Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 March 27

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< March 26 March 28 >

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 keep. Closing based on comment below. BuickCenturyDriver (talk) 01:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

McCabe's Guitar Shop

I'd like to confirm with the community if this deserve a page. I doubt it is notable. BuickCenturyDriver (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was shocked that the McCabe's Guitar Shop article was recommended for deletion based on notability. McCabe's is the most famous forum for folk music on the West Coast. It has been hosting the top folk musicians since the 1960s. More than a dozen of the genre's greatest musician's have recorded live albums there. I have just started the article and am in the process of writing it. I actually intend to propose the article for DYK and possibly for feature article status. It is unfathomable to me that such an important part of folk music history would be considered for deletion. I ask that whoever has the power to do so consider speedily removing the article for deletion notation.Cbl62 (talk) 01:24, 27 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 AfD closed due to wrong forum. This is a redirect, so its deletion should be discussed at WP:RFD instead. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Shore Drive: Aliotta Haynes and Jeremiah 1971 album from Bigfoot Records Label Number 714

Lake Shore Drive: Aliotta Haynes and Jeremiah 1971 album from Bigfoot Records Label Number 714 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article does not have enough information and the title is too narrow to be usefull Jmankamp (talk) 02:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Close this AfD. The page is a redirect page; I've nominated it for speedy deletion. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:14, 27 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 all. Keilana|Parlez ici 02:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kongu Vellalars

List of Kongu Vellalars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nominating on behalf of User:Sudharsansn, he claims the articles are hopelessly NPOV and false, as well as propaganda. You can get more from his comments on my talk page, or maybe he'll chime in himself. In any event, this is procedural, I have no opinion (or real knowledge of this stuff). The following related pages are also nominated for the same reason:

List of Kongu Vellala kootams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of castes using Gounder title (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

UsaSatsui (talk) 05:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Seconded, the article is truly hopeless and its very basis lies on identifying individuals whose 'caste identity' cannot be verified or more strictly something that should not be verifiable, and more importantly is something that 'they' themselves consider irrelevant. This article is hopelessly biased and has no factual or verifiable information. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 05:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and edit, with an outside opinion if necessary. This really sounds like an editing problem. Find sources for the individuals. DGG (talk) 02:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - These all look like magnet articles for all sorts of political slander and unverifiable claims. We get the same problem on List of Freemasons, and that article has to be watched and rved regularly. Moreover, if the designation is irrelevant (especially without self-identification), it's a lot of work for what is essentially trivia (and thus unencyclopedic). MSJapan (talk) 04:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and edit, like DGG says. This is a bit of a mess right now but it sounds like it can be sorted out. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gounder (caste). Dreamyshade (talk) 07:09, 28 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, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I really despair of these South Asian caste/clan/tribe/surname (or whatever other name to give them) articles. I'd really like to get to understand them but the lack of NPOV editing and the surfeit of POV editing that goes on just makes the whole subject incomprehensible to those of us who have been brought up in different social systems. After getting that rant out of the way I'd suggest that picking off one or two articles for deletion doesn't help anything. What is needed in this case is a merging of a whole set of seemingly related articles into a smaller number of NPOV articles, which is an editing issue rather than one for AfD (is there a project which would take this on?). These are the ones I can identify in this case, but the same principle applies to many others of these caste/clan/tribe/surname/whatevers:


  • Strong Delete: All these articles you have listed have been created, edited and maintained by a list of three IPs and a Puppetmaster who has had 18 sockpuppets. Now one can imagine the kind of purpose these articles help 'promote'. All this is being written by one individual managing a 'caste/race' based organization seeking to use Wikipedia for propaganda. It would be wrong to allow all these list of related articles to be listed considering the content, zero verifiability and spurious history. All these articles have totally random superiority claims and citations like 'matrimonial websites'!! It would be great if the whole bunch is just wiped clean. Thanks Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 05:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


To the above unsigned user, above my comment who had asked about these articles, these articles canNOT be NPOV because the very purpose of listing the caste names, subgroups, 'prominent' people and populating that list with random names is POV. The very existence of these sub-sub-sub group articles, tall claims, relating ancestry to some godforsaken place is all intentionally POV and any article written further on such a foundation is just as fallacious as all other 'caste' articles. It is sincerely advised that these articles should go.
To put it simply, it is pure, unencyclopedic, POV, agenda-driven junk. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 05:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sigh... Over the last year, I have tried to learn a bit about the various castes in southeast Asia. I quickly found that to be a difficult task, as there a such a huge number of sub-articles and lists and stubs and so on that it is impossible for anyone from the outside to learn anything (or to be certain what they read is correct or even meaningful). This needs to be pruned, and limited to a few notables as in the parent article. King Pickle (talk) 02:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Personally, I dont think there is anything wrong with lists of people, but this list is sourced with non-neutral Gounder-community websites. -Ravichandar 05:38, 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 No Consensus, defaulting to Keep. Only the nominator has argued for deletion and a merge has no consensus here. This has no prejudice to a merge taking place for which discussion should continue on the talk page. Davewild (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hellomagazine.ca

Hellomagazine.ca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable news website. While it does seem to have a quite substantial reader base (see Alexa), there seems to be very few pages linking to it (see Google - note that while Google says "about 1,330" on the first page, this is lowered to "about 16" on the next, due to "we have omitted some entries very similar to the 16 already displayed". They are, indeed, very similar). I do not see how this article can be considered as passing Wikipedia:Notability (web). Also note that the creating user Cprice is a suspected sockpuppet. Jobjörn (talk) 01:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – The article on hellomagazine.ca was posted because news from this site is on Google News quite frequently (sign up for google alerts on hellomagazine.ca and you'll get one almost everyday). I'm sure there likely will be a linked article page created for Hello! Canada magazine soon too as the two are connected. Hello! Canada magazine and hellomagazine.ca are fairly new (one is weekly news and one is daily news as per the two separate articles on the properties) but have a huge readership and fan base as per the established Hello!/¡Hola! brands —Cprice (talk • contribs) 14:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep – In doing some research, I did find one source showing that the site was getting over a million and a half hits a month as of January, 2008, which is notable, [1]. In addition, there do seem quite a few other sources linking or showing their source was hellomagazine.ca. However, sorry to say, I could not find any information on the magazine on Google News, which was disappointing. Nor could I find any in-depth articles from reliable – credible and verifiable sources pertaining to the company. If the original author or any other editor could show or cite additional sources, I would change to strong Keep and I am sure that would persuade Delete opinions, which could be justified at this point, to vote keep. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 01:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: How does a high hit count imply notability? Jobjörn (talk) 02:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - seems that it should be notable, but unsure if it is. What bothers me is that Hello! Canada doesn't even have an article. Considering that is a notable title I find it rather surprising. Canterbury Tail talk 01:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Tough call. Would need a good overhaul. Problems with notability/WP:RS. -- Taroaldo (talk) 03:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but expand. The website is part of the Canadian edition of Hello! which is a major magazine. I'm actually surprised an article on Hello! Canada hasn't been written yet, so alternately this article could be expanded (and renamed) into an article on the magazine itself. 23skidoo (talk) 03:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per User:Dhartung Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Hello! per Dhartung. Nate • (chatter) 22:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless or until an article is written on Hello! Canada in which case it can be merged. I must say that I am amazed by the sparsity of information in the Hello! article, and by the fact that there is no article on Hello! Canada. Surely this is a more important subject than a single episode of Friends or a Pokemon character? For some time I've been trying to help combat systemic bias by improving and referencing articles about subjects from outside the developed anglophone world or from the pre-internet era, but I didn't realise that we had the same problems with major subjects in Western popular culture. I can only presume that readers of Hello! Canada have better things to do with their time than editing Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:03, 29 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. Wizardman 15:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Academic Technology Specialist

Academic Technology Specialist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not-notable per WP:N. The school maybe notable, but individual programs, not so much. ukexpat (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The program has been cited in a number of online publications including:

Cncoleman (talk) 03:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • These articles are mostly from Stanford publications, and thus don't qualify as independent sources, or are merely brief mentions of the program. I still don't see the evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources that is required under WP:N. — BRMo (talk) 22:55, 20 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, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks notable enough to me per the sources given above. Celarnor Talk to me 23:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, All the sources are either bare mentions or not independent. If the article was correctly written (fluff removed) it would be at best a dictionary definition. Blast Ulna (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article as it exists pertains just to Stanford, and amounts to an advertisement for their initiative.. Based on the sources in the article and above, it does not apply exactly anywhere else. If you can think of a way to write a more general article, with a more suitable title, that would be another matter. As a local program within a single library, it should not get an article. I have the highest respect for Michael Keller and his projects, but that's not the question here. DGG (talk) 03:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at best merge into the schools article. Every degree at a University is not notable on its own. Looking notable is not the same as being notable and this article is apparently not notable as written. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a course of study, major, academic program or degree as some have argued (Vegaswikian, Dhartung). Those have been posted, though, see Experimental Study Group at MIT. What is described here is an organization that employs several full time professional staff with a mission unique within any university. There are independent substantive articles about this listed by Skrossa that need to be integrated into the article. Cncoleman (talk) 06:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Experimental Study Group article needs to be sourced or deleted too. Blast Ulna (talk) 07:19, 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, consensus is that the sources in the article are sufficient to meet the notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Common Purpose UK

Common Purpose UK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Has a few links but they seem to be self references, press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines. Hu12 (talk) 15:16, 19 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, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems to be notable . --@ the $un$hine . (talk) 23:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The links used on the page are self references, press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines.--Hu12 (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Multiple instances of secondary coverage, I guess I just don't see the notability issue the nominator percieves. Celarnor Talk to me 00:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It would help if the nominator, who, based on previous nominations, seems to consider himself spam-fighter-in-chief, didn't use the typical spammers tactic of underlining things which he thinks we might be too stupid to notice if he didn't do so. Please just let the words speak for themselves. Your presentation style has made it impossible for me to judge this objectively for the moment. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems to be both incredibly important and notable. James Wilson 01:33, 29 March 2008 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.202.92 (talk)
  • Keep sufficient sources for notability. DGG (talk) 22:39, 29 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. Finding reliable sources was a concern that wasn't met in the AFD. Being an author doesn't indicate instant notabilty.Secret account 20:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philip H. Farber

AfDs for this article:
Philip H. Farber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This nom is a little complex. Previously AfDed in Aug 2006, it was closed as "delete" against a numerical majority of opinions/!votes. It went to DRV which overturned the closing admin and it went back for a second, procedural AfD which it overwhelmingly passed as "keep". I'd note, though, that at least four of the editors participating in the discussions (and in favor of keeping the article) were found to be socks of the same person: User:999, User:Hanuman Das, User:Ekajati and User:Gurunath. I'm bringing it back to AfD because I still can't see the notability in this bio. Of the two published books, one is on Xlibris so is essentially self-published. The level of his participation in Chronicle of the 20th Century and Chronicle of America, two New York Times bestsellers apparently, is difficult to track down. He's certainly not one of the main named editors as far as I can find without actually having the books in hand. I suspect the number of contributing writers and/or editors in such books may be quite large and I'm finding it difficult to attribute too much weight to this without better documentation. Professional recognition/achievement (as a hypnotist) seems negligible. In over 30 years, he seems to have produced a couple of handfuls of articles and interviews for magazines. I can't tell whether the DVD sets are significant. I could find little WP:V or WP:RS info besides various online bios and a single Disinformation interview. If participants here can find enough substantial info to add to the article, I'll withdraw the nom. Pigman☿ 22:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD wasn't listed properly, it's fixed now. KTC (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No references for any notability, except self-published material by the neurolinguistic community and the like.DGG (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You didn't look hard enough. Search for "Phil Farber", "Philip Farber", as well as "Philip H. Farber". "Meta-Magick" is another good search term. I'll add some new material. Foolio93 —Preceding comment was added at 20:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually I did do searches on the variations of his name you suggested above before AfDing the article. Perhaps I wasn't diligent enough in going through the results. As to a "Meta-Magick" search, I had no idea that would be a term specific to him. A Google news search on "Meta-Magick" comes up with only a PR release. A wider Google search on "Meta-Magick" + Farber comes up with 3200 hits but the first 100 hits don't seem to include anything meeting WP:V/WP:RS that I can see. Pigman☿ 02:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I ran the same search on google proper and turned up two recent interviews, plus a new book on a major publisher available at major retailers within the first 100 hits. Amazon.com was the third hit. I've added info from these to the article. Seems to me that a mass marketed book on a respected publisher with an introduction by D. Rushkoff = notable, to say the least. I can only image you have a different google than I do... I see several articles that cite Farber as a source and discuss his work and even some biographical material. I will add these as I get time. I'm also wondering if you contacted authors and previous AfD participants - as I was one and received no contact from you. Foolio93 —Preceding comment was added at 17:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops Comment Er, no, apparently I didn't notify anyone from the previous AfD. I completely blanked on that and I apologize. Please do add what new info you find to his article. I'd like to see what it is. Perhaps I am being too strict in my interpretation of WP:V/WP:RS. Pigman☿ 04:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obviously. Sources had indicated then, and do now, that this is at least a semi notable individual through BIO. You guys can meat it out if you want, but I disagreed with the original AfD deletion, and I will now. I really don't care about the guy, but third party sources are enough to keep the article on wikipedia. Oh and thanks for dropping me the line. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must have been having a stupid day because it didn't even cross my mind to notify anyone from the previous AfD. Really, no underhanded malice or subterfuge intended, just ordinary dumbness. Thanks for adding your opinion. Pigman☿ 08:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. First, we read in the article that Farber "writes a regular column, Hypnosis and Meditation in The Journal of Hypnosis". The Library of Congress does not carry this journal; a total of zero libraries participating in COPAC carry it: all in all it hardly seems typical of periodicals titled Journal of [XYZ]. Secondly, DGG writes above that there are "No references for any notability, except self-published material by the neurolinguistic community and the like." I suspect that DGG was typing quickly and that he'd concur that this "community" has nothing to do with neurolinguistics (a scientific endeavor); it instead is about so-called "neuro-linguistic programming". ¶ A "Disinfo" article listed as a source explains that Phil Farber is a postmodern magician who conceived the future of initiatory ritual. Part of a revolutionary cabal that includes Robert Anton Wilson, Genesis P-Orridge, Laurence Galian, Peter J, Carroll, Phil Hine, and Antero Alli, Farber has updated Aleister Crowley's definition of magic ("the art and science of causing change in conformity with Will") for the contemporary environment. His unique and humorous synthesis enables the individual to manifest hidden desires, discover their True Will, and experience Mastery of the Self. Now, we mustn't begrudge Crowley his article: after all: his excesses have always made good copoy. But Farber seems unremarkable: his notability does indeed seem limited to a little fraternity of "magick", etc. -- Hoary (talk) 07:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment So, while quoting a source that asserts Farber's notability, your point seems to be that you don't like magick or NLP, both of which are subjects certainly notable enough for many wiki entries and persons involved in these - many LESS notable than Farber. The Journal of Hypnotism appears to be the professional in-house journal of the National Guild of Hypnotists and has been published for over 50 years. http://www.nghinfo.com/aboutus.shtml Foolio93 (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Farber does to be of some note within the field he works in, he is frequently appearing on the alternative lecture circuit a guest speaker at Hypnoticon, one of those interviewed for the forthcoming film Programming the Nation?. This all points to a person of some note. Lack of Libaray of Congress data does not sway me. The alternative press has always worked in a different world to main stream/academic world and Idon't think we should judge one by the other. --Salix alba (talk) 09:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • He's twelfth on IMDB's list of people appearing in this film (which doesn't actually exist yet). -- Hoary (talk) 14:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment List 12th of 24. And 3rd under "experts" on the film's own site. So what? Foolio93 (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I'm pretty much of the opinion that anyone who has a number of books listed for sale on Amazon [2] is notable enough to merit inclusion in our Encyclopedia. -- Atlant (talk) 11:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So for example anybody who churns out some vanity books and gets ISBNs for them and has them listed at Amazon is thereby worth inclusion? Well well. Actually Farber seems to have three books listed. One's out of print, one doesn't exist yet, and there's one novel. -- Hoary (talk) 14:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment The out of print book fetches over $150 on alibris and other used books sites - apparently some people think it is notable. The one that is forthcoming is on a major publisher, with an introduction by a notable author and also turns up on sites for major retailers including Target, Best Buy and others - apparently a notable book. Foolio93 (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is all vanity. He's a minor figure on a niche lecture circuit. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Delete First, I can't find any meaningful assertion of notability in the article to begin with. Second, none of the cites seem to be reliable sources (which need not be listed in the US LoC). Hence, the article reads to me like an advertisement for someone's small magic business. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. --rogerd (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep — Author of multiple books and articles. To me that's an obvious one. Wjhonson (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Another worthless piece of self-promoting vanity press garbage acting like the weed it is, cluttering up Wikipedia, devaluing all of the good healthy articles out there in the garden, and slowly choking the life out of this place. Ok. That was the cathartic rant. This is the real reason:
Results for Philip H. Farber:
Google News (all dates): two press releases, no independent reliable third-party sources.
LexisNexis (major mentions): 1 article, which might be a false positive. 2 sentences are devoted to what a "Philip H. Farber" thinks of a funk resurgence CD (Deep Banana Blackout) in the Florida-Times Union (December 2001).
LexisNexis (3 or more mentions): zero articles.
LexisNexis (at the start): zero articles.
LexisNexis (anywhere): 2 articles. The previously mentioned article is one; this article in the Dallas Observer (Texas) is the other. I'll quote the relevant section.

This should tell you all you need to know about Philip H. Farber, author of FUTURERITUAL: Magick for the 21st Century: Several of his articles have appeared in High Times. While we know it isn't fair to judge someone because they've written for a monthly magazine dedicated to marijuana and all the fun things you can do while high on it, in this case it seems appropriate. Farber's book reads like a list of deep thoughts he had while stoned, incorporating ancient esoteric traditions and modern science into his flippant rhetoric. Mixed in is a bit of new-age nonsense, a holdover from Farber's days as a hypnotherapist. The book is humorous at times, but if you take any of it seriously, you must be higher than he was when he wrote it. Farber will discuss and sign copies of FUTURERITUAL: Magick for the 21st Century on Saturday at 3 p.m. at Forbidden Books, 835 Exposition. Free food and beverages will be provided. Call (214) 821-9554

Well said....next up is Factiva.
Factiva (all dates, English): 1 article. The same one on the CD in the Florida-Times Union. Unbelievable.
Factiva (all dates, all languages): The same article and that's it. Amazing.
JSTOR: zero hits. No surprise there. Farber isn't an academic.
Google Books: 4 hits, 2 of which are books he wrote. The third book is entitled Book of Lies: The Disinformation Guide to Magick and the Occult and lists Farber's FutureRitual in one of the selected bibliographies. That's hardly something that can be quoted or used in this article, but doesn't actually support notability too much either. The fourth book simply lists the address for a "Philip H. Farber" so it could very well be another false positive.
WorldCat: 3 hits. Now, this is where it gets VERY interesting. 2 hits are for Farber's books, FutureRitual and Meta-Magik. WorldCat is a consortium of over 15,000 libraries worldwide, so it also tells you which libraries stock these books. Interestingly enough, only 14 libraries worldwide apparently carry FutureRitual and only 3 libraries worldwide carry Meta-Magik. I think we can infer from this fact that even the libraries in the WorldCat consortium don't think it necessary to carry his books. As for the third book, it's Psychedelics reimagined and without looking inside the book I can't determine if that's a false positive.
The bottom-line is that there's very little reliable third-party sources to support notability. It's amazing that this article has survived for so long. Again, my vote: strong delete. J Readings (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse J Readings' take on this article. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:17, 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 as a Dictionary difinition of a neologism. Davewild (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ambituity

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Unsourced neologism. UsaSatsui (talk) 22:20, 27 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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apt:foo

Apt:foo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Probably fails notability, and smells original research. →AzaToth 22:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no evidence (or assertion) of notability. JJL (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can't find any notable sources either. --Starionwolf (talk) 02:14, 28 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. Wizardman 15:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cliptron

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

Fails WP:N, and WP:RS NimiTize 22:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - Fails WP:N and WP:RS miserably, most likely WP:COI, and is relative nonsense. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 23:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - Possible patent nonsense. I can't find any sources either. --Starionwolf (talk) 02:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as an obvious hoax -- Whpq (talk) 21:16, 28 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 Deleted by User:Secret --JForget 22:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old Town Art Fair

Old Town Art Fair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:RS, WP:N, WP:V and WP:NEU NimiTize 22:00, 27 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 speedily deleted at 00:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC) by Dweller (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as blatant advertising. cab (talk) 00:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shauna Danielle

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

Fails WP:N and WP:RS NimiTize 21:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. She clearly exists and will probably eventually have a Wiki article, but this one certainly isn't it. I found a few marginal references (JOE Magazine, lots of YouTube and Myspace fluff) but there's nothing I found that could be described as a reliable, significant source. Tan | 39 22:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as spam. This is not an article. This is a press release by a PR flunky. DarkAudit (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as above. When there's enough (retrospective) information on this source, then an article sounds worthy. Bosh it. Booglamay (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as all of the above. Fails WP:N, WP:RS. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 23:25, 27 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 g3, nonsense/hoax. No, you're not a philistine. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cyack

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

Forgive me if I'm a philistine, but this to me appears to be a hoax, bordering on WP:CSD#G3. EJF (talk) 21:46, 27 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Pinchley

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

Prod expired, but was contested on the talk page by the author, so removed tag and moving it here. One off character - information should appear in article of episode if at all. Fails WP:FICTION Fritzpoll (talk) 21:34, 27 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. Wizardman 15:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Kwatinetz

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

Prod was removed. Subject fails WP:BIO, particularly "a relationship with A does not make B famous" - his company represents certain artists, but even the news reports that the company has not done well, which means the company is therefore not really notable, so Kwatinetz isn't notable for running it. The main "notability" item in the article is that Britney Spears dropped her association with Kwatinetz's company, which again is not an indication of notability on Kwatinetz's part. The older news coverage cited by the person who rm'ed the prod is more about Kwatinetz's intents with his company through the business model than anything he himself has done, the stories are often duplicated, and so-called "revolutionary ideas" that don't work aren't really notable. MSJapan (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Notability has nothing to do with success or failure of his enterprise, only with the extent to which he is covered by reliable sources. As I pointed out when I deprodded this there are hundreds of these in the Google News archive, most of which make no mention of Britney Spears. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:31, 21 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, Davewild (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This managers representation of high profile entertainers makes him notable. The article does need some work and more sources though.--Rtphokie (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, coverage by multiple reliable sources = notability, regardless of success. There are three in the article and hundreds more on Google News Archive. No basis for deletion. --Dhartung | Talk 20:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article can be a reliable source to wikipedia. I also do not see any or much non-wikipedia policies. I do suggest expanding it and maybe cleanup.--RyRy5 talk 21:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Say again? Are you trying to say that Wikipedia itself is a reliable source? If not, it looks an awful lot like WP:ITSUSEFUL. Neither would be valid keep rationales.
  • Weak delete - seems to have a few sources, but the CEO is not notable, only the company itself. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 23:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Actually I would say that it is the other way round - the company is simply a vehicle for Kwatinetz's activities. 176 of the Google News hits[3] (nearly half of the total) don't even bother to mention the name of his company. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:50, 28 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. Wizardman 15:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Keller! The Musical

Helen Keller! The Musical (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No chance of ever becoming a proper encyclopedic article. Dorftrottel (warn) 20:09, March 27, 2008 20:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep, no worse than any other episode article for South Park or any other show. There is precedent so it's hard to single out this article.--Rtphokie (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's easy to tear something down, but a bit harder to create. Nominator's only interaction with this article has been to remove content and now to propose deletion. Why this specific episode, out of the hundreds of South Park articles? Look at this article's history; its growth and refinement continues, it is in no way stagnant and will continue to improve. -- Captain Infinity (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed completely unreferenced original research of more than doubtful quality. Incidentally, that left nothing but a plot summary. So, no sources (none on Google at least, perhaps you know any?), no viable content — no article. I'm not trying to "tear something down", as you imply, but trying to keep Wikipedia encyclopedic. Dorftrottel (troll) 22:35, March 27, 2008
  • Strong keep, I quote what User:Peregrine Fisher said in a similar debate half a year ago: there are some really good SP articles, including (I beleive) three GA episode articles. 3/160 for GAs is actually a much higher ratio than the 3000/2000000 there is for normal articles. It's going to take a while a to get all the episode articles up to snuff, but it's going to be a lot quicker than getting WP up to snuff. Let them live an be improved. Additonally, the nominator provides no serious arguments and all or the vast majority of South Park episodes have recieved enough independent coverage, just because it is not mentioned in this article does not mean it does not exist. 96T (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • With all due respect, no available sources and no viable content are two very serious arguments. If you know reliable sources for this specific episode, by all means please include them in the article. Dorftrottel (bait) 22:40, March 27, 2008
  • Comment. Maybe I should make this clear: The reason I put this up for deletion is that there is no article. Nothing speaks against recreating the page iff reliable sources can be found and encyclopedic content added. Currently, this page is simply not an article at all, and therefore has no place in Wikipedia's mainspace. Dorftrottel (canvass) 22:38, March 27, 2008
Comment There was an article until you gutted it. -- Captain Infinity (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced and probably unsourceable trivia thought up and observed solely by random Wikipedians, plus, pure in-universe plot summary does not an encyclopedia article make. Furthermore, addition of more unsourced trivia to Wikipedia pages is not "improvement"; article improvement consists of adding information cited to reliable, independent secondary sources, or editing the presentation of such information to make it more readable. cab (talk) 01:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Potential sources in this GNews search (the Chronicle of Higher Education one, maybe?). Most of it is just trivial mentions, though. cab (talk) 01:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Barring an official ban on episode articles, which I don't believe has happened yet, the article can be "edited to make it more readable" as suggested by CaliforniaAliBaba. That's a content issue, not a deletion issue. 23skidoo (talk) 03:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a non-content issue, and that makes it a deletion issues. Also, I don't get the logic about bans on episode articles. You see, it works both ways: Unless policy mandates an article about each and every episode, we should treat them as individual articles, on their own merits. Dorftrottel (harass) 08:33, March 28, 2008
  • Keep there is precedent for the articles, and nominator is wrong to remove content to facilitate deletion. Hard to give much credence to such an obviously pointy nomination.Horrorshowj (talk) 09:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not familiar with the nominator's editing, so you might want to explain how you feel this AfD is a violation of WP:POINT, but removal of unsourced trivia/popular culture sections is a legitimate form of article improvement (whereas adding such sections in the first place can hardly be seen in the same light). cab (talk) 10:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Their only edits to the article are removing the section and starting the afd, which occurred within a 6 minute period. No notability or ref tags, no mention of any attempts to find reference for the article or otherwise improve it. I'm not seeing any of the diligence required by the deletion policy. Nom seems to have an issue with WP:EPISODE, and has implied this is the beach head. If it's just a matter of the nom not explaining themselves well so far I'm listening, but so far things look questionable.Horrorshowj (talk) 11:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to LoE. Nothing promising on Google News, on Google Books or Google Scholar, also no awards as per imdb, episode was also not a season opener or a season finale where major third-party coverage could be expected. I.e. it's a completely nonnotable episode. Per WP:FICT/WP:EPISODE, the article can remain if it contained so much real-world information (from non-third-party sources) that it would be too much for mother articles, but I want to see this effort first before !voting keep. Note to nom: tagging->waiting->AfDing may take longer but will give you better AfD results because interested editors will be given time to do something or live with the results. – sgeureka t•c 18:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another nom comment. I wish AfD was not a number's thing. I hope for a closing admin who really takes into account the merits of each comment. I for one remain utterly unconvinced by the keep "arguments" and I hope for a content-p&g-based closure rather than a head-count. Wishful thinking, but hey, I once thought Wikipedia was vaguely about producing an encyclopedia. Dorftrottel (complain) 09:27, March 31, 2008
  • Keep. I was able to find coverage/discussion in multiple secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources in quick searches in various databases. Cirt (talk) 00:16, 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 as an essay made of original research. Davewild (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duranguenidad

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

no-encyclopedic essay  Andreas  (T) 20:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to es.wikipedia.org--Rtphokie (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — blatant essay, no useful content to transwiki. EJF (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per EJF - original research essay, no sources. JohnCD (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to be either an essay or a copyvio when machine-translated into English. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 23:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without move. This is an essay. JuJube (talk) 03:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Essay. 23skidoo (talk) 03:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. As translated, the last paragraph begins, "In my family, for example, my mom and my eight brothers and sisters were born in the territory of Durango. My wife and two of my daughters were born in Sinaloa and Oaxaca, my son-in-law John and my grandson Diego Emilio were born in New York and Berkley, but we all live in Durango. We all feel Durangan." That's a personal point of view, not encyclopedic content. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even with my (very) limited Spanish, I can see that this material is not encyclopedic and reflects a personal opinion. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 21:39, 28 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. Nom withdrew. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 00:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change denial

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

This article is a POV fork of global warming controversy about a supposed campaign by energy companies to cynically misrepresent "consensus" views on global warming. This is a fundamentally dishonest article, with no proof anywhere in the article that such a conspiracy exists, and the examples are media stories that speculate on politicians motives. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a crystal ball, it does not speculate on peoples motives, it is not a platform to attack critics of Global Warming, and any useful information in this article is already found in the multitude of other articles on Global warming. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. A well-sourced article on a notable topic. I don't think this nomination raises any policy issues that weren't addressed by the previous AfD. Of course there is considerable risk of overlap between material in this article and global warming controversy but that doesn't mean that editors (once made aware of the issue) can't contribute material to the correct article. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 20:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So if I made an article on another kind of slur name for a kind of person, and could quote the washington post, that makes it ok? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which is quite a misstatement of what the article covers. But assuming that you could find as many different independent and highly regarded reliable sources that cover your concept - then it would certainly be notable enough merit its own article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to global warming controversy, clean out the POV problems.--Rtphokie (talk) 20:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    May i ask what POV problems you believe the article to have? As i can't find any comments on the articles talk page by you to explain what you believe is problematic. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Try reading the nominating text, it lists a multitude of problems. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about letting the user answer? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is inappropriate to ignore my nominating rationale, I don't particularly care what happened in the last debate, I want my concerns discussed and addressed. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - More inappropriate is to not "care" about what happened in the last debate because I, like others here, feel that your concerns are already dealt with there. I find this attitude ungrateful to those who contributed to the last AfD process and it feels like a waste of time for those contributing now. In particular, how is this AfD different from the last one? What has changed? Brusegadi (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose nothing, it appears to be the same issues, but is is appropriate to bring an article back to AFD if there has been no improvement and the issues are serious enough. At least, that is common practice. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - I dont see how this AfD is different from the last one. Is there a point to all this? As WMC, keep per last result. Brusegadi (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the closer - Please wait until we hear from some other people besides those who basically control the Global Warming topic. If you find that questionable, or not assuming good faith, go edit one of those articles in a way they don't like and see how long it lasts. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject of an article defines whether it should remain or not, not the current quality, climate change denial seems like a highly notable topic deserving of its own article to me. Restepc (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as before. Notable concept, sourced to reliable sources. The word "conspiracy" occurs only twice in the article - both cases in literal quotes by opponents of the scientific consensus on global warming, once applied to the consensus position, and once as a straw man. Its not used once to describe opponents of the current scientific position. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? I have heard it many times used against people who just don't believe in the "consensus" view, not this use against supposed conspirators against scientists and others. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know what yo have heard elsewhere. But in the version of the article you nominated, the word "conspiracy" is never used to describe the deniers/sceptics/opponents/heroes of free enterprise. You did read the article before you nominated it, right? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No I was using that as my own word to summarize what I read. In the media I have read, this term was used to cover all those who did not subscribe with consensus, but if it is a separate term that makes better sense. Ok then, the next logical question is, isn't this all just speculation? Doesn't there have to be proof that such an effort was being made? It seems like there is a lot of innuendo and speculation. And also, thank you for discussing this with me. :)Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unclear about which term you talk about - "climate change denial" or "conspiracy". You can have a systematic attempt at denial without a conspiracy. Individual actors can act in their own best interest. Exxon does not even have to buy opinions, they can just pick and choose whom they support. In fact, they can even choose to fund both sides ("look, we're neutral"), with the effect that the fringe position is boosted much more that the majority position. Anyways, this misses the point. The article has oodles of reliable sources. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. There is no hard "proof" outside of mathematics, anyways - maybe we are all simulations in an AlienVac 2022. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense... it seems like an article that will have to be very careful to maintain NPOV, and definitely requires more opinions by those who deny it exists, as most of the article currently details those who think it does, but I think you have convinced me that, if carefully NPOV and better balanced with both sides, it could be a good article. :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as someone who isn't in "control of the global warming topic." This has been done. It was an overwhelming keep then (though not one I agreed with) and it's going to be an overwhelming keep again. If you have specific issues with content address them at the page itself, not by a frivolous AFD. Oren0 (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I supported a merge last time, but as with Oren0 I can't see the point of revisiting this issue.JQ (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the concept is notable. POV would be mixing this up with climate change scepticism - this content fork reduces POV issues in other articles. That is, if deleted the topic would then be covered in other articles making it more likely (not less) that Wikipedia appears to be equating scepticism with denial. Nick Connolly (talk) 23:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator Withdraw - I have long been concerned with this articles inherent POV, but Stephan made a convincing argument how this article can be made to be am NPOV, balanced accounting of this somewhat controversial theory. Thank you all for your imput and the helpful discussion that has taken place, this is what AFD is all about, talking out issues. :)Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:43, 27 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 Merge and redirect. Syn.Maggot says he did the merge. I'll redirect the title and keep the history intact per GFDL. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lonestarr

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

Only a slightly expanded version of the character's subsection in Team Tejas. Since there was little interest in merging Trinity (Team Tejas) after the AfD in February, this and the near-identical articles on the individual members can go. DarkAudit (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Content has been merged to main article by me. No need for redirect. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Wikipedia is not paper. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs.[4] An encyclopedia about Hispanic superheroes would have an article on Lonetarr. At the very least merge it into Team Tejas and turn it into a redirect. --Pixelface (talk) 08:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 08:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 08:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't an issue which needs to be debated at AFD. I see no evidence as to the nominator actually attempting the merge or redirect. Since such edits cannot be undertaken whilst an afd is in process, I ask the nominator if they are prepared to withdraw the nomination so a merge and redirect can be undertaken. It is counter to policy to delete information which is useful. The issue here seems to be that nobody has merged the article as yet. AFD is not the tool to fix that issue with, a merge and redirect is. Hiding T 09:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. What is already in the main article is sufficient. The individual characters have no notability outside the main Team Tejas article, so no redirect is truly necessary. DarkAudit (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, redirects are free and we always redirect useful search terms. Besides which, it's only your opinion that what's there will suffice. Last time I checked this was a collaboration. It would be nice if we could collaborate. Hiding T 21:58, 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 Merge and redirect to Team Tejas#Reata. Merge seems to have been completed already, I'll perform the redirect. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reata (comics)

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

Only a slightly expanded version of the character's subsection in Team Tejas. Since there was little interest in merging Trinity (Team Tejas) after the AfD in February, this and the near-identical articles on the individual members can go. DarkAudit (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge any additional information with the Team Tejas subsection than delete this article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Content has been merged to main article by me. No need for redirect. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re-read WP:MERGE, particularly the part that says "Merging — regardless of the amount of information kept — should always leave a redirect..." --Pixelface (talk) 08:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Wikipedia is not paper. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs.[5] An encyclopedia about Hispanic superheroes would have an article on Reata. At the very least merge it into Team Tejas and turn it into a redirect. --Pixelface (talk) 08:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 08:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 08:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't an issue which needs to be debated at AFD. I see no evidence as to the nominator actually attempting the merge or redirect. Since such edits cannot be undertaken whilst an afd is in process, I ask the nominator if they are prepared to withdraw the nomination so a merge and redirect can be undertaken. It is counter to policy to delete information which is useful. The issue here seems to be that nobody has merged the article as yet. AFD is not the tool to fix that issue with, a merge and redirect is. Hiding T 09:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. What is already in the main article is sufficient. The individual characters have no notability outside the main Team Tejas article, so no redirect is truly necessary. DarkAudit (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, redirects are free and we like to keep article history per the GFDL where we can. Besides which, it's only your opinion that what's there will suffice. Last time I checked this was a collaboration. It would be nice if we could collaborate. Hiding T 21:59, 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 Merge and redirect, similary to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reata (comics) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lonestarr. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calibre (comics)

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

Only a slightly expanded version of the character's subsection in Team Tejas. Since there was little interest in merging Trinity (Team Tejas) after the AfD in February, this and the near-identical articles on the individual members can go. DarkAudit (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge any additional information with the Team Tejas subsection than delete this article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Content has been merged to main article by me. No need for redirect. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Wikipedia is not paper. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs.[6] An encyclopedia about Hispanic superheroes would have an article on Calibre. At the very least merge it into Team Tejas and turn it into a redirect. --Pixelface (talk) 08:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 08:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 08:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't an issue which needs to be debated at AFD. I see no evidence as to the nominator actually attempting the merge or redirect. Since such edits cannot be undertaken whilst an afd is in process, I ask the nominator if they are prepared to withdraw the nomination so a merge and redirect can be undertaken. It is counter to policy to delete information which is useful. The issue here seems to be that nobody has merged the article as yet. AFD is not the tool to fix that issue with, a merge and redirect is. Hiding T 09:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. What is already in the main article is sufficient. The individual characters have no notability outside the main Team Tejas article, so no redirect is truly necessary. DarkAudit (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, redirects are free and we like to keep article history per the GFDL where we can. Besides which, it's only your opinion that what's there will suffice. Last time I checked this was a collaboration. It would be nice if we could collaborate. Hiding T 21:58, 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 Merge and redirect, similarly to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calibre (comics), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trinity (Team Tejas), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lonestarr and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reata (comics). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plainsman (comics)

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

Only a slightly expanded version of the character's subsection in Team Tejas. Since there was little interest in merging Trinity (Team Tejas) after the AfD in February, this and the near-identical articles on the individual members can go. DarkAudit (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge any additional information with the Team Tejas subsection than delete this article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Content has been merged to main article by me. No need for redirect. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Wikipedia is not paper. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs.[7] An encyclopedia about Native American superheroes would have an article on Plainsman. At the very least merge it into Team Tejas and turn it into a redirect. --Pixelface (talk) 08:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 08:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 08:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't an issue which needs to be debated at AFD. I see no evidence as to the nominator actually attempting the merge or redirect. Since such edits cannot be undertaken whilst an afd is in process, I ask the nominator if they are prepared to withdraw the nomination so a merge and redirect can be undertaken. It is counter to policy to delete information which is useful. The issue here seems to be that nobody has merged the article as yet. AFD is not the tool to fix that issue with, a merge and redirect is. Hiding T 09:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. What is already in the main article is sufficient. The individual characters have no notability outside the main Team Tejas article, so no redirect is truly necessary. DarkAudit (talk) 17:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, redirects are free and we like to keep article history per the GFDL where we can. Besides which, it's only your opinion that what's there will suffice. Last time I checked this was a collaboration. It would be nice if we could collaborate. Hiding T 21:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Exactly, which is why I'm expressing my opinion by not withdrawing the nomination. Let the AfD run it's course. If others want to merge or redirect, fine, but I don't think it's needed for something this non-notable. (Assume the same for the other noms, so I don't have to copy-and-paste this over and over.) DarkAudit (talk) 22:19, 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 deleted per WP:SNOW. nat.utoronto 20:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

健康促進小組

健康促進小組 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Apparently a drug, but I'm not sure if it's notable enough. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Google translate digs it up as an advertising/drugmaker company. It seems almost like a copy/paste from a website, but then again translations are notoriously bad on the internet. It also includes a recipe of some sort. If someone who speaks Chinese could explain more, though, that would be nice. Then we could have a proper article about it. Logical2u (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Zero potential for an article about the product in question; the product name gets 12 Ghits [8]. Even the manufacturer themselves only get 95 non-duplicate GHits [9]. cab (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Untranslated and I'm concerned about the above comment suggesting that a recipe is present. If the topic is notable, I have no objection to a fresh, English-language article being created on the subject (which, if necessary, can always be AFD'd if notability isn't certain). 23skidoo (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The title of the article literally translate to something along the line of "Health improvement group", which doesn't seems like the title (in Chinese) of a drug. The content seems like a copy of what one will find on the side of a drug's packaging. 1, Product name; 2, Maker's company name; 3, Import company name; 4, Content; 5, Usage; 6, Method of consumption; 7, Some date thing; 8, Ingredients; 9, Storage; 10, Authorisation certificate. And then a sentence about how it's not classify as a drug, so doesn't need something. Have no idea what the bottom line is trying to say. KTC (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a Chinese version of this article should be moved to Chinese wikipedia or this has to be transformed to English to be here , i dont know Chinese so i have no comment weather or not it is notable or not , moreover the consensus will sure rise to delete . --@ the $un$hine . (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - My Chinese isn't perfect, but KTC's translation seems approximately correct, and this article seems non-notable and lacks context.--Danaman5 (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A.) A Chinese article has no reason to be here B.)KTC is a native Chinese speaker (see his userpage), and he says it seems to be copied off the side of a drug box or something, and I trust him. C.)If KTC's translation is correct, it's non-notable. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 23:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, practically WP:CSD#A1 (no context); content of no encyclopedic value about a non-notable product from a non-notable manufacturer. cab (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Starionwolf (talk) 02:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further translation - Having actually reread the first line of text (sentence under "3/3"), and thought about it some more, I now understand the context of this. The writing is what one would find reading a filled in form for someone from the "health improvement group" (article title) doing a (according to the first sentence) "investigation on whether cosmetic products sold on the market meets (certain) cosmetic products packaging regulation". Then you have that list of information from the packaging that I translated above with (10) being "Authorisation certificate number: not found on packaging". The indented sentence under 10 being a note on 10 that says "Asked a shop assistant which informed that it's not a drug, so doesn't need an authorisation certificate number". Still have no idea what the line under that is suppose to be / says. KTC (talk) 07:57, 28 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 Closed. Merged and redirected. Now was that so difficult? This shouldn't have been re nominated. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity (Team Tejas)

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

Previous AfD ended as a merge in February. That merge never took place. If anyone was interested in merging, they've had plenty of time by now. DarkAudit (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I don't think this needed another AFD. If no one has done a merge yet, then WP:BOLD applies. 23skidoo (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply I'm not so bold as to attempt a summary deletion. Especially not having admin powers. DarkAudit (talk) 21:17, 27 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 Nominator conceded points of notability. Also WP:SNOW. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 14:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Avery (captain)

James Avery (captain) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable figure. Article fails to establish notability and provides no references. Grsz 11 19:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non Notable. Keep if someone can find references that proves he is notable. Izzy007 Talk 19:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, enough references, notable Izzy007 Talk 00:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The fact there there is a bust statue located is a good sign that he has some level of notability. I will do research for more refs. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Grsz, the article clearly asserts notability. It may not be referenced but there are MULTIPLE statements that assert the notability of this individual. You are welcome to add {{Unreferenced}} tags to an article to requeste that references be added. Have I missed something in this article? Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Material on very early colonial folks is very hard to come by. If the statue and information about the subject, limited though it is, have survived three hundred years, he's notable.Lkleinow (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. I do not believe that anybody would place a statue bust of James Avery in both Groton and New London,Connecticut, unless they were of notabilty.(Lookinhere (talk) 20:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • I suggest Grsz retract his deletion tag, it is unfounded.(Lookinhere (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Comment - Statements like this certainly don't help the project. This AFD has led to an establishment of notability by Chrislk. Now that this has been done, it's worthy of inclusion. Grsz 11 21:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So now that the person that placed the AFD has changed his opinion on the worthyness of James Avery, why has ne not removed the AFD? There is not one person think the AFD is valid.(Lookinhere (talk) 06:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Stay cool and let the process finish. It won't be deleted, so there's no reason to make a fuss about it. Grsz 11 06:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Acording to the AFD tag, you were supposed to place this on my talk page:
An article that you have been involved in editing, James Avery (captain), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Avery (captain). Thank you.,

you did not Please don't expect everyone but younzself to pay strict attention to the rules. Don't embarrass younzself any further please. Best to sit back and wait yourself. (Lookinhere (talk) 06:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

        • Dude, calm down. That tag was place don your talk page. I however had personaly notified you so i removed the tag which was extraneous (as a courtesy to you). If your comment is not DIRECTLY related to artuicle upf or AFD, dont make it here. You will only escalate things. Thanks! Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 14:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its ok, let it run its course. I understand it is frustrating but i assure you, all of this is in place for the good of this project. It will be taken off as soon as the AFD is closed! Thanks again for your contributions. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 20:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with Chris, the AfD gets you attention and help fixing up an otherwise marginal article. It'll be kept but let it run.Lkleinow (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Like John Stark and Israel Putnam, James Avery is considered by New England historians to be a notable figure in the colonial era of the United States. Given time and patience, this article could become quite informative, as well as an excellent addition to Wikipedia. Flask (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm leery of the "anybody we can name from this period" standard, but his command of militias during King Philip's War is documented and he was in command of the Pequot Indians (allies) during the battle aka the Great Swamp Fight per multiple sources, so meets WP:MILMOS#NOTE. Genealogical significance is not really something we consider except as a leading indicator. Lookinhre, please observe WP:AGF and instead of attacking the nominator, make a case for notability. --Dhartung | Talk 21:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grsz just beat me to the realization that the "General Court" referred to is the predecessor of the Connecticut General Assembly, making him the equivalent of a state or (arguably) national legislator, and clearly passing WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 07:06, 28 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. Suggesting WP:PROD next time for similar cases. :) --PeaceNT (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keane's third studio album

AfDs for this article:
Keane's third studio album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced. Full of gossip and rumours. Songlist derived from a screenshot of an unrelated video. WP:CRYSTAL Kww (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Speculation, not backed up by any reliable sources. When a release is officially announced it might merit an article, but not now.--Michig (talk) 07:55, 28 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A.W. Bulldog (wrestler)

A.W. Bulldog (wrestler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not establish notability and cannot be soured with third party refs. Fails Google test Nikki311 18:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki311 18:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete needs evidence of notability. Sounds like a very minor wrestling league (founded in 2002)? JJL (talk) 22:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note to JJL: It is not a minor wrestling league. It is a nationally televised promotion here in South Africa. Unfortunately, not a great amount of information has been made available regarding it online, but there are trustworthy, notable references listed, including the official website which I am the webmaster of. ajstyles_tna_roh
  • Oppose Nikki, are those three articles (AW Bulldog, Ananzi, Akilah) the only ones you are considering deleting? Do you not consider the sources I have listed reliable enough? ajstyles_tna_roh —Preceding comment was added at 19:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply, the sources you provided are primary sources, not third party. To prove notability, you need to add news articles are references from other published sources. As the webmaster of the website, there might also be a WP:COI here. Nikki311 00:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:42, 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 as an advert for a company that fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banks Power

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

This is just advertisement, even if its rewritten, the subject matter isn't newsworthy RudeBII (talk) 18:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support: Just and ad. -Billy-talk 18:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Purely advertisement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ketsuekigata (talk • contribs) 20:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Advertisement, non-notable, and a likely copyvio or essay. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 23:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - advertisment --Starionwolf (talk) 02:19, 28 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. Wizardman 15:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Antonica

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

Basically an unsourced list of locations lacking any real notability.

With no sources, this article has nothing to establish its notability to non-EverQuest readers and the real world.

It appears to only contain a few sentences regarding the subject with the rest of the article being simply a directory/list of locations, something Wikipedia is not. IAmSasori (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 10:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - there is not likely to be reliable 3rd party sources about this topic to confirm notability for stand-alone article. Any salvagable information should be merged into another article. GundamsЯus (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fictional location with no assertion of notability or sources, a single element of the deleted Norrath which contains a couple of sentences (with redlinks to deleted articles) and a bare list of locations. Someoneanother 22:15, 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. Wizardman 15:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faydwer

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

Unsourced, unnotable fancruft.

The article lacks any sources to establish its notability since the tag was placed half a year ago, suggesting that non-EverQuest readers and the real world would have little to no interest in this article.

It appears to be composed of fancruft which has the tendency to attract original research unwelcome to Wikipedia.

It has a list of locations which is what Wikipedia is not.

These scenarios coupled with the lack of sources since October 2007 gives it little reason to stay. IAmSasori (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 10:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - there is not likely to be reliable 3rd party sources about this topic to confirm notability for stand-alone article. Any salvagable information should be merged into another article. GundamsЯus (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Fancruft is not a valid reason for deletion, and many consider using the term uncivil, as the link you listed shows. Nominator's assumption that lack of article improvement is shows lack of notability is just that - an assumption. Whether the majority of people are interested in the subject is also irrelevant as to whether it is notable - I suspect the majority of Wikipedia could care less about Millard Fillmore or opera. The Nominator's assumption that the article will attract original research is not a valid reason for deletion. The article containing a list is grounds for improvement, not deletion. Edward321 (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fictional location with no assertion of notability or sources, a single element of the deleted Norrath which contains a couple of paragraphs of mostly in-universe details and a bare list of locations. Someoneanother 22:18, 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. Wizardman 15:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Odus

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

Unsourced, unnotable fancruft.

The article lacks any sources to establish its notability, suggesting that non-EverQuest readers and the real world would have little to no interest in this article.

It appears to be composed of fancruft which has the tendency to attract original research unwelcome to Wikipedia.

It contains plot details which is what Wikipedia is not.

These scenarios coupled with the lack of sources gives it little reason to stay. IAmSasori (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 10:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - there is not likely to be reliable 3rd party sources about this topic to confirm notability for stand-alone article. Any salvagable information should be merged into another article. GundamsЯus (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Fancruft is not a valid reason for deletion, and many consider using the term uncivil, as the link you listed shows. Nominator's assumption that lack of article improvement is shows lack of notability is just that - an assumption. Whether the majority of people are interested in the subject is also irrelevant as to whether it is notable - I suspect the majority of Wikipedia could care less about Millard Fillmore or opera. The Nominator's assumption that the article will attract original research is not a valid reason for deletion. The article containing plot details is not a reason for deletion, as the link shows. Edward321 (talk) 01:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fictional location with no assertion of notability or sources, a single element of the deleted Norrath which contains a couple of sentences and a bare list of locations. Someoneanother 22:19, 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. Wizardman 15:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Velious

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

Unsourced, unnotable fancruft.

The article lacks any sources to establish its notability, suggesting that non-EverQuest readers and the real world would have little to no interest in this article.

It appears to be composed of fancruft which has the tendency to attract original research unwelcome to Wikipedia.

It has a list of locations which is what Wikipedia is not.

These scenarios coupled with the lack of sources gives it little reason to stay. IAmSasori (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 10:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - there is not likely to be reliable 3rd party sources about this topic to confirm notability for stand-alone article. Any salvagable information should be merged into another article. GundamsЯus (talk) 14:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Fancruft is not a valid reason for deletion, and many consider using the term uncivil, as the link you listed shows. Nominator's assumption that lack of article improvement is shows lack of notability is just that - an assumption. Whether the majority of people are interested in the subject is also irrelevant as to whether it is notable - I suspect the majority of Wikipedia could care less about Millard Fillmore or opera. The Nominator's assumption that the article will attract original research is not a valid reason for deletion. The article containing a list is grounds for improvement, not deletion. Edward321 (talk) 01:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fictional location with no assertion of notability or sources. A single continent from the world of Norrath, already deleted, containing 2 sentences and an unsuitable bare list of locations. Someoneanother 22:11, 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. Wizardman 15:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taelosia

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

Unsourced, unnotable fancruft.

The article lacks any sources to establish its notability, suggesting that non-EverQuest readers and the real world would have little to no interest in this article.

It appears to be composed of fancruft which has the tendency to attract original research unwelcome to Wikipedia.

It has a list of locations which is what Wikipedia is not.

These scenarios coupled with the lack of sources gives it little reason to stay. IAmSasori (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 10:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - there is not likely to be reliable 3rd party sources about this topic to confirm notability. Any salvagable information should be merged into another article. GundamsЯus (talk) 14:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment Fancruft is not a valid reason for deletion, and many consider using the term uncivil, as the link you listed shows. Nominator's assumption that lack of article improvement is shows lack of notability is just that - an assumption. Whether the majority of people are interested in the subject is also irrelevant as to whether it is notable - I suspect the majority of Wikipedia could care less about Millard Fillmore or opera. The Nominator's assumption that the article will attract original research is not a valid reason for deletion. The article containing a list is grounds for improvement, not deletion. Edward321 (talk) 01:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fictional location with no assertion of notability or sources. Someoneanother 22:04, 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. Wizardman 15:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EverQuest special servers

EverQuest special servers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Poor to no sources and lack of real world notability.

This article has only one source which was not properly placed, alongside the fact that the link it leads to has been broken. With this, the article lacks notability as non-EverQuest players would have little to no interest in this subject.

The article seems to only be a description about the types of servers in a video game yet lacks the essentials to establish its own notability to the real world. IAmSasori (talk) 17:47, 27 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. Wizardman 15:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EverQuest trade skills

EverQuest trade skills (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No sources, lack of notability, and reads somewhat like a crufty game guide.

With the lack of sources, this article has failed to establish its notability to non-EverQuest players and the real world, suggesting that those who do not play the series would not be interested in reading this article.

It also contains fancruft which has the tendency to attract original research unwelcome to Wikipedia.

In addition, the article itself reads somewhat like a game guide, something Wikipedia is not and is generally unwanted. IAmSasori (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the nominator fails many core policies of Wikipedia as well as the five pillars. (jarbarf) (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom--Rtphokie (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Starionwolf (talk) 02:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 10:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - there is not likely to be reliable 3rd party sources about this topic to confirm notability for stand-alone article. Any salvagable information should be merged into another article. GundamsЯus (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at best this is a gameplay snippet from an individual game article or something that would belong in a series article (already deleted). It's been here since 2004 and remains the equivalent of an article on the first 3 pages of a novel. Someoneanother 21:58, 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. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 12:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RuneScape weaponry

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

Purely unsourced, unnotable fancruft in a large list, reading like a game guide.

This article has no sources whatsoever to establish its notability, suggesting that non-RuneScape players and the real world would have little interest in the contents of this article.

In addition, this entire article itself appears to be gamecruft, which has the tendency to attract original research unwelcome to Wikipedia. With that, it is in the form of both a directory of items and a game guide, both of which are what Wikipedia is not.

Finally, this article has several broken links that seems to remain there. Along with that, it was suggested for this article to be merged to an article that was already deleted, suggesting that this article is long overdue to be terminated. IAmSasori (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom; Wikipedia is not a game guide. tim.bounceback 22:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a game guide. I thought I saw a similar article for deletion a few months ago. --Starionwolf (talk) 02:25, 28 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 for deletion, the addition of references to solidy the notability case helped.--JForget 22:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Barbieri

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

Local radio host, article lacks reliable sources and fails to establish notability Rtphokie (talk) 18:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:N.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 01:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as nominated - Nabla (talk) 13:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note, please look at the talk page too - Nabla (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article already had 3 newspaper references, though they were just displayed as numbered links. I have fixed the format of the existing references and added more. In addition, a Google News Archive search turns up even more references. DHowell (talk) 23:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, plenty of references. Callelinea (talk) 03:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm sort of back-and-forth on how I feel about the notability of these local media personalities, but when a major newspaper like the San Francisco Chronicle writes a story about the birth of your child, you're probably notable enough for Wikipedia. Enough sources to satisfy WP:BIO. faithless (speak) 08:53, 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 Withdrawn. Dustitalk to me 16:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Barkley

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

Unsourced article fails to establish notability Rtphokie (talk) 18:08, 27 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. Wizardman 15:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Baka Boyz

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

tagged for notability for several month. No references. WP:CSD#A7 Rtphokie (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable local radio stuff. -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. Non-notable. Izzy007 Talk 19:23, 27 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. Wizardman 15:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor Spectres

List of minor Spectres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page is just a list of names of some extremely minor, mostly incidental characters from the manga series Saint Seiya. While the manga may be notable, that doesn't mean that incidental characters are notable by extension. --Farix (Talk) 17:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I agree. I do not think I could say anything more, except that all those characters appear during only 3 seconds in the series.Tintor2 (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge while this may not be notable on its own, it would be notable and very appropriate in the article List of Saint Seiya as these are characters in Saint Seiya.Kuro Woof 05:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurowoofwoof111 (talk • contribs)


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, consensus is that the article is a hoax. Davewild (talk) 18:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buffenheimer

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

Likely hoax. Prod template was removed by the article’s author without comment. Comments on the article’s talk page:

  • No google hits for "Buffenheimer" or "P.R. Stein and Geoffry Humphry". Smells hoaxy. Author has registered under the name "Buffenheimer". Author has a different story (with different dates) on his user page saying that Buffenheimer invented the modern tennis ball. I think April the first has come early to the Galapagos Islands. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • No trace on Amazon or Abebooks or my local university library of the book cited as a reference. Hoax. Take it to AfD if the PROD doesn't stick. JohnCD (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete as hoax Dawn bard (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per comments above. JohnCD (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nomination. --Starionwolf (talk) 02:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ugh! I hoped I had seen the last of this one when I put PROD on it. It is a pathetic hoax. The author has not even tried to defend it. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and based on the creator's userpage Salt. Hoaxalicious. Edward321 (talk) 01:37, 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 - Did consider the merge option however, nothing in the article is really sourced. -Djsasso (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Roy

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

Questionable notability, not a professional player. Also, possible recentism. Flibirigit (talk) 16:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the definition of a professional hockey player? Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 17:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From my understanding, a professional player plays in a league where players are "of age", and earn a salary they can live off of. An amateur player does not receive (or receives very little) a salary. A very informal definition. Schmloof (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We've been down this path many MANY times: major junior is not professional. Don't bother. ccwaters (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. —Djsasso (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Notability isn't inherited. He's the backup goalie on the junior team his Dad coaches and manages. That's all. We'll forget about him in a month, after the media moves on to other stories. ccwaters (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. DMighton (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This player's actions have sparked a criminal investigation as well as action from the Quebec provincial government. While it is agreed that Johnathan Roy is not a professional ice hockey player, his actions have sparked significant outside media attention with a number of news outlets in the United States picking up on the event. Certainly notable. VanceBaker (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into any or all of 2007-08 QMJHL season, Violence in ice hockey or Fighting in ice hockey per WP:BIO1E. The incident has recieved a fantastic amount of attention, but Roy's mention is entirely within the context of this incident, as the state of this article clearly shows. Resolute 18:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. Flibirigit (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge to the season's article, the Remparts article, Patrick's article and other related articles, although the extensive media coverage boost its notability level quite a bit in Canada and even more in Quebec. It will be even further notable if there will be criminal charges.--JForget 19:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability and Newsworthy are very different things. -Djsasso (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete WP:NOT#NEWS, primarily in the news due to being related to Patrick Roy and this BLP1E. I don't see anyone running to write up a bio for Sébastien Rioux (and nor should they), because ... WP:NOT#NEWS. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being Patrick Roy's son has nothing to do with it. He committed an assault during a junior hockey game, causing a nation to debate how much violence should be tolerated in hockey. This incident would have caused a firestorm no matter whose son he was. DOSGuy (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He hasn't won a major award in juniors, he wasn't picked in the first round of the NHL draft. Patken4 (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge per Resolute or Djsasso. Lesserm (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything useable into the violence in hockey and season articles listed above. I agree that this guy isn't notable enough yet for his own article, even if his case makes an impact on the issue. If kept the article needs to be policed for WP:BLP issues. I don't support keeping a redirect for this as that may violate BLP, especially if the redirect leads to something that might be seen as prejudicial in a legal case. If anyone is looking for his name in the Wikipedia seach engine, it would turn up under the applicable article anyway, so no redirect is needed. 23skidoo (talk) 04:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I live in Canada, and I can tell you that Jonathan Roy has sparked a national dialogue. His attack on Bobby Nadeau was probably shown on every newscast in the country, and has led Quebec Premier Jean Charest to suggest that he may change the law to prevent fighting in Junior Hockey. This young man is a household name in a country of 32 million people. How much more notable does he need to be? Beyond simply being the most notable person of the moment, he's likely to remain notable in the future, since he will likely play in the NHL or AHL someday. There will also be the enduring legacy of any changes to the legal code of Quebec, and to the rules of CHL hockey. In the unlikely event that those changes don't materialize, the debate will rage on. Jonathan Roy is infamous, i.e. notable for all the wrong reasons. DOSGuy (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4 other player got suspended because of that incident, but they're being ignored because their last names are not Roy. And YOUR speculation that he may play in the AHL or NHL isn't a valid reason (Offhand, I highly doubt that a 19 year old undrafted backup goaltender on his Dad's own team is going to have much of a pro career to write about anyway). ccwaters (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's exactly my point. None of the other players made the news because all of them consented to fight. Jonathan Roy was singled out because he attacked a player who didn't want to fight. It was an assault, which is why it's being investigated by the police. Had it been a fight, it wouldn't have been such big news. The seriousness of his actions are why he was singled out.
As far as his future career, I wasn't attempting to use a crystal ball argument for future notability. My point was that this is a story that isn't going to go away. Of course it's not a valid reason on its own! It's a supporting factor, not a justification. DOSGuy (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:BIO1E. The notability here is in the incident, not the person. The incident itself certainly has notability, and there are many articles that already exist where it can be described. Jonathon Roy as an individual has no notability beyond the incident. As such, he does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. Resolute 18:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And then we go back to: WP:BIO1E. About a month ago, the was a huge brawl in Div I NCAA that included a Canisius player pinning an RIT player on his stomach and repeatingly smashing his face into the ice [10], (search youtube for vids). That was equally if not more brutal then Roy's actions, but the guys father wasn't a record holding hall of famer so there was no national spotlight. (oh... and GO RIT!) ccwaters (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If NOT NEWS means anything, it means events like this; and if the one event part of BLP means anything, it means this also. Notable for one discreditable event. The article is furthermore written drawing a conclusion of the nature of his actions on the ice, without giving a source.DGG (talk) 23:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Newsworthy for now, but not notable per established criteria for this WikiProject and per WP:NOTE. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the merge

Here's a couple concerns I have:

  1. The current Jonathan Roy article itself has no provide sources at all.
  2. Once sources are found it can be easily added into 2007-08 QMJHL season and Fighting_in_ice_hockey#Notable_fights_and_brawls.
    1. Smaller mentions could then be made in the Québec Remparts and Chicoutimi Saguenéens articles.
  3. In order to fit into the Violence in ice hockey article, charges would need to be laid.

Although I don't dispute the factuality of the content in the Jonathan Roy article, there's not much can really do with the merging content, until its sourced. Flibirigit (talk) 06:51, 28 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 00:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Dougal

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

This is a living person biography. The only source provided, discogs.com, is questionable as it is an open-directory style database which accepts user submissions in the same way that Wikipedia does. I'm not comfortable that this meets the standards in WP:BLP and wanted to bring it forward for community discussion. No vote as nominator. (jarbarf) (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 17:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I had to provide those references today at short notice due to the constant vandalism and editors scrapping most of the article. If you're into happy hardcore, you would definitely know who Dougal is. All discogs additions are approved by administrators before they are inputted fully. The records DO exist. Technohead1980 (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The existence of recordings alone is not sufficient for the purposes of the encyclopedia, please review WP:MUSIC and Wikipedia:Reliable sources for assistance in this regard. (jarbarf) (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have just looked on WP:MUSIC and, according to the section "Criteria for musicians and ensembles", number 3 states that an artist can be included if he / she "Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country". The Bonkers 3 compilation, of which Dougal was one of the contributors, went gold in the UK and a special edition of the compilation was released to commemorate it: [11]. Technohead1980 (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have found another criterion that he satisfies. Number 2 states "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart". My records don't go back that far but on the chart dated 30th September 2006, his single Frantic reached 36 on the UK indie chart. Further more, up to the end of 2003, 5 of the Bonkers compilations that he has released have gone top 20 on the UK compilations chart. Technohead1980 (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article meets notability as per WP:MUSIC in more than one area.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 01:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as meeting notability, however I do agree that it doesn't look good to have one source dominating and would suggest other sources be added to even things out (remember they don't need to be online sources; if there's a magazine article out there, it can be cited just as well, too. I mention this because sometimes there's the feeling only web sources are allowed, and that's not the case by any means). 23skidoo (talk) 04:06, 28 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 for deletion, default to keep. Sandstein (talk) 10:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Lopes

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

Lacks any assertion of notability. If one takes the infomation about her relations from this article, there is very little left. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete Problems with WP:BIO Based on the information, the subject does not appear to be notable as a stand-alone. Other than her relationship to the Duchess of Cornwall, sources and info seem to be social in nature; no significance asserted. --- Taroaldo (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep. Wikipedia has a different set of rules for royalty and nobilty. She is the future King of England's step-daughter, and the future Queen of England's daughter, my understand is that the children of royalty are included.Callelinea (talk) 03:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you also vote to delete all children of Royals? Callelinea (talk) 04:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As an example Grand Ducal Family of Luxembourg, there the children and siblings of the present Grand Duke that have their own articles.Callelinea (talk) 04:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not voting, I'm discussing. The issue cannot be reduced to an 'all or nothing' debate. The article needs to be considered in light of WP:BIO and I have not yet come across anything that would convince me that notability has been, or can be, asserted. I have not seen anything that addresses the issues raised by the nominator. --- Taroaldo (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did anyone of you look up Laura Parker Bowles in google news? If you did you would see that she is a celebrity in England. As Paris Hilton is in the USA.. They are notable not for anything in particular that they have done, but for just being who they are.. You may not like it, but they are notable.
  • Weak keep - royal celebrity enough for newspaper coverage, reader interest is demonstrated by stats.grok.se numbers - David Gerard (talk) 12:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should note that the article clearly needs work to state better why she's article-worthy, e.g. the infobox mentions TV host, that isn't in the article text - David Gerard (talk) 18:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 1. Notability is not inherited. 2. She is not royalty, you must be born to it or marry into it. Her mother is now royalty, but she is not. 3. She has done nothing notable herself and thus does not qualify in her own right. 4. The references provided do not constitute significant coverage of the subject as they all concern primarily Prince Charles and/or his wife with the one exception of a short blurb in what appears to be a gossip column that still must reference her mother. 5. I did look at google news, and there is very little on her there, but quite a bit about her mother. Mstuczynski (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One more comment. I just added Eight more references on her in addition to her being in the German, Spanish, French, Polish and Portugese Wikipedias. She is also mentioned in almost any book written about Prince Charles or Camila.She is a NOTABLE celebrety (I would say semi-royal) Callelinea (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I still cannot see how her notabilty derives from anything other than her stepfather. She deserves to be mentioned in Camilla's article, which, of course, she already is. "she is a celebrity in England" I'm in England, and find that although the concept of celebrity is very often derived from individual achievement, most ofen it is not. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, but whether or not we like it, because of her mother's link to British Royal Family, she practicly from the moment of her birth has been in the public eye, and because her child is in the Prince of Wales eyes his grandchild, she will always be a celebrity until she dies. She will always have media coverage, always be mentioned in the papers, that is why I feel she is NOTABLE.Callelinea (talk) 22:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, a two year old Suri Cruise (note that that link redirects) is more notable than the vast majority of biographical entries in this encyclopedia. Her ghits would simply swamp them. Mstuczynski (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible that in the future she will get an article in wikipedia but if her father dies tomarrow in 5 years from now she might not get any media coverage. Laura because of her mother being Charles mistress for over 30 years has from birth been in the media, of course since her mother is now the future Queen of England and her step-brother and step-father will be the future King of England, she will probably have media attention until she dies, such as Princess Beatrice of York or Lord Nicholas Windsor or Lady Nicholas Windsor or Lady Louise Windsor (who is four years old).Callelinea (talk) 23:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All royals, and WP:CRYSTAL. Mstuczynski (talk) 01:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well we are in agreement about Suri Cruise but not Laura Parker Bowles. Callelinea (talk) 02:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering does the fact that 6 other language wikipedias find her notable not make her notable in the English version?Callelinea (talk) 02:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, they do not. Case by case basis here. Mstuczynski (talk) 08:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I understand and sympathize with the nominator's rationale (assuming that I'm understanding it correctly), but it is fundamentally flawed. No, she would not be notable if she wasn't Camilla's daughter; by the same token, Julia and Alfred wouldn't be notable if it wasn't for their son, Alice wouldn't be notable if it wasn't for Sam, Chelsea wouldn't be notable if it wasn't for Bill and Hillary, Martha wouldn't be notable if not for her husband, and the list goes on and on. If it wasn't for her mother no one would know who she is, but as her marriage received international coverage (Sydney Morning Herald, USA Today) and the article is extensively sourced, she quite easily passes WP:BIO (A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.). "This person is only notable because of their family" is, like I said, fundamentally flawed - by that logic, Prince Charles, Abigail Adams, Kevin Federline, Paris Hilton and everyone else who is only where they are because of their family shouldn't have articles. faithless (speak) 09:25, 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. Wizardman 15:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Claremorris Swimming Pool

Claremorris Swimming Pool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Stub article in purple prose on a non-notable swimming pool in a smallish town, with an uninspiring photo of the wall beside the entrance; tagged as unreferenced since October 2006. The only incoming link is from the article on the town of Claremorris, and it might be useful to merge the article there, but without any references to support the text, I think that deletion would be preferable. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS The only comment on the article's talk apge is "I cant believe this article exists", which was my reaction too when I saw it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No notability as far as I can find, nor any assertion of any in the article via verifiable sources (which I can't find either). Not encyclopedic content, Wikipedia is not a directory. WilliamH (talk) 16:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:N and makes the uncited claim of "long history of producing both national and international swimmers and water polo players" and fails WP:V. --Pmedema (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom and Pmedema. Guliolopez (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete I can't believe it either. It is not notable. Assertions made have issues with WP:V. Notability is not fame anyway. Any notable swimmers became notable because of good coaching and hard training, not because they swam in a certain pool. --- Taroaldo (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable. Although the picture of the entrance that says " swim in poo" is funny. DCEdwards1966 (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ;) And if that description were accurate the article would be notable. Thanks for spotting that - it gave me a good laugh. --- Taroaldo (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BrownHairedGirl, with whom I agree whole-heartedly. Has this article really existed since 2006?? (jarbarf) (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete wow, just wow. If this one doesn't get deleted, every pub and community center in the world could be considered notable. The image of the sign with the missing letters did make me laugh though.--Rtphokie (talk) 20:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with some regret. It seems somewhat of a shame to delete an article that has held out this long. Even so, fails all three content policies and also fails the notability guideline. Would make a nice advert in the local newspaper perhaps. EJF (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per EJF's comments. --Starionwolf (talk) 02:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no assertion of notability. No sources. It's time to go--Cailil talk 23:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per everyone. Isn't it snowing yet? Edward321 (talk) 01:40, 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, consensus is that the article is a non notable neologism. Davewild (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nurse Profession 2.0

Nurse Profession 2.0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:NN Neologism. Unreferenced and appears to be WP:OR. Failed prod, and I declined speedy. Toddst1 (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable neologism. I can't find any references that can be used to establish the notability of this term, and I agree with the nominator that this appears to be original research. Hemmingsen 15:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a very non-notable neologism. Google has 4 hits on the term including Wikipedia. It appears to be the title of a upcoming book published by a nursing supply company. Nuttah (talk) 19:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above concerns. Also, the text reads like it was taken from the preface to a textbook, hinting at poss. copyvio. Matt Deres (talk) 19:54, 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. The personal attack in the nomination statement, and forged vote by the nominator, makes clear the bad faith of the nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Jordan (singer)

David Jordan (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A disgusting chap who simply has no excuse whatsoever. Yuck! Pope Barry George (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Strongest possible DELETE. As per nominator. Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC) forged comment. [12]SYSS Mouse (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep. Bad faith nomination.--Michig (talk) 15:49, 27 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. Wizardman 15:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Search & Rescue

Southern Search & Rescue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable "humanitarian organization", article doesn't attempt to establish notability. Article has no third party sources and none could be found via Google. The article also appears to be been created by an member of the organization. BJTalk 15:12, 27 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 Redirect to Sheyenne, North Dakota, where any encyclopedic material (not much, I don't think) can be merged. Black Kite 10:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Lutheran Church Sheyenne, ND

Grace Lutheran Church Sheyenne, ND (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No demonstration of notability; individual Lutheran congregations aren't inherently notable. Nyttend (talk) 15:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The mason in the article has been mentioned in connection to other buildings. That makes this church unique. Significant Reference on Christ Frosaker --Firefly322 (talk) 04:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • But does it make it notable? I don't see how having a mason who's mentioned elsewhere matters: probably a ton of nonnotable churches have been constructed by people who are mentioned in passing somewhere. Nyttend (talk) 08:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. Here's my reasoning. For the Mason of this church--Christ Frosaker--to be remembered so many decades later indicates notable craftmanship and stonework. "The Stone Cabin"/Edward's House article Stone Cabin provides a separate example, showcasing Frosaker and his work. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • But is the article notable according to Wikipedia's notability standards? Nyttend (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. WP:UCS would give all of the editors here the discretion to decide upon the article's notability based on the rememberence of its mason Christ Frosaker. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see how keeping this article will improve the encyclopedia. This isn't on the NHRP; and it's not notable just because its builder was mentioned in several places. What about every case argued by Daniel Webster? What about every car built by General Motors? Notability isn't inherited by people (a notable person's child isn't automatically notable), and I don't see how the creation of a notable person (even if he is notable) is any different. Nyttend (talk) 23:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prove that Frosaker is of great notability (not just notable, but supremely notable in a way that few architects can be, such as Wright), and I'd agree with it. Just having the guy mentioned in passing (not even any significant sources on him) does not make him seem notable in my opinion, and even more the buildings he designed. Nyttend (talk) 02:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Over 100 year old church and built by a notable mason. --Oakshade (talk) 04:38, 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JenniferDeejay

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

No evidence of notability. Google hits are all You Tube, MySpace and message boards, and the artist’s Myspace is the only source listed. Article’s writer and only major editor is user:Jenniferdeejay. I wish her the best of luck in the future, but she's not notable enough for an article yet. Dawn bard (talk) 14:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Insufficient evidence of notability. Kafka Liz (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Getting to #201 on the European dance charts doesn't quite make it for me. Eliminating wikipedia, myspace and youtube, there's just 7 ghits, none of which show notability. No hits in googlenews. --Fabrictramp (talk) 15:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability not established. BJTalk 15:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, the subject is not, as of yet, notable per WP:BIO guidelines. (jarbarf) (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable autobiography. JEB90 (talk) 16:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 17:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:N, has no Reliable sources and a definite Conflict of Interest. --Pmedema (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete As above. This is a really bad piece of blatant personal advertising which reads like a page on a social networking site (which is where it should be). Burden of proving WP:RS falls on article's creator: fails. --- Taroaldo (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - should have been G11'd. Also fails WP:N, WP:RS – ukexpat (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per Ukexpat. --Starionwolf (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Completely non-notable. -WarthogDemon 02:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. User:75.90.240.232 posted the following on Talk:JenniferDeejay: "This page is not complete as of March 27 2008. We are working with a professional editor to fix these issues. Jennifer is NOT a singer. Jennifer is well known in the music world behind the scenes. Writing tracks for number one television shows such as America's Got Talent. Jennifer has also appeared as resident DJ on the Ellen show. If this page is viewable via the internet through Winkipedia is should not be as it is not complete. There is a credit section still not added for writing the Lowe's Home Improvement Theme. Co writing music for big names in the music field such as Loretta Lynn. We are sorry if we have made a mistake by posting." I still think that the article should be deleted, but it contains additional claims of notability, so I thought it was only fair to add it here. --Dawn bard (talk) 00:54, 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 Merge to an character list article, as pointed out below this appears to be the growing consensus. As DGG says, these articles contain little but plot, yet the one-liners in the main article convey little information. And, of course, they're all unsourced. I have redirected the character articles to Guardians_of_Ga'Hoole#Characters_from_the_books and the location articles to the main article for the time being; someone more familiar with the subject can create Characters from Guardians of GA'Hoole. Black Kite 10:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soren (Guardians of Ga'Hoole)

AfDs for this article:
Soren (Guardians of Ga'Hoole) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fictional character with no claim of meeting WP:FICTION in article. Similar articles have already been deleted at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tengshu; this was missed in that nom. Basic details of character are already at Guardians_of_Ga'Hoole#Characters_from_the_books, and all other information here is WP:PLOT Fabrictramp (talk) 14:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Twilight (Guardians of Ga'Hoole) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Digger (Guardians of Ga'Hoole) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Eglantine (Ga'Hoole) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ezylryb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Madame Plonk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Martin (Guardians of Ga'Hoole) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pellimore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ruby (Guardians of Ga'Hoole) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kludd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Emerilla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Grank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hoole (Ga'Hoole) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lord Arrin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Siv (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hagsfiends (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
St. Aegolius Academy for Orphaned Owls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Great Ga'Hoole Tree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)--Fabrictramp (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Content forked fancruft, vast unencyclopedic plot/character elaboration. WilliamH (talk) 16:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, the characters are covered on the main page, and there are pages for each book. AnteaterZot (talk) 17:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all All Great Sources of information.SwirlexThe Barnstar Giver
  • Merge all into a list of characters article, per the growing consensus (and advice in WP:FICT) that this is the best way to handle fictional character with imperfectly supported notability. I've done only a limited spot-checking, but I see no clear source to establish the independent notability of these characters. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arg - hit Enter before I was finished editing. I was about to modify the first sentence to read "Merge all but the locations..." The non-characters, I'm at the moment neutral about how to deal with, but leaning towards a selective merge to the series article. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the characters to an article about the characters, the locations to an article about the locations. This is the obvious copromise way of handling this sort of problem, and supported by all current versions of the relevant guidelines. DGG (talk) 03:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Question for clarification. Are you saying to spin out the existing section into a new article, or to merge these into the existing sections on characters and locations in the series article?--Fabrictramp (talk) 13:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
answer: Looking at some of these and also the sections in the main article, I would judge that the one-line descriptions in the main article are most of them inadequate, and the long ones in the separate articles most of them excessive (as is usually the case for series such as this). I do not defend the writing of articles in the manner of some of those nominated here--but I also want to see enough information to understand the interrelationships. I can understand why those who want adequate discussions support separate articles, when i see the extreme reduction of material that usually takes place after a merge.
And thus I suggest the compromise solution of an combination article for the characters (and similar ones for other elements of the series) that will be intermediate--with possible separate articles for a few of the most important if the series is important enough for there to have been some third party material on them. The problem in these discussions is that the choice is usually between two extremes. In a group project, where there are incomptible strongly held points of view, the only long-term solution is a compromise--but a fair one, not one that will be subsequently distorted. The actual size will need a discussion uninfluenced by set POVs.) DGG (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All per WP:FICT. No assertion of real-world significance, backed up by independent, third party sources. Eusebeus (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All - I agree with Eusebeus there is no indication of the characters' notability outside the fiction. No sources for notability. No sources for the article. No reason to keep--Cailil talk 18:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All I like to read them.75.219.55.146 (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Quasirandom, DGG. Edward321 (talk) 01:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Wikipedia:Five pillars: notability to a real-world audience, plenty of references, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning fictional topics with importance in the real world. "All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings." - Denis Diderot explaining the goal of the Encyclopedia Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In the first of the five pillars that you cite, it says "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." If you click on that link, it says "Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis". Could you please point us to an independent, reliable source where we might find that real-world context and sourced analysis?--Fabrictramp (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can check through any of these books and then do a search of reviews of these books to find analysis of characters. Anyone familiar with magazines that feature this subject should be able to help search for features on the characters. I have found, for examples, that video game magazines occasionally showcase notable characters, as do comic magazines with comic characters, so a magazine or journal on this particular genre of fiction should turn up at least some results. Way too many individual articles listed above to reasonably go through in one week. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Not notable as subjects on their own. Cewvero (talk) 03:53, 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 Keep. Conditional withdraw. If after this is closed, there is not a re-write, feel free to re nominate. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Angel (wrestler)

Dark Angel (wrestler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not establish notability. Only "source" is a youtube video. Nikki311 14:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, if GCF is willing to rewrite the article, then I'm willing to withdraw the nomination. Thanks. Nikki311 17:49, 27 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. The article is, as Adam Biship notes, a copy of 24 Hours (newspaper). Therefore, the content is false, whether or not the actual paper is a hoax.--Kubigula (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Boulogne weekly

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

Delete - No sources, possible hoax per OTRS ticket 2008032710013997 Avi (talk) 14:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing serious on Google either. -- Avi (talk) 14:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a copy of an old version of 24 Hours (newspaper). The paper doesn't exist; interestingly, the hoax was pointed out by an IP from the Toronto Sun building (where 24 hours is published). The Boulogne Herald is probably also a hoax. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:39, 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.--Kubigula (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crybaby (wrestler)

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

Does not establish notability. Nikki311 14:22, 27 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. Carlosguitar (Yes Executor?) 19:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Akilah (wrestler)

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

Fails WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS. See Google search Nikki311 14:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Fails notability requirements. I did find her mentioned in articles from three reliable news sites. All of these mentions, however, said little more than "Other wrestlers for WWP include Akilah..." I'm also not sold on TVSA as a reliable source. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per notability. Not that there's anything against wrestling in South Africa, just if it was expanded on more. AKKIfokkusuTaLk —Preceding comment was added at 06:39, 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 Deleted as a not notable unverifiable article created by an indefinitely blocked user evading their block. Sarah 03:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Victory Combat Force Security Agency

Victory Combat Force Security Agency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Violates notability, verifiability, and sourcing guidelines. Starczamora (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:CORP and lack of reliable sources. BJTalk 15:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Address points to a "ZEBRA SECURITY & INVESTIGATION AGENCY INC". The name "Victory Combat Force Security Agency" has no Ghits. This is a WP:HOAX. If enough agree, then it should be speedy'd as vandalism. --Pmedema (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No secondary sources, doesn't meet WP:COMPANY. Ketsuekigata (talk) 20:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete. I didnt yet seen a source about this agency just wait. But this is the most famous agency in the Philippines so far.{I Love You!!!™ (talk) 01:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)}[reply]
  • Note: Tagged as speedy-delete due to its creation of a banned user. --Howard the Duck 03:41, 28 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. Carlosguitar (Yes Executor?) 19:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ananzi (wrestler)

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

Non-notable professional wrestler. Google Search shows no available third party sources. Fails WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS Nikki311 14:09, 27 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 turn into a disambiguation page. Carlosguitar (Yes Executor?) 23:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

11th dimension

11th dimension (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

'11th dimension' has no importance other then M-theory being 11-dimensional. Any ot this should go in M-theory although what is written there currently is mostly gibberish. TimothyRias (talk) 13:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to M-theory, which at least has some sources. There's no need for an extra article since we have nothing to say about this dimension beyond the postulation of its existence and its similarity to other presumed "rolled-up" dimensions. Needless to say, I would change my opinion if recent peer-reviewed publications expanded the available material. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 17:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Sheffield's comments. --Starionwolf (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, don't redirect. There are lots of mathematical spaces with 11 dimensions. M-theory (if it even exists) is just one of them. But there's not a lot specific to 11 dimensions to be worth a separate article on, per WP:NUMBER. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect while 11 dimensions may not be of much interest mathematically it does seem to have significance in physics having spent a long time as a possible candidate for space time theories. --Salix alba (talk) 08:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even as a non-expert I can see that there's nothing salvageable here. How can anything "rotate at the speed of light"? Phil Bridger (talk) 01:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turn into a disambiguation page with links to Supergravity, String theory, Superstring theory, Introduction to M-theory and M-theory. This stub actually has links to all of those already except Supergravity. --Pixelface (talk) 03:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirects should be for probable search terms... is this really one? Disambiguations need maintenance, which it probably won't get, and again with the question of relevance, but for lack of a better argument Pixelface's suggestion is better. - Ironic goat (talk) 08:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig as per Pixelface's suggestion. It should not be a redirect because the term is not specific to physics alone. And a disambig page could be merged/redirected into a more general "Dimensions" disambig page in the future. If this isn't considered a good idea, the page should just be deleted. — Loadmaster (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig per User:Pixelface. Not really a useful topic on its own, but used in varying ways across a number of fields. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:51, 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, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Wayne Ryder

Lee Wayne Ryder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable actor. According to IMDb, he has only had very minor roles in a few titles. TubularWorld (talk) 13:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Entertainers. SWik78 (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Has not had any significant roles, and I can't find any reliable sources that would confer notability. Bláthnaid 13:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - according to the article, his most significant role was in Redbelt, which would mean his best role has been as "Rude photographer". -- Whpq (talk) 21:44, 28 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 WP:CSD#A7. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Christian

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

Non-notable person. Article has little context and no references, with the only external link unrelated to the article's subject. The article itself notes that "information regarding this woman is very limited". Google returns few related hits, and even fewer when cross-referenced with "aviation". Think outside the box 13:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Per WP:CSD#A7. There is no team sweeping the net, clearing any information about her in order to maintain her privacy, as the article states. Non-notable. SWik78 (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete A whatever "to the stars" is not an assertion of notability. Also suggest looking at author's edits to Colin Farrell. DarkAudit (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw those edits to the Farrell article. It sounds like this whatever to the stars is using Wikipedia to shamelesley self promote herself. SWik78 (talk) 15:36, 27 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 WP:CSD#A7 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Poleman

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

Article does not establish notability of this person. Zero references. Rtphokie (talk) 13:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete WP:CSD#A7, no assertion of notability. So tagged. I'm also concerned about the complete lack of sourcing for a biography of a living person. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per A7. Positions are not in any way notable. DarkAudit (talk) 16:31, 27 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 nomination withdrawn. I'm sorry, I was sure I had checked Google. Evidently not. I request someone gives the article a quick clean, and apologies for the silly nomination. J Milburn (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Federation of Republican Women

National Federation of Republican Women (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable group, no reliable sources. A copyvio of the official website, but author claims to be the owner of the website. No evidence of this as of yet. Prod was removed when the copyvio-speedy was declined because the group asserted notability, which was a rather convoluted situation, but, anyway, I bring the discussion here. J Milburn (talk) 13:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This deletion proposal is absurd. The National Federation of Republican Women is a large, established organization, albeit probably not well-endowed with the kind of members who edit Wikipedia (i.e., not young, not into computers)

The article has lots of problems. But it needs editing,not deltion.MercyOtis (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)MercyOtis[reply]

I hope the responses below help change your mind about the editors of Wikipedia. Blast Ulna (talk) 14:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article needs to be cleaned up and sourced, but this group appears to be very notable. Articles about them include [13] [14] [15] [16]. Bláthnaid 13:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete This is a copyvio, pure and simple. It can be recreated if and when the user who claims to hold copyright has settled the issue via the proper methods. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there are hundreds of hits for this in Google books, and about 80 in Google scholar. So the outfit deserves a Wikipedia article. As for the copyvio issues, it would be better to rewrite the article now. Blast Ulna (talk) 14:25, 27 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 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bye Bye (Mariah Carey Song)

Bye Bye (Mariah Carey Song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL, the release of this single is pure speculation. The only reference provided is to this VH1 blog dated February 22 that reviewed the songs on the new album. Even if it could be considered a reliable source, the blog says nothing about the date of the release nor that it will be released at all. SWik78 (talk) 13:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The speculation about the new single started on a Mariah Carey fansite MariahDaily.com. This was the article from the fansite used as a reference to include the single's supposed release on E=MC² (Mariah Carey album). Again, fails WP:RS. SWik78 (talk) 13:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:CRYSTAL. The article can be recreated when the single is released, and there are reliable sources about it. Bláthnaid 13:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was gonna put this up but was lazy. But yeah, there's no point to make a page for this song yet, as there is nothing official confirming it. SKS2K6 (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Rewrite it when it is released. Izzy007 Talk 19:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No confirmation of single release. --Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 02:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to album - the usual pop music article stuff, speculation about the release order of any singles, etc. Get rid of it until an official announcement is made. And I'd do a check for other album tracks too. - eo (talk) 22:39, 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 Delete —Moondyne click! 00:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian actors

List of Australian actors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete. Grossly incomplete, listcruft, just a short list of actors the editor could recall. WWGB (talk) 12:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although it may have appeared that an article of this sort hadn't been done, there are actually several categories for Australian actors that have hundreds of entries. To get to them, go to [Category:Australian actors by medium] or [Category:Australian actors] and check that out. (talk) 12:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional Keep - Yes, there's plenty of categories. But there is room for a list too. Other nationalities have list articles (Category:Lists of actors by nationality here.) The advantage of a list is that it can be annotated and put in an order other than alphabetical. However, I don't like the current ordering as it is too subjective. I would suggest listing by movie / TV / radio actor, then sub-listing by date of birth, or active period. Marasmusine (talk) 12:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Way too broad a topic. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS shouldn't be used to justify it; I'd support AFDs for those other lists, too, if anyone were to go ahead an nominate them. Unmaintainable, etc etc. 23skidoo (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this already exists anyway. Unmaintainable and incomplete. tim.bounceback 22:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the category already exists - as Tim above has shown - that is sufficient surely. Categories above lists everytime i say SatuSuro 02:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 02:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant to the category. Sorting by type (Movie, TV, etc) can be done through sub-categories if needed, although I am not convinced it is. There is a place for lists but this topic is not one. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, adds nothing to what one would find in the equivalent category. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:57, 28 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. This is a tricky one - a player who's played for his country, but not professionally at club level. WP:BIO isn't clear here, so default to Keep (he'll almost certainly play professionally soon anyway). Black Kite 10:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Augusto Zambrano

Carlos Augusto Zambrano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

PROD contested by an IP user with no reason provided; the subject clearly fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN (no appearances in a fully professional team). Angelo (talk) 11:45, 27 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 merge to American Bird Conservancy#Cats Indoors. Sandstein (talk) 10:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cats Indoors!

Cats Indoors! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable subject. Google hits return two relevant articles, while the others are probably a form of a google bomb. (Note that google splits up search words, so cats and indoors attract their own articles) Lack of third party sources to assert notability. Delete Undeath (talk) 11:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are some hits on googlenews. Either keep or preferably merge and redirect to American Bird Conservancy--165.21.154.89 (talk) 12:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to American Bird Conservancy, per 165.21.154.89. Not notable enough for an article. Also, its title should be Cats Indoors!. Think outside the box 13:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • BOLD MERGE and REDIRECT At an effort to be WP:BOLD I felt this was a snowball merge redirect and did the merge and indicated the redirect on the Cats Indoors article. If you feel that this should not have been done, please feel free to revert my edits. Otherwise, feel free to close this AfD. --Pmedema (talk) 13:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The project isn't especially notable. BJTalk 15:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. The project itself isn't really notable, but it's part of a larger movement. Ketsuekigata (talk) 02:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The article complies with the guidelines for a stand alone article. The preemptive merge shows that Cats Indoors is already a larger than the origional ABC article. --WikiCats (talk) 06:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The merge has been completed because by it self it fails WP:N. It does have some substance to allow it into the main parent article which is why I just did the merge. This article does not need it's own article but a "redirect" to the parent article. --Pmedema (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does the guidelines include WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS?--165.21.154.94 (talk) 05:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a third party source to Cats Indoors: http://felineresistance.com/cats_indoors.shtml also

and many more. --WikiCats (talk) 12:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


On the subject of notability, Cats Indoors has been around since 1997 and has been mentioned in over 100 newspaper articles. It should not disappear on the basis of "not notable enough" or a flawed Google search. --WikiCats (talk) 11:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Article has been renamed Cats Indoors!. I've also added an {{expand}} tag to the article.B.Wind (talk) 05:45, 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 keep. (jarbarf) (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A More Perfect Union

AfDs for this article:
    A More Perfect Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    A recent speech (recentism) by a senator, hardly notable. Should be deleted. The speech can be mentioned in his biography, as part of the Jeremiah Wright controversy, or moved to a title also covering the controversy surrounding his hate preacher/hate church. HillaryFan (talk) 10:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep, just because of your username and biased edits. --Liface (talk) 10:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Anti-feminist beliefs are no reason to disregard Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. HillaryFan (talk) 10:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your first edit was to show political support, your next edits were inflammatory remarks, and after that, your edits are devoted to nominating this. I'd hardly be one to talk. Celarnor Talk to me 11:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Insincere nom from an obvious sock-troll. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy keep as bad-faith nomination, and block the account whose only contributions are disruption and suggested BLP/NPOV violations on talk pages. *** Crotalus *** 11:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep as bad-faith nom. Also, I can't help but notice the username of the nominator, which leads me to believe that the nomination was purely political... Undeath (talk) 11:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep. We've done this already. Please keep American political biases out of Wikipedia and focus on issues of notability, verifiability, and reliable sources. Celarnor Talk to me 11:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep based on its being a bad faith nomination and the previous AfD which ended only 4 days ago. If the last discussion hadn't been reopened at DRV after a non-admin close, I'd WP:SNOW it myself right now. --Onorem♠Dil 13:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep the speech was a big deal. the article is well-sourced and balanced.MercyOtis (talk) 13:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)MercyOtis[reply]
    • Speedy Keep. We don't do AfD's every four days. Speech easily passes notability guidelines as determined in the first AfD. Someone please close this ASAP.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 14:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep The speech got 3 days of mass media attention and the article had 44 refs. BJTalk 15:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep Just concluded a long AfD which had no consensus whatsoever for deletion. Nominator's user name suggests this is a bad-faith nomination. Joshdboz (talk) 16:19, 27 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. Subject may merit an article but looks better start from scratch due to several issues, namely scope unclear and possibly too broad. Discussion encourages creation of more specific articles and/or inclusion in other articles. (Anyone wanting it userfied or contents to merge please leave a note at my talk) - Nabla (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Classical music in popular culture

    Classical music in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Delete. This page republishes previously deleted listcruft from the Pagliacci and Symphony No. 9 (Dvořák) articles. I understand it was created to illustrate a discussion on the Classical music project (see 'Music in popular culture'). I think it would have been better to create, and if necessary develop it, in userspace. Kleinzach (talk) 09:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete-The article does not comply with WP:CITE criteria. The entire article is unreferenced. And, just as Kleinzach mentioned, it is a listcruft. --Zacharycrimsonwolf 10:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete- I always look at “Classical music in popular culture” as trivia. It doesn’t serve any purpose and the list can goes on and on like what had happened to some opera articles before. I support for the deletion. I am not a purist or treating opera like some sort of sacred art but I think there is no need to list down all the opera adaptations because the list will not stop. Famous opera arias and music will forever be used / taken by cartoon or movie producers in their productions – some using them for “fun” (mocking) while some adopting them to show their appreciations. For whatever reasons they are, I would suggest for this article or anything similar like this to be deleted unless if somebody could really make it useful and appealing to be read - Jay (talk) 10:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as is, but please keep the talk page. This is an appropriate topic, but it should be a normal researched prose article, not a list. This list doesn't serve as an appropriate starting point for that article, though. Mangojuicetalk 11:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as is, but I do agree with MangoJuice that it could potentially make for a good article if approached in a different way.Nrswanson (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per the comments listed above. (jarbarf) (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. This article, the way is written, is unencyclopedic. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The subject could make a very good article, provided it's written in prose and properly referenced. But at present it's just list-cruft and will attract even more. This article should be developed outside the main article space. Voceditenore (talk) 07:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and rewrite. The article's creator, Ravpapa, has voiced opinions much like what everyone above has said, and wishes to be given the opportunity to rewrite it in mainspace, with the help of others, which is entirely reasonable. All of us here should really be working on helping with the intended rewrite, not trying to delete it, since we agree that such an article belongs on Wikipedia.--Father Goose (talk) 10:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deleting this article will not interfere with that in the least. These are not even useful research notes. An appropriate version of the article would have to be written entirely from scratch anyway. Mangojuicetalk 11:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • IMO It would be better if Ravpapa developed it in userspace and asked any collaborators to help him there. Mainspace is for readers, for the public - not for editors to make drafts or to use as a notebook.--Kleinzach (talk) 12:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and rewrite – this is the best thing to do. Wiki pages are not for testing ground. I would suggest the creator to finish the job offline (seek all the necessary references) and later on copy all of them online. A line like In the Law & Order episode Faccia a Faccia, Vesti la giubba plays in the background when Detectives Briscoe and Green find the character Joe DeMayo injured in a hotel room - don’t do any good for the article. Imagine someday if someone added In the King Jay episode of "I am the new Calaf", Vesti la giubba plays in the background when King Jay and his slaves were busy looking for easy going and non-demanding Turandot look alike in a hotel room – how can you verify? There are thousands of movies and TV series all over the world (Though this is ENGLISH language page, but there is no rule saying that non-English materials can’t be posted). Therefore my suggestion to the creator, only write down important and noted adaptations and elaborate the contents for why, when and how the arias or the scenes were taken for the movie or TV series. Compose it well and make it look so damn good and professional. Or not, you will make this page look like a cheap tabloid while in the same time offending people like me who do not like to see "cheap trivia" involving opera. This is my personal opinion, no offense and good luck - Jay (talk) 14:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I see that Ravpapa has done some organization, removed much of the random (and truly trivial) material and added more prose. The Pagliacci section is reasonable... up to a point. However, Symphony No. 9 (Dvořák) is basically a 3 item list of occurrences with no rhyme or reason as to why the latter two use that particular music. Note that writing an article like this can be very tricky. It can't be original research or a personal essay. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, not an original analysis of the primary-source material. It isn't enough to simply verify the occurrence of a particular use of classical music in popular culture. References must be found that verify its significance and relevance to the topic. Even more crucially, the article itself needs to incorporate and reference published work on the actual topic, i.e. "classical music in popular culture". Until that happens, the article is not even a viable stub. It is simply a nicely formatted list of trivia. Like the others above, I see no reason why this article cannot be written to a viable level on a user space draft page or on a temporary talk page by Ravpapa and anyone else who wishes to work on it. Then it can be published to the main space. Deletion will not prevent that. The article, even in its present slightly improved state, does not belong in the main article space yet. Voceditenore (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete As I commented on Talk:Classical music in popular culture, this subject is notable and deserves an article. However, this is a dreaded IPC list that can never hope to be comprehensive or representative (even if such lists belonged on Wikipedia, another discussion). Delete as listcruft that should have been simply removed from the parent article. I suggest userfication; these items may have potential for use as examples in a more encyclopedic article. However, in article space this presents an attractive nuisance for IPC list appenders. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: The artcle lacks notability as a stand alone article.Camilo Sanchez (talk) 04:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete because the subject of "Classical music in popular culture" is basically the same as "Classical music." Contrary to widespread belief on Wikipedia, "popular culture" did not begin with color television. It would be impossible to list every work that uses a few bars of some classical work. WillOakland (talk) 01:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course it would be possible to list all the major, and even most of the minor media uses of a classical work. There is a narrow belief that we shouldn't allow such uses to be listed in the encyclopedia... for reasons that have never made sense to me.--Father Goose (talk) 03:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: Any discussion of Pagliacci is incomplete without discussion of the fact that Pagliacci, the figure immersed in tragedy yet guised in mirth, has become a cultural icon. The picture of the weeping clown adorns the walls of thousands of homes. He is refered to in songs. I cannot fathom why you consider this aspect of Pagliacci's history irrelevant to a discussion of the opera.

    By the same token, how can a discussion of the New World Symphony be complete without a reference to Dvorak's mission in the US, and the profound effect of this and his other American compositions on the American style. Dvorak was invited to the United States to aid in the creation of a distinctive national style, and the theme songs of Bonanza and the Lone Ranger have their roots in the ideas of this crazy drunken Czech. Of course, neither the original Pagliacci nor the NWS PC sections said these things - they had to be read, thought about, and rewritten from the original listcruft to something meaningful and coherent. That is why we are editors. To do this work. And it is only other editors' express refusal to do this work, and, instead, to perform unconsidered deletes, that led me to create this article. Fact: the PC section of Große Fuge got deleted and restored three times, before I had a chance to rewrite it, based on the original listcruft. No one has disagreed that the section as currently written is a meaningful addition to the article. Those of you who have already voted, please read the rewritten section of the article on Pagliacci and see if you don't agree that it is worthy of inclusion in the wikipedia, either in the context of this article, or as part of the original Pagliacci article - Ravpapa

    Comment: - Quoted from the latest "For example, Spike Jones song, Pal-Yat-Chee, jokes about several cowboys who went to see Pagliacci, thinking it was a cowboy play.<fact>" - No reference for that? Who is Pal-Yat-Chee? Spike Jones? Do you expect all the readers know what is that all about? - Jay (talk) 08:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Jay's comment is right on the mark. A lot of the references are extraordinarily obscure, quite apart from all the other problems we've noted. --Kleinzach (talk) 10:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You find out who Spike Jones is by clicking on the wikilink. And since Spike daringly assumed his audience could figure out that "Pal-Yat-Chee" was a mispronunciation of Pagliacci, maybe we can take the same risk.
    Separately, if not for all the pop-culture references, Pagliacci himself would be more obscure than most of the references. That's why we should have "in popular culture" sections and articles in the encyclopedia: to document the very reasons why a given subject is so well-known.--Father Goose (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Father Goose wrote "Separately, if not for all the pop-culture references, Pagliacci himself would be more obscure than most of the references".
    <my reply starts here>Wow, are you saying that without this SPIKE guy, Pagliacci is a nobody? Enlighten me please. This is really an understatement! When I asked "who Spike Jones is", the wiki link has not been added yet, it was later added by Voceditenore. As for Pal-Yat-Chee, I still don’t see the connection. Could this happen because I first heard about Pagliacci when my parents brought me to watch Pagliacci at age 8 but only aware of someone called Spike Jones 1 days ago (ironically here in this page)? So who is obscure, Pagliacci or Spikey or Pal-Yat-Chee? - Jay (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Father Goose: "Pagliacci himself would be more obscure than most of the references" Hmm. Have you read the article? It seems you don't even know what the word pagliacci means!
    More seriously, you are making the assumption that Pagliacci was not well-known, until referenced by later so-called "popular culture" references. That's simply not true and it never was true. Moreover for me (and many, many others) Pagliacci is popular culture and Spike Jones et al. are obscure, unknown cultural artifacts of no obvious relevance. --Kleinzach (talk) 03:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment The current section on Pagliacci could easily be included in Pagliacci. I can't speak for anyone else here, but I'm not at all arguing that the cultural resonance of a classical piece outside its own genre does not belong in an article about the piece. In fact, I've argued for this in several discussions, e.g. [17], [18], as it demonstrates the piece's impact on the culture at large. I personally incorporate cultural references into opera articles via prose, where they are relevant and notable. See, for example, Nessun dorma and Cavalleria rusticana and its talk page. Lists of trivia are not 'lost' when removed from the article. I edit them to remove totally trivial mentions, put them on the article's talk page and invite other editors to incorporate them in the article via referenced prose, as I do.

    What I'm arguing is that if this article is meant to be a 'repository' for all the deleted trivia, then it's misguided. As I argued above, it needs to be centered and focused on referenced published work on the actual topic, i.e. "classical music in popular culture". The actual examples, can then be incorporated as part of the discourse. It should not be centered on simply cataloguing and discussing non-classical contexts of use for particular pieces, whether they're written in continuous prose or as lists. That's the main problem. As it is now, this article puts the cart before the horse. It needs a theoretical underpinning from published sources on the overall topic first.

    Once again, userfying the article will allow it to be developed into what is required for an encyclopedia article. And if editors are reminded that 'trivia' collections (or whatever people want to call them) should be moved to the articles' talk pages rather than simply deleted, there will be no problem of 'losing' material that could eventually be usefully incorporated into the individual articles. My view is that if a piece's cultural resonance is truly significant, it primarily belongs in the article on the piece itself (properly written up and referenced), not in a collection like Classical music in popular culture. If it's not significant enough to appear in the individual article, then what is doing in this one? Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Keeping it in mainspace would more readily allow it to be developed into what is required for an encyclopedia article. User space is effectively invisible to the encyclopedia's readers and contributors, which is the apparent intent of the commentators here. The kind of immediatism being displayed in this discussion should be reserved for articles that are unimprovable. Articles that are redeemable should simply be improved. Not deleted, not swept out of sight.--Father Goose (talk) 03:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm beginning to think you are allergic to sand! But seriously - the concept of different spaces is fundamental to WP and the WikiMedia software. How about having a look at Wikipedia:What is an article? --Kleinzach (talk) 04:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Whether Voceditenore's opinion that PC sections are better off within the articles on the different pieces, rather than in a separate article, is arguable. I, for one, would be willing to have it either way. However, we need assurances that the material for these sections will not be subject to knee-jerk deletions. As for moving the trivial information to the talk page, that option was discussed and rejected during the formulation of Wikipedia:Handling trivia, though I can't now find the specific reference. The upshot of that discussion was that the listcruft should be winnowed, but left in place for future editing. "There is no deadline" says that guideline. Copying it to the talk page is essentially consigning it to oblivion - who knows it's there? who can find it?
    As for --Kleinzach's comment "Moreover for me (and many, many others) Pagliacci is popular culture and Spike Jones et al. are obscure, unknown cultural artifacts of no obvious relevance." This is, indeed the crux of the matter. Kleinzach, you are right for you, but many editors, and, I would venture to say, most readers, do not feel as you do. Why do you insist on refusing them a voice? --Ravpapa (talk) 11:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's an outrageous bit of rhetoric! We are not refusing anybody a voice. You are free to express your ideas within the agreed structures that apply to everybody here. --Kleinzach (talk) 12:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Let's look at this from the opposite perspective. Maybe what's needed is to insert classical music into the popular culture articles at every opportunity. The Pagliacci connection is already discussed and linked in "'The Tears of a Clown" where it is absolutely central to the subject. Good! However, in an article about the opera Pagliacci, it is very tangential, as is just about every other use/quotation of the word pagliacci. The discussion more properly belongs in the former with a link to the latter as is the case now, with perhaps a "see also" at the end of Pagliacci.

    Meanwhile, "Pal-Yat-Chee" in the Spike Jones article currently links directly to Vesti la giubba (with no explanation), when according to Classical music in popular culture, it doesn't incorporate the actual music in its tune and it's all a bit of a joke. Again, why not put the information in the Spike Jones article rather than the other way around? Pagliacci isn't even mentioned in the Clown article, for heaven's sake. Another example... if the fact that the Cavalleria rusticana "Intermezzo" is used in the anime series Rurouni Kenshin is not worthy enough to mention in the article on the series, why is it worthy of mention in Cavalleria rusticana?

    However, what remains the real problem here (even more than the endless list-cruft this article will attract) is that it is highly subject to original research. References will have to be provided for each musical quotation (incorporation of actual melodies or passages) in other works. You'd either have to provide a link to the two scores or to give the name of a published author who says that one quotes the other. How else can the reader verify that the Norwegian black metal band Dimmu Borgir used part of Dvořák's 9th Symphony for their song "Guds Fortapelse - Apenbaring Av Dommedag"? Ditto for the use in various soundtracks. How else can the reader verify that the Cavalleria rusticana "Intermezzo" appears in sound track of Rurouni Kenshin or "Nessun dorma" is used in Toys? Those assertions have to be referenced to a published list of the complete soundrack.

    There's also a conflation in the article between the quotation or use of actual music, and the quotation of or reference to characters or concepts in operas. Leoncavallo didn't invent the weeping clown, or even the story of Pagliacci (he took it from a play by someone else). The sad or weeping clown is goes back to Commedia dell'arte and was also a classic figure in late Romantic French literature. Now, I could easily write that his opera, because of its popularity and probably Caruso's recording, gave a modern 'handle' to the very old concept of the weeping clown. But that's clearly straying into original research and synthesis. That's not a piece of common knowledge like "the Earth is round". It requires a published source.

    These are major problems with the article as it is currently conceived, i.e. a list of individual prose discussions of various references to/uses of classical music outside classical music plus added raw, unreferenced data to be incorporated at some later date. This has nothing to do with "refusing people a voice". Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    PS. "Copying it to the talk page is essentially consigning it to oblivion - who knows it's there? who can find it?" I really cannot see how an article's talk page can be considered "oblivion". If someone remotely cares about contributing to an established article, especially for the first time, its talk page is the first thing to read. I don't know about you, but I always check it out before editing. Leaving an unreferenced 'drive-by' contribution like "X song appears in X movie/commerical/TVepisode/cartoon in the article results in a potentially wrong or misleading article. It's quite common practice to move unreferenced assertions, not just IPC ones, to the talk page until a reference can be found (noting it in the edit summary). If the person who made the 'contribution' cares enough, they can return and provide a reference. Voceditenore (talk) 15:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Voceditenore: That's an excellent summary of the situation. I haven't always agreed with your opinions about trivia/pop culture in the past, but for the record I do agree with this. --Kleinzach (talk) 00:31, 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 deleted by User:Dweller. KTC (talk) 06:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Danny Williams (olympian)

    Danny Williams (olympian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Unreferenced article, unable to verify any of the content, either inaccurate or hoax information, e.g. he is not mentioned on Texas Sports Hall of Fame website. --Snigbrook (talk) 08:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete as even the compulsory google search does not deliver anything of significance  silly|thing  ►Charge!  10:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete blatant hoax. It's hard to be winner of a World Championship in 90, 91, and 92 when said championship only take place bi-yearly in odd years. And for further check, this is the result for 1991. The irony is if one look at the history of this article is that it seems whoever created this hoax seem to have tried to blank the page multiple times but were reverted for vandalism. KTC (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, hoax. To add to the above, he isn't listed in the Olympics Report from 1992. Zagalejo^^^ 17:42, 27 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 redirected by Snigbrook. Non-admin closure. – sgeureka t•c 10:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bestwood

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

    Page is duplicated by Bestwood Village Ning-ning (talk) 08:29, 27 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 per WP:NEO. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hammer down protocol

    Hammer down protocol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Original research and factually dubious. The phrase "hammer down protocol" is actually a neologism used in the recent movie Cloverfield, in which it describes a prominent plot element. Conceivably the article could be repurposed as List of movies in which a biological threat is contained by bombing, but its encyclopedic value remains unclear. In any case I don't think the question is trivial enough to prod, hence AfD. Melchoir (talk) 08:27, 27 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. Good discussion, clear consensus per WP:N. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Henley Visa Restrictions Index

    Henley Visa Restrictions Index (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    We're told: The Henley Visa Restrictions Index is a global ranking of countries according to travel freedom their citizens enjoy. The top rank in the published list of selected countries is held by Finland, Denmark and the United States, with a score of 130 each (a score of 130 means that a citizen of Finland, may enter 130 countries and territories without a visa). The only reference of the article is to "Official Website" (so capitalized), which is not a website but instead a page, "International Visa Restrictions", that's part of a website put together by "Henley and Partners" ("H&P", a company that appears to be in the business of keeping rich people rich). I quote H&P's page: The Henley Visa Restrictions Index is a a [sic] global ranking of countries according to travel freedom their citizens enjoy. [...] The top rank is held by Finland, Denmark and the United States, with a score of 130 each (a score of 130 means that a citizen of, say, Finland, may enter 130 countries and territories without a visa).

    Thus at least part of the article is a copyright violation. While this could easily be fixed via some paraphrasing, the larger problem is that this Wikipedia article is no more than a short preamble (however phrased) followed by the exact same list that's presented (without any particular evidence for credibility) by H&P (after a longer preamble). Essentially the article is an uncritical regurgitation of another single web page: there is no additional material, let alone any suggestion that H&P's list is significant in any way.

    The article had a {{Notability}} flag on it since February 2008; in this latest edit, an IP has removed this flag (and made no other change) with the uninformative edit comment "fixup".

    If WP is not a web directory, there is even less need for it to be a web regurgitator.

    (This page is generously linked to, but many of these links will disappear once the somewhat misleading link "Travel Freedom" -- so capitalized -- is removed from within Template:Lists of countries.)

    Hoary (talk) 07:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - appears straightforward copyvio, and it fails the general notability guidelines in WP:N: 'reliable sources that are independent of the subject'. Might warrant a mention and ref on another page. Springnuts (talk) 08:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge - while google hits aren't a measure of notability, there are 20,000 hits from various sources, so some people have found it interesting. Lots of IP edits though not much in the way of a discernible pattern. I agree with Springnuts, I think it does warrant a mention and ref on a more suitable page. BananaFiend (talk) 09:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I would go so far to say that this in fact not so much copyright violation, as it is shameless self promotion. At best it is a mistake by a well meaning person who believes that this "Index" has some real merit. I have "consulted with senior immigration officials" (asked my wife who is executive level and deals with international movements but I can't say that so make sure that gets deleted...) here in Australia and certainly she'd never heard of it, and it certainly wouldn't be used by any Immigration/Customs department. Further research indicates that they are indeed a company of international renown - at least the rich of the world who are happy to drop cash and grease palms to ensure that they end up living and operating in the most tax/legal beneficial countries in the world. As this kind of "Forum Shopping" as it is known in international migration/immigration/refugee govt. circles could be illegal in some places (it is certainly a world wide problem which international organisations are trying to stop) I would strongly suggest that the article be deleted as well, on the grounds of neutrality or something. All in all - don't think it should be here. --Akitora (talk) 09:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: as the person who nominated this for deletion, I'm surprised to find myself arguing with a delete vote, but intellectual honesty (or similar) seems to demand it. First, to claim that this is "shameless self-promotion", then shamelessness aside you'd need to show that it's promotional and (I suppose) written by H&P. Secondly, even if a list such as this were highly regarded (for example, published annually within a good newspaper such as Le Monde or Die Zeit), I don't see why any immigration official should have heard of it, and I certainly don't see why any should use it: after all, an immigration official is largely concerned with the border of one nation or territory, not those of others. Thirdly, I don't see why the provision of information about visa requirements should be illegal in any non-totalitarian nation. Fourthly, even if provision of this information seemed to facilitate illegality, this would be no reason for deletion: WP provides information about a host of matters that obviously have illicit applications. ¶ If this is promotional, it should indeed be deleted (unless radically rewritten); if you think that it's promotional, please give your reasoning. If you have another reason for deletion, please specify it. -- Hoary (talk) 10:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: What a welcome to the wikipedia community! :) First I'd like to say thanks Hoary, for your warm welcome. I will indeed range wider than the AfD area :) Ah. The pitfalls of being bold without forethought. I thank you for pulling me up. I do indeed retract the accusation of "shameless" - it is completely unfounded. But I do like a challenge. So - a bit of a rebuttal.

          I'll start with point 2 - The "area" of immigration is extremely wide ranging. For instance - the role of my "senior immigration official contact" is research, policy creation, ministerial advice and making decisions on certain refugee cases. In all these activities she, just like Wikipedia, is required to get independent and unbiased third party citations and documentation to support something she might write or decide. She deals with customs and foreign affairs and security agencies, and certainly the visa and immigration laws of other nations are of relevance and concern to her as well as various sections in her department (document fraud springs to mind). A list like this that came from say, the UNHCR or within Academia, could well be used to back up say, changes to dual citizenship laws or to decide on a refugee who is claiming he comes from somewhere that restricts his travel and Immigration can not substantiate it with the authorities in his native country in case in endangers the potential refugee. (Hence why they would use such a list)

          If the Henley Index was authoritative, or considered a reliable and well known source, then it stands to reason that it would be known and referenced in such circles.

          On point three - I didn't say it should be... I'm saying that a centralised list like that, from a company such as Henley, lends itself to the facilitation of activities which are grey or illegal. That said - I stand educated on Wikipedia policy in this regard. Thank you :)

          Which leaves us with point 1, and the most salient. Dutifully I looked for evidence of self promotion, and again it would seem that I may have gone off a little half cocked eh? The original creator of the article, (Eddie) is a contributor of long and good standing, writes regularly on visa articles and one who appears to be currently active. The original talk page of the Article would seem to indicate that he knows something of the background and origins of the index as well if you read between the lines. Might I suggest that he be consulted in this matter as to the background etc of the index and his knowledge of it - this could certainly make the difference between a delete and a rescue or merge.

          Sorry that was so verbose - you asked :)

          I do however agree with SheffieldSteel and Gump Stump - there are no real secondary sources, and the original list has no sources or citations/references (although, granted, it would not be hard for us to actually research and determine ourselves no? rescue option?).

          As far as "Travel Freedom" goes, I don't think SheffieldSteel is on the right track in debating freedom vs. convenience. That this article is the only link from it - I think that it could be that people are actually trying to look up the overall term/concept Freedom_of_movement in Category:Human rights when they click on this. This might also the be appropriate page to use if merge is decided upon.

          I currently stand as: (a) rescue if it is viable to do the research ourselves, in essence making our own list, which would have to be kept updated no doubt - probably all by an appropriate project? (I know, not likely, but just putting it out there...) (b) merge, only as a footnote (ie: "Some third part for profit organisations have collated information on this subject, for example, the Henley Visa Restrictions Index (external link etc)) unless we can determine some sort of citations etc, prehaps from talking to Edebundity and (c) delete if there is no further obvious option - both for copyright and notability. The Travel Freedom link obviously needs dealing with in the template.--Akitora (talk) 05:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah, good, a spirited and amicable reply! Thank you. ¶ Sorry, I'd been thinking of the lower (and more conspicuous) rungs on the ladder of immigration officialdom (I missed your "senior"). But I still don't suppose that higher-level officials would use such a list if it were good: as a single web page, no matter how scrupulously edited and updated, it's bound to simplify and to be less up to date than other sources. ¶ I've just now left a message for Eddie; thank you for the nudge in that direction. -- Hoary (talk) 06:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being able to visit a country without a visa is not a freedom; it is a matter of convenience. One might as well argue that freedom to drive is restricted in countries requiring a driving license. On this basis I support Hoary's proposal to remove the misleading "Travel Freedom" link. Having said that, I believe the page should be deleted as it is simply a duplication of copyrighted material here with the addition of pretty flags and some waffle (these countries are top, and those are at the bottom of the list). And that's not surprising - in the absence of secondary sources discussing the "Index" (rather than making trivial mention and regurgitating the results), there's no article content we could write. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 17:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I think this qualifies as self promotion (and the most insidious case I've ever seen on Wikipedia). It seems like the entire function of the index (listed here) is to direct people to their website, where countries such as Austria and Dominica are bolded and underlined; it just so happens that 'Henley & Partners' have offices in these countries to help you invest your fortune! Even more suspect is that aside from a single reference to the year of compilation (2006) they give no methodology, and show no references; an intellectually honest international ranking has independent and explicit sources. An index like this is interesting and certainly could be a useful measure of travel convenience, but I don't think this particular version should be used or referred to on Wiki. - Gump Stump (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge HVRI is a notable subject and are used by the media in describing how 'free' or how good foreign relations are in relation to another country. That said, this article is a copyvio and doesn't serve much purposes as most of the passport pages already have mentioned the HVRI ranking.--Cahk (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Not sure how the index indicates foreign relations, but if you know for a fact that it is indeed used by the media then it'd be great if you could provide some citations or references for it. That would certainly help the merge argument. :) --Akitora (talk) 23:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It establish how good foreign relations are because visa-free arrangements are generally reciprocal and requires negotiations between the countries concerned.[19][20] and also an article titled 'Emerging-market indicators' published in Economist Vol. 378 Issue 8464.--Cahk (talk) 00:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for the citations. I'll try track down a web link to the Economist article. On the topic of foreign relations, visa free arrangements are reciprocal usually in First World / Western States. To make the comment general and sweeping, does not take into account those countries which have no visa system in place, types of visa's and length of stay and situations like the Schengen "acquis". In today's world of global trade and international tourism, even a deteriorating of foreign relations between states will rarely if ever change existing border control policy - for instance, a country like China might not have the most cordial of relations with the rest of the world, but they are not going to turn away foreign tourism and investment in a hurry. I guess another way of putting it is that international relations are fluid and dynamic while border control, being infrastructure dependent, bureaucratically driven and of economic importance tends to be more static and very slow to change.

    A situation like the Schengen "aquis" raises a curious point - how does the index take into account a situation say where of all the Schengen countries, a third country has visa-free travel with only one member. Let's say Peru and the Czech Republic have such an agreement, and a visa is needed by Peruvians to enter other countries, such as Germany or Belgium. My understanding of the current Schengen system is that the Peruvian traveller could enter the Czech Republic without a visa, and then go to Berlin under the terms of Schengen, visa free. (Note - all travellers still need valid passports and ID etc... just no visa.) All in all I'm still leaning towards the Henley Index article going delete and being made an external link or a mention in the Freedom of Movement or Visa articles (or the like).Akitora (talk) 23:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete The article doesn't establish how this index is notable. The internet is full of non-notable websites listing visa requirments etc, and nothing in the Wikipedia article demonstrates that this index is any more notable than any of the others. Passportguy (talk) 13:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Fails WP:N. No significant coverage in secondary or third party reliable sources. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    {{subst:ab}]

    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 00:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lara Pulver

    Lara Pulver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete</sp an>) – (View AfD)

    WP:COI bot identified this as possible conflict of interest. SPA calling itself "Lara Pulver" started the article. Article fails notability for entertainers [21]. This actress has not had a sufficient number of significant roles. She was nominated for one award she did not receive, and that was for her most significant role, which lasted only two months. Article is also severely lacking in WP:RS. A link to a CV is not going to be enough here. This person may become notable in the future, but does not yet meet WP standards. Qworty (talk) 07:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. I independently established that she was, in fact, nominated for an Olivier award (roughly equivalent to a Tony in the UK). A quick Google search shows her to be the subject of multiple, independent articles from reliable sources. That's notable and verifiable enough for me. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 07:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Strong keep, COI notwithstanding, passes [WP:N] - there are multiple independent sources. and I recognise deletionist tendencies in myself, but I think this actor falls just the right side of the [WP:M] guidelines. Weak on multiple independent sources. Springnuts (talk) 09:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC) Springnuts (talk) 10:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whilst it is true that the creator of this page was called "Lara Pulver", being a theatre professional in the UK I identified the subject as notable and subsequently did a complete re-write of the article. The message above states that Pulver has not performed enough significant roles to be notable, but there are numerous independent articles about various major roles she has performed, particularly in West End musicals and national tours. The message above also questions the notability of a nomination for an Olivier Award, which suggests to me a lack of knowledge of British theatre, where even a nomination for an Olivier is viewed as a prestigious honour, the Awards being the UK equivalent of Broadway's Tony Awards. I do feel that the tagging of the article was to a degree, malicious, because the person who tagged it had previously deleted much of the information that I added, then tagged the article for deletion after I restored much of that text Crazy-dancing (talk) 11:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment No degree of malice on anyone's behalf from what I read. Provide sources and the material will be left in - see WP:V. Qworty removed unsourced material - that is simply good basic editing. I hope the article stays, now that it is sourced. Springnuts (talk) 12:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks I admit I may have misread the intention of the tagging, but I thought it was the spirit of Wikipedia that editors work together to improve the content. I think more emphasis should be made on experienced editors giving assistance to others. In this case, content was deleted as not-notable, without any explanation or advice on how to improve the article to meet wikipedia standards. Crazy-dancing (talk) 12:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a note-- its also the spirit of Wikipedia to be bold. If we waited around for consensus for every bit of editting, this encyclopedia would never progress. Please take a look at WP:BLP for more information on why we tend to be even bolder when working with biographies of living persons. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 13:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Will do, thanks! Crazy-dancing (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Olivier Award nom does it for me. (And kudos to those who have expanded the article in the last couple of months -- good job!) --Fabrictramp (talk) 13:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Anybody who's been nominated for an Olivier is more notable than 99% of the people listed on the Wiki. (I mean that literally.) Robert Greer (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as expanded, the subject is highly notable and the article illustrates that fairly well. (jarbarf) (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Definitely notable and if there's a WP:COI concern then there's a very simple solution: WP:BOLD. (And last time I looked - which was awhile ago - there was no prohibition on subjects creating their own articles; at least there's less chance of Ms. Pulver becoming upset that there's a Wiki article about her, unlike that movie producer who tried to get his taken down a couple weeks ago. 23skidoo (talk) 21:05, 27 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 --- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    DJ Cammy

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

    This Turkish DJ fails WP:MUSIC. He was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A7 in a prior AfD. The notability claims in the current article cannot be verified with WP:RS. • Gene93k (talk) 07:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 07:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 07:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral There is an assertion of one award which might be legit (best remixed recording) but I cannot find anything on this outside of the Wikipedia article. But I want to give DJ Cammy the benefit of the doubt because my search is not yet as thorough as I would like. --- Taroaldo (talk) 07:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete That one award he may or may not have won appears to be attached to something entirely not-notable too. Non-notable award + Non-notable award giver = non-notable event. Besides, as Taroaldo mentioned, its not referenced. Since that's the ONLY claim to notability here, this thing is just barely above CSD#A7. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 08:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 11:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete again due to the issues raised in this nomination and the one prior. (jarbarf) (talk) 20:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as I said in the talk page, this entire article is a fabrication, no turkish person called DJ Cammy exists. In fact no present real musician called DJ Cammy exists at all - DJ Cammy is in fact a scottish teenager who (very badly) remixed some dance tune and spread them on p2p programs claiming them as his own work - eg stuff by Cascada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.214.89.218 (talk) 20:31, 27 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. Singularity 10:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of rap songs about drugs

    List of rap songs about drugs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Overly broad list with lots of WP:RS and WP:OR issues. Spellcast (talk) 06:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. Way too broad a topic since, sorry, drugs are a major topic of discussion (both for and against) in rap music. Also, the reference to this list including "indirect" references pushes it into OR territory. It's possible a list relating to songs referring specific drugs might be viable, though I doubt it. 23skidoo (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as an indiscriminate collection of information, with no set criterion for inclusion (indirect reference? how indirect?), not to mention that 99.9% of rap mentions drugs in some way. (As opposed to 100% of rap mentioning "ho"s, and I'm not talking the noise Santa makes.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Like List of love songs, this could go on infinitely and is way too broad. Nate • (chatter) 22:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There seems to be an inherent bias here against rap. Fact: Most rap songs aren't solely about drugs and that's just ignorant to claim (to claim that parallels claiming most heavy metal songs are about Satan or that most country songs are about Texas). That's a commonly perceived, and also incorrect, stereotype against Rap/Hip-Hop. Also, there are many lists on this site for many different types of songs and if you're goal is to erase this one, in all fairness, the other ones should also then follow suit. Though, I do admit, the ambiguity in "direct/indirect reference" is misleading and too general and has therefore been removed. Jandcast (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:SEWAGE. If you find lists of songs as useless as this one, please feel free to nominate them for deletion as well. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 14:07, 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 redirected to Jinshui District. Elkman (Elkspeak) 02:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No.1 Primary School of Wenhua Road, Zhengzhou

    No.1 Primary School of Wenhua Road, Zhengzhou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    I searched for the Chinese name of this school, and the only results I found in Chinese were a couple of lists of students participating in an English contest, some of whom came from the school, and an essay written by a teacher at the school concerning teaching pedagogy. None of that seems notable enough to give this school its own article. A search in English comes up with nothing at all. The school already receives a mention in the article Jinshui District, which is enough, in my view. Danaman5 (talk) 06:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Redirect to Jinshui District per Danaman5. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Henan if reliable sources can be located, otherwise delete (without prejudice) as there is not much here to begin with. (jarbarf) (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As I mentioned above, Jinshui District might be a better choice for a redirect, since it already mentions the school anyway.--Danaman5 (talk) 23:01, 27 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 --- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Partyshank

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

    Seems to be mostly self-promotion. No real assertion of importance. Refs mostly Myspace and press releases authored by the subject band. Taroaldo (talk) 05:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. This band is non-notable, and all their references are to fan sites on MySpace and Facebook. Further, the "press release" contains no details, and their wikilinked songs redirect to the article. PeterSymonds | talk 07:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 17:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Delete, most definitely not an A7, as there are several assertions of notability in there. However, the sources provided seem to be mostly either MySpace or blogs. The NME source is a little more convincing, but it's only a brief mention, not a full-on discussion about the band. If the band make it big, then the article can easily be recreated. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:49, 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sunny levine

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

    [22] While the artist definitely has a noteworthy pedigree, I'm not seeing anything that satisfies WP:MUSIC. Notability is not inherited. Wisdom89 (T / C) 05:14, 27 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 --- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mile High Music

    Mile High Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    NN "DIY" record label. Lots of ghits for "mile high music", but not this company. Plus, their website was mostly broken when I looked at it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The Mile High Music website is currently being totally rebuilt, but due to an impending release, we couldn't afford to have it completely off-line, hence the fact that alot of the links are currently not working. I will have it 100% over the coming 2 weeks or so, and if you do actually check the 'buy now' links, they will confirm that we are indeed a fully functioning record label, as you can see on iTunes, Amazon and our distributors Cargo Records. We are DIY and so have to do it all ourselves, there isn't a crack web team, so I have to do things as I have tiem. We, unlike Snakes & Ladders Records - who aren't a company but seem to be excepted by Wiki - have had multiple releases through various sources and will continue to put out albums over the coming year, all of which will be available worldwide through the mentioned sources. If it is purely down to our site having some temporary holes, can you please hold fire on deletion for a week or so, when it will be fully up and running. Please otherwise let me know what needs to be done to keep the page on Wiki. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MandrakeMan (talk • contribs) 18:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    p.s. I have just added the 1st artist bio to the new site for Zen, a band who had releases through MHM from 1995 onward. Others to be added shortly. I will also add all the press reviews from over the years when I have a moment, they will also substantiate the life of the label. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MandrakeMan (talk • contribs) 18:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Further to previous, this very evening 20/03/08, I have added biogs to all the artists on the website with relevant info, release details and links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MandrakeMan (talk • contribs) 22:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. All of the things that you have added or will add only verify that the company exists, not that it is a notable one. Please see WP:CORP for criteria of notable companies. ... discospinster talk 18:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    230308 - For a start, the New Cross compilations were funded - in part - by Lewisham Council in South London, as they were examples of the community of songwriters and artists in the area. They were very successful, hence the second one, both charting on NME & Rough Trade polls for compilations. That in indie terms is 'notable'. We have been approached to do more by many many artists and have been offered funding but for now we want to focus on getting some very well known - on the South London scene - songwriters albums out. If you could please look at the entry for Snakes & Ladders Records which seems to be ok according to Wiki, but isn't a company, they are a great bunch but... please can you explain the difference as to why they aren't getting hassled and I am! Thanks.

    • Comment MandrakeMan - I've left a note on your talk page hopefully providing a response to your questions/concerns and a bit more information on the process. Richc80 (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Fails WP:CORP Richc80 (talk) 03:32, 26 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, Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as non-notable. Nothing on google other than the label's website, and they're not big enough to be listed on allmusic.com as a record label. JeremyMcCracken (talk) 05:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Notability not established per WP:CORP.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 06:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, not yet notable per WP:CORP. Article can be recreated if and when they begin to meet those criteria. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:44, 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 keep as non-disambig page per consensus. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Vine Hill-Pacheco, California

    Vine Hill-Pacheco, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This is a disambiguation page that lists geographical locations. But the two forks of this page have no relation. So this page makes no sense. Chris! ct 06:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • keepThe relationship is that it is listed on the list of California places as a unique place and someone may try and look it up. Red-linked entries like that should be redirected or created. In this case it should link to both Vine Hill and Pacheco and therefore logistically this means a disambiguation was necessary. Please see "what links here" on this articles page which links to List of places in California (V) W-i-k-i-l-o-v-e-r-1-7 (talk) 06:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Useful disambiguation page if just for it's past designation in the Census.--Rtphokie (talk) 16:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Vine Hill, California. From the reference document, it appears that the CDP was simply renamed so from a census viewpoint there is no reason for this to be a dab page. If does merit a note in the text at some point. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:42, 22 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, Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep, but without the disambiguation tag. These aren't places with the same name. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Dhartung, this page serves a useful purpose about a real location. (jarbarf) (talk) 16:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, if this used to be an "official" place, then its potentially a useful page. Agree with removing the disambig tag though, because this is not really a disambiguation page. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:42, 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 Keep per WP:MUSIC. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The Brightwings

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

    Non-notable band. Sources seem poor, and even then they don't appear to meet any of the criteria in WP:BAND. -WarthogDemon 04:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete, article makes no assertions of notability. The Dominator (talk) 04:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Non-notable. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete non notable per nominator. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 05:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep criteria which satisfy WP:BAND includes: "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album, etc." It appears that The Brightwings has some credits in this area. --- Taroaldo (talk) 06:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep meets WP:BAND#C10.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 06:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep. A google search found sufficient coverage, which combined with the usage of the band's material in TV shows, should just about justify an article here, although the article needs much improvement and better references.--Michig (talk) 07:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Satisfies the necessary criteria set forth in WP:BAND guidelines. (jarbarf) (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, would appear to meet WP:MUSIC notability criteria. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:43, 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. Lots and lots of single purpose !votes here, which are in this case, discounted as probable conflicts of interest. Consensus says delete. --- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sarah Raymond Cunningham

    Sarah Raymond Cunningham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Promotional article is full of external links. Please peruse these 58 g-hits for any sign of notability. Prodded a while back. Blast Ulna (talk) 03:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment just being on Amazon is definitely not a sign of notability, but GNews shows a published interview with her and a brief review of her book: [23][24]. Most people aren't referred to by their middle name, so just plugging "Sarah Raymond Cunningham" into a search engine and saying "58 ghits, delete" isn't very convincing; for example, both of those articles just call her "Sarah Cunningham". cab (talk) 05:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong delete very much a promotional piece. also fails WP:BIO. notability standard for authors is fairly high. --- Taroaldo (talk) 06:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I find her interesting, and she has some work in publication. Granted the article can use some work. Popularity or being famous is secondary on the quoted guideline per the nomination. AlbinoFerret (talk) 13:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete One book and some work in publication is not notability for an author. DGG (talk) 03:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • STRONG keep Looks like the page needed some updating. Searches turned up proof of further writing projects and notability since original page creation.Brewedgold (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom, DGG. Eusebeus (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as verfiable and sufficiently notable for Wikipedia. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - unless this can be rewritten to show notability it has to go--Cailil talk 18:41, 28 March 2008)
    • KEEP - This author is new to the religion/culture scene in the past few years, but is already well-recognized amongst this audience.StageMic (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • KEEP This article has had several recent modifications which help establish notability. Internet searches produce proof of position in faith arena and more links that could be added to improve this page.SuperRedr (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep I searched Google Blog Search for references to Dear Church: Letters From a Disillusioned Generation, www.dearchurch.com, Sarah Cunningham and Sarah Raymond Cunningham. She's definitely notable. No question.Marginx (talk) 18:23, 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. Without some indication that the content is accurate, I don't think even a smerge is a good idea.--Kubigula (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nephilism

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

    No sources, I can find no information on this subject anywhere. Beach drifter (talk) 02:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Sole reference link is a "page coming soon" link. Cant find a reference that even describes Nephilism. AlbinoFerret (talk) 02:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I also couldn't find any reference. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I found some g-hits, but they're not on any concrete subject. In fact, I found one link that described it as an ADHD-like disease. JeremyMcCracken (talk) 03:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. Thanks for sharing that. That first section might be one of the funniest things I've ever read. Beach drifter (talk) 04:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - non-notable. No reliable references, and non can be found. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 05:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Per nom.--Cahk (talk) 06:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - I have found info on Nephilim upon which this contemporary philosophy seems to be based. But the article's subject appears to be so new that there is nothing to indicate that it would satisfy notability requirements. --- Taroaldo (talk) 06:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Even if I'm a big fan of Carl McCoy's bands and music, this still looks like either a non-notable organization or original research. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - No sources to verify the information presented. ◄Zahakiel► 18:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge a very brief mention at the bottom of Nephilim. JJL (talk) 22:57, 27 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. No assertion of notability, not to mention pretty spammy. faithless (speak) 08:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    PrezInfo

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

    This seems to be a non-notable website. Most of the sections of the site are 'under construction' and the author of the article seems to have a conflict of interest. They uploaded this image:[25], stating that they are the copyright holder and release it to the public domain. Since it is the website's logo, it is likely that this person is also the author of the site. Mars2035 (talk) 02:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete I can't find any information on it. Looks promotional. Website looks like someone trying to make a few bucks. Beach drifter (talk) 02:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete If you want to be notable, it helps to have some information on your site that others can link to. Perhaps this one will one day. non notable , no info website. AlbinoFerret (talk) 02:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete It is a non-notable website. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete It looks like someone created a website, then immediately made a wikipedia page for it. I expect the site is as new as the article; definitely not (yet) notable. JeremyMcCracken (talk) 03:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete Article only asserts that it exists and how it uses it's ad revenue. Nothing about notability. Utterly fails WP:WEB. DarkAudit (talk) 04:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete - Article is basically adveritising for a site that earns money because of traffic.--Cahk (talk) 06:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete with haste. Advertising. No assertion of significance. --- Taroaldo (talk) 06:52, 27 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 00:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Chris Rado

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

    Not a lot of people know this person, there are no other articles that are about people who Drag Race. Ryou Hashimoto (talk) 02:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The links you mention, while not being 100% about him, mention him in some way. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If it mentioned him once, then it's not reliable for source. It must be about him only. Ryou Hashimoto (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I think you mean notable, not reliable. Reliability has nothing to do with how often the subject is mentioned. It's also not true that a source has to be solely about the subject to prove notability. 4u1e (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, I have heard of him as he is one of the prominent import drag racers in the series, some people will claim non-notability since import drag racing do not have the same mainstream notability as NHRA Powerade Series but there are plenty of notable names such as Stephan Papadakis, Lisa Kubos and Kenny Tran and Rado is one of them, even magazines such as Super Street and Sport Compact Car can prove it. Willirennen (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - 'Nothing similar exists' and 'not a lot of people know about this topic' are not valid reasons for deletion. The article is referenced by 2 independent sources (+ his own website) so it meets our notability criteria IMO. AlexJ (talk) 19:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep He was a multiple time champion in National Hot Rod Association (NHRA), the top series of drag racing in the U.S., so he is notable. The article contains several references. I've been starting articles on drag racing drivers lately because Wikipedia didn't have articles on many greats in the sport. 5 have been featured on DYK since December and another is nominated, so things are changing. Royalbroil 04:38, 28 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 truly, madly, deeply patent nonsense. Pegasus «C¦T» 02:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    மணி

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

    Contested PROD. This one-sentence-long article is in Tamil, a language I can't read, so I don't know what it is about. However, it was created by User:மணி, who has the same name as the article, so it looks like a conflict of interest. The user already has a user page of his or her own (which is also in Tamil); otherwise, I would have userfied this page. Finally, the proposed deletion was contested on the grounds that we should allow two weeks for translation per the {{notenglish}} template (only 5 days have gone by so far) -- but it's not clear to me that this is an actual policy. Otherwise, anyone would have the right to post any kind of advertising, attack page, or other inappropriate comment on the English Wikipedia for two weeks, as long as they wrote in a language which English-speaking editors would find difficult to translate. In any event, once this AfD closes, the article will still have had 10 days on the English Wikipedia so I don't think this nomination is overly hasty. I recommend a delete. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:44, 27 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bruce Chandler Fergusson

    Bruce Chandler Fergusson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Tagged for CSD as no assertion of notability, author of the article then added assertion that one of his books spent time on the New York Times Best-Sellers List, no source. A search of the old Best-Seller lists turn up nothing from the author or the title of the book. A search of the NY Times yields nothing. A Google news search for the author yields 4 results, and 3 for the book, none of substance. A Google search yields nothing to establish notability other than he authored the book. At this point I don't know where else to look for sources. If they can be found I will happily withdraw the nom. KnightLago (talk) 01:30, 27 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. However, the majority of the "keep" !votes are from single purpose accounts that are extremely likely to be affiliated with the subject. I strongly recommend that the nominator or anyone else review this article to be sure that it meets our notability and verifiability guidelines. Because the nominator withdrew, closing as keep on that technicality. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The Men's Room (radio program)

    AfDs for this article:
    The Men's Room (radio program) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    tagged for several months with notability concerns, this article on a local radio show doesn't establish it's notability. Rtphokie (talk) 01:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Not notable; as the article says, it's broadcast on exactly one station. JeremyMcCracken (talk) 04:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep References demonstrate notability although the article does need improvement. - Dravecky (talk) 04:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep A legit radio program. However, it really does need alot of improvement--Cahk (talk) 06:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I was on the fence so I went with WP:NOTPAPER. The article does need some reworking, but it was fun to read anyway. --- Taroaldo (talk) 07:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. References show notability; the article could use some improvement, but that can be solved by other methods than deleting it. Celarnor Talk to me 10:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - large internet broadcast audience. Serves a large market. Needs work about audience, format, talent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.216.4.13 (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. While the article requires cleanup and citations, it is not in violation. NJMauthor (talk) 04:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I see no violation. If this needs to be deleted then half of wikipedia needs to be deleted. This is an informative article.Bgrddg253 (talk) 10:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Even though it only broadcasts on one network (99.9 KISW), it is in an incredibly large market (Seattle, Washington) and is a notable show. Cougrrr (talk) 00:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep This show has listeners all over the country via live internet streaming, and has it's own unaffiliated fan site. It's noteable enough and doesn't warrant deletion. marijuanajoe1982 (talk) 06:08, 04 april 2008 (UTC)
    • Withdrawn per snowball.--Rtphokie (talk) 01:02, 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 per consensus.. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dennis and Judi

    Dennis and Judi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Unreferenced, non notable local radio show. Rtphokie (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete no evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 01:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Not notable; broadcast on only one station. JeremyMcCracken (talk) 04:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment They're actually on multiple repeaters so their show can be heard over the entire state. It's more significant than say a local radio personality in my mid-size city in NY, but even some of them are very widely referenced in local news media. Kevin Smith (talk) 23:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Claims to be highest rated radio show in New Jersey and to cover the entire state, a significant geographical region. Article needs rewriting, sourcing, and cruft removal to be acceptable but that's not the purpose of an AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Thanks for pointing out that claim, that paragraph is a fine mix of unsupportd claims and original research that needs to be substantiated with some good sources.--Rtphokie (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment That's about the radio station that the show is broadcast on, not the show itself. It would need to be demonstrated that the show is significant in the station's lineup. JeremyMcCracken (talk) 20:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete, I've heard them every day and they're not notable at all outside of their very limited listener base on 101.5. fethers (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep isn't up to Wikipedia quality standards but I think they're notable enough (substantial and large listener base) to be included here. Needs significant work. There's some 1,860 Google search results for their name, including news articles and press releases. I think we've met the notability guidelines with this article. Kevin Smith (talk) 23:43, 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. Dustitalk to me 17:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Munawar-abad

    Munawar-abad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Fails WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:ORG Fallen Angel 00:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep and improve. The article isn't very well written, but this is a town in India. Pburka (talk) 01:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy keep It is a town in India. Clearly meets notability. WP:ORG does not apply and WP:RS cannot be used as a reason to delete an article about a geographic location. --- Taroaldo (talk) 07:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and improve. Towns/villages are inherently notable. What's with applying WP:ORG? Not as silly as applying WP:PORNBIO, but its still a strange red herring argument. --Oakshade (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Article badly needs cleanup and sourcing, but towns are inherently notable. Edward321 (talk) 01:51, 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 by Jimfbleak. Nonadmin close. Xymmax (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tim Clue

    Fails WP:N and WP:RS Fallen Angel 00:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC) Delete No notability. Should be speedied. -- Alexf42 01:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep and cleanup. Seems to be a notable playwrite per Google News, including coverage in Daily Herald and Chicago Sun-Times. Pburka (talk) 01:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What happened? The article doesn't appear to exist anymore. Has someone speedy deleted and not closed the AfD or did I miss something? Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment okay worked it out on my own. The article was speedy deleted by User:Jimfbleak . My next question is how do we close the discussion on here? Is is something that people can "be bold" about or does an admin need to do it? Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:10, 27 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 per consensus. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Daniel Lopes Silva

    Daniel Lopes Silva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Contested prod. Original concern was "Does not assert notability under WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN". The prod was then removed, with the explanation "certainly does assert notability - says he plays for a top division team in Sweden". This point of contention obviously stems from a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "plays" in this context. WP:FOOTYN requires that a player must have played at least one match for a club at the required level for that player to be considered notable. However, Daniel Lopes Silva makes no claim that said player has ever played a single game for Kalmar FF, meaning that notability has not been asserted. – PeeJay 00:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete: per nom. Fallen Angel 00:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment – Having done some research since opening this AfD, I have discovered that Daniel Lopes Silva has previously been on the books of various Brazilian clubs. However, I have no idea whether or not he made any appearances for those clubs. – PeeJay 00:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep He played several matches for Fortaleza EC in the Copa Brasileiro 2007 - Serie B. Here is one match report (look for Daniel Sobralense): [29] Jogurney (talk) 19:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As a follow up, I found that he played in the Copa Brasileiro 2007 - Serie A for Nautico, so he clearly played in a fully professional league. Here is a matchreport: [30] Jogurney (talk) 19:28, 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.

    Rachel Simonson

    The result was Speedily deleted, so AfD is moot. Fabrictramp (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Fails WP:N and WP:RS Fallen Angel 00:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note - Article must have been speedy deleted right as it was nominated for deletion as there is currently no history in the article other than the addition of the AFD template. It has been tagged for CSD again as empty so this can be closed. KnightLago (talk) 00:42, 27 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. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 21:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Muscle derived stem cells

    Muscle derived stem cells (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Fails WP:RS and WP:N Fallen Angel 00:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete science spam. Wikipedia is not the place to publish original research. Blast Ulna (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - no verifyable or reliable sources stated. Someone removed the AFD tag on the page. --Starionwolf (talk) 00:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete It is not spam, but it is WP:OR. JAMA or similar would be the appropriate avenue for original research in need of peer review. If there is a body of published research in this area, the article would succeed with a full rewrite. --- Taroaldo (talk) 07:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. tim.bounceback 22:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - As it stands, original research. If anyone can demonstrate a large body of academic discussion regarding this and wants to edit the article, I might change my mind.Coanda-1910 (talk) 19:05, 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, only delete changed to keep. Dustitalk to me 17:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Piedras Blancas Motel

    Piedras Blancas Motel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Motel isn't mentioned in mainstream media. Cited sources are industry publications. Cambrasa (talk) 00:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Motelis mentioned constantly in mainstream media --- google search, and check references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VintageMotelGuest (talk • contribs)

    Motel is a part of Hearst San Simeon State Park which includes (Wikipedia) Hearst Castle, San Simeon Village, and (soon) Piedras Blancas Lighthouse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VintageMotelGuest (talk • contribs)

    Motel has met the same criteria for nomination to the State Register as (Wiki) Piedras Blancas Lighthouse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VintageMotelGuest (talk • contribs)

    • Note, I just cleaned up the article significantly. Most of the sources were there, just hard to see due to odd formatting, possibly due to the creator's computer issues mentioned below. I put a fact tag where we still need information as I don't have time to work on it further, but this property is quite notable. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 17:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you. Believe there are a number of built-resources on the Wiki that are not nominated and may not be eligible for listing on state or local registers --- cite some examples of Route 66 vernacular architecture. Apologize for lack of proper signature --- old browser does not allow, and hence lack of proper form in article as well (new computer pending... result of income as historian)... hope to clean-up elsewhere in meantime. Thanks for patience. -- VintageMotelGuest, User ID: 6752953

    • Keep per TRAVELLINGCARI I believe that this subject is well above the line for notability, with reliable sources in hand. (jarbarf) (talk) 16:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    My great thanks to whomever cleaned up this article for me and even located a reference source I had not seen before. You are truly amazing here. I am still such a neophyte... there are just a few citations that need to be added, but can someone explain how one can cite a source that was the author's own observation (i.e. notes taken while attending a public meeting or interviewing a direct source), and, can someone explain how I can cite a personal website set-up by a "grass-roots" group pertaining to their own desires and origins...? Lastly, I have two images of this subject --- one historic, one contemporary, both photographed by myself --- to go with this article. Can someone tell me how I can submit these for inclusion? Thank you all once again. (hope browser allows signature to work this time...) VintageMotelGuest (talk) 05:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know much about photos as I've uploaded two ever but this page should help. As for a personal website, I'm not sure that would meet reliable source guidelnes. There's a lot of coverage of the preservation efforts, especially if you have access to the archives of the local papers. I just didn't have a lot of time to track down specific information. I'm sure others will chime in more on this though. Let me know if you'd like more info. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 02:31, 29 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.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_March_27&oldid=1116722287"