vote to Speedy Keep. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I looked there as well, with the same search - the mentions are trivial, and do not establish notability. This isn't about having enough to write an article about, it is about whether or not the subject is notable. I can dig out 12 newspaper clippings that mention me - from them you can get my school, my qualifications, some of myu interests, and even from a view of some of my political perusasions. With some web sources, we could add to this even further. That doesn't make me notable - the coverage of me is relatively trivial, and the mentions of me are confined to passing mentions within a particular context. The sources from the scholar search are just like those. And of course, a lot of them aren't actually about this particular topic. Notability is not the same as existence, and notability is not the same as having enough sources to write an article about Fritzpoll (talk) 10:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Colonel Warden apparently has no grasp on Wikipedia's notability policies, has no inclination to read the rebuttals here, and thinks this is "groundless disruption". I think we can all end arguing with him and safely presume that the closing admin will realize that his arguments have no weight whatsoever. Tan | 39 13:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tu quoque. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the hypocrisy? Fritzpoll (talk) 14:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are here to discuss the article's merits not our own. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was kept. giggy (:O) 04:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A wig wom for a goose's bridle

AfDs for this article:
A wig wom for a goose's bridle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod, and the way it was done, I thought it was a request for deletion but it isn't. This is an old Australian saying, but the article is unreferenced and no more than a dicdef. No notability is asserted, except for the fact the saying is less popular today than it used to be. Delete. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 00:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tidied somewhat. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like a valid stub now -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Articles for deletion archivesThis is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Alex Laurier. Please do not modify it. The result was "delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but a text version can still be accessed by following the "discussion" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shereth 17:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Libertarian Program

The Libertarian Program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article was created in 2005 by an anonymous IP. While there was in the long ago a Libertarian Party program, and may even have been some linkage between some LP members and Libertarian International Organization (which itself doesn't have an article), this program is most definitively defunct. There are two main external links - The Libertarian Program (This is defunct) Libertarian Party web site (This has newest and relatively shorter platform) So basically its an old advertisement for a defunct project. Reason}} Carol Moore 00:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was Speedy deleted before I could even finish this nomination. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 00:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faster is Better : English

Faster is Better : English (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article was prodded, deleted, then recreated. No asserted notability. Delete. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 00:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_June_11&oldid=218571318"