Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 May 30

< May 29	May 31 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Tudor (II)

Not sufficiently notable PatGallacher (talk) 23:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not paper, but there are limits. This article was put up for proposed deletion, and was very near passing it before somebody objected. This article concerns a royal child who may only have lived for a few hours after birth. To compound the problem, it is not clear that this son of Henry VIII of England and Anne Boleyn was even a live birth, it may only have been a miscarriage, I will check sources. The article is also unreferenced. "Henry Tudor (II)" also seems like a bad title for this person, for a number of reasons. The alternative history novel mentioned is not relevant enough to make this person notable, since it is not clear that the author was thinking of this person, or any specific son of Henry VIII. PatGallacher (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this person was born alive, merge to Henry, Duke of Cornwall, which covers both of this person's similarly named half-brothers, and is also properly named per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Other royals. If not, delete. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right, if this person is notable then Henry, Duke of Cornwall is how Wikipedia should refer to him, as his highest title during his extremely short life. So we could say something about him there. However as a bad title which nobody would normally search for this article should be deleted, not just turned into a redirect. PatGallacher (talk) 11:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe a mention in King Henry VIII's article that this son may or may not have been stillborn. Firstly, there is not much to go on. Second, just being born/still born is not enough for notability, even for a Royal. The "alternate history" part can be covered in an article about Mr. Dick's book. Cheers Dloh cierekim 04:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there is anything to say, put it with the father.Ron B. Thomson (talk) 02:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Expand if possible, delete otherwise. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 14:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have just checked the main Anne Boleyn article, which unlike this article seems reasonably well-sourced. There is some uncertainty as to how many miscarriages and stillbirths Anne had in her time, but I see no mention of the possible live birth of a boy, however short-lived. PatGallacher (talk)
Here is what the main Henry VIII of England article has to say, although this is unsourced and should not be taken as gospel: "Historians are uncertain if the child was born and died shortly after birth, or if it had been a miscarriage. The affair was hushed up and we cannot even be certain of the child's sex." PatGallacher (talk) 12:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any relevant information should be in the main article -- it seems to be there already, just needs a source. A possible miscarriage or stillbirth shouldn't have its own article, and even if it lived a few minutes or hours it would have had no name. Doug Weller (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge -- Whether a stillbirth or peri-natal death, the child was clearly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 West Palm Beach Wendy's shooting

Just one death other than the perpetrator. Yeah, it made the national news for a day, because guys walking into restaurants and randomly shooting is kind of exciting, but it was no more than a short burst of coverage (no pun intended) - not really evidence of encyclopedic caliber. Biruitorul ^Talk 23:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable intersection of a shooting and a notable brand-name. Mandsford (talk) 00:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the very reification of WP:NOT#NEWS. Merely had some attention because there was the hint of terrorism/mass slaying in the first incoherent reports. Otherwise a sadly commonplace domestic violence incident. --Dhartung | Talk 05:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, press coverage indicates notability. In response to Dhartung, it does not matter why people focused on this, nor does it matter that it is "commonplace", provided it still makes waves. Everyking (talk) 07:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transfer this over to Wikinews. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 14:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We cannot transwiki to Wikinews, at this time, as they do not use the GFDL. --Dhartung | Talk 18:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. A fairly run of the mill gun crime with no coverage outside a single news cycle. Debate (talk) 14:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the many fine reasons above. Yet another lamentable episode of violence, an example of the confluence of social pressures causing some of us to snap and go berserk. These things happen all to often, will continue to happen, and it happening at Wendy's is more a result of randomness than significance or notability. We are an Encyclopedia, not a compendium of all the worlds ills. sic transit gloria mundi. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 15:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although it may seem like a trivial article, for some reason the Wikipedia policy that is being applied to this article seems to make an exception for the San Ysidro McDonald's massacre and the Sydney River McDonald's Murders articles which are the same subject. OOODDD (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You know, there were 21 people killed in the 1984 San Ysidro McDonald's massacre, and 19 more people were wounded. There's no comparison. Mandsford (talk) 23:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, so if this article is deleted, the San Ysidro McDonald's massacre and the Sydney River McDonald's Murders articles should be deleted as well or else it would be a double standard OOODDD (talk) 23:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sure, that's exactly what "there's no comparison" means... Mandsford (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Other stuff exists," is not a valid argument to keep. I hope we are not using body counts as a metric of notability. I encourage anyone with the time and energy that questions the suitability of similar articles to bring them here for discussion. Alas, I'm out of time and energy for this now. Dloh cierekim 04:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable crime. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 14:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patch Kientz

Non-notable subject. Article created and updated by unregistered users with no relevant contribution. Completely fails WP:CREATIVE, at this point making it an advertisement. Btl (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Perhaps could have been speedy deleted. freshacconcispeaktome 03:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not-notable -Hunting dog (talk) 08:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Also notice that the two sources cited in the article don't appear to meet WP:RS. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 14:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all - no assertion of notability. Johnbod (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Just because the article contains POV does not mean that the entire article should be deleted; rather, it should be improved. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inventions in the Islamic world

This article is an indiscriminate list, the fact that these inventions are 'islamic' does not mark them out from any other inventions worthy of mention in wikipedia, and is redundant to the established 'thing by nationality' article naming convention. Secondly, the term 'islamic' is insufficiently defined to provide any meaningfull purpose to the article, beyond a violation of the neutral point of view. MickMacNee (talk) 23:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STRONGEST DELETE!!!This page is crazy. CRAZY! The "on/off switch?" Does anyone actually think that a Medieval "switch" had any influence over science in the 1950s? (Its not that big a deal by the way, on..off..hmm, pretty tough). By the way, talc is not fireproof clothing, because its NOT CLOTH! This article makes Wikipedia look bad, not least because there's no such thing as RELIGIOUS SCIENCE! There was no unified Islamic state after 750.

I would just like to tell everyone I'm starting a new page, Inventions of the Satanist world. I'm not sure what Satanists invented yet, but I'll be sure to include talc (as fireproof clothing) and androids and the on/off switch.

This article is propaganda and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I hope everyone enjoys my Satanist inventions page, which will include everthing known to man.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunslinger1812 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. This is a clear violation of WP:NPOV, as it first asserts in the title that Muslims live in a different world than other people (I know that 'world' can be a common term, but it is not always necessarily suitable for an encyclopedia article). Also agree with nom that the fact that they are 'Islamic' doesn't place them in a separate category or give them any other special recognition than 'other inventions'. Happyme22 (talk) 07:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per nom. --SkyWalker (talk) 08:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic has a good foundation in reliable sources which the article cites. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I suggest that the article be pruned and renamed to Inventions of the Muslim Golden Age as suggested by User:DougWeller on the talk page. Mathsci (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The above criticisms are essentially content-related and can be fixed with a little vigorous editing. Otherwise, the article represents an excellent basis for something tighter. The topic is a notable subject of academic inquiry, and the article is well referenced. Naming based on nationality is not a meaningful concept when it comes to historical developments, particularly in the Islamic World, where religion and nationality are often essentially indistinguishable. nb. One of the references is listed simply as "1001 Inventions", however the full title is "1001 Inventions: Muslim Heritage in Our World". Debate (talk) 15:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Further to nom's and Happyme22's concern about the title, you might want to consider nominating the article Muslim world for afd as well, and see how far that gets. Debate (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a content dispute when the central issue is the topic title. I don't see what significance being from the 'muslim world' gives to an invention, whereas I do agree with the point that the 'muslim world' is a significant theme for topics such as pilosophy, culture, law etc, for obvious reasons. But this topic. which is essentially a long list, is a contrived intersection. We don't have for example, a Category:Muslim inventors, whereas we do have Category:Iranian inventors. MickMacNee (talk) 15:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also note that the article was last nominated for deletion only three months ago, when the grounds for nomination was virtually identical and the outcome overwhelmingly in favor of keep. I would be eager to see the nom justify what has changed in that short time which would justify a second nomination. Debate (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I listed it because it came up at ANI and on reading it I thought it was deleteable. I didn't realy understand either the nomination reason or the closing comment of the previous Afd, and it seemed to be closesd as a point nomination so it can't exactly be described as a succesfull keep vote, merely an early procedural close. I think my nomination reason stands on its own, without any accusations of pointedness, and so far I'm not seeing any clear cut reasons why my nomination rationale is a bad one, it seems to just rest on whether you do or do not think an invention being from the islamic world is a notable intersection worthy of an article. Perhaps if there was a meaningfull introductory lead, giving some context to the article, it might be different. As it is now, it seems to me to be an indiscriminate list, bordering on an NPOV subject through the implication that there is something inherently notable about an invention being made in the islamic world (as opposed to in a certain country, or by a particular society, or to meet a particular need). In fact the article gives zero indication of a causal relationship at all. I could also half see it as having a practical and notable purpose if it were listed in order of date, as a usefull fork of Timeline of Muslim scientists and engineers, but being listed by type just makes it appear even more indiscriminate. MickMacNee (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the scope of the topic is clearly defined - that is, inventions produced by Islamic civilisation - so I cannot agree that the article is an indiscriminate list. There are plenty of academic publications documenting the contributions of the Muslim world, such as the Cambridge History of Islam vol. 2B, so I don't see any shortage of potential for an encyclopedic coverage of the topic. That said, the standard of citations used is already quite good. ITAQALLAH 16:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it wasn't a defined topic (although 'Islamic world' is enough of a vague concept in my opinion for people to dispute what should and should not be here); the indiscriminate nature is by virtue of the fact it is a meaningless interection, the same way as if you were to list people with blue eyes that like Country music, its defined, but not a notable intersection. As above, I am not disputing that other islamic topics are deserving of bringing together. MickMacNee (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the question is whether the topic of "Inventions in the Islamic world" is a notable, then I think it is because I do believe the number of sources available on this topic are quite substantial. Scholars talk about these developments within the context of Islamic civilisation (which is indeed quite broad in meaning), just as one may talk about the contributions of Greek civilisation. ITAQALLAH 21:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please note that the above poster is an islamic pov pusher

Comment -- the unsigned note above was by 00:13, 1 June 2008 Oxyman42 (Talk | contribs) Doug Weller (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nom. The so called sources that are listed are very dubious in the extreme Oxyman42 (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are 121 references. I doubt they are all dubious. MickMacNee (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually most are dubious or tacken out of context and would not be tollerated if it wasn't for the need to appease muslimsOxyman42 (talk) 23:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments in first nom. --Goon Noot (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is so much better than List of United States inventions. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The statements made in this article are overbroad, vague, and sloppily researched. The bulk of these have been known by ancient Greeks and Romans; many are much older. Frotz (talk) 08:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. As has been mentioned numerous times before, the terms "Islamic world" or "Islamic civilization" are clearly defined terms and are by far the most accademically accepted terms when it comes to describing developments in the medieval Near East, North Africa, Central Asia, Moorish Spain, etc. There is nothing wrong with the subject matter of the article itself, but if anyone has any issues with POV content or sources, that is not a valid reason for deletion. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 06:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, the title of the article could be renamed to Technology in the Islamic world or Medieval Islamic technology (the term used by Donald Routledge Hill). Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 06:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep provided that the scope is clarified. It makes sense to sort inventions like this for medieval times, when "Islamic world" is a logical classification. It makes no sense to include entries like "In 2007, Sheikh Muszaphar Shukor from Malaysia travelled to ISS with his Expedition 16 crew aboard Soyuz TMA-11 as part of the Angkasawan program during Ramadan. He was both an astronaut and an orthopedic surgeon, and is most notable for being the first to perform biomedical research in space, mainly related to the characteristics and growth of liver cancer and leukemia cells and the crystallisation of various proteins and microbes in space." This should go in an article about Malaysia, not about the "Islamic world." This issue is a matter for cleanup, not deletion. Mangostar (talk) 07:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am no supporter of Islam, and would dispute (as already tagged) the correctness of listing some of the items, which derive from the Ancient World. This certainly applies to some of the milling inventions and probably what is incorrectly referred to as a finery forge, but is more likely to have been a water-powered bloomery. Furthermore, the Basque region (whence most iron came) was never (or hardly) under Islamic control. Nevertheless, the Islamic achievement is definitely notable, and the article should thus be kept. I read somewhere a comment about a lack of a thorough study of the subject. I would however suggest that the scope of the article should be limited to the Medieval period (say 700-1500 AD) and that some one should go through and eliminate items from earlier periods that merely reached Europe through the Islamic world. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stuff and nonsense. Libraries existed for a millennium before the birth of the prophet. L0b0t (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete I didn't realize that this page had been speedied 4 times before. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KJH Band

Junior highschool band, does not meet WP:N. Borderline speedy case, but I didn't want to delete it without discussion. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 22:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think you could probably have tacked db-band up on this without a problem, but it was very considerate to go ahead and open it to broader discussion. - Vianello (talk) 23:01, 30 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Ho

Non-notable poker player that fails WP:BIO and WP:N. Bring the last woman in the WSOP ME in a single year is the same as being the oldest player left, or youngest player left, or as in the case of 2007 the most blind player player. There shouldn't be an article for every years WSOP ME longest lasting woman just because they were the longest lasting woman. –– Lid^(Talk) 22:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC) This AfD has been announced to Wikiproject Poker[reply]

Weak Delete, the article is orphaned, the sources are not overly reliable, the person does not appear to be overly notable, and the article reads kind of like a Myspace profile. Speaking of Myspace, what kind of Wikipedia article contains someone's Myspace page in external links? GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 23:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Expand, notice the word "weak" in my original vote. This one was tough, but I don't think there's any need to delete this, and general consensus appears to be pointing towards keep. But please do remove the Myspace link; we have no use for links to people's Myspace profiles. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 14:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily meets WP:BIO... Poker Pages, Pokernews.com, Poker Listings. Should be speedy keep. And there are thousands of Wikipedia articles with official myspaces in the external links. 2005 (talk) 02:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BIO1E ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 02:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - meets WP:BIO and we have (and should have) WP pages on many other comparably notable poker players. Deletion proposal is disruptive to our project, as sources should be consulted and evidence presented before such a proposal is registered. Badagnani (talk) 03:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Gosh, I don't know; Michelle Wie's article was only created the day after she became only the fourth woman to appear in a PGA event. That said, her lifetime earnings on the pro tour are over a quarter of a million; this is no fly-by-night player. RGTraynor 03:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously comparing Michelle Wie with Ho? Wie was notable not only because she was a woman, but because she was only 16 when she turned pro. She was highly hyped LONG before she went pro. Wie was notable. Ho? One event---and that wasn't even that memorable of an accomplishment.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 18:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I really am. The event to which I refer happened long before Wie turned pro, and if you will go back and look at the edit history of the Wie article, it was in fact created the day after she appeared in her first PGA event, thus plainly indicating it was created solely because she appeared in a PGA event ... in which, in fact, she did not make the cut, and did, in fact, nothing more notable in the eyes of Wikipedia up to that point than being a teenage girl playing in a men's event. One might even opine that it wasn't even that memorable of an accomplishment. RGTraynor 04:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Balloonman would certainly be correct on the BLP1E course, but I was able to find other independent reliable sources here about her finishes in other tournaments, meaning her notability is beyond the scope of just the 1E. MrPrada (talk) 04:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, MrPrada would do well to investigate his citations again. Most of those Maria Ho's were not related to the poker player. According to the articles he linked to, Maria Ho is "vice president for corporate communications at the Universal Music Group" was involved in a case to remove the legal standing of "incompetent", involved with "Zomba/Jive Records", a Bishop, and a victem of a racial incident at UConn. If you add the word "Poker" to his search you end up with 18 that were. Of those 18, 14 deal explicitly with this one event. 2 were bad hits (EG not her) and 2 simply reported that she was still in the LA Poker Classic (along with every other player who was still in the tournament.) Also, if you look at Hendon Mob, she has made it to the money in tournaments a total of 10 times---only 3 of those were notable tournaments---none of which were better than 38th place. Please recall the note 8 on the BIO page, Participation in and in most cases winning individual tournaments, except the most prestigious events, does not make non-athletic competitors notable. This includes, but is not limited to, poker, bridge, chess, Magic:The Gathering, Starcraft, etc. This note was added explicitly to get rid of non-notable players such as this. There are literally thousands of non-notable players who occassionally make the cash. Making the money in a poker tournament does not add to notability because ANYBODY can join a tournament. This candidate remains a non-notable poker player and is only noted because she was the last woman defeated at the 2007 WSOP event at 38th place.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Using Google News at all in an afd is a terrible idea, as all those worthless links brought up make clear. However, as I point out above, unlike a couple others brought up in recent afds, she does have significant, dedicated coverage in Poker Pages, Pokernews and Poker Listings. 2005 (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete, inconsequential nn player. no wins. not many cites.Myheartinchile (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep She received media attention due to being last woman standing in the Main Event rather or not people believe that the "last woman standing" should receive that kind of attention is irrelevant.▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 00:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to locate any sources related to anything other than the single event. So I believe that WP:BIO1E should rule in the AfD, but I would certainly reconsider if additional sources could be located. --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FrameToon

mini stub that does not assert notability nor cite references, an article on a non notable piece of software with one external link Myheartinchile (talk) 22:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this one almost meets CSD A1. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 23:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources to establish notability, only mentions I could find (besides its won web page) were in blogs and forums. --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted - had already gone when you nominated it. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Titanic 2

Hoax? Google searches reveal nothing about this ship. Article is currently unsourced. Tan | 39 22:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, someone deleted as I was setting up this AfD. Not sure it was speedy-able, but oh well... Tan | 39 22:29, 30 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot (Brigade Song)

This is a non-notable song per the standard in WP:MUSIC. There is no indication that the song has charted or that there is significant coverage in third party reliable sources about this song. It was twice redirected to its album article, but the article creator strongly opposes such treatment based on the two reverts done. Erechtheus (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also nominate the following: Shortcuts (Brigade Song), which is another non-notable individual song. Erechtheus (talk) 22:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless a song's achieved a great deal of independent distinction, there's just no need. - Vianello (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's an unreferenced stub; we don't need it. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 23:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both, fails WP:MUSIC#SONG, I don't believe that MTV2 Rock Top 10 chart can be considered a national or significant music charts, as required by WP:MUSIC#SONG and the statement is not referenced. --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of British Females who reached number one on the Hot 100 (United States)

Delete useless list. While the subject matter is verifiable, the topic is so microscopic that it's really highly limited in terms of providing any valuable information, navigational abilities, or ideas for future development as per WP:LIST. Any changes needed to be tracked in these articles can easily be done so through the already existing and more comprehensive Category:British female singers. Ave Caesar (talk) 17:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep WP:ATA I don't understand the argument favoring deletion. Perhaps you would like to elaborate? Townlake (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Speedy Keep request withdrawn because Ave Caesar's original rationale was expanded. Townlake (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion was closed as "speedy-keep" at 17:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC) by Blueboy 96. The speedy-closure was overturned in a DRV discussion. This discussion is re-opened. The clock will be reset to run 5 days from now. Rossami (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note There are comments and strikethrus that need to be restored to this discussion that occurred during the brief reopening of this AfD a few days ago. I'd do it myself, but as admins have been significantly involved with this AfD and I don't want to disturb anything they've done, I'd prefer they do the restore. (And this here comment can be obliterated when that's done.) Townlake (talk) 23:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a notable list, as demonstrated by the media coverage of Leona Lewis joining it, such as [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] etc. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Category" and "List" pages serve different purposes; WP:LIST says in no uncertain terms that there are benefits to be gained from redundancies between them. I still don't see a compelling argument for deletion here, and seems to me useless/useful is too subjective in this case to carry much weight. Townlake (talk) 20:11, 31 May 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 - WP:SNOW. Parody article of no merit. See its talk page. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous persons with mutton chops

This does not merit a list article on its own. It would be much better suited for the three people (one fictional) to simply be mentioned, in passing, in the sideburns article. This list, as it currently exists, is not very useful. Also, a mutton chops article does not even currently exist, as the information is easily incorporated into the one concerning sideburns in general. I move for this article to either be deleted or merged into sideburns. hmwith τ 21:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not worthy of an article. Author only states since a non-similar list exists that this one should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.76.89.164 (talk) 22:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an indiscriminate list. Rossami (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 22:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judy Y. Hung

Autobiographic vanity page for a non-notable musician. Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. A Google search does not show any results for her. The only page I have found about this individual is on Geocities at this link, which is evidently her resumé. This page had been copied and pasted onto Wikipedia at least once under the deleted page Judy hung, as seen in that page's deletion log. Cunard (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related page because it is an exact copy of Judy Y. Hung:[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's an unreferenced, stub sized autobiography; it's junk. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete, it's an unreferenced, stub sized autobiography that was already deleted under another name. I'd even consider protecting the two pages after deletion to prevent recreation. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 14:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. This person also created an article: [6] on a Judy Hung which was deleted. Artene50 (talk) 03:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Per nominators concerns. Asenine 09:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete. We already went through this! Vanity page for non-notable musician. Tan | 39 17:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete and motion to close discussion, obviously this individual is not of note.Myheartinchile (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete and second above motion to close; not notable, vanity page, already deleted before... seems pretty open and shut. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep - nomination withdrawn. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mikael Ljungman

~~Fails WP:BIO, severe lack of reliable sources.~~ The best we have are two Swedish newspaper articles, neither of which significantly covers Ljungman. The article translation (which is cited more often than the article itself) is unreliable - apparently the translator added comments or even entirely new information. Huon (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, after reading the two Swedish language references, it seems clear that they meet WP:BIO. Neither provide mere trivial coverage, and the one in Realtid is almost solely about Ljungman. Both are reliable, third-party sources independent of the subject. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, after reading the Swedish language references and the English translations and Blogg cover the articles, it seems clear that they meet WP:BIO. Neither provide mere trivial coverage. . Both are reliable, third-party sources independent of the subject. Needlepinch (talk) 1:18 PM, 31 May 2008 (EST)
speedy delete non notable man. former chairman of a bankrupt company, geesh.Myheartinchile (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article was created as a vanity article for a non-notable person and there are NPOV issues with the current main contributor assuming ownership of the article and using the article as a promotional coatrack for his companies and colleagues. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 02:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies for the tone above, I have reviewed WikiEtiquitte guidelines and realize now that this was phrased in an uncivil manner. I have serious doubts that the references that are publicly available about Ljungman are of sufficient quality and quantity to establish notability and construct a proper encyclopedic biography. A web search will turn up a few articles in Swedish by Hans Sandberg on realtid.se (an online-only Swedish business paper), some of which he has translated to English on his blog. However, reviewing the articles written by Hans Sandberg about Ljungman and his partners in Gizmondo, they seem to be mostly uncritical interviews with the subjects themselves, so I am not sure they meet the neutrality standards of Wikipedia. Other articles on realtid.se about Gizmondo show a very different bias to them, but none go into details about Ljungman. The only references I can find that even mention Mikael Ljungman, and aren't written by Hans Sandberg just mention him in passing as being involved with the Gizmondo relaunch and do not provide any content suitable for an article beyond that. I conclude therefore that a brief mention in the Gizmondo article is all that is warranted. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 23:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article may merit a small spot on Swedish Wikipedia but not this site. He is just not that notable outside of Sweden. Artene50 (talk) 09:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Delete, Keep if the article could maintain a balance between black or white. There are obviously NPOV issues with the current main contributor Fugu Alienking assuming ownership of the article and using the article as a "black wash". Delete if it fails to maintain a balance. Wikipedia it's not a forum of either white or black wash.--Needlepinch (talk) 12:38 PM, 1 June 2008 (EST)
Withdraw nomination - additional sources have been found, though he seems to be more notable for defrauding the tax authorities than for the Gizmondo connection. The sources are largely Swedish, but that doesn't diminish his notability. Huon (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under WP:CSD#G11. Rudget (Help?) 12:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unique Performance Volleyball

Ok, feel free to delete the article. I was under the assumption that by writing an article about a not-for-profit youth organization, and detailing facts about that organization was within the scope of wiklipedia. Instead of outright saying DELETE! Why don't editors delete the on-factual or promotional wording that they say exists? Isn't this the fundamental idea of wikipedia? The article in question is regarding a youth organization with over 50 members that operates as a not-for profit. I welcome anyone to post documented negative information on the club or organization. Yes it has a postive undertone, but that is because the information available from relevant sources is positive as of today. Someone with more experince please comment on the basics of how wiki editors operate. Is it standard protocol to suggest outright deletion, or do most editors delete the non-relevant data?CoachSutton (talk) 10:49, 02 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article was created by a person with a conflict of interest. The subject doesn't appear to me to meet the notability criteria. Prod removed by creator with the comment, "This article includes references for all details given. This article is to serve as public information to allow youth to find our not-for-profit club." References do exist, but do not appear to meet the reliable sources guidelines. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, blatant spam. If actual nontrivial coverage of this club exists, and the article can be rewritten without all the puffery, then let's keep that article. But this content as it exists today is not something we can use. The author may want to review WP:CORP for guidelines on articles about companies. Friday (talk) 21:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Blatant advertising. Townlake (talk) 21:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Since Cryptic removed the Speedy tag (not sure why), next problem is WP:N failure. Townlake (talk) 01:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as rotting spam. RFerreira (talk) 21:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That article is eligible for speedy deletion as blatant advertising which only promotes an entity and requires a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 22:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite if information can be found from reliable sources, kill it otherwise. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:06, 31 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArcheDream

PROD removed back in March, 2008. Another ill-considered starter article from Rosencomet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) which remains without substantial WP:V or WP:RS after almost two years. Group doesn't appear to meet notability standards although I'm a little baffled about which standard to apply. Pigman☿ 21:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After an extensive search I can't find a single review in a reliable source, indeed, even the blogosphere is unusually quiet on this one. Although there's nothing specific for dance troupes, they don't even come close on WP:MUSIC, WP:CREATIVE, WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:N. Debate (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for supplying those guidelines, Debate. They certainly cover it I think. Pigman☿ 02:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per rosencometMyheartinchile (talk) 22:43, 31 May 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 G11: Advertising that would require a substantial rewrite to be encyclopedic. The article also qualifies under the A7 (group) criteria, as it fails to assert importance as a company. VanTucky 23:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edgecam

Entire article appears to be copyvio of various parts of [www.edgecam.com www.edgecam.com]. Has been repeatedly tagged as advert. I would tag it as speedy delete for copyvio, but multiple users have been involved in editing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 22:44, 30 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peloponnesian War (drinking game)

Unreferenced and probably not notable. It was a probably made up thing in a movie, and I can find no real references for it on the internet. AW (talk) 20:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as blatant misinformation. Tagging it as such. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 22:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I have denied the {{db-vandalism}} speedy deletion request. The article far from qualifies as "pure vandalism". VanTucky 23:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)`[reply]
Delete (though I'm not sure it qualifies as a speedy). Non-notable nonce-phrase. Rossami (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What's up with all these drinking game articles lately? No assertion of notability in reliable sources. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. Claims being made cannot be verified without reliable citations. Happyme22 (talk) 07:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep ive played this game its awesomenessMyheartinchile (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could be, but that's not a reason to keep it. --AW (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing Temprature of Planets in Solar System

I'm aware that this is supposedly a "work in progress" but even when complete, I doubt it'll be anything that isn't mentioned on individual planet's articles. Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 20:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - is almost empty, maybe a test page. The title has spelling errors and doesn't follow standard capitalization for Wikipedia articles. An overview of planetary information is already contained in the planet article, so even at its best this would be an unnecessary fork. Huon (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A generalized table of Solar System planets would be better than one that just focused on temperature. It also mixes Metric with American measurements (Celsius and Miles). 70.51.8.208 (talk) 07:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Already covered at Table of planets and dwarf planets in the Solar System, please work on that page. More listcruft is not needed. Danski14^(talk) 19:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and merge anything useful into solar system.Myheartinchile (talk) 23:43, 31 May 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. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newburgh Mall

Tagged for references and notability since August. No reliable third-party sources found; mall is far below super-regional status. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nontrivial coverage located here from third-party sources. "Superregional" is a subjective definition, the mall used to be superregional, twenty years ago, now its on its way to deadmalls.com, but notability is not temporary. The local library would likely be the source to flesh out information on the mall's heydey. MrPrada (talk) 17:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Super-regional is not subjective; it's a definition by the International Council of Shopping Centers (anything over 750K square feet if I'm not mistaken). None of those sources in the Google News search seemed substantial; they were just about events in the mall. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There were enough Times Herald-Record sources for me (The robbery, etc) to demonstrate nontrivial coverage. The TV show Orange County Choppers has also done an episode there. Also, as stated above, the Mall likely attained "Superregional status" back when it was the only mall in the area in the 80s. Notability is not temporary. MrPrada (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails my understanding of WP:CORP. Of the sources cited above, very few are primarily about the mall. Those which are about the mall appear to be press releases, not independent news coverage. Rossami (talk) 23:01, 30 May 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 this bunch of stores in Spotsylvania. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spotsylvania Towne Centre

Apparently non-notable mall in Virginia. Found a couple sources pertaining to remodeling and the addition of a Costco, but none seemed substantial in content. I think I once saw something claiming this to be the first mall-based Costco, which might make for notability; however, I can't seem to find the source that said so. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to meet my understanding of our generally accepted inclusion criteria. Rossami (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's an article about a run of the mill mall, and it only cites one source. ~~We don't need it.~~ GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A "we dont need it" argument is not a valid reasoning as it tends to rely on the WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasoning. Who are we to decide what is/is not "needed" in an encyclopedia ? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 10:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I say keep it, it just needs to be updated some. CRocka05 (talk) 06:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per crocka05, a 28 year old mall has had a lot of history at this point, lets keep itMyheartinchile (talk) 23:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since at the moment I don't see compliance with WP:ORG. This is not a super-regional mall and there are not reliable sources citing anything special or notable about the place. The article includes two local paper reports on a major refurbishment but such remodeling's routinely take place and are reported at very many malls. Smile a While (talk) 03:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it doesn't have ads.Morefight (talk) 17:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Morefight[reply]

[[== *KEEP okay, before i tell my reason as of why it should be deleted, think of this.

If your going to delete Spotsylvania Towne Center, then delete Mall of America. Why, Here:

1) It's a mall

do you get the point?Morefight (talk) 18:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Morefight ==]] [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 another boring shopping mall with a name meant to make folks think they're going somewhere a bit less boring. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marley Station

Tagged for lacking info on notability since August 2007. It's pretty close to super-regional in size (which is generally accepted as an assertation of notability here), but there don't seem to be any reliable sources pertaining to the mall proper. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence has been presented either through the article or here that this organization meets Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria. Rossami (talk) 23:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, corp shouldnt really apply as that is for an individual company as far as i know, in the meantime we should take note that other similar malls are considered notable, the article is ugly and needs some work but its on a definitively wp:n'able topic.Myheartinchile (talk) 23:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability, and does not meet general notability guidelines. WP article is GHit #8, and none of the ones above it are independent sources (business listings, the mall's site, and the management company's site). Google News brings back nothing that you wouldn't expect at any other retail establishment (e.g., shoplifting and celebrity appearances). Therefore, it is not notable. MSJapan (talk) 13:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus as to this business venture renting new space to 9 stores. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hadley Corner

Planned shopping center that doesn't seem to be the subject of reliable sources. One source is an opinion column, the other is more about another mall than this one. I can find no other reliable sources about this mall, just press releases. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, I realize (just now) that the last deletion was only a month ago. The main concerns in the last deletion discussion were WP:CRYSTAL, which I don't see as a problem here. I feel that the sources don't meet WP:V/WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Grr, this is crazy -- they already have Mountain Farms across the street and the Hampshire Mall kittycornered across, are they insane? (takes a deep breath) Sorry, ex-resident speaking, grousing at more farm land torn up. Anyway, back to the point. I agree that the last AfD was only a month in the past, but the unanimous ground which the Keep voters proffered was that filing ninety minutes after creation didn't give the article a chance. In that time the creator has added but a single sentence, and no more sources than that. The article has had a chance, and this is no less a WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V problem than before. Therefore, Delete, without prejudice to recreation when there's something about which to create. RGTraynor 14:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I echo that sentiment. That particular region seems over-retailed, especially when they can't even keep their *(@#$ mall full... Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I can add images of the progress made, and contact the developer to find out what stores besides Home Depot are currently planned, I can't argue that the article as it stands is sparse. I was hoping for help from the editor who fleshed out the two malls across the street, but either he hasn't been around or he hasn't found anything either. Since I haven't heard from him, I can't know. What I can do is to save the article locally until I have sufficient data to re-establish it with enough information to be worthwhile. Does that sound reasonable?

User:TenPoundHammer,, I appreciate the tact. Really. Wikipedia:WikiProject Shopping Centers is not my project, so perhaps it was a bit arrogant to try this. BTW, yeah, are they nuts is a good question, but I'm not sure. The idea of using the fallow commercial land in that location is hard to argue with, and the specific stores we already know about sound reasonable. It's the Lowe's currently being considered for the location next to the bison farm west on Route 9 that really bothers me! - Denimadept (talk) 14:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can move it to your userspace, making a page something like User:Denimadept/Hadley Corner, where you can work on the article yourself until a.) the center is completed or b.) actual sources show up. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the "over retail-ization" of the area is intresting and unusual, as well the odd working relationship between Hampshire Mall, Mountain Farms Mall & Hadley Corner provides some notability. Individually, these items would not make the bar, but collectivly I believe they do. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Exit2DOS2000 collectively these are notable. RFerreira (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. I am not sure that the argument of collective notability is valid but if it is, it would be grounds for a collective article, not for the preservation of individual articles. (No objection to a merger and redirect to a collective article if one is created.) Rossami (talk) 23:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agreed. Whether there is anything unusually notable about three shopping malls clustered in a small area is debatable (but certainly not unique even in the Connecticut Valley, cf. Enfield), but one would think that (a) there'd be an article covering that if it were the case, and (b) there'd have to be three shopping malls in Hadley, and as of yet there is not. RGTraynor 23:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several closely-bunched shopping malls is nothing notable. Grand Rapids, Michigan has three enclosed shopping malls and a metric buttload of strip malls all along the 28th Street corridor or nearby. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. Wizardman 19:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wenatchee Valley Mall

Only mall within an 80-mile radius of its town, but that doesn't really make it all that notable. This page was previously up for deletion a year ago with a result of no consensus; during the previous discussion, I made a sort of WP:HEY attempt, and added a few sources. However, source 1, 7, and 8 seem to be press releases; source 2 is a real estate listing; source 3 is a trivial PDF from the International Council of Shopping Centers; source 4 and 5 are primary; source 6 is an editorial column. Therefore, I feel that this mall fails the reliable source test. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep assuming the Wenatchee Business Journal isn't a press release, there seem to be a lot of news stories about the mall... as the major shopping center for 200,000 people it seems notable on a regional scale. --Rividian (talk) 13:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This organization does not meet my understanding of Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria. While the google search does pull up a number of mentions of the mall, very few of them are primarily about the mall. Most are about stores which happen to be at the mall or about the downtown area where the mall is located. Rossami (talk) 23:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a notable shopping center, precedent on wikipedia seems to point out that we should keep these articles.Myheartinchile (talk) 23:40, 31 May 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. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Southaven Towne Center

Non-notable strip mall. Only hits were press releases or trivial mentions. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I dont usually support "strip malls", but one boasting providing 1000 jobs to the local economy has prooven its value and importance. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 06:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations have been found that this facility marks an important turning point for CBL & Associates as well as the local region, and should thus be notable in its own right. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 11:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Are we now going to judge notability by the number of employees for something? A store? A mall? A shopping district? Way too objective and WP:OR. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That number would be an indication of the effect upon the economy, both local and far reaching. We already use size in a Rule of Thumb for malls. For a strip mall I would think that this would be a pretty good indication of notability (at least in this case). Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence is available either in the article or here that this organization meets my understanding of Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria. Google News returns only routine stories about the opening of the mall and of specific stores which will be included - nothing primarily about the mall beyond proof of its existance. Number of employees has been considered and repeatedly rejected as a proxy for the notability of organizations. Rossami (talk) 23:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see no need to delete this, considering it about the same amount of information as other malls or strip malls in the Memphis Area, but I see no deletion noms for them, for instance, Hickory Ridge Mall was nearly blown over by the tornadoes on Febuary 5th and is closed now, but it still has its full article. Also to Rossami, you do that same search on any mall, it'll comeback with the same information. IMO, if STC's page is deleted, the rest of the Memphis mall pages should be deleted as well, since in theory, none of them meet the inclusion criteria that Rossami so cleverly pointed out. Also to Ten Pound Hammer, I noticed that you are planning to start a page on Ashland Town Center, but when you do Rossami's infamousGoogle News search it comes up with nothing revelant either, so what is the point of nominating STC? CRocka05 (talk) 05:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, large malls and mall in general have a place here on wikipedia, we should be fair and not attack this article and leave the rest online. Malls are of broad interest as they are the primary commeercial areas in many communities and many people may have an interest in their histories. A university student may wish to find out about the history of them for a business, architecture, economics, or urban planning class.Myheartinchile (talk) 23:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assembly Square Marketplace

No significant information on this mall. Only sources are an SEC filing, a primary source, and an unreliable, user-submitted DeadMalls.com listing. Searching turns up only blogs and press relesaes. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep malls are notableMyheartinchile (talk) 23:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Search a little harder. Large mall with a long history, including it being a historic Ford assembly plant. Subject of contentious urban planning debate and is constantly in the news. Try "Assembly Square" in the Boston Globe's archive search. Article could be expanded to include the surrounding industrial zone, which is a well-defined area bounded by I-93 and the Mystic River. Suggest rename to "Assembly Square, Somerville, Massachusetts". Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Interesting history, notable mall, plenty of references about. Rebecca (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:N. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. This is the consensus, though I have a sense that a wider search might produce sources that we could use. I'm willing to userfy the article for anyone who wants to work on it further. His article in the Hebrew Wikipedia seems to have a longer reference list, though I can't read what it contains. EdJohnston (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dory Manor

Delete subject does not appear to meet WP:BIO nor does the article about the subject contain reliable sources from independent publications. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Has been reviewed by the Jerusalem Post as noted here [7]. However, that was over 7 years ago and only minimal coverage. Nothing, since that time, that I could find. Sorry, at this time, just falls short. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contemplate I wish the Israeli coverage was such that every Natan_Zach disputant got an article. Then again -- isn't three books a defacto notability guideline? Or are poets different? Or does it depend on having an editor who really writes on Israeli poetry, as opposed to a one-login-only user writing promotional material? Yudel (talk) 02:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On the other hand, according to [his entry in the lexicon of modern Hebrew literature], he is hardly the least notable [contemporary Israeli poet].... and if his two volumes of poetry had been reviewed in The New York Times, would that not constitute notability? Should an American poet in the New York Times be more notable than an Israeli in the local equivalent?
Delete Google reveals nothing convincing. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 03:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but the informal list of critical commentary in the article needs exact citations to demonstrate it. DGG (talk) 04:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Shoessss and others, cannot locate anything which would sustain the needs of our biographical guidelines for inclusion. (jarbarf) (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He seems NN, and frankly there's always going to be a certain discrimination in 'old cultural' areas are not as visible on the net to verify, but the HE wp tolerates him, so I guess that is sufficient for english wp. --Shuki (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is irrelevant that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS on other Wikis, as each one has their own individual standards for inclusion. Unless the problem can be resolved through editing, the English language version of this article fails WP:BLP at present. RFerreira (talk) 21:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wenli, Coccyx and Shoessss. This person has not been the subject of non-trivial coverage anywhere. RFerreira (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), as it appears the winds of consensus are blowing in a north-by-notability direction. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical cyclones in popular culture

AfDs for this article:

Big trivia dump of everything that mentions a tropical cyclone. Largely unsourced, full of original research, loosely associated topics. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Actually pretty well sourced for a page of this type. Has a distinct theme outlined at the beginning and running through the lists (it is hardly a "trivia dump", as many, if not most, of the works mentioned are referenced by the NOAA itself in its own page on fictional tropical cyclones). bd2412 T 20:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep Well sourced, contains prose, and hardly a "trivia dump" as the nominator suggests. As with most articles, it could use some work but that is hardly a reason for deletion. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 23:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's got a lot of detailed, referenced information, so I don't see any reason to get rid of it. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —Lenticel ^(talk) 00:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has US government source discussing at bottom, is well structured and written with prose. Could do with more sourcing but that is not a deal-breaker. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some of the content lacks sources, but I see the appropriate {{Unreferenced}} tag. This articles really isn't all that bad, since there is prose and it is not just a list. The article subject itself is sounds quite notable. On a related note, feel free to dig though Category:In popular culture and Category:WikiProject Popular Culture articles by quality if you're anxious to delete some IPC articles with nonnotable subjects. There is more than a few. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 03:46, 31 May 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. There seems to be a fairly even split between those supporting deletion under WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and those who think this is an appropriate list per WP:LIST. Both are valid arguments, but despite one relisting there simply doesn't seem to be a consensus for deletion at this time. --jonny-m t 03:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General list of masonic Grand Lodges

Delete per WP:NOT a collection of indiscriminate information/link repository. This article is far too wide in scope; it purports to be a list of every Masonic Grand Lodge in the world with no limiting criteria. However, I can think of 20 "clandestine" Grand Lodges in just 2 US states that should be on here if that is the case, not to mention 4 in England. That's 24 entries right there, from just three jurisdictions. Also consider that my Grand Lodge-issued List of Recognized Lodges for my jurisdiction lists 120+ recognized grand jurisdictions, and not every jurisdiction recognizes every other. I'd postulate a list with well over 800 entries as a conservative estimate; this is unwieldy and useless, even if it was possible to do what the article claims. This list is not and never will be complete. Furthermore, WP should not be a reference for Masonic recognition - there are official references for this, because it changes all the time and is updated yearly, so this could be considered weak COPVIO as well. MSJapan (talk) 12:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I wouldn't classify it as "indiscriminate information". Right off the bat, it tries to keep out "clandestine" by at least attempting to use "descending from the United Grand Lodge of England". I would hope if you have access to a Grand Lodge-issued List of Recognized Lodges, you may consider Cite'ing it as a source. "unwieldy and useless"? No, I dont believe editors will let it remain unwieldy for long, I can forsee where breaking it into several 'country' related sub-Articles would solve any of thoes concerns. Who is considering it useless??? I am willing to admit it does need work, the original French version shows how much TLC work this article needs. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 06:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Exit2DOS2000... you misread the sentence on inclusion... it reads: "This is a general list of masonic Grand Lodges across the World, descending from the United Grand Lodge of England or not, "regular" or not." (bolding mine). In other words it is attempting to list every Masonic Grand Lodge in existance... not just those descending from UGLE. As far as Grand Lodges that descend from UGLE... We actually have a different article/list for those (see List of Grand Lodges). Blueboar (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, as I Italicised at least attempting to use, you may have misread what I had written, NP. Am I to understand that you feel a large list attempting to list the "other" lodges is not encyclopedic? Or that you feel it is just useless? And as for the "A" recognises "B" but "B" does not recognise "A" argument that MSJapan wrote about (on my Talk Page), that is irrelevent. It would be an encyclopedic list of all of them, not just ones that "X" recognises this week. I would tend to think that this Article would be the perfect complementary list to List of Grand Lodges because of it's lack of political corrected-ness. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 06:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My objection isn't that IDONTLIKEIT... or that it is useless... but that it has an overly broad inclusion criteria. The problem is that it doesn't "at least attemt to use" any criteria. It states that it includes everything, whether UGLE or NOT. Now, UGLE isn't the be all and end all of Masonry... We actually have two main branches of Freemasonry (with a few sub-branches) - UGLE derived and Grand Orient of France (GOdF) derived. Neither recognizes the other, but both are significant in the Masonic world. If the article limited itself to those two branches, I would have no problem. But it goes beyond that. It also includes "fringe" Freemasonry (tiny groups that claim to be Masonic Grand Lodges, but which are not recognized by ANYONE.) This isn't a political-correctness issue for me... it's a notability issue. Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It also sounds like this could be a WP:COI issue from how you have worded it. I see no difference in the internal recognisions of this organization, X recognises Y but not Z. Z recognises neither X or Y. It all makes no differences. All of them are Freemason groups calling themselves Grand Lodges. What makes X less notable that Z ? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 00:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The size of X makes a difference. If it is nothing but 5 guys who formed their own Grand Lodge and have a webpage, they are not notable. Recognition by other bodies also makes a difference... I am not saying that it has to be recognition by any specific body... but I don't think you can call a tiny self proclaimed body a legitimate Grand Lodge. They have to be recognized as such, by someone other than themselves. At the moment, the list allows for anyone with a "secret password" and a web page to be listed. Blueboar (talk) 01:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So we should arbitrarily remove any group where the number of members is WP:NOTBIGENOUGH? Who would be the person to set that number, not me! "but I don't think you can call a tiny self proclaimed body a legitimate Grand Lodge" ... If they say they are and it can satisfy WP:V, would't not be Original research for US to say they are not ? I can understand why you may not want such an article, but it is encyclopedic to have this kind of information. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 17:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V is exactly what I am talking about, that and WP:FRINGE. We need reliable third party sources that tells us that a group that claims to be a Masonic Grand Lodge actually is a Masonic Grand Lodge... we should not rely on self-published proclamations. Blueboar (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As detailed by the nominator, this would be a HUGE and unweildy list if properly maintained. More importantly, the list does not really discuss anything about the bodies that it lists... it simply lists them and includes a link to the webpage of the body in question. To me, that makes this list nothing more than a link repository... which is contrary to WP:NOT. Blueboar (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Blueboar. WegianWarrior (talk) 09:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Both~~ Keep - Why not combine the information from General list of masonic Grand Lodges and List of Grand Lodges. Put some work and effort into the project. If we delete this list we should then consider deleting List of Grand Lodges aswell. Both are reletivaly the same, a list of links. Whatever we apply to one we can apply to the other, correct? Zef (talk) 13:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: List of Grand Lodges is probably misnamed. It should probably be renamed List of Masonic Grand Lodges decending from the Grand Lodge of England - by chronology (or something like that), as is an attempt to show the chronology of decent from a single source (UGLE)... it's focus is on when the various bodies were formed, and not on what the bodies are. (the citations are to show when the bodies were formed, not that they exist).

The general list, on the other hand, is far broader in scope (I would say overly broad). It attempts to list every single body that calls itself a Masonic Grand Lodge (or Grand Orient). The problem is that there are literally hundreds of tiny, non-notable, bodies that do this. Bodies that no-one else recognizes as being "masonic". The list is quickly going to attract fringe groups. Take for instance the group that calls itself the "Regular Grand Lodge of England" - sounds impressive, but in reality it consists of perhaps a total 50 men who created their own Grand Lodge (note: RGLE had an article that was deleted about a year and a half ago for being NN). Yet this tiny body fits within the scope of the general list. Of course, such bodies are going to want to "cite" the fact that they exist... and so will add a link to their webpage... which ends up making the list nothing but a link directory.

If there was some sort of defined inclusion criteria... a nod to notability (say being recognized by one of the larger, more prominent Grand Bodies, or something)... I would have less of a problem with this... but as it is, it is unweildy. Blueboar (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know what the List of Grand Lodges is. I started the article and regret it ever since. They are both just that, a list. The General list of masonic Grand Lodges page does have some useful information for each Grand Lodge. When it was founded, how many Lodged are within its area, total members, International Relations and a link to the Grand Lodge web site. The List of Grand Lodges page has this information aswell. When it was founded (in cronological order) and a refrence to the Grand Lodge web site. The General list of masonic Grand Lodges page seems to have more information about the Grand Lodges themselves. That and it's complete and organized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zef (talk • contribs) 16:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that still leaves us with the unweildiness of the list's criteria. To illustrate, I have added three or four "Fringe" Grand Lodges (groups with only two or three subordinate lodges, if that, and less than 100 members, who are not recognized by any other body), and I could add a lot more along the same lines. As I said, I would be much happier about this list if it had some sort of concrete inclusion criteria. Anyone can claim to be a Grand Lodge... not all who do so really are. Blueboar (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, very useful page, if it grows out of proportion it may be subdivided by continent, nation, state/province, region, county, et cetera.Myheartinchile (talk) 23:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Note: This user is a new user with very few mainspace edits. MSJapan (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Note: All users have a vote regardless of the amount of time they have been editing. Please keep your personal opinion about other users to yourself. Myheartinchile has been editing since 18:36, 21 May 2008, four days before the article was put up for deletion by MSJapan (06:53, 25 May 2008).

Keep & Improve with mature discussion: Opinions change. Zef (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wp:not a directory and somne of the listing are not credible Boooooom (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Useful list that will improve with exposure and better organization and discussion.--Mike Cline (talk) 11:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not an article. nothing but a link directory --T-rex 03:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously not indiscriminate. The potential length is not a reason to delete since the list may spin off sublists. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If it spawns sublists, then it wouldn't be a "general list of Masonic Grand Lodges" anymore. MSJapan (talk) 09:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is normal for us to have tiered lists and categories. If the name needed tweaking to reflect this then that would be achieved by a move, not by deletion. And since this is speculative, there is no need for action now. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is just a list; there are no descriptions there is no context. –thedemonhog talk • edits 19:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as a negative unsourced biography of a living person (CSD G10). Hut 8.5 10:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Defiore

Hoax? I can't find any verification of any of this on Google. Article (as of now) is unsourced. Tan | 39 19:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:V, nothing to verify this person's exsitence, let alone notability. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, this is unreferenced junk; it fails both WP:V and WP:BIO. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete un-sourced and possibly libellous if there is someone that fits description. -Hunting dog (talk) 08:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only place claiming this person as a DB Cooper suspect is this article. [8] clearly a hoax, potentially libelous. Edward321 (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, may even be libelousMyheartinchile (talk) 23:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No WP:V sources. What happens if DeFiore is innocent. Will his family sue Wikipedia for allowing a contributor to possibly tar his name? This article is more trouble than its worth. Artene50 (talk) 09:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - have nominated article additionally for speedy deletion category, per comments here and as I think it comes into attack page class if this person exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunting dog (talk • contribs) 10:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was already deleted by User:Vegaswikian--JForget 22:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sherman and Steren QuickScript

Non notable short hand system. No evidence provided to indicate that the 500,000 users claim is true. Looks like WP:NFT to me. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 19:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have already speedy deleted this article once (at Sherman and steren script project). Google returns no relevant hits. While there is an unsubstantiated claim to 500,000 users, elsewhere the article says only people at three specific schools are users. The article said that the originators were still in high school. Even if the subject system exists it is not notable. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fairly obvious WP:NFT. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KILL IT WITH ALL SPEED! This article is SPAM if the organization does exist. Delete as blatant spam (CSD G11). GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I have also already deleted this article once (at Sherman and Stern Script Project). It is pure NFT stuff. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 03:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam and so tagged. If the speedy is declined for any reason, go for WP:SNOW. Vquex (talk) 21:12, 31 May 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. Google News hits were either trivial or press releases.-Wafulz (talk) 14:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blausen Medical Communications

Non-notable company. Fails WP:CORP. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:CORP; no references in article, and a search by me provides no reliable third-party hits. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, this is spam. Delete it under CSD G11. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No showing of notability for this business or its products. Only link is to the company website. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, per aboveMyheartinchile (talk) 23:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please note the references at Google News archive. --Eastmain (talk) 22:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per A1 by User:Gwen Gale. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 22:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concentration of accelerated photons

Neologism, possibly fake term. "Concentration of accelerated photons" yields no results. ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—What is an "accelerated photon"? That makes no sense. I agree that there don't seem to be any valid sources for this term.—RJH (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G1 Nonsense or G3 Hoax/vandalism. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:25, 30 May 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 as nonsense. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alec Thompson Schaffer

Hoax article. No references and no Google hits. Cunard (talk) 18:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Speedy Delete if possible. Nothing but cruft (stuff made up in school one day type). Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 18:09, 30 May 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.-Wafulz (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AgencySpy

Non-notable blog; the only source is trivial mention in the New York Times. WP:V and WP:WEB apply. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete indeed. This doesn't appear to be notable, outside the controversy surrounding some publicist's death. But that's not enough to meet the notability criteria. -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEB.— Ѕandahl 18:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Mediabistro.com. Not sufficiently notable for its own article but a plausible search term. --Dhartung | Talk 19:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 21:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bridlewood Community Elementary School

This school article fails WP:ORG. They are not at all notable, and the article should be delete. GreenJoe 17:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First AfD from 2006.
Merge and redirect to Ottawa-Carleton District School Board, which is the norm nowadays for NN elementary schools. (I don't think it was in 2006.) That article has a template which redlinks all its elementary schools; they should probably be evaluated for notability or created as redirects. --Dhartung | Talk 19:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. Firstly, it should not be deleted, as it contains well-written information, which would be lost, and we have space for it (WP:NOTPAPER). Merging and redirecting all the NN elementary schools to Ottawa-Carleton District School Board would swamp it with poorly-written stubs. If they are merged, it should be to List of English public schools in Ottawa. Redirects can then be created for the redlinks in the current OCDSB template, to this list (Which also makes the template a lot prettier). However, this will result in the combination of fairly well-written articles (e.g. Bridlewood Community Elementary School) with short, poorly written stubs, creating a rather unappealing page. Just my $0.02! --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge/Redirect to Ottawa-Carleton District School Board per WP:SCHOOL. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
- WP:SCHOOL is not a policy or guideline. We don't have to follow it. GreenJoe 21:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is still the regular practice for non-notable schools at AfD. This has been the regular outcome for several months now. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per information from Patar knight (change of vote). A search shows additional non-trivial 3rd-party attention. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ottawa-Carleton District School Board where it can be discussed in context and await sufficient reliable sources to justify a break-out independent article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to fail WP:SCHOOL, but the article is well written, and WP:SCHOOL is only a proposed policy. I don't really see any need to delete this one; it ain't hurtin' anything. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the sourced content to List of English public schools in Ottawa and then redirect. I can't stand up sufficient notability for a standalone page though the school was involved in the Bridlewood, Ottawa, Electric power transmission controversy. However, I can't find reliable sources on this, as yet. TerriersFan (talk) 22:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this? [9]? --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think that the power lines controversy tips the school over the line. I have added a couple of refs, to meet WP:N, and done some cleaning. TerriersFan (talk) 16:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, very well written article on topic with broad interest.Myheartinchile (talk) 23:32, 31 May 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. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC) (This article is now going through its second AfD after article re-creation. I'm not entirely sure where to put that. So the formatting of the AfD looks a bit weird. --John Nagle (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)) Fixed. --Dhartung | Talk 19:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Artist Karaoke Series: Miley Cyrus

AfDs for this article:

This is a karaoke version (no vocals) of a previously released album. Arguably, such albums are not notable for Wikipedia purposes. I'm putting this article up for AfD to get some discussion of whether karaoke versions are notable enough for individual articles. I'd previously raised this issue on the talk page of WP:BAND, and the consensus there seem to be that they're not notable. --John Nagle (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:MUSIC isn't crystal clear on this, but seems to me the performer's non-involvement kills inherited notability, and good luck finding independent coverage on the album to otherwise work around policy. I want to say salt it too, but what if it makes a legitimate non-Disney chart? Has it already? Townlake (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, G4 if applicable. At best merge with prior vocal album. --Dhartung | Talk 19:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it already was deleted by that and restored. The previous AfD was a lot about WP:CRYSTAL issues which are no longer relevant. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 05:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Thanks for the clarification. Still delete, then, as a non-notable variation of an existing album. --Dhartung | Talk 08:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, we don't need this stub; it nearly meets CSD A1. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. Not at all. A1 is for articles with content like "has red hair" and such, where it's not clear what the article is about. This is pretty clearly about a karaoke album. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 05:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly why I said nearly; in other words, it doesn't have much valuable content. If it met A1 perfectly, I wouldn't have said nearly, and I would have voted Speedy Delete. If you want to expand it to make it clearly show notability, feel free to do so and I'll say Keep, but I'm not seeing any notability here at this time. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 14:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reason as my reasoning in the first nom, that it isn't a work of the artist themselves and is a non-vocal album. Nate • (chatter) 02:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced article on crappy albumMyheartinchile (talk) 23:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please not we aren't questioning the quality of the album, just the notability. Nate • (chatter) 23:32, 31 May 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 User:Cryptic - housekeeping - non-admin closure. ukexpat (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MotiveQuest

Nothing more than a spammy, vanity piece created by the organisation itself. Fails WP:CORP ukexpat (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Oops my AfD nom collided with the deletion of the article -- please delete and close. Thank you. – ukexpat (talk) 17:25, 30 May 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. I won't bother with the alphabet soup - let's put this one out of its misery now. Black Kite 20:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Paul Carter

Little claim in article of meeting WP:Notability. 12 non-wiki ghits, none of which show notability; 0 gnews hits. Contested prod. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; no Amazon or Bookfinder appearances. A2Kafir (talk) 16:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:N Izzy007 Talk 23:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong (speedy) Delete: Blatantly fails WP:N...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 17:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very close to speedy - Fails WP:BIO, written like an essay and fail WP:V --Pmedema (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, fails the everything test. RFerreira (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentGavin Paul Carter is about to become fairly well known,The Land of Grimney Website will be up and running in due course, and this will be fairly significant in time. If you delete him, he will not have another entry at wikipedia ever. Please consider this possibility before you delete his entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.41.183 (talk) 03:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia 91.108.41.183! Perhaps I should introduce you to WP:CRYSTAL, WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:RS. If the article is deleted now, it can still be recreated later if your predictions come true, and for future reference, it'd be great if you'd remember to include comments in the actual discussion instead of above it. We appreciate interest and desire to contribute to our project, and we encourage you to study our policies and procedures. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 14:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article contains forward-looking statements with regards to notability, but those have not yet materialized. JBsupreme (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. As already pointed out, strongly fails WP:BIO, WP:RO, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:V, and WP:RS. May I also throw in a strong failure of WP:BK and WP:single-purpose account, along with strong suspicions of WP:AUTO and WP:COI. I'm starting to wonder if there are any policies or guidelines this article doesn't violate. He says the subject is notable because it's going to have a website soon?! Give me a break! I'd sure like to see this thing speedied off the face of our WikiPlanet as soon as a conscientious admin can get to it. Qworty (talk) 02:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Qworty has summed it all up rather well. nancy ^(talk) 17:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 22:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor power objects in Sonic the Hedgehog

Article simply reiterates content exclusive to each game, and is game guide in format, and even then it's very minor content. Nothing really for notability either, individual game articles can cover this subject well enough. Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - "Minor power objects" are Not notable by the definition in the wikipedia general notability guideline, because there are no reliable sources independent of Sonic the Hedgehog that deal with the subject matter. Randomran (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No assertion of of notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per every argument above in their entireties...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 17:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a game guide. Unencyclopedic and on the verge ofWP:GAMECRUFT. --Pmedema (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't belong on Wikipedia.--EclipseSSD (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the word minor is a synonym for not notable. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Soniccruft. JuJube (talk) 13:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article is too much detail per WP:NOT#MANUAL. Gazimoff ^Write _Read 16:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)It is also heavily reliant on primary sources[reply]
Delete. No reason for it to exist, it's simply an indiscriminate collection of information. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NOT#GUIDE, as well as WP:WAF for being completely in-universe. Asserts no notability to meet WP:FICT. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Red Flag (Manchester United Song)

Non-notable football chant which does not seem to merit its own article, and for which the list entry at Football chant#Club-specific songs under Manchester United F.C. seems inclusion enough. Unlikely to ever grow beyond a two-liner substub, especially considering that the lyrics section ought to be deleted per WP:NOT#LYRICS. haz (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very notable chant and is one of the most favoured songs of the most famous club in the world. It was bellowed out at recent champions league games and when the teams took the field before the Manchester Derby on the 50th anniversary of Munich so should definitly be listed here when you consider the articles for football songs that are on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FearSneachta (talk • contribs) 14:55, 30 May 2008(UTC)

Comment Please see WP:NMG under "songs" for information on what makes a song notable. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 14:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NMG, unsourced. Mention in article is enough, as stated above. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 14:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete UNLESS notability is properly established through reliable 3rd party sourcing Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is unreferenced junk that is probably infringing on someone's copyright. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), as per consensus. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Classified: The Sentinel Crisis

Non-notable computer game Phiwum (talk) 14:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - According to the wikipedia general notability guideline, the way you prove notability is with reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The article has a review from IGN and a review from GameSpot. Both sites are reliable sources, and both are independent of the game developer and its business partners. Perhaps the nominator did not see the references? I know they're not in the format that I'm used to either. Randomran (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems notable, I'd be willing to keep it for a while...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 17:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Notability already established in the article. Beyond that, no reason provided for deletion or explanation of why those references don't constitute nontrivial mention in RS. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've updated the article with an infobox (Template:Infobox VG), coverart, and I've properly referenced the reception section and the infobox. Should assert notability. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 05:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability has been asserted through third-party reliable sources and article has been cleaned up.Gazimoff ^Write _Read 16:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - adequate coverage present to meet WP:N; IGN and GameSpot are certainly independent reliable sources that can provide notability. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Notability was established before AFD commenced - two separate full reviews from established reliable sources. Someone another 16:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rilian

Someone who is not a main character in any of the book he appears in. Buc (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is one of the main characters in The Silver Chair. Chuck (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think he's a main character. Buc (talk) 11:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why not? He appears throughout about the last third of the book, and in the first two-thirds, where he doesn't appear directly, he's the main driver of the plot. Seems like a major character to me. Chuck (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A main character in The Silver Chair, as already stated, one of The Chronicles of Narnia books. These books have been around for more than half a century and are known worldwide. Rochelle CMN (talk) 06:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that he is a main character in The Silver Chair, and is an important figure in the series as a whole. --Lini (talk) 21:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've listed this AFD nomination at the Narnia task force page, Votes for deletion section. Intention is to solicit wider discussion among editors interested in the quality of "Narnia" coverage on Wikipedia, both "keep" and "delete" opinions might be expected, and both welcomed. Thanks, Lini (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this article fails WP:NOT#PLOT and does not provide any evidence of notability outside of the Chronicles of Narnia, nor does it cite any sources for verifying its content, so merger is not an option. This article appears to be original research and there is no reasonable justification for keeping this article.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he appears in two books, is reasonably central, and as there will be critiques and appraisals of Lewis' work somewhere around. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Points for discussion - Agreed with Gavin Collins that the article as it existed, when nominated for deletion, was lacking in evidence of notability, and in sources. I've added a References section with, for starters, 3 sources outside of the Chronicles themselves, in which I've confirmed that the character of Rilian is mentioned, with either character analysis or literary criticism related to his role in the series. The article needs work in order to move it from "in-universe" perspective to "explain the fiction more clearly and provide non-fictional perspective" (per the wording used on the book-in-universe template). Toward that end, I've restructured the sections of the article (using "expand" templates where material needs to be added), per the outline at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Chronicles of Narnia task force/Character article example. I have been interested recently in doing just this type of work for some articles related to the Narnia series, but, have been focusing primarily on one of the other books, and, (with my particular "slow and careful" editing style, plus daily limits on WP time :), would not personally be able to shift focus, and do much more work on the Rilian article before the timeline for closure of this Afd. But, the sources exist, and the potential is there, for making the Rilian article a "respectable" fictional character article, per WP standards. Thanks, Lini (talk) 11:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article certainly needs improvement, there's a large number of independant sources listed as references. Edward321 (talk) 03:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete - non-admin closure. ukexpat (talk) 15:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elektrofuk

I'm trying to assume good faith but this appears pretty close to nine-month-old nonsense. Last.fm page appears to be a joke, as does their home page, released 'liek hundreds' of EPs. No allmusic listing and definitely no RS coverage. Seems to be a parody or something that landed here. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 13:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete {{db-band}} Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Clearly no assertion of notability, so nominated ukexpat (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete The last FM entry is a hoax IMO. BigDunc^Talk 15:02, 30 May 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 Create Stub, Merge and Redirect to Lester Basil Sinclair, per StephenBuxton and User talk:Shoessss' suggestions. Non-admin closure. victor falk 13:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why Cows Moo

Survivor of two VfD discussions in 2004, but has no notability claims or RS. I considered speedying, but opted for Prod to give it a chance to be expanded, before my attention was drawn to the article history. Dweller (talk) 13:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Create John Mystery article and Merge. John Mystery appears to be a notable enough author - found numerous sources on this url that back it up. The book itself isn't notable enough, as far as I can tell. As an article doesn't appear to exist for him yet, I would suggest that this might be the time to start. StephenBuxton (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect – Per StephenBuxton suggestion. However, that is based on StephenBuxton at least starting a Stub for John Mystery. (I would do it, but I have more on my plate than I can handle now). If not, sorry to say, Delete. Book in and of itself is not Notable. Closing administrator, if the consensus is to delete, please save a copy to my subpage, to work on at a later date. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK gents - I started to do some research on Mr. Mystery and found out that was actually his pen name. His real name is Lester Basil Sinclair, who happened to be a pretty decent song writer from Australia especially during the early war years of WWII. I have started putting together the article on a subpage here [10] and should be ready for posting in about a week or two. This gives us several options. The first is the let the existing article stand and just let it be Merged and redirected to Lester Basil Sinclair article, once it posts. Two, delete the article now, and the closing administrator can just forward me a copy to my subpage and I’ll just absorb it into the Sinclair piece or three, help me get the new article up and posted before this Afd runs out of time and just move it over. From my standpoint, any way it goes is fine. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dammit, I always wondered about this, and all I get is an article about a book. Merge per above. Mandsford (talk) 00:24, 31 May 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. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beersaw

Yet another completely non-notable drinking game...Wikipedia is not for things thought up in your dorm one day. UsaSatsui (talk) 13:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I can see where you're all coming from... bummed out but I guess we just need to get coverage somewhere else out there and then after that try re-posting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belovett (talk • contribs) 02:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete as non-notable game. Looks kinda fun though! I've dropped a note on the main editor's talk pages about the AFD. StephenBuxton (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, original research, entirely unsourced. Tan | 39 14:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per no original reasearch. BigDunc^Talk 15:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from page author - This isn't simply a non-notable drinking game isolated to one dorm room. It's a new, inventive game which has three verified locations in different areas of the US (photographic proof still trying to be uploaded), with at least three more under construction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hidingfromgodot (talk • contribs) 16:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because this game is played in three locations does not make it notable per Wikipedia policy. This article is entirely your original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. If this game has been covered in multiple reliable, third-party sources - major newspapers, magazines, television reports - then perhaps it is appropriate for Wikipedia inclusion. However, my research on Google shows no coverage whatsoever. Popularity at your particular institution does not merit inclusion on its own. This comment was also left on the talk page of the article. Tan | 39 16:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this article is non-notable, unreferenced junk. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unreferenced, non-notable. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, made up game. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 22:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pile-on "delete" for all the reasons given above. --Craw-daddy | T | 23:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BZ (manga)

At best, unnotable, unverifiable, and too recent to have any notability. At worst, and far more likely, complete bull. UsaSatsui (talk) 13:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note this redirect. --UsaSatsui (talk) 09:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax. Doceirias (talk) 23:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, you're right, this article is complete BS (but not WP:BS). GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Probably a hoax or personal invention. In any case it's unsubstantiated. Spacepotato (talk) 04:38, 31 May 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. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snow petals

Non-notable manga, fails WP:N. Asenine 12:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-promotion. Doceirias (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Removed from animanga project deletion, as this isn't manga. 68.81.95.231 (talk) 02:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. And delete another articles related. Self-promotion. Lacks notability. Zero Kitsune (talk) 03:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under WP:CSD#G11; this is unreferenced SPAM. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 14:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, and it might not be unwarranted to gently caution the page author about self-promotion/spam pages. - Vianello (talk) 19:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, related to Snow Petals AfD.. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kasumi Onikawa

Non-notable character from a non-notable manga. Asenine 12:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self-promotion. Doceirias (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete; this is unreferenced SPAM. Delete under WP:CSD#G11. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 14:53, 31 May 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 with CBBC. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CBBC Presenters

Contested prod. Laundry list - not particularly notable, and anything that does happen to be notable can easily be included in the parent article CBBC. _Talk Islander 11:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional keep I think this is notable enough but it needs a reference. Buc (talk) 13:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, Expand and Reference: with the CBBC article. It needs to cover all the presenters through the history of CBBC though and also needs all the presenters to be referenced to prevent violation of WP:OR. --tgheretford (talk) 14:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as the main article is not too long and I doubt that someone is going to establish notability for this table article. –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to CBBC. RMHED (talk) 15:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commando Krav Maga

Non notable sub-art. Primary only sources, IP keeps adding advert text seems to have been created as an advert & stubified when this was removed. Nate1481(^t/_c) 11:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate1481(^t/_c) 11:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- Nate1481(^t/_c) 11:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Nate1481(^t/_c) 11:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, obviously created as advert. There is a similar project in the articles Kapap and Lotar, which are both notable, but suffer incessant advertizing vandalism. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - spam. Rami R 12:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nominator. -- Nudve (talk) 12:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Moni Aizik is reasonably well-known but CKM less so (and the term is somewhat generic). JJL (talk) 14:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
redir - Notable topic ... but only warrents a mention in main Krav Maga Article due to its near zero chance of expanding beyond a 2 sentence & 3 Self-published sources, stub. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 13:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'comment While I can see the logic, think deletion is better to avoid the IP simply reading the advert. Redirect is not really necessary as the search will catch it. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 11:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under CSD#A1; I can barely tell what the topic is even about from reading the article; the article only contains two sentences and a couple of links. It is 50% unreferenced. Clearly eligible for CSD. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 15:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep, although i feel we sometimes have too much coverage of jewish topics, this one seems notable. its a unique discipline that many people practice.Myheartinchile (talk) 23:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you could add some sourced material of that it would help greatly! --Nate1481(^t/_c) 11:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i'm affraid i'm not interested enough to do that.Myheartinchile (talk) 06:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Soup Kitchen

Non-notable devised drama piece. Fails WP:N. Asenine 11:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete think you could've proded under WP:NFT ninety:one 12:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; this article is unreference, poorly written junk. Rewrite if you can, but I doubt that anyone will bother. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 15:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in case people aren't familiar with the UK education system, this was a piece of drama performed internally in school, and is not even verging on notable. ninety:one 18:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability is shown. RobJ1981 (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Flag. Arkyan 22:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest flags

This is a pointless list, with no agreement on what constitutes a flag, which is being hijacked for political purposes. Harry the Dog WOOF 10:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Per nominator. Asenine 11:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - pointless and lacks adequate referencing Kransky (talk) 12:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Appropriate topics for lists. The article is a list of loosely associated topics of little value to anyone else other than the person composing the list. I find it akin to the example of list of one-eyed horse thieves from Montana. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete The author has been involved in similar situations where articles have been modified to promote certain political values. Despite agreeing that the "largest flag" on this list is not defined as a flag, little has been done to modify the list. The rest of the list is poorly referenced and of little encyclopaedic value. Bunzo1980 (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless list, per nom. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 00:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's pointless alright, but I think we're leaning towards WP:IDONTLIKEIT here. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 15:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list does not belong to me, its creator, it is open for any Wikipedian for expanding it. As I wrote before, as you can see in the talk page of List of largest flags, this user, Bunzo1980 calling him or herself an Oxford graduate, comes in, deletes info, and writes in the talk page, words that can be, for many, taken as an insult, and I quote: " graffiti in some dirt" or "go learn English" and so on, manners that an Oxford diploma can not obviously mask, now, what would you do if you were in our place?

When coming about the political status of the page, as you suggest, I wanted to create such vexilliologic list since Wikipedia harboured no such articles on great flags, but pretty irrelevant ones (at least for us, the rest of the World) like "list of the largest texas flags", and, having grown up next to the megaflag, knowing it was actually the world's biggest, I wanted to share it. Of course, the list remains expansible for anyone wishing to contribute to it, but, since the page's creation, we enjoyed only limited contribution from other fellow Wikipedians. My proposition would be to link it internally to the Flag article, so more people can contribute to it that way, thus we can take ourselves away from the political fight that happens around this very subject. --Eae1983 (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Now Bunzo1980, I will also ask you to provide me proof of your accusations as "the author has been involved in similar situations where articles have been modified to promote certain political values"... Where exactly did you see this? This is some great accusation, that needs viable proof on your part, but anyways, I wonder, may you be actually the user Aee1980 (please note the name resemblance) that got blocked from editing Wikipedia, that is trying to take a "revenge"? And why on me anyways? Also, as GO-PCHS-NJROTC is pointing it out, this is leaning too much towards WP:IDONTLIKEIT, my point is that there is no such list in Wikipedia, and it is up to you fellow Wikipedians, to expand it and make it something viable. I am a busy person in real life and I have only created the vertebra of the article, you are all free to expand it as you wish. Deleting it would be too easy.

I also do not agree with the fact that this list is as relevant as the "List of one eyed horse thieves in Montana" as Vexilliology is a passion for some, that devote their lives to flags and emblems, as some devote to pets, for example. This list is for them, and for anyone who wants to expand. --Eae1983 (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but the list needs the definition of a flag. Kaygtr (talk) 01:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Flag or another related article. This article actually contains some pretty interesting information, and in fact, is already briefly covered in the Flag article. Perhaps it could be expanded into a larger paragraph with this info. Khoi khoi 11:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Let's merge it! Now here you all actually have to help me, since I am probably the editor with the least computer knowledge... How can we balance the two articles? If we ever merge it, where will the list be in the main article etc.? So many questions!... --Eae1983 (talk) 12:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you changing your vote? If so you need to ~~strike out~~ your previous keep. It would simply be a matter of copying the table into its own section on the Flag page. However, since that page lists the Israeli flag as the world's largest, it wouldn't solve the problem, as one of those contradictory pieces of information would need to be removed (or qualified) and it would just sow the seeds of another edit war. Harry the Dog WOOF 14:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever we say, some people consider the TRNC flag as the largest, as some may consider it as "some graffiti over some dirt". Now edit war or not, we got two megaflags at hand, and we can not as you say "remove" any that simply. My idea would be to popularize the article, either by linking et to bigger articles as an internal link or by some similar way, so that more people can contribute to it, making it a healthier article, with many more entries. Again, please help me with all these, as I am the worst computer person. --Eae1983 (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harry, we can simply clarify in the flag article that the flag of Israel is the largest flag flown, while the TRNC flag is the largest painted flag. We could pick a better choice of wording, but I honestly don't see what's so hard about incorporating this info into the flag page. We could do this without making it contradictory, and then hopefully everyone will be happy. Khoi khoi 00:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now see, Khoi, you have proven my point. The israeli flag was never flown. It is on a hillside too! But it is officially recognised as the largest flag in the world, and the Turkish-Cypriot "flag" isn't even even mentioned in the article. I am sure there would be resistance to adding it since it hasn't been added already. Harry the Dog WOOF 05:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main resistance would be that Northern Cyprus is only recognized by one country. However, I am sure if this is brought up on the talk page first, and reliable sources are provided proving that the flag of Israel is the second-largest, then perhaps we can successfully integrate the material without any conflict at all. BTW, we could have something such as stating that Israel has the largest recognized flag, while the TRNC has the largest unrecognized flag. Khoi khoi 06:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is an "unrecognised largest flag" encyclopaedic. Surely only the official largest flag has any encyclopaedic value, which is why the Turkish-Cypriot "flag" has never been included on the Flag page as the largest flag. Harry the Dog WOOF 06:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have a Flags of unrecognized and partially recognized states article, so I'm not quite sure what you mean. Just because it hasn't been added yet doesn't mean it's wrong. Khoi khoi 07:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is that there is only one flag that is officially recognised as the largest, and that is the only one that has encyclopaedic merit. That's why the Turkish-Cypriot "flag" had not been added to the Flag page. Harry the Dog WOOF 07:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is that even if Guinness recognizes one flag, if we can find reliable enough sources contradicting this, then I believe it merits being mentioned in the article (we could mention both flags). If we can't, we don't mention it. It's that simple. Khoi khoi 07:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harry I do not get your point. Are we just going to ignore it because Guiness does not mention it? Well the flag is there, it does exist, and what is the point of an encyclopaedia if that very encyclopaedia ignores knowledge? --Eae1983 (talk) 07:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopaedias are by nature selective. The main Flag article does not list this "flag" as the largest, and nor should it. Try Googling "World's largest flag" and see how many references to the Turkish Cypriot flag you find. The world consensus is that the Israeli flag is the biggest. Creating a bogus list to get around this is not the way to go. The place to mention the flag is on the Turkish Cypriot article. Harry the Dog WOOF 10:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still do think that "the world consensus" you are talking about is not by "selectivity" but by ignorance. If they knew the flag in Cyprus, things would be different. Also, dear Harry, please do not quote from Google or similar net search engines as they do not in any way represent an academic medium. Cheers! --Eae1983 (talk) 12:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see, so every source that contradicts you is invalid? Do you really believe that Guinness is unaware of this "flag"? You have shown your hand. Your purpose seems to be to promote this "flag" for your own reasons. If you really must do that, against the world consensus that the Israeli flag is the largest, mention it on the Turkish Cypriot page. Wikipedia doesn't need a bogus list for you to promote the "knowledge" of this flag to the world. Harry the Dog WOOF 12:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No you do not see. Google is not a source. Imagine how funny would it sound if you gave a paper in university or better, a Doctorate thesis, or even better, you write an encyclopaedia, and you quote a search engine's results. It would be nothing but ridiculous. If you don't believe me, just try it. Also, that list is not bogus, and I am not trying to promote my own agenda, I am just trying to promote the truth, the flag in Cyprus is bigger, believe it or not (although it is not even my flag). Yet again I agree that many people may consider the Israeli one as the biggest, since it is a textile flag, while the Cypriot one is not. Well who knows, maybe the Guiness institution is not aware of its existence, since makers of that flag never *asked* to be named the biggest, ie: no one never applied to Guiness concerning that fact. Also it is in a part of the world that is technically closed to the outside world, and it is for that very reason, hidden from most eyes. What I wanted to do here is to bring it to light. Cheers! --Eae1983 (talk) 12:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google allows you to find sources, of which there are none that back up your claim apart from the cypriot flag one. Harry the Dog WOOF 13:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None?? Well if I were to be non-academical as you are, and ran the search http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=tr-tr&q=biggest+flag+world&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8, what I see is one entry for the Cypriot Flag on the first page, 3 for Israel and the rest for the American flag. Now since americans have a greater access to the internet and their "superflag" returns more results on google, does that mean it is bigger? What about non-english sources, how will you find them using Google? what about this: http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:BmhDL7O7_bsJ:chypre.centerblog.net/2.html+plus+grand+drapeau+chypre&hl=tr&ct=clnk&cd=2&client=safari or this http://www.baronbaron.com/chypre/recit03.html or even better, if I run a search in Turkish (Dünyanın en büyük bayrağı - biggest flag in the world), I only get The Cyprus Flag in the first page (except 2 entries one listing Israel, the other supporting the claim of a Turkish football team, Beşiktaş to have unfurled the biggest flag in the wolrd), try it for yourself with http://www.google.com/search?q=Dünyanın+en+büyük+bayrağı&btnG=Ara&hl=tr&lr=&client=safari&rls=tr-tr&sa=2

Ah look what I found, an online editor http://members.tripod.com/kibrisevi/ozel/Bbayrak.htm that has documents that this flag was submitted for Guinness, but "was refused under Greek lobbying and pressure" you can see a copy of that there. Wait let's try in Greek: look at this http://www.bulgarmak.org/cyprus.htm (found on google.gr but a rather propaganda-ish site) or this http://www.yarisclub.gr/forum/showthread.php?t=3136 (which is actually a copy paste from a greek newspaper)... anyways what about the sources I am giving on that list? http://www.cyprusflag.net/trnc-flag.html do they not constitute a "source". Please know that they were also found off google.

I remain open for any of your questions may you have, but please do not accuse me of "promoting my agenda" since I am promoting only the truth. On the other hand I also can accuse you of having shown your hand, trying to mask truth. Cheers! --Eae1983 (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So Guinness is aware of it and decided not to include it. You have made my point. They take these issues very seriously, and so should Wikipedia. The truth is that the world's largest flag is the Israeli one. I have no agenda other than a better Wikipedia. I am neither Greek, Turkish, Cypriot nor Israeli. My concern is that Wikipedia should not fill up with lists that, far from promoting the truth, are simply used to push a political agenda. Harry the Dog WOOF 14:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Harry it is NOT the truth, it is Guinness' truth. They also have to abide by a political agenda and have limits like not including non recognized countries, whereas Wikipedia has not. The truth is that the Cypriot flag is at least 1.5x bigger than the Israeli one, and you are making yourself a fool trying to ignore it. Do you also have a political agenda like Guinness? I am starting to suspect so. Why all that hatred against a flag that is factually the biggest of the world? You are always invited to measure both if you do not believe. As in french they say "appeller un chat un chat" you should call a cat "a cat", instead of loosing your time trying to distort truth. Just accept that although it is not recognized by the Guinness Institute, it is de facto THE biggest flag, in the same way as Nagorno -Karabağ is not a recognized state, but the facto, it is, possessing a military force a police force, a capital and institutions, and by doing so has an article in Wikipedia. look it up here: Nagorno-Karabakh Republic why should that flag be excluded from its home, the Flag article?. Now please, will you make us both a big favor and stop to lose our time for idiotic issues as this one, we should be out with girls now. --Eae1983 (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the world seems to agree with Guinness since the only sources mentioning this "flag" as the largest are Turkish or Turkish-Cypriot ones as far as I can see. Clearly you have an agenda (and have been canvassing), as even Khoi notes on your talk page (Your new messages were basically a link to your original message (located at User talk:Izmir lee). In it, you said, "Hi, an article, List of largest flags, containing the Northern Cyprus Flag on its top, was nominated for deletion, for reasons that are both obvious, and some others that are pretty dubious..." The fact that you pointed out that the Northern Cyprus flag is at the top seems to me that you're using it as a basis to convince them why the article should be kept). This "merge" proposal seems to have been cooked up between you (Well, first off, I could make a comment at the AfD saying why I think it should be merged. Then you can add your input there as well.). It is clear that you are not interested in improving Wikipedia with this article, but in pushing a political agenda. I have made a good faith AfD and will leave it for others to judge. Harry the Dog WOOF 14:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been canvassing for help since I do not think in any way that these facts should be deleted, especially since they are being useful to people around the world. (look at http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080303122241AALY650 then talk, they have been using my article as a source and guess what, they are neither Turkish nor Turkish Cypriot) and since this article is encyclopedic, it points to facts. I do not know who you are to insert affirmations again like "And the world seems to agree with Guinness since the only sources mentioning this "flag" as the largest are Turkish or Turkish-Cypriot ones as far as I can see" (what is your source for that?) that look like affirmations from a high school student. I agree with you on one point, I have no other agenda than to improve the encyclopedic content in Wikipedia, and from my standpoint it is clear that you are not assuming good faith, trying relentlessly to go on with the deletion of a sourced fact, sourced mostly not as you say by Turkish or Turkish Cypriot facts (It seems clear that you did not even check the sources I gave you, how can I take you seriously?). Anyways, I am loosing my time with you, it is clear that your mind is not open enough to go past Western-Based institutions to define your understanding (whatever Guiness says is the ultimate truth, sure, and who are they? God? No human beings there?). I have to go to a party, and as of tomorrow, you are free to get that article deleted, I will make a copy of that table in the Flag article. This said, of course, you are free to delete any sourced info there, and face the consequences of it. Enjoy! --Eae1983 (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Khoikhoi, an interesting bit of referenced information but hardly worth a separate article Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Negative energy (band)

This is a page for a band that doesn't seem to exist. It mentions the group played opening slots with silverchair and has had numerous hits but the only reference on Google links back to this page. There seems to be no reference to this band anywhere else on the internet. I couldn't even find a MySpace page for them. "Interviews" are mentioned, but no links or references to which publications they were with. BrianFG (talk) 09:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search for "Negative energy" + Rellik (their supposed big single) yields nothing. Take your pick between WP:HOAX and WP:MUSIC. Gr1st (talk) 10:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I just noticed that they claim they've sold 200,000 albums in Australia, which is a complete lie as few Australian artists sell that many and certainly no unsigned band. I'm going with WP:HOAX --BrianFG (talk) 10:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. I don't think it's worth me investigating the WP:HOAX allegations as the failure of WP:MUSIC is so comprehensive. tomasz. 10:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even believable. Rdbrewster ♪♫♪ 10:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BOLLOCKS, WP:HOAX, WP:MUSIC. Take your pick. 200,000 albums and toured Oz & New Zealand...hahahahahahahahahahaha. I laughed so hard until I stopped. Oh, and WP:SPA for the creator of the article too. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete made-up bollocks. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the most important Wikipedia policy in existance: WP:V. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under WP:CSD#G2 or WP:CSD#G3. Might have been created by someone with mental illness, a wannabe, someone with malicious intent, someone just dying to create a Wikipedia article (a test edit), or just someone with a big imagination. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 15:14, 31 May 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. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Cono

Assertion of notability seems thin, at best. The entry for the site in questions, YouLoveMe has been nominated for CSD. 9Nak (talk) 09:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Negligible coverage in secondary sources. Gr1st (talk) 10:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete; this article was probably created as an advertisement. Also, this article fails WP:V, WP:BIO, and/or WP:RS. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 15:19, 31 May 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. Despite the numerous responses from the article creator, the discussion below indicates that the software fails the notability requirements. --jonny-m t 03:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AlphaCAM

Software with no assertion of notability. 9Nak (talk) 09:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading about CAD/CAM software here and found several links to AlphaCAM that had no destination, so added what I knew as a new page. I'll find out some numbers about how notable it is and edit the article (it's sold all over the world, used to make Rolex Watches, Aston Martin cars, all sorts). --RhinosoRoss (talk) 10:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grunt121 (talk · contribs) appears to have created an article about Alphacam (speedily deleted as spam) and added links to a couple of articles in the last few days, but other than that I can only find one other link. Do you recall where you saw "several links"? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you do an Advanced Search for Alphacam or Licom you get three entries for Alphacam and two for Licom (that aren't put in by me). Someone else is also trying to get an alphacam page going, I've seen deletion messages on both licom and alphacam pages. I don't know much about the company and don't want to spend ages finding out, but a page should definitely exist for one one of the main products in CAD/CAM! so rather than deleting everyone's efforts, how about editing or suggesting changes yourselves? Surely I'm not supposed to know everything about them and put it all in perfectly first time?! When people are reading about CAD/CAM, they'll want to know about AlphaCAM. As I get more time I could write about it's use in things like the James Bond films, well known adverts etc. but I need to make sure I don't say anything that might be incorrect. There are lots more sections that AlphaCAM and Licom could be referenced from, but there's no point if the page is going to be continually deleted! --RhinosoRoss (talk) 07:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice; no evidence of notability. Notability is not contagious; you cannot "catch" it from your clients, nor does software become notable because it was used on a notable subject.--Orange Mike | Talk 14:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who works in a CAD/CAM related industry knows of Licom and AlphaCAM and will want to have pages representing them. I was trying to give what information I knew and have something at the end of the dead links on other pages that other people could add to. --RhinosoRoss (talk) 14:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to get in touch with the marketing department and get some figures and links. Presumably you need things like number of users, turnover, sales per year... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.133.96.193 (talk • contribs)

No! There is nothing which is a poorer excuse for a reliable source than a marketing department (with the possible exception of some online forums). --Orange Mike | Talk 18:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orangemike - what reliable sources do you suggest? I think Rhinosoross' point is that the company's marketing department may be able to point to independent sources to satisfy your objections. I would imagine that he doesn't necessarily have access to such sources himself. It looks to me like he is legitimately trying to add some useful, non-sales content regarding a widely-used piece of software in the CAD/CAM market. The fact that it is a known product in the market in indisputable. Search the web for industry-related journals if you require proof of this. To dismiss his efforts in presenting this information in as objective a way as he can seems a little churlish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.3.222.22 (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a video link I've found on the AlphaCAM site which is another company (Asylum) talking about using Alphacam for designing and manufacturing a gun in a James Bond film and a robot girl in a BP Advert. I'm hoping that makes it notable, or at least interesting, but I'm concerned that it being from their own site might make it "blatant advertising" rather than "notable" :-/ I hope that admins will delete the link rather than the whole page if so! Comments welcome! --RhinosoRoss (talk) 07:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a redirect for the deleted Licom page to the AlphaCAM page and found a journal stating that Licom is "a worldwide leader in the supply of CAM software" and put that as a reference in the AlphaCAM page. Hopefully that makes Licom notable, but since you deleted the Licom page, I'm assuming you don't want it back, and since AlphaCAM is Licom's only CAM product, I'm also hoping that it makes AlphaCAM notable. Perhaps I need to state Licom's product range on the AlphaCAM page? But that might make some admin think it is advertising... I could really do with an wikipedia expert to edit it a bit for me and make it so that I'm not in danger of loosing my work! --RhinosoRoss (talk) 09:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so Planit now refer to 'Licom' as 'Alphacam': so the product name is taking over the company name, and, presumably, the data regarding the product/company is now recorded under the blanket title of Planit, so I am unlikely to get any more notability links than I have found so far. --RhinosoRoss (talk) 12:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution of the Universe

An essay on the development of cosmological philosophy; also unencyclopedic. 9Nak (talk) 09:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced school essay with misleading title. The material in the sections on persons is treated in much (much) better fashion in the articles on those figures. The other material, where it's not dead wrong, reproduces material found in Cosmology, History of astronomy, and other better articles. Deor (talk) 11:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essay. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:OR. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nomination. Everybody knows that the earth is flat, and that the sky is a lid that keeps the water out, anyways. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per above. RShnike (talk) 20:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly an essay/original research; unsourced. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 00:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete; this is poorly written, unencylopedic junk. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 15:22, 31 May 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. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genuine Warranty

Disputed PROD. Advertising for a company with no assertion of notability. 9Nak (talk) 09:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; promotional article about an entirely non-notable services company. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This page was blanked by User:Wikitasm. I have reverted that. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I see nothing of note either. Some of the sentences are very closely taken from the website of that particular company. RShnike (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:SPAM, WP:CORP and WP:N. Search finds no independent sources, lacks references. Arsenikk ^(talk) 23:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under WP:CSD#G11; it fails WP:SPAM, WP:CORP, WP:N, and WP:RS. One of the few things it doesn't fail is WP:CSD#G11. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 15:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the worst part is this article has just turned into a big online argument between two individuals who apparently know each other. Considering that there may be legal problems with the company in question, it'd be best to just get it off of Wikipedia just for that alone. Paxsimius (talk) 03:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contraband graphic novel

Article about a non-notable graphic novel, judging by the creators username the article was created by the books author. –– Lid^(Talk) 09:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:FICTION
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, seems to meet WP:CSD#G11. It's poorly written SPAM with no reliable references. It fails WP:FICTION, WP:SPAM, WP:RS, WP:N, and probably WP:V. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 15:31, 31 May 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 as misinformation. Just checking. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 09:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Sword in the Stone (2008 film)

Probably a G3 candidate, but I'll take it here to make sure. Probable hoax; "upcoming" film with no sources. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 08:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A 2008 remake of The Sword in the Stone starring Daniel Radcliffe that no one has heard of? This is misinformation. 08:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Article deleted. Rdbrewster ♪♫♪ 09:42, 30 May 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 List of past minor and recurring characters from Hollyoaks.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Hurst

Non-notable minor character of a soap opera. It appeared for some months. Article contains, expect actor's name, no real world information. It consists only of plot. Fails notability guidelines per WP:FICTION as well. Article created some days after character entered the show and only contributions were in the plot.

Note:Closedmouth contested prod by giving as only reason "prod contested". Prod template read "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to its deletion for any reason". User didn't give any reason in the edit summary or on the talk page. When asked in its talk page (User talk:Closedmouth) said that he/she is not the one who contests the prod. (For an explanation check article's history). Magioladitis (talk) 08:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Magioladitis (talk) 08:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of past minor and recurring characters from Hollyoaks. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 13:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, its more helpful to give a specific reason in removing a prod, but if not, then presumably the reason is that the deprodder doesn't feel the prod reason given is correct. One advantage in giving a reason more fully is of course the possibility of convincing the prodder of just that--it can be done; a bald deprodding will usually simply end in a trip here. DGG (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a discussion held in Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion, so I'll skip the prod part. I just want to inform that "Mellisa Hurst" merged in List of past minor and recurring characters from Hollyoaks. I think we can close the Afd by converting the article in a redirect. What do you think? -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as this article fails WP:NOT#PLOT and does not provide any evidence of notability outside of NCIS, nor does it cite any sources for verifying its content, so merger is not an option. This article appears to be original research and there is no reasonable justification for keeping this article.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: so you are basically suggesting we delete all character pages for every TV show, as surely it is not possible to find sources to back everything up? That seems a bit crazy to me. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 09:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all one has to do is go into any newsagent and peruse any one of a number of TV magazines for plenty of 3rd party commentary on any soap character. Gee, wonder how I can find them....only the among the biggest selling magazines around....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of past minor and recurring characters from Hollyoaks, where the character has already been merged. Unless someone actually adds real-world information to satisfy WP:NOT#PLOT, there is no reason that the character needs her own article. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect since the content has already been merged into List of past minor and recurring characters from Hollyoaks.--Captain-tucker (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of past minor and recurring characters from Hollyoaks, not notable enough for a seperate article. RMHED (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it can't really fail "fiction" guidelines that are still actively and rather vigorously being debated and written. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), as per consensus. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC) fmt fixed by _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 02:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Philippine Collegian

Non-notable student/school newspaper, no indepedent RS for notability...just another student paper. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 08:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep if the claims in the article can be sourced to something besides a tripod page as it appears to have a history. This one appears stronger than the other two listed currently. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 13:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The Collegian is arguably the most prominent college/university paper in the Philippines...more so because it's the student publication of the country's leading universities (along with Ateneo de Manila University, de La Salle University and University of Sto. Tomas...I digress here, but UP is considered the university in the Phils., even more than the other universities combined). In addition, some major Filipino politicians, writers, journalists and political activists were on the editorial board of the Collegian while they were students of this school. What might make this article more interesting is including more details of its involvement in the Philippine martial law period, where some of its editors were detained and pursued by Pres. Marcos and his allies, though admittedly this would mean an extra trip to the National Archives of the Philippines just to get photographs/microfilm copies of any news articles about The Collegian's involvement in Philippine history. --- Tito Pao (talk) 09:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP. Cquan, you maybe a deletionist as you claim on your user page, but may be you ought to to be careful where you slap your AFD's. "Just another student paper?" As if those from URoch are any better. The Philippine Collegian page is fine as it is, and for you to simply put it up on AFD just because "its another student paper" is being irresponsible. --Eaglestorm (talk) 17:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Keep. Actually, it does appear notable...which it did not when I tagged the article for AfD since it had absolutely no RS. So I'm even going for keep now. And btw, please remain calm...good articles have nothing to fear from AfD or deletionist editors like me. They end up having an even stronger spot on Wikipedia. Please try to keep your comments on topic. Thanks. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 19:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A publication of a major university of the Philippines. Nominating based on being just another school paper is an example of systemic bias and downright irresponsibility. Starczamora (talk) 05:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, per Tito Pao and Starczamora. It's like tagging the The Harvard Crimson for deletion. The article though can stand for some improvement, I'll try to help out in that respect. -- Anyo Niminus (talk) 12:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons explained. (However, I will parenthetically add that "some major Filipino politicians, writers, journalists and political activists were on the editorial board of the Collegian while they were students of this school" is a weak argument. notability is not contagious; notable folks have been involved with many non-notable things in their lives. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, for an article which is a member of a category of articles (student newspapers at accredited universities) about which we have no consensus, as Travellingcari points out. There are some sources so whether or not this passes WP:N remains debatable. The fact is we do not have a notability guideline for periodicals and newspapers (student or otherwise), and until we do many AfD's on publications like The Varsitarian will end up at no consensus given the large gray area in our general notability guideline.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Varsitarian

Non-notable student/school newspaper, no indepedent RS for notability...just another student paper. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 08:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment while there doesn't appear to be much in the way of secondary coverage, there is some precedent for keeping these, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mirror (UNC Newspaper) for one. I was the original nom on that one and while I don't necessarily agree that student newspapers are notable, it's a potential systemic bias issue since there have been other AfDs that indicate indexing of Philippine newspapers is not the most comprehensive. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 13:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The Varsitarian is the main newspaper of University of Santo Tomas, one of the major universities of the Philippines, and not just another student paper. It has been quoted in several independent articles:
- A news about UST's support for Rodolfo Noel Lozada, a key witness of Philippine National Broadband Network controversy.
- An article from Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines about the continuation of expansion plans for University of Santo Tomas Hospital.
- An opinion column on a rebuttal about the removal of sex education in Philippine schools as recommended by Dr. Angelita Aguirre, head of the country's Human Life International.
- An old news article about the corruption of the school's ROTC program, which led to the death of a student-whistle blower.
- A news article about a posthumous award for four nuns who saved lives in a 1983 sinking of M/V Doña Cassandra but died in the process.

The nomination is a perfect example of systemic bias and sheer irresponsibility. Starczamora (talk) 04:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I really don't see it. Almost no school newspapers are notable. My alma mater has a school newspaper with its own website and a near-200 year history (earliest college newspaper in the area, probably), but no article -- and I would !vote to delete that, too, if someone created an article for it. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How should we define notability on a school paper then? If it's from Harvard, it's okay, but a MAJOR university in another country it is not? Bias I say... Starczamora (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There may well be bias. We need more American and European college newspaper articles in AfD. Want to start nominating? CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that there's no conensus whatsoever on any of this is the only consensus I found when we I did a random sample of those that came up for AfD. I don't think you'll ever get consensus to delete all. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 18:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say I wanted to delete all, just that I suspect there are many school paper articles which (like this one) don't meet WP:N and WP:V and so should be deleted. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. My point was that a number have been kept in exactly this situation. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 13:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the problem with this article is that there are no reliable sources actually about the newspaper. All of the sources mentioned by Starczamora are news reports that list what other people said in the newspaper. The references in the article are all from the its own website, as well as a broken link. What is required for Notability would be sources that discuss the newspaper itself and are independent. --Captain-tucker (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Take note of what TravellingCan said. Unlike the US and most European countries, Philippine news sources aren't as accessible over the Internet. If you're only relying on Google to back up the sources that were cited on this article, then you should start writing to the webmasters of the three major newspapers of the Philippines (the Inquirer, the Bulletin and the Star) and tell them that they should make their archives more Google-friendly. The next best thing that I can think of is dropping by the Philippine National Archives and get all the best microfilms and photocopies of news articles and probably upload them into Commons, since the websites of these newspapers are almost good for nothing. That good enough for you? --- Tito Pao (talk) 03:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Publication of a major Philippine university itself involved in some significant events, among which includes the abolition of the compulsory ROTC program in the Philippines. --- Tito Pao (talk) 03:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here is the article to back it up... (note that it is mirrored from the defunct INQ7.net website)

MANILA police are looking for a University of Sto. Tomas student who might have information that could link the killing of his classmate to the exposé that the two of them made about alleged corruption and bribery in the school’s Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC)...

Police are also looking for other UST students, ROTC cadet and cadet officers and ROTC staff interviewed by the campus paper The Varsitarian, as well as the reporter who broke the story.

In The Varsitarian’s Feb. 21 issue, the students aired various grievances against the ROTC, including the sale of nonexistent uniform accessories and lecture manuals, illegal suspension and a gun-toting incident.

Also note that this expose was first published by The Varsitarian before other publications did. Happy now? Starczamora (talk) 10:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A lot of media coverage. Definitely notable. Malinaccier (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. See also related deletion debates about The Varsitarian and The Philippine Collegian. There is not a consensus to delete these at this point.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The GUIDON

Non-notable student/school newspaper, no indepedent RS for notability...just another student paper. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 08:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment while there doesn't appear to be much in the way of secondary coverage, there is some precedent for keeping these, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mirror (UNC Newspaper) for one. I was the original nom on that one and while I don't necessarily agree that student newspapers are notable, it's a potential systemic bias issue since there have been other AfDs that indicate indexing of Philippine newspapers is not the most comprehensive. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 13:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A publication of a major university of the Philippines. Nominating based on being just another school paper is an example of systemic bias. Starczamora (talk) 05:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "Just another school paper", no notable. Sorry. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Publication of a major Philippine university. This isn't "just ahother school paper", and Ateneo de Manila University isn't even "just" another school", either (Ateneo de Manila University is the nearest "rival" of the University of the Philippines Diliman, arguably considered the university of all Philippine universities). Do I see a systemic bias here? Probably: I might as well nominate The Harvard Crimson because it isn't notable as far as many Filipinos are concerned, also because some Filipinos don't know what Harvard University is. But I digress =P --- Tito Pao (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tito Pao and Starczamora, this student newspaper clearly has a pedigree and importance beyond the normal run of the mill student papers. RMHED (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus to delete or merge/redirect so a default keep. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mammomax

Unsourced, non-notable comic book mammoth-shaped character. Prod tag removed. Blast Ulna (talk) 00:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 12:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge and redirect into List of Brotherhood of Mutants Members. BOZ (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Singu larity 07:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. They do seem to be back playing a role again but most importantly the Comics Project has been discussing ways to deal with minor characters, so I'd not want to delete it until we can deal with all of them and merging is tricky as they are a member of two groups and until we get a "Characters in Marvel Comics Ma-Mo" (or some such) there is no clear destination at the moment. It is one of the characters I'd want to return to when we have a better way of dealing with them, but for now I'd suggest we keep it. (Emperor (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete as there is no evidence of notability.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as verifiable and notable aspect of fiction. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Brotherhood of Mutants Members or something like that. Google search doesn't give anything interesting -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 04:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ablat

Delete unsourced one-liner about an Uygur surname, without any reason why it's notable; WP:NOT a Chinese phone book Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep if it is a common surname than that in an of itself makes it notable. Although, I agree one line articles really should be avoided that in and of itself apparently isn't reason enough for deletion. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Singu larity 07:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a genealogy guide and there's no evidence this is a notable surname. The existence of other poor articles is not a reason to keep this one. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 13:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Jasynnash2 is not correct in that names are automatically notable, and there is no reason to keep this. Punkmorten (talk) 09:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. In addition, i cant find any famous people with the last name Ablat, making it unlikely the article can ever be expanded or used for anything. Ironho lds 03:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 21:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oltian

Delete unsourced one liner about a given name in Albania, with no indication of its notability, WP is not an Albanian-language dictionary or a baby-naming guide. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --DerRichter (talk) 23:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep if it really is a common name than that in an of itself makes it notable. Although, I agree one line articles really should be avoided that in and of itself apparently isn't reason enough for deletion. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yea but how does anyone know if this is a common name? There are no sources and for all we know someone made this up. No offense, but I cannot take the word of a wikipedia editor for fact. --DerRichter (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree hence the "weak" in my comment above. Unfortunately, we have a lot of articles which don't have references and we have a lot of one line articles. I suppose it is one of those "where to draw the line" situations. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Singu larity 07:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a name guide and I find no evidence that there's anything notable about this name. Just because other un-referenced one-line articles exist doesn't mean we ought to keep this one. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 13:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Jasynnash2 is not correct in that names are automatically notable, and there is no reason to keep this. Punkmorten (talk) 09:32, 31 May 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. Singu larity 04:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Cunningham

He's written a few singles for notable acts, but I am unable to find any reliable third-party sources pertaining to his notability. (Shame, since he's a hell of a songwriter, at least from the songs of his that I've heard.) A search is turning up only false positives. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable 3rd party sources show up showing that he wrote x, y, and z. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Do we need to refine the notability criteria for songwriters? I would suggest making the composer and lyricist for a notable song automatically notable themselves, even if the reliable references deal with the song rather than its creators. --Eastmain (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even finding references for the songs (besides the liner notes to the Jason Sellers album). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eastmain, how can a biographical article be written if there are no reliable sources dealing with the composer's or lyricist's biography? Deor (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If notability can be established through the song credits or otherwise, then it is permissible to use non-independent sources (including the songwriter's own website) to fill in the empty spaces. --Eastmain (talk) 04:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found these credits at Allmusic. Are they enough? http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&searchlink=AUSTIN%7CCUNNINGHAM&sql=11:hvfexqy5ldfe~T4 --Eastmain (talk) 04:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. He's worked with notable acts (Pat Alger and Melodie Crittenden), but that doesn't make him notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Singu larity 07:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:MUSIC as well as WP:BIO more generally. --Dhartung | Talk 20:00, 30 May 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. Singu larity 05:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vuong Trung Hieu

Supposedly a Vietnamese writer, but there are no WP:RS in the offing to satisfy WP:BK. Google results aren't persuasive [11], and the entire historical archive of GoogleNews turns up nothing of import [12]. If he were really a noted author, there would be some professional reviews showing up somewhere. Article is from a WP:single-purpose account, so there may be some promotional WP:COI going on here. Qworty (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He is a real Vietnamese writer, though Worldcat lists his name as Trung Hié̂u Vương. (You can tell it's the same guy, based on the titles of the books.) But admittedly, I'm not finding much about him. Zagalejo^^^ 23:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What do you mean, "no WP:RS"? The article author referenced an article in one of Vietnam's top newspapers and even translated part of it for the benefit of those of us who don't speak Vietnamese. The Vietnamese article has another reference and the external links and Worldcat confirm that the subject is a prolific author. As for Google searches, you have to include the diacritics to get the right results when names include Vietnamese characters: that way a web search gets more hits and a Google Books search finds 21 of his books. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vương Trung Hiếu is the one of writers and translators on vi.Wikipedia. I read the biography of Vương Trung Hiếu and translate it into English on en.Wikipedia. If considering it without use value on en.Wikipedia you can delete it.All belongs to you!.TV1181 (talk) 05:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Singu larity 07:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Phil's research and the article references prove notability. Kevin (talk) 08:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Notability is not in doubt, and reliable sources seem plentiful. Asenine 11:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep Obvious keep. Sourced article on a prolific writer whose notability appears to be challenged just because he happens to write in a language other than English. Dekkappai (talk) 19:32, 30 May 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 --Angelo (talk) 23:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin van den Broek

A talented player, but he hasn't played any official matches yet, per [13]. A ecis^Brievenbus 19:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. A ecis^Brievenbus 19:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice until the player has engaged in at least one match. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Singu larity 07:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:Athlete as he has yet to play in a fully professional league. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 22:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 22:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Jimbo^[online] 12:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burrito: Jack-of-All-Trades

Like its namesake character which I nominated for deletion earlier today, this indie comic is non-notable. Blast Ulna (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, the only sources available are primary sources. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Singu larity 07:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete gets 0 google news archive hits and less than 250 ghits. I can find no significant coverage in reliable third party sources. RMHED (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as not notable software. --Selket ^Talk 04:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CookSwing

It's semi-promotional, but that could be fixed if it were notable. I find no evidence of RS coverage of this Java library and ghits are forums, blogs and other non-reliable sources. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 13:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks promotional to me, hardly an encyclopedic article, just a list of features. Rehevkor (talk) 15:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Keep this, and keep similar stuff as long as they are open source and/or seem to be used by a user base. There already are much stuff of the same nature here, even comparisons, competitions among them elsewhere (xul alliance). I find wikipedia references useful. The way these things are presented in Wikipadia is refreshingly different from sales material. If you want to criticise, point to its insignificance write a few sentences or add a link for a proper page for the purpose. Assumed (not registered) user name:SSSSS, 22:35, 01 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.3.157 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Singu larity 07:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely non-notable. Doesn't have to reliable sources needed to provide verification that it needs in order to have an article here. Just a list of features; not really a real article. Razor flame 23:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 04:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David B. Levinson

3 minor acting credits, no notability (NB my first go at nominating a page for deletion) Tassedethe (talk) 15:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ENTERTAINER, and no reliable sources provided or seem to exists that establishes notability.--Captain-tucker (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ENTERTAINER. Good nomination. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete barely one notch up from an extra. RMHED (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Centeenials

Basically, the whole article is complete and utter OR and some of it is complete and utter nonsense or stuff which is certainly not relevant to the encylopaedia. For example, "The ongoing debate about which band members are gay still rages on, with current speculation". Notice the word speculation, as that is exactly what it is, and it may constitute WP:LIBEL towards some of the members mentioned as being 'likely to be homosexual'. It also fails WP:MUSIC by a long shot, and a long number of other things including but not limited to WP:RS, and WP:V. I emplore you to vote "Strong delete" so we can get rid of this once and for all. Asenine 07:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Clearly fails WP:MUSIC, both CD's were self released and no reliable sources of information appear to exist to meet any of the other criteria. Looks like all of the possible WP:LIBEL content was removed shortly after the AfD. --Captain-tucker (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google search on a unique band name turns up only 89 hits. Pathetic. Clearly non-notable. --Bardin (talk) 08:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. The main issue is whether this group has received enough coverage to qualify as notable. Personally, I think it has not, but reasonable people can disagree over the application of WP:ORG to borderline cases such as this one, and this discussion has not reached consensus about it either way. I see also no reason to discount people's opinions based merely on their prior edits to Falun Gong-related articles. Sandstein 18:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong

AfDs for this article:

The article seems to fail WP:Notability, WP:ORG, WP:NOT#NEWS. According to [14], the organization is a "little-known non-profit organization registered in Washington, D.C.", "The CIPFG itself is barely a coalition in the real sense of the word. Founded in April this year, it has yet to attract other human rights associations under its wing. On its website, the CIPFG lists no partners.", and "admitting that the CIPFG was "initiated" by Falun Dafa".

Since the last AFD, for months the article has been used as a content fork, orphaned and not been updated with anything with long term notability, and lack of articles focusing on the group itself rather than its cause. A Google search shows 25,700 results, news search now only lands only 25[[15]], and mostly coming from either trivial mentions or the Epoch Times, a Falun Gong linked media outlet which fails WP:SPS and lack significant coverage. I think the best cause of action is redirect the namespace to Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China, which covers the same material as the group's causes. PCPP (talk) 06:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Merge/Redirect. The last AfD in January 2008 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CIPFG) was nearly unanimous for to keep. This was upheld in a recent deletion review. Although consensus can change, I still find Bduke's closing assessment that "Deletion is not the answer to the problem" pertinent. MrPrada (talk) 06:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is not the answer to the problem, but after EdJohnston's comments, I feel that a merge/redirect could be. MrPrada (talk) 01:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The last nomination survived because the users accused me of being a anti-FLG activist and being a bad faith nomination instead of addressing the issues at hand. The deletion review was closed because it was too old and asked me to renominate it for AFD instead. Please address how you feel this article meets the guidelines instead of questioning my intentions, thanks. --PCPP (talk) 07:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think at least one editor did address the issues at hand, pointing out that there are other sources that are reliable and secondary, Taipei Times, news.com.au published by News Limited, Strategic Forecasting, and the New Zealand Herald, pointing out that the Epoch times is not directly associated with the CIPFG, and that the google test is a very weak standard for inclusion. I made no reference to the nom being in bad faith, I pointed out that the closing administrator correctly assessed that the issues with the article are ones of cleanup, and not grounds for deletion. My assessment stands. MrPrada (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But other editors also addressed the issue at hand and the CIPFG, Epoch Times, and FLG's links. The NZ Herald article is about the "Human Rights Torch". Scoop article is a press release by the HRTR organisers. The Taipei Times article is about investigations of organ harvesting, and the CIPFG is only mentioned in one sentence, The Age article is an article relating to Queensland surgeons. Only The Embasssy Mag directly adressed the group at hand.--PCPP (talk) 04:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In naming these sources (excluding the many below), I am hearing reasons to cleanup, not to delete. Perhaps when and if this closes as a keep, the closing administrator will tag the article that there were issues brought up in the deletion discussion which need to be addressed, as was done with Pentagon Message Machine. MrPrada (talk) 09:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I have thought about this. I think the large amount of coverage of the Human Rights Torch Relay (HRTR) and also the Kilgour-Matas organ harvesting report is enough to grant notability to this subject (CIPFG). CIPFG are the organisers of the relay. There have been thousands of news articles written about the HRTR and they all talk about CIPFG. There are many other news articles which also talk about other activities of CIPFG; "Human Rights Torch Relay" should be a subsection of this article. CIPFG also has notable members like Kilgour and Matas, and before they were members, is the organisation who asked them to do their report on organ harvesting, which has gained quite significant global media coverage. So I think this organisation has been behind several major human rights based public and media events. If it were not for the HRTR and the organ harvesting report, I would not suggest this organisation is notable enough to warrant an article. I think the difficulty at the moment is that no one has taken the trouble to build this article up, so it still looks like a stub. There is, however, plenty of information online, enough to qualify WP:ORG.--Asdfg12345 08:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a search, and not found even one independent source in the first 30 results with each either from FLG organizations or advocacy groups. Information online should preferably be from third party independent sources. EgraS (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced you performed a thorough search. A google search from just this week for the CIPFG (not even archives), includes the Toronto Star, Journal News, and Miami Herald. MrPrada (talk) 23:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside the Epoch Times articles, the rest of the articles from mainstream media are regarding the the "Human Rights Torch Relay", with a passing sentence or two about the CIPFG. This is not significant coverage.--PCPP (talk) 05:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that search is just from the past seven days. Judging by the fact that it contained two major U.S. newspapers, and one major Canadian paper, I'd be suprised if I did not find similar results going back 30 days, 90 days, etc. (as was done for the last AfD, back in January). MrPrada (talk) 09:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, all of the above links dug up by MrPrada mention CIPFG only in a trivial manner. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although persecution of FLG does exist, I believe that the article just has not received coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. The Epoch Times is certainly not an independent source. EgraS (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was demonstrated in the last AfD that there has been sufficient coverage from Independent reliable sources. Also, there has been nothing that suggests the Epoch times is not a reliable source, only that it is a primary source. I do not see it on the Reliable Source noticeboard, nor do I think it would be classified as unreliable, as it is an award winning publication on human rights abuses. MrPrada (talk) 23:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, but where did the last AFD "demonstrate sufficient coverage"? Having 20 links from google news, the majority from Epoch Times, is certainly not sufficient coverage, and per WP:NOT#NEWS fails to demonstrate any long term notability. According to [16] [17] [18] it was founded by Falun Gong practitioners and has links with the organization. A US congressional report lists the Epoch Times as a Falun Gong-linked source [19]. Even Li Hongzhi, the founder of Falun Gong, has expressed links between Epoch Times and Falun Gong practitioners[20]. --PCPP (talk) 04:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Small note -- CIPFG is not run by Falun Gong practitioners. It is non-practitioners who are the members and chairs of the various chapters, like Sev Ozdowski (former human rights commissioner of Australia), Rabbi Reuven Bulka, Andrew Bartlett, David Kilgour, and so on. They are CIPFG. The Epoch Times was founded by Falun Gong practitioners. They are different groups of people; they have common interests. --Asdfg12345 04:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note I still think you need sources to back up your claims that those people are chairs and are involved in the operation of the CIPFG. And according to [21], "..says Mr. Jaw, a Falun Gong practitioner since 1997. While admitting that the CIPFG was "initiated" by Falun Dafa, (which represents Falun Gong internationally), Mr. Jaw denies that the "coalition" is a Falun Gong organization."

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the previous AfD, I simply dont see the argument that there were reliable sources. A reliable source is one that is peer-reviewed and has no vested interest in the outcome of the event. Human rights organizations, despite their noble intentions, are certainly not third party, peer-reviewed, or neutral. EgraS (talk) 07:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Citing from WP:ORG: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.". OK so here is an incomplete enumeration of independent secondary sources: Taipei Times [22], Australian News [23], China Post [24], Hotpress [25], de Volkskrant [26], Sports Ilustrated: [27], ESPN Deportes [28], Handelsblatt [29], Politics.be [30], MyWire [31], Radio Czechoslovakia [32], Scoop NZ [33] and more ... For example Romanian press does not even show up in google news while searching for CIPFG, here are a few examples: [34] [35] [36] [37], these show up when you search like this: [38]. So just as an analogy, if you look in French, German, Check, Polish, Asian, African, Oceanian, etc... media, you will find a lot of reference, because the human rights torch relay, organized by CIPFG actually went world wide, see: [39]. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 10:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The articles you mentioned mostly covered the Human Rights Torch Relay which CIPFG is involved in, not the CIPFG itself, and non-English sources does not apply to English wikipedia. The CIPFG, FLG, and Kilgour/Matas only gets a passing mention, so you still haven't proved why CIPFG meets notability guidelines instead of the HRTR. Significant coverage means focusing on the operation of the organization itself eg [40], not trivial mentions. WP:NOTE: Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail ... more than trivial but may be less than exclusive., Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. Mere republications of a single source or news wire service do not always constitute multiple works., Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large. WP:NOBJ: Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability.--PCPP (talk) 15:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Falun Gong. MrPrada appears to be misrepresenting the last AfD and the Deletion review conclusions: this attempt to reopen the discussion on the article from january is a valid challenge. It survived because a cabal of Falun Gong practitioners came out in support of it. The deletion review upheld the AfD for being too dated.

“

Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong – AfD close endorsed, and given that the last AfD was in January, too much time has passed for a review of that AfD

”

User:RMHED closing out the deletion review

I strongly suspect that the Falun Gong publicists are out to create a walled garden of articles to counter the propaganda from their sworn enemy, the Chinese Communist Party. The workings of this, and of the previous AfD, show well how the Falun Gong publicity machine works. There appears to be a dearth of sources which qualify any of the references as any more than trivial mentions of this Falun Gong front organisation - on close examination, collections of trivial mentions such as those given above and below, has allowed probably hundreds of articles to be deleted at AfD for flunking WP:N. The Epoch Times is not, AFAIK, considered as a reliable source, and as far as this article is concerned, it and organharvesting.net amount to a primary source and a self-published source. Just because you initiate an event which atttracts media attention is insufficient to qualify you for WP:N

the references cited are all trivial mentions. Let's look one at a time the sources offered to rebut this AfD:

Taipei Times article is about the 2008 Olympics, and not about the CIPFG
Australian News, Politics.be, are about allegations of organ harvesting
China Post, Sports Ilustrated, Hotpress, ESPN Deportes, Handelsblatt, MyWire, Radio Czechoslovakia, Scoop NZ, Roumanian sources (1, 2, 3, 4) are all about the torch relay, and I cannot say for sure which ones are not from syndicated sources and thus fail to qualify under the multiple independent trivial .
de Volkskrant talks about the olympic boycott rally in the Netherlands

When you search like this: [41], there are a hand full of links only, most of them are to known Falun Gong sites (clearwisdom, opfg), and I strongly suspect the same will be the case in all the other languages. This is a self-published source. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Basically you want another article called Human Rights Torch Relay ? That is an excellent idea :) --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also please note that CIPFG was mentioned, true, mainly because of the Human Rights Torch Relay so WP:ORG stands: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.". --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing just for the record, The Epoch Times is a reliable source, it's a publication and it has reviews, as far as CIPFG goes, it might be said that it's not independent, because it has connection with Falun Gong, but that is all you can say. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: what you stated can only be a record of what you think. I do not believe it is a statement of wikifact. As far as I am aware, The Epoch Times is not considered reliable source. As the de facto mouthpiece of Falun Gong, it certainly is not independent as far as this article is concerned. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it has connections with Falun Gong, it cannot be considered a reliable source in the context of this article. nneonneo ^talk 21:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that anyone is misrepresenting the DRV or AfD. The outcomes are very, very clear. RHMED clearly said first "AfD close endorsed", and the conclusion of the last AfD closed as "The result was Keep. Deletion is not the answer to the problems". Nothing was mentioned about any pro or anti Falung Gong cabals, although there seem to be legitimate concerns both ways. MrPrada (talk) 20:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are trails left by Epoch Times reporters, but I for one am here to edit facts backed up by notalbe source on my own, at no one's direction or any sort of organization. Bobby fletcher (talk) 22:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Observation:: Talk:2008_Summer_Olympics#Falun_Gong_should_be_mentioned was first mentioned on 24 May 2008, and the new request for CIPFG deletion was made on 30 May 2008. Draw your own conclusions, and if it's not evident, you can read the stages of genocide nr. 8 is of particular interest. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Delete or Redirect to related article. As mentioned by Ohconfucius, most of the references are not related to the CIPFG. CIPFG has almost no notability outside of their torch relay, and even that is not very notable. It has not been the subject of multiple reliable sources; rather, it has simply been mentioned in passing in the majority of the sources provided (the remainder are, as discussed previously, not reliable sources). nneonneo ^talk 21:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The torch relay has got significant media coverage, hundreds of news articles from around the world in many different publications--this is obvious with a google search. CIPFG was also the organisation who asked David Kilgour and David Matas to do their report on organ harvesting, which has gained huge media attention. Further, there are a number of notable members of CIPFG, a few are listed above, beside which there are many others. I'm just distiling a few of the key points. I am under the impression that these make it qualify for notability, according to the policy. However, if CIPFG does not qualify for notability given these points, then the article should be deleted. But it should be explained how it does not qualify, given the above points. --Asdfg12345 01:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to List of organizations associated with Falun Gong. Falun Gong has numerous campaigns and organizations associated with it. Do we really need an individual article for each one?--AstrixZero (talk) 09:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coalition to Investigate the Persectuion of Falun Gong is an organization playing a central role in investigation of Human Rights abuses in CCP's Persecution of Falun Gong. As pointed out by other editors, the Coalition has many prominent Human Rights activists such as Kilgour and Matas associated with it and the coalition has been involved in major human rights activities such as the Global Human Rights Torch Relay and the Million signature campaign to end the persecution of Falun Gong. The article should be kept and gradually expanded. Dilip rajeev (talk) 11:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, particularly to the closing admin. Please see the talk page. I am concerned that conflicts of interest may affect the outcome of this deletion debate, since many of the parties involved have a highly active role in the Falun Gong article. Please do not be offended if I have listed your name there; I am simply listing those who were identified as having active roles. Thank you for your attention. nneonneo ^talk 17:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Observation - CIPFG is a lobby group founded by Falun Gong. Source: Lum CRS report, http://www.usembassy.it/pdf/other/RL33437.pdf. BTW I vote Delete Bobby fletcher (talk) 22:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect without deletion with a related list, event, or movement, or Keep. Specifically: Keep with a strong recommendation for the interested editors to agree on a merge/redirect target. It barely meets WP:N and might have a stronger case as time goes on. When that happens, the article should be de-merged. As of today, it's barely notable: I only found significant coverage for its publicizing alleged organ-harvesting and some torch relay - enough to meet WP:N but barely. If this weren't so heavily followed it would probably be PRODded away without objection. The current edit looks good, well-sourced, and appropriately-small-sized for an organization of such minor notability. I shouldn't have to say this, but I am a disinterested party. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC) But I must admit, I was canvassed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lol to david's final comment ["disinterested"] there. Maybe interested parties (such as myself) would have been better off just staying out of this, and letting other wikipedians decide!--Asdfg12345 00:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

though, while I cannot say I am not "interested", I don't personally care if the page is deleted. I won't be upset or anything. The merge/redirect might be a good option, with the possibility of demerge if CIPFG starts generating more media or is behind bigger things. For example, though this group does not consist of Falun Gong practitioners, it could conceivably go under the "Falun Gong outside mainland China" page, with a subsection, and explain how FLG support this organisation and the events it has organised, and give its membership of the prominent people and so on. That's the only other place I could think it might belong. 2 cents.--Asdfg12345 00:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. This organization is scarcely notable in its own right, and I don't know of any references that make it out to be more than a satellite of Falun Gong. We have practically no coverage of this organization on its own. For instance, is it a religious group, a charitable group, a political action group, who founded it, in what year, in what country is it incorporated, and does it have any leadership independent of Falun Gong itself. If it is a coalition, that suggests a grouping of organizations, so who are the member organizations? The articles about Reuven Bulka and Andrew Bartlett make no mention of this coalition. There is nothing bad about Falun Gong itself sponsoring the various activities, but the claim that this particular coalition is a 'global grassroots campaign' (per the Epoch Times) seems like astroturfing. EdJohnston (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Activist organizations are rarely notable "in their own right" outside the scope of whatever they are activists for or against. Major anti-slavery organizations weren't "notable in their own right" outside of the issue of slavery. The question is, does this entity meet the threshold of WP:N. It is so close to the line that different editors will answer differently. That's why it's in AfD with a divided opinion, instead of a WP:SNOW to keep or delete. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This Congressional Research Service report states that the CIPFG is a U.S. based NGO so we do know what country it is incorporated in. [42] That information is also in the article. Yes, it was set up by the Falun Dafa Association, but that does not make it any less notable in its own right. Its political ties simply a question of POV issues within the article, not a question of notability or whether or not the article should be deleted entirely. --Ave Caesar (talk) 05:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess what is distasteful to me is that this seems like a front organization for Falun Gong, a possibility which gets no coverage in our current article.

Falun Gong appears to crave the appearance of grassroots support from groups other than themselves.
Nothing in the current article addresses the question of whether they are really independent, which surely would be an interesting question.
Even if we found that question interesting, we would not be able to provide coverage from reliable sources to say whether they are independent or not, because we can find practically no sources in neutral media that describe the coalition itself. EdJohnston (talk) 01:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those are good, worthwhile points. They would be interesting to flesh out if we had the sources. As far as I can tell, those people like Sev Ozdowski, David Kilgour, David Matas, Reuven Balka and so forth, speak for CIPFG, come up with ideas for campaigns, and discuss how they will do things together. They give speeches, write letters, and append their name as CIPG so and so. At the same time, I believe the grassroots activity, such as getting petitions signed, the day-to-day running of the torch relay and so on, are mostly organised on a local level through informal networks of Falun Gong practitioners, who, when its topical, enlist the help of others (like in the torch relay with Tibetans, Burmese, Darfurians, for example).

Basically, I don't believe this is a Falun Gong front group in the same way as WOIPFG (world organisation to investigate the persecution of falun gong), or umm, oh I don't know, there are several, where it is Falun Gong practitioners themselves who run the whole show (though in the case of WOIPFG I'm not sure they claim they're not)--but there is clearly direct involvement from practitioners. I'm wondering whether all these discussions should be moved to the talk page? It would be a worthwhile assignment for a mainstream newspaper to explore these relationships and interactions, come to think of it. Maybe in a while that will happen, then there won't be a problem to have an article on it.--Asdfg12345 02:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been listed at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. 01:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment As 'membership' is not a concept applicable to Falun Gong, it would be easy for any practitioner, individual, or group of people to claim they were "independent", although it would be clear to all where their allegiances lay. David Kilgour and David Matas, who are human rights activists sponsored by the CIPFG, can no longer be deemed "independent". The act of sponsorship clearly puts them into the pockets of the Falun Gong Ohconfucius(talk) 04:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kilgour and Matas are advocates of human rights. There are no concepts of 'pockets'. Don't employ unclear thinking to make rhetorical points. What they are advocating for is the cessation of human rights abuses toward Falun Gong. There's no other purpose behind these activities. Also, I don't know what you mean by sponsored by CIPFG. I understand that they are members and supporters. They are who they are. They can be referred to in Falun Gong articles as reliable sources; they don't practice Falun Gong. That they advocate against the human rights abuses doesn't diminish their credibility.--Asdfg12345 13:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable international organization per cites. Further, the nom was made only within 6 months of the previous one which is simply inappropriate. This isn't a game of nominating articles until the decision goes your way. Not to mention the fact that the nom seems to be a single purpose account bent on promoting pro-China POV and has shown absolutely no respect to the process of Wiki from the very end of the previous AfD by slyly attempting to redirect the article merely two weeks after his previous attempt at having the article deleted failed[43]. She/he then reattempted this many more times after being warned [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49]. This nomination is one giant violation of WP:POINT. The last time he did this, I brought the issue up at ANI[50] which resulted in a 48hr block against PCPP by Blnguyen (talk · contribs)[51]. When he realized that his efforts at unilaterally moving the article weren't going to fly, he decided to open up this AfD. Moreover, many of the leaders of the organization are independent of the Falun Gong and are otherwise highly respected. For instance, the head of its Canadian branch is a highly influential Jewish Rabbi, Reuven Bulka who is the head of the Machzikei Hadas congregation. --Ave Caesar (talk) 05:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The impression I get, from having hung around AfD's for some time, is that 6 months does appear to be a reasonable gap between the first and second nomination. Also, we all know that the transparent system we have means that we cannot "slyly" do anything on WP. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected then, he was blantantly and callously violating Wiki policies. --Ave Caesar (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just from the outside, this appears to meet our normal standards for being a notable organization and having sourcing to that effect. For the record, I came here upon seeing this Afd mentioned at AN/I and after reading the COIN discussion. DGG (talk) 12:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We have heard the Falun Gong editors, as they typically do, advance and reinforce the moralistic and circumstantial arguments why [this organisation] is relevant. However, I feel that none have succeeded in demonstrating that this organisation is notable. None have advanced concrete arguments based on existing wikipedia policies and guidelines to keep this article. Even asdfg has suggested it may be notable for having organised the torch relay, but that tacitly admitted that it is not notable for itself. Notablity is not associative. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I failed to understand on what basis this organization meets the notability guidelines. Don't be fool with the references. The references has no significant coverage on this particular organization.
- Reference 2, Taipei Times: The only mention of this organization in this reference is The US-based lobby group The Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of the Falun Gong in China (CIPFG) asked the duo to investigate claims by several of their members.
- Reference 3, Stratfor: This reference is not free.
- Reference 4: This reference has a little mention about this organization and that is The Human Rights Torch was initiated by the Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong (CIPFG) - a group of more than 350 MPs, Senators, lawyers, doctors, athletes, and human rights defenders. The Coalition was formed in 2006 to investigate allegations of widespread, state-sanctioned organ harvesting of living Falun Gong practitioners. The CIPFG believes you simply cannot have people being killed for their organs for huge profit in one part of Beijing and the world's greatest sporting event in another part of Beijing.
- Reference 5: The only mention of CIPFG is The relay was initiated by the Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong, established last year. This article is about a news event, not about the organization, and the mention of this organization is only passing sound.
- Reference 6 and 7 are The Epoch Times, which is a politically motivated partisan source orchestrated by Falun Gong.
- Reference 8: It has only a little mention about the organization that The petition called on the Government to support moves by the recently formed Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong (CIPFG). The coalition was set up to investigate the forced organ harvesting allegations and the illegal detention of Falun Gong practitioners. It has sought to prevent Australian citizens from travelling to China for organ transplants and ban companies, institutions and individuals from providing goods and services to China's organ transplant programs.

Per WP:ORG, Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Reference 2 only mentions the name of the organization, reference 4 is passing sound and incidental coverage, reference 5 only mentions the name and reference 8, which has the most coverage among all the sources given, is only incidental trivial coverage. This organization blatantly fails WP:ORG. In this way we can form a pro-Falun Gong and pro-Tibet cabal and the cabal will be above wikipedia policies on WP:ORG. I am well-aware that there is no lack of editors who will come in this AfD to blindly say keep, strong keep or even speedy keep. I hope the closing administrator knows what he is doing. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment CIPFG is responsible for the torch relay as well as the investigation report from some time back makes it a notable organization. It passes WP:ORG by it and its efforts (ie the torch relay) being the primary subject of multiple sources. --Ave Caesar (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted as blatant misinformation. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 08:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BareWolf 3-D

Hoax film article created by a user who appears to be here for vandalism only. Ani Mate 06:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Ani Mate 06:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It should probably be speedied. --Aranae (talk) 06:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - G3'ed. Asenine 07:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies

This Institute fails WP:ORG, it doesn't assert any notability, and as far as I'm concerned, it's also POV. Delete GreenJoe 04:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's a p.r. piece at present by not what else is on the UBC tempalte at the bottom and there will be similar on SFU's. TRIUMF is of course more notable....but if this is a major department of UBC, though only the template implies that, then as an institutinoal creature it's something; does the Wosk Centre for Dialogue have an article I wonder? - iot's certainly more notable (Ben Wosk Centre for Dialogue??) Not t ha the Peter Wall Insittute has yet achieved the, er, notoriety of the Fraser Institute, but then neither has Quest University. It would help if coeporate/wealthy-guy sponsorships didn't come with branding efforts, but then so was Stanford somebody's name at one time. Whatever's POV content here can easily be fixed/neutered; but some notability would be nice, for sure.Skookum1 (talk) 04:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:POINT. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I love this edit summary, by the way, as though GreenJoe were doing something for his betrothed; yes, talk about pointy. Anyhow, as we're here, and as the article's creator and author, beyond that I think that this constitutes an interesting case about notability (the accusation that the article is POV is risible). There is a shortage of third-party sources about this institute. There is plenty of information about it from UBC itself, and it is an important part of UBC: a part about which it is understandably proud. It is certainly more important than (say) College for Interdisciplinary Studies, UBC Debating Society, or Engineering Undergraduate Society of the University of British Columbia; it is probably on a par with Liu Institute for Global Issues or Green College, University of British Columbia. Yes, yes, I know: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. But let me make one more comparison, to an article with which I am familiar. GNWC, a bright new start-up affiliated (in fairly murky ways) with the university, has achieved multiple third-party references. But that's because they issue a press release whenever someone moves a paper-clip in their offices; as far as I can tell, fully a third of their staff have jobs related in some way to promotion. The PWIAS, so far as I can tell, has yet to release a single press release over the entire course of its existence. How then to judge the place's notability? Well, look at this list of books generated in large part thanks to the institute. It's not exactly a third-party source as per the terms of WP:ORG. But it does, I think, demonstrate the Institute's quiet notability. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. —jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not sure what the purpose is of the edit summary "Keeping a promise" in tagging the article, but it asserts notability (association with university) and is well-sourced. --Laser brain (talk) 06:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Maybe even WP:SNOWBALL. PKT (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cut the verbiage, merge into University of British Columbia, and redirect. It's polysyllabically and grandly phrased. What does the place do? We read interdisciplinary blah blah blah, and eventually Thematic grants have been on topics such as narratives of illness, and on mechanisms of infectious diseases. I thought the mechanisms of infectious diseases were a matter for epidemiology; where's the interdisciplinary angle? As for "narratives of illness", this sounds like something in a book I chuckled through. These is a source given for this particular claim, but it's members-only. Most of the other notes are from local news sources or the institution itself. There's no obvious reason why it's more remarkable than any other part of UBC, into which its content can be merged. -- Hoary (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability is a "research institute" at a major research university. It is sourced to reliable sources for the topic - reliable journalistic sources. It is not surprising that local newspapers would cover the institute in the most depth. Awadewit (talk) 23:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No, right, it isn't. What I do find odd, however, in view of the high hopes for (or even claims made for) this institute is that little or nothing has yet been found about it from the east of Canada, or from non-Canadian north America, or elsewhere. I'm sure it's worthy, I wish it well, but I can't see how it (yet) differs from any other chunk of a good university other than that it encompasses a wide range of fields and has a large pile of money. There's nothing obviously or inherently wrong about having discrete articles on particular chunks ("schools", "institutes", whatever) of universities -- certainly they're hugely more worthy of articles than are Star Trek rockets, porn actresses, Pokemon, and the other usual suspects -- but I do wonder if their separation doesn't increase the risk of promotion and copyvios. Which is why I say merge is better, at least till an article such as this is more substantial. Hoary (talk) 10:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reliable and verifiable sources provided establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snackerator

Contested PROD. Classic example of Wikipedia is not for things made up in school. No evidence of notability. Kevin (talk) 04:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-admitted neologism, not a shred of notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleterator WP:NEO. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Naturally. WP:NOT. Asenine 11:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete Obvious WP:MADEUP ~ Ameliorate _{U T} @ 11:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The single non-wiki ghit doesn't even use the term in this sense.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously made up. Here is the single ghit. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 00:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete A7, non-admin closure by Lenticel ^(talk) 06:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Freestone (band)

nn band that does not meet WP:BAND, also a vanity article - material in it is not even sourceable from the band's HP. WP article is second hit on Google for "freestone band"; official HP isn't even in the top ten. The band's first album is less than a month old, and is basically self-distributed. No news coverage. Prod removed by IP address with no reasoning given. MSJapan (talk) 04:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A7 Nowhere even close to asserting notability. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:18, 30 May 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. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of One Piece story arcs

WP:OR and unnotable list of story arcs sourced by the One Piece Wikia!! Pure WP:PLOT that repeats the more MoS appropriate List of One Piece chapters and List of One Piece episodes. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've yet to see an article of this type get any support. Redundant. Doceirias (talk) 04:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant fancruft. —97198 talk 14:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've actually been watching this page for awhile, and it's bothered me for almost as long, but I've felt I was too close to it to objectively judge it as AfD-worthy. —Dino guy 1000 16:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:NOR. Nothing more than fancruft. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:20, 30 May 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. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 04:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EA Sports FIFA World League Teams

A fictional list of teams that does not meet the wikipedia general notability guideline, since this list of teams is not the topic of reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Unnecessary detail to a game that is not necessary for an encyclopedic overview of the game, as per WP:GAMETRIVIA and WP:GAMEGUIDE. Randomran (talk) 04:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial list of info from a series of games. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, irrelevant information. Punkmorten (talk) 09:30, 31 May 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. Arkyan 22:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Droom (band)

College radio charts aren't reliable sources, nore are club charts. No other assertation of notability whatsoever. If not for the two thin references I might have put it up for A7. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I originally declined speedy deletion because a brief search suggested the band may meet WP:MUSIC. I also added the two sources that are in the article. I can't say I care that much or want to work on the article anymore, but it seems to me that the band probably meets WP:MUSIC criteria 1 and 5. It looks like a valid stub to me that meets WP:V and WP:N. Why not let the Wiki process play out and hopefully someone interested in synthpop will eventually come along and make a decent article out of it?--Kubigula (talk) 22:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has little notability. It also needs to be cleaned up.--LAA Fan 22:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added four more references. It's enough for WP:N or WP:MUSIC criterion #1. Besides, they meet criterion #5 with their releases on the record label A Different Drum. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jonny-m t 03:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An unlikly research topic, little content. Prom3th3an (talk) 03:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Unlikely research topic"—is that an argument of WP:NOTINTERESTING? Also, the fact that the article currently is fairly short is not an insurmountable problem; more content can be added from the sources noted. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:N. Google Test returns 4 relevant results; one being the article itself, one being one of the listed sources, one being an Amazon review and other being a remote reference on a synthpop fansite. ~ Ameliorate _{U T} @ 11:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure from your comment if you did not notice the references the article currently has, or if you believe they are insufficient. (If it's the latter, might I inquire as to why you believe that?) There are two album reviews from The Province, two from Exclaim!, and one article about the band's tour from the San Antonio Express-News. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'll also add the the "Google test" is somewhat discredited as a method of measuring notability. However, even if it were valid, Droom gets waaay more than four relevant hits. Take another look at the result - there are at least four relevant hits on the first page alone.--Kubigula (talk) 16:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Paul Erik. --Bardin (talk) 08:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 04:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Units in Emperor: Battle for Dune

Does not pass the Wikipedia general notability guideline because the notability of the Units in Emperor: Battle for Dune cannot be shown by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Also violates the guidelines WP:GAMETRIVIA and WP:GAMEGUIDE for going into unnecessary detail about game weapons that would only be found in a game guide. Randomran (talk) 03:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being a dune fan myself I can see no reason to delete this article, its is bothe lengthy and imformative Prom3th3an (talk) 03:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Useful" is not a reason to keep. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it should be, if not a very strong one. Certainly "useless" is a reason for deletion. Nevertheless, this is too much detail for us to handle and just doesn't do very much for our coverage of a game with many divergences from its source material and few from its genre. (C&C was Super Dune II Turbo, Dune games tend to be conventional.) There are some exceptions with the subhouse system and the combination of novel carryalls with older-than-dirt harvesters, so I'm going with redirect instead of delete to preserve article history. Some of this stuff can come in handy elsewhere. --Kiz o r 11:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please avoid arguments such as "It's useful" and "A lot of people have added to this article." ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 13:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, let's be fair here: That's an essay - a series of arguments. It can counter other arguments, sure, but name-dropping it in the exact same manner one would name-drop a rule to squash an argument seems, I don't know, giving it too much weight. --Kiz o r 14:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will admit I probably link to policies, guidelines and esssays a little too much in AfD's, however, these are legitimate responses in this context and a better alternative to reinventing the wheel. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 21:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom ~ Ameliorate _{U T} @ 11:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom --SkyWalker (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per similar outcome for similar Command & Conquer article. Punkmorten (talk) 09:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear violation of WP:NOT#GUIDE. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and Delete as per WP:GAMECRUFT. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 13:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Structured hardware design

Primarily duplicate info as ~~Structured LSI design~~ Structured VLSI design Tiggerjay (talk) 07:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How can it be a duplicate of a red linked page? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment link corrected above - however the link is now merged into another article and a redirect is setup. Tiggerjay (talk) 16:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jonny-m t 03:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As this is a duplication of content that has been merged and redirected to a more appropriate target, should not this article also be merged and redirected to that target? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.111.143.140 (talk) 04:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sure what is going on with the redirects, or the claims that this is supposed to be a duplicate of some other article. But the article itself is a difficult to follow and context-free description of some kind of management philosophy for electronic design. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not a management philosophy, it is an engineering methodology. WillOakland (talk) 02:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By moving things around while the deletion was still pending TiggerJay has made this much more complicated. I don't believe that there should be two articles when Dr. Hartenstein acknowledges that they're the same thing, nor do I think the topic should be covered in the VLSI article if it in fact pre-dates VLSI. WillOakland (talk) 02:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), as per the consensus. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

African immigration to the United States

Due to the fact that the United States Census categorizes African immigrants in the same category as African Americans Im proposing this article be deleted or at the least merged some way under African American. This has been the standard of Hispanics and White Americans. African Americans should be no different. Discuss —Preceding unsigned comment added by Therock40756 (talk • contribs)

Keep: the US census isn't the only reliable source on this subject and there is probably a great deal of research about more recent African immigrants that can be distinguished from African American history. Randomran (talk) 03:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep There are entire books about this subject. Zagalejo^^^ 04:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the US census is not the final word. WillOakland (talk) 10:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's absolutely ridiculous to suggest that foreign-born residents of the U.S. are, by the Census Bureau, "categorized... in the same category" as citizens who were born here. Sorry, nominator, but "African American" is a term that's been used for nearly 20 years to refer to American citizens whom you used to refer to as black, or Negro, or colored. It's not the same as a person of African birth who has come to the United States on a visa, so skip the "merge into African American" crap. Mandsford (talk) 02:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep If it means anything a government website links to the article [52]. I also think the two groups are distinct. If anything, you might want to put up a link in the African Americans article to this one. The numerous sources in the article illustrate that this is a legitimate categorization. --Yellowfiver (talk) 21:11, 31 May 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 with Hoth. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Echo Base

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is simply an aspect of the plot of the Empire Strikes Back. As that is a featured article, this article is duplication and should be deleted and redirected there. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is deletion necessary? Why not just redirect? Less work for all! 137.111.143.140 (talk) 04:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Hoth and re-write with out of universe perspective Umbralcorax (talk) 12:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge, redirect with Hoth, per above. There doesn't seem to be much in the way of RS available dealing with the subject. However, it's an extremely likely search term. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak merg&redir - Although it shows up in several places, I think it would be best mentioned in the Hoth article. I could be easily swayed by a "multiple media argument" if the Article were suitably expanded though. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 14:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Eusebeus (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete - will redirect the first term to Objectum sexual, as the content is duplicated, but the second is better formatted. Any further renaming discussion can be done subsequently. Neıl 龱 10:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Objectùm-sexuality

A kooky pop-science neologism that someone coined to describe her marriage to the Berlin Wall. This doesn't look to be more than a random curiosity. Prod removed by author. JuJube (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia. There is a great article on the German Wikipedia adressing the topic of Objectùm-sexuality Objecktophil and I am trying to share this information in English. I am unfamiliar with the guidelines but do not wish to see this article deleted as Objectùm-sexuality is becoming increasingly prevelent in the media in recent days. I would like to see an authoritive definition that may help alleviate the confusion OS is getting on the internet. Berliner Mauer (talk) 03:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You might want to check out Objectum sexual as well. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Added. JuJube (talk) 04:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if the subject is not adequately covered in other sexuality related articles than the information should be Merged specifically to something around "philias" I think. "Object Fetishism/Sexuality" is being covered by a program in the UK at the moment on Channel 4 or 5 (I can't remember which) so there is some claim for notability and the topic should be covered in someway. I'm not convinced that both the nominated articles need to exist as separate entities though and one could easily be a redirect to the other (or to a more appropriate page which discusses the topic). Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did a little research when this article first appeared, and it appears (as little as I know about this and related subjects) a bona fide item, although it appears the correct title should be objectaphilia. OTOH it is little more than a "trivia" article at the moment. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Merge Definitely notable with reliable references (The Independent). One "official" spelling should be decided upon, the articles merged and one redirected to the other. ~ Ameliorate _{U T} @ 12:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~I agree with the above, definitely notable following recent publications. Thedreamdied (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep for now and merge together, possibly redirect or merge with another article. The concept is notable, but more should be done to describe the meaning and importance of this particular term. Consider relation to Sexual Fetishism, and possible redirect / merge with that page. Danski14^(talk) 20:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the variants together, possibly under a different title. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepSeems notable, but the different versions of the article need merging together. Further merging might help put the term in context. We really need separate articles for things when there is enough material to justify this, but we should only be deleting all reference when they're not notable. --Simon Speed (talk) 10:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep for now~~. This paraphilia has received quite a lot of media attention, including IIRC a Sky documentary. I'm not sure whether this is genuine or an elaborate hoax though. I haven't come across any mention of this in medical and psychological literature. A ecis^Brievenbus 22:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing !vote to delete for now. If there is no indication that it has been mentioned in scientific literature, there is no indication that it's a genuine paraphilia, and if it's no genuine paraphilia we shouldn't be writing about it. Simply being written about in the media is not enough, as just about every single article about objectum sexuality is in the quirkies section. If there is no verifiable proof that this is genuine we should err on the side of caution and delete this article. A ecis^Brievenbus 22:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, made up by a performance artist. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 23:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MADEUP --Wiendietry (talk) 06:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Objectum sexual. Call it kooky, call it a scam, but I found [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] signs that the topic is notable. --jonny-m t 15:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- whether or not this is a "scientific disorder," it's still a term used in the media. Therefore, a definition should be available. If it turns out to be a scam, then include a section that states that it's a scam. Also, as far as it not being scientifically verified--how do you think things become that way? I'm a psychology student, and all we do is work to verify. But no one is going to do that research until it gathers attention. Also, whether or not this is a hoax isn't up to someone with no psychological experience to decide, as I expect the person who marked this article for deletion to be. Those fighting for the article's deletion are more than likely ignorant to psychological disorders in general. Just because you don't believe something doesn't make it a "hoax." Objectum sexual is no stranger than a shoe fetish, and fetishism has been recognized by the APA for many years.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Autumnshadows (talk • contribs) 21:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep non-admin closure by nominator (withdrawn as snowballing). -- Mark Chovain 06:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of tomboys in fiction

AfDs for this article:

"Tomboy" is too subjective a term for a list. While everyone pretty much agrees that a tomboy is a girl that behaves like a boy, it's very hard to define girl-like or boy-like behaviours.

One of the most compelling arguments put forth in previous AfDs was that the list is great for illustrating the term. I suggest we instead put a short list of the most stereotypical tomboys in the Tomboy article itself (but I don't think we want to end up with something like this)

Due to the subjective nature, sources are always going to disagree on whether particular characters are tomboys. While there are a couple of books on "Tomboy's in literature", most sources will only reflect the opinions of the authors. There are no experts we can fall back to to say, "Yes, X, Y and Z are a certified Tomboy, while A, B and C are not". -- Mark Chovain 02:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An incomplete list for an article that does not detail the notability of the subject. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep <<ec>> Well referenced article which has been pruned and improved since the previous AFD in March, which resolves issues raised in DGG's keep in AFD 1. For the purposes of the article, the term seems concise enough. As Torkmusic says in the prior AfD, Tomboy) has been around since 1592, so there should not be a problem with this becoming indiscriminate. If there are varying definitions could be a subject for discussion in the article. To stand upon Le Grand Roi's shoulders, "Notable topic, discriminate list, covered in academic journals and books. " In short, there article is more encyclopediac than the last time. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 03:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't doubt that this is more encyclopaedic than during the previous AfD: the AfD reasoning was completely flawed. However the issue of subjectivity has not been addressed since being raised in the first AfD, and the article is much improved. If I thought my concerns could be addressed by improving the article further, I'd tag the article, not AfD it. We are not arguing how long the term has been in use. The term has changed in meaning so much across time and cultures, that we will never be able to nail down an objective criteria.

Take for example this paper, which actually examines how definitions and perception of tomboyism changed through three generations. It specifically bases it's definition of tomboyism on the opinions, and shows how the criteria are different for various segments of the community: What I consider to define tomboyism has little in common with what my grandmother considers to define tomboyism, yet we'd probably use the same words to define it (e.g. boylike behaviours).

Likewise, people with more tomboyish behaviours are less likely to consider themselves (and others) as tomboys. No-one is claiming that tomboyism is anything but a continuum, so our definitions of what counts is also a continuum.

For the same reason, we can't have a List of conservative politicians, because no-one will ever be able to agree on the criteria. There have been plenty of books written about politicians with conservative leanings, but to use them as sources in a list would be misrepresenting them.

I don't see how the my subjectivity concerns can possibly be resolved. -- Mark Chovain 03:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination proposes merger of this material into another article. This is not deletion. Also the supposed problem seems hypothetical and no evidence is provided. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hypothetical? Are you serious? WP:LIST says that lists should not be subjective. This list is subjective. I've even provided a reference to a paper that says just that. A search on Google Scholar reveals many more. -- Mark Chovain 06:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LIST does not say what is attributed to it. The hand-waving reference to this style guideline lacks substance and evidence. There's no case to answer and so the nomination should be speedily dismissed to save us further trouble. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In the first AfD I was concerned about the lack of sources to justify identifying a long list of characters as tomboys. That problem has since been resolved, given that all the entries that remain are sourced. Any problems with the content can now be dealt with through normal editing. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the last AfD. Problems with sourcing can be fixed by editing. Fundamental problems with the list cannot be. Any chance of commenting on just how you make the criteria for this list objective? -- Mark Chovain 06:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. The criterion for being included on the list should be that a reliable source has described the character as a "tomboy". But it should be up to each such reliable source to decide its own criteria for classifying the character as such. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So what is the encyclopaedic value of a list for which the inclusion criteria are effectively different for each entry? The list would really be List of fictional characters that have been described as tomboys. The point of lists is that we can look at entries on them, and say, "Yes, this is an X". We can work towards getting a relatively comprehensive list of Xs. If we're just cataloguing cases where characters have been described as X (especially when that's just the non-expert opinion of a single author or writer), we can never be confident of either of those things. -- Mark Chovain 06:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is simply redundant. All lists are effectively "List of X that have been described as Y." Because of the way Wikipedia works, we don't care about whether X is really Y or not; all we care about is that X has been described as Y in reliable sources. Anything more than that would force us to take original research into account, and that introduces a lot of problems. All in all, this list follows everything we have to govern lists, verifiability, and reliable sources. If there are reliable sources that describe a given X as a Y, then there's really no reason not to include that. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First, it's a repetitive nomination. Lists, being navigation and illustrative help pages, generally do not need sources if they link to articles that contain sourced statements that support the reason for inclusion on the lists. Failure to understand this is probably the reason why the article is "incomplete" in its present state. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Reliable scholarly sources can label archetypes. Characters so labeled belong in this list. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the list in question is well referenced and, I think, valuable. Nevertheless, I think the nom raises an interesting point, although I'm not sure that this is the place to apply it. I certainly agree with Celarnor and others above that the key issue should be whether or not reliable sources say X is Y, and based on the references cited in the article, there are very reliable sources supporting each element in the list. But even if that isn't accepted, the nom's argument, that tomboyish behaviour is too subjective to be nailed down, isn't supported by the reference provided. The Morgan paper (which was great reading - I'm glad it was raised) concludes "Very little variation was seen across the generations on the percent of women who self report as tomboys or the types of activities viewed as tomboyish." (Morgan, 1998, pp 797-798). Given that, even if there is still a case to make that the definition is subjective and fluid, the challenge would be to argue that it is sufficiently subjective and fluid (as, possibly, in the case of "conservative politician") to deny the validity of the sources being applied. And given the prevalence of the notion, I don't see that challenge being met. - Bilby (talk) 01:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, it is very well referenced. Has anyone noticed there are more references than actual entries on the list? I would have to assume there are far more books with tomboy characters than the count-on-fingers listing that is currently (as of 31 May) presented -- especially in the so-called young adult literature. Just my two cent deposit. Ecoleetage (talk) 11:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a content issue, and just means that there's room for expansion. This article, like all others, is in a constant state of flux, and always has room for improvement. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Merge into Tomboy this article would be better as a section of the article Tomboy. --Magnetawan (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 04:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Lynch

Very little notability asserted, beyond the fact that he was on Britain's Got Talent and acting in a documentary. Article is written in a very slanted, pov-y manner (e.g., "...amazed the judges with his skills, turning sport into entertainment..."). --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also note the clone article Jeremy Lynch which is almost a complete copy of this one. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Amazed the judges' was on the official Britain's Got Talent site, and 'turning sport into entertainment' was a quote from Amanda Holden, one of the three judges, in the audition. The article's neutrality can be changed, and this would help much more than deletion. Acting on a documentary and performing on Britain's Got Talent - I'd say there is no reason whatsoever to delete this article. I think Jeremy Lynch was made by someone who saw Jeremy lynch and knew it was a spelling error and so made a new one with correct spelling. Delete the first and keep the second. - Sparrowgoose - 15:46, 30 May 2008 (HKT)
Comment A couple of other recently created pages where Britain's Got Talent was the primary source were speedy deleted under A7: George Sampson and Michael Machell. Mallocks (talk) 07:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I speedied those - I did not feel this one was an appropriate A7, as there is a further assertion of notability (the documentary appearance). I would still argue delete, based on minimal notability at this time, however. Neıl 龱 08:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The one spelt Jeremy lynch should be deleted, that was a mistake I didn't realise. But Jeremy Lynch is the Best Freestyler in Europe, that counts for something. He also intends to play in the English Premier League and has already played for Arsenal's youth. He's a star now since he was on Britain's Got Talent and there's no reason for him not to have a wikipedia page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zedyish (talk • contribs) 12:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this one is border line for me. Making the semi finals Britain's Got Talent or the fact he played a major role in a documentary on there own would not be enough but having both makes he think twice. However since he wasn't the main focus point in the documentary I say get rid of this for now. Buc (talk) 13:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. He's got a smidge over the other semi-finalists through his documentary appearance, but I don't think it's enough. That said, I haven't seen the documentary- if it's basically a biography of his life, then maybe. Perhaps if a reference for the 'best freestyler in Europe' can be found. I can see him becoming notable (as I could a good batch of the semi-finalists) but he isn't yet. J Milburn (talk) 13:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can I also add that there was a batch of these last series, if anyone is interested in 'precedent'- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bessie Cursons closed with a delete, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Connie Talbot was a no consensus, the second was also a no consensus, but coverage and (moderate) chart success since has allowed the article to reach GA. J Milburn (talk) 13:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Correct me if I'm wrong but hasn't Connie Talbot been signed by someone and even been in the charts so she is clearly notable. Bessie Cursons on e the other has done nothing other than appear on BGT. Buc (talk) 11:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't believe he is notable enough. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Renowned. Videos also on youtube Maltesedog (talk) 19:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as he did not win and his fifteen minutes of fame seem to be ending. –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see him being famous after this competition. As well, there's nothing really notable in the article. Joe dawg 9 (talk) 03:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 04:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hana Yori Dango / Meteor Garden (Korean Version)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Hana Yori Dango / Meteor Garden (Korean Version)

Unsourced, poorly formatted article filled with personal commentary ~~and ridiculously placed images~~. Ani Mate 02:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Ani Mate 02:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The images are gone now, but this page makes very little sense and contains no verifiable info whatsoever. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Fails WP:N, WP:OR, WP:WEASEL, WP:FUTURE, reads like a WP:ADVERT. Possibly passes CSD#A1. ~ Ameliorate _{U T} @ 12:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounds like someone's forum post. Doceirias (talk) 23:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

Delete Appears to be a hoax, but it fails verifiability. --Farix (Talk) 03:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Appears to be unmitigated original research. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 12:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (nomination withdrawn). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Abdelwahab Abdelfattah

A mindboggling textdump. I'm trying to make sense of this, but he seems to just be a music teacher who did something. >_< Prod removed by anon. JuJube (talk) 02:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - One of the most notable Egyptian (and hence Middle Eastern, as Egypt has the strongest contemporary classical music scene) composers of contemporary classical music under the age of 50. Proposing editor does not seem to know much about this subject. Please improve rather than deleting, thanks. Badagnani (talk) 02:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would withdraw the nom if someone were to fix the article so that it doesn't give me a headache just to look at it. JuJube (talk) 02:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the thing is, this article had been worked on, painstakingly, for months, and was in quite good shape, sourced, wikified, etc. Where did it go? The current version is not good, so where is the pre-May 30, 2008 version? I would like this question answered promptly, and that (good) version of the article restored. Badagnani (talk) 02:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is very, very disturbing, and needs to be reversed immediately. Why was a very well-sourced page on one of the most notable Egyptian composers of contemporary classical music deleted without any prior discussion? This is very wrong and the editor who did this needs to reverse him- or herself. The version deleted, without discussion, in that edit, was properly sourced and in good shape (unlike the current version). Badagnani (talk) 02:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The version deleted before was primarily written by the subject himself, as is this one. What version do you want restored (to your sandbox, at any rate)? --Orange Mike | Talk 02:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the subject of the article does appear to have contributed to the article, but I also worked on it quite a bit, as you'll see if you look into the page history. This is an older version of the "good" version. The "good" version did include information about this individual's significance, and in fact included two CDs, numerous published writings, significance in the field of contemporary classical music. I sincerely hope that the deleting editor will not continue to delete articles in such a manner, without any discussion (or even notes to the contributing editors, or relevant WikiProjects) first! That is just very poor Wikipedian practice, as we do need to be mindful of one another's often considerable efforts in our areas of expertise here. Badagnani (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna just withdraw the nom in light of Badagnani's comments and assuming good faith in him as a good Wikipedia editor, although I don't appreciate the idea that I do this willy nilly. JuJube (talk) 02:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Badagnani --Klein zach 03:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this courtesy; I don't blame you seeing the state the article is in (after having been recreated following the "good" version's undiscussed deletion earlier today), but take a look at the deleted version and I think you'll see it was fine, and did not merit deletion (let alone with no prior discussion whatsoever). Badagnani (talk) 03:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:14, 30 May 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. Not much to guage consensus on here, but User:Lerdsuwa's arguments are quite strong and unrebutted, and he gets extra points for actually adding his research to the article.--Kubigula (talk) 04:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ungsumalynn Sirapatsakmetha

A quick search through google and google news didn't land me any reliable 3rd party sources on the subject. I don't speak Thai though, and a film/tv actress and model may have more notability then I could find on a brief search. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete as the article stands there is no assertion of notability or reliable 3rd party sources for verification. Articles need to be properly sourced and from the google search I did even the thai references seem to be from sources which don't meet the reliable 3rd party standards. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google for Thai name "อังศุมาลิน สิรภัทรศักดิ์เมธา" gives 16,300 hits. It's much more common in Thailand to refer to person by nickname and his/her first name, especially for actor/actress. Google for "แพท อังศุมาลิน" gives 236,000 hits (The combination should give web hits that only refers to her, her first name is quite rare).
- See also Hormones (2008 film), the film she starred as one of the leading roles. This link says the film glossed 80M baht (about 2.5M US dollars). This could be top film revenue for Thai movie in Thailand this year.
- Searching the movie name in one of Thai top newspaper (in terms of circulation) Thai Rath gives 10 hits. This news from Thai Rath showed her picture. Google for her nickname+first name in Thai Rath gives 4 hits.
- Another top Thai newspaper (Daily News) gives 162 hits for movie name and 36 hits for her nick+first name.
- Matichon newspaper 195 hits for movie, 10 hits for name.
- That's enough news coverage I think. See Media of Thailand#Newspapers for how mainstream above newspapers are. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 07:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jonny-m t 02:04, 30 May 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. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 04:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Space plumber

(View AfD) I speedily deleted this, but doing so under CSD G1 was incorrect. It is not nonsense and even has a source on Reuters. This article seems to have had its impetus in the breakdown of the toilet aboard the International Space Station. It is simply a not-yet concept. Can't call it a neologism, as it attests from the 1960's with 24 Google News hits some behind paywalls, not all relevant. However, the term does not have sufficient usage for an encyclopedia article, perhaps it has enough for a DICDEF. Also, one can create a vast number of words by sticking "space" in front of a given word. I believe Heinlein gave us the word "spacejack" for one who does construction work in Space. Which is what the astronauts building the ISS are trying to do. Lamentably, we do not have sufficient specialization in space jobs to have different names, and creating articles for each possible term would be a collection of indiscriminate information. For now, astronaut will have to serve. Cheers, and happy editing. Dloh cierekim 02:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax. As far as I can tell this is some kind of joke among journalists. WillOakland (talk) 02:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a hoax it seems, given the very slight usage; however, it's got little hope to be more than a one sentence dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err, if you look at the Google news links, you will see it is not a hoax. Cheers, and happy editing Dloh cierekim 02:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at them. Most of the articles (actually prints of the same article) are about David Scott. What was the context? WillOakland (talk) 03:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The thing attests from 1963, 1965, 1971. These articles are not about the current misadventure. I don't think it's a hoax. Cheers Dloh cierekim 03:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giving me the same link twice doesn't answer my question. My recommendation stands. WillOakland (talk) 07:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually look at the abstracts of the articles from 1963, 1965? A hoax? No. Those links show the term has in this meaning been used as far back as 1963. Maybe in 100 years, (don't hold your breath) we'll have such an article. An idea whose time has not come. Dloh cierekim 04:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see it having any notability after this shuttle mission and there's no way the article could ever be much more than it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oroso (talk • contribs)
Delete Notability is not confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A one sentance, One possible fact article thats topic is a locale version of an existing occupation and article Prom3th3an (talk) 03:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ecoleetage. Has bureaucracy gone too far when you have to discuss the merits on an article about space plumbers? ~ Ameliorate _{U T} @ 12:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nobody actually has this as an occupation. Rather, some astronauts have occasionally been called upon to do some plumbing in space. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per all the above ukexpat (talk) 14:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP isn't a bad dictionary or repository of sparingly used media-buzzwords (i.e. non-notable cruft). Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 15:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if I write a Wikinews story about "joke-o-protologists", who come up with funny terms when they hear weird stuff in news, does that get an article? My mind boggles with all these exhilarating opportunities. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. No, i think that would be better served as a cat or a list. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 12:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arkyan 22:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Around the Bend (album)

No reliable sources for the album yet. Release date is still a couple months away, and there's nothing substantial about this album. Only source for the track listing is Amazon, which I don't believe qualifies under WP:RS. I'm not even finding anything that says Kyle Lehning will produce it. (Will someone please make a page on Kyle Lehning already?) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to the creators userpage until the album actually hits the shops. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can be recreated when the album is released and establishes notability. ~ Ameliorate _{U T} @ 12:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until reliable sources are found and album is released -- which, as it stands, I wouldn't be surprised if it gets pushed back as "Faith in You" failed to chart. Spell4yr (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's on Curb, so I wouldn't doubt that one bit. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by User:Alexf. Non-admin closure. JuJube (talk) 01:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neil McVitie

Fails BIO:Athlete and Notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yatesy1988 (talk • contribs)

A7 Was only signed to Aberdeen for three seconds, so there's no notability to speak of. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:38, 30 May 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. Content with no reliable sources should not be merged. Sandstein 18:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bondage wheel

Fails WP:N. Only somewhat similar to breaking wheel. While I can understand what the article may be trying to explain, I don't believe a good definition of what a bondage wheel is exists. Google search for "bondage wheel" turned up no reliable sources. Wipipedia link included seems to be more of an advertisement than an article. Millbrooky (talk) 01:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wipipedia fails WP:RS. Article fails WP:N. ~ Ameliorate _{U T} @ 12:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. --SkyWalker (talk) 08:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now with Saint Andrew's Cross (BDSM). There are quite a few hits on Google, mainly for companies selling them, but one clip on Youtube of one being used on a TV program. The wheel does seem to be be nothing more nor less than a rotating St Andrew's cross. --Simon Speed (talk) 10:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 04:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teen Of Tha South

No sources supporting claim Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 01:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable mixtape, no reliable sources. (Note: This was a contested prod that I prod2'd.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with artist's article if reliable references can be found. Delete if information in this article cannot be proven or is disproven. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MUSIC, WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails THE most important Wikipedia policy there is: WP:V. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of WP:Notability or references. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 22:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to notability. But if it's official, it should be added to the discography. Spellcast (talk) 05:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable and unverified, and what is a "studio mixtape" exactly ? that doesn't make any sense. - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 14:31, 31 May 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 as copyright violation per WP:CSD G11. In any case, the article was scarcely intelligible spam about a management philosophy. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PAS 11 000

Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability Seventhofnine (talk) 01:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kill it, it has way too many issues; beyond repair. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:OR, WP:RS & WP:V. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You'd have no idea from the article, but the subject is a standard published by BSI Group regarding "collaborative business relationships." A lot of people are trying to sell it, but I can't find much info about what it is. WillOakland (talk) 01:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'd say, until someone decides to write an article that is more than promotional fluff. WillOakland (talk) 01:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong-Delete there are no references for this, it is a copy and paste from here (about halfway down). Dreamafter (talk) 02:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G12 as copyvio of this (I think you copied the wrong URL, Dreamafter). So tagged. Deor (talk) 11:52, 30 May 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 The Colbert Report. Arkyan 22:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prescott Pharmaceuticals

Non-notable fictional medical company. Google doesn't reveal much. The topic is already covered in the article The Colbert Report. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 00:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fictional company, hasn't been covered in any reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, does not appear to be notable. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as redirect it is covered in reliable sources as a commonly recurring segment on the Colbert Report. It should redirect to that article, which already has some coverage of it. - Minute Lake (talk) 02:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A ficitonal company of no notability. Prom3th3an (talk) 04:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stephen Colbert DFA article. 70.55.85.131 (talk) 04:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Colbert Report. Valid search term, but not notable on its own.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Colbert Report. Klausness (talk) 17:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per complete lack of Google News sources. –thedemonhog talk • edits 02:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Parliamentary hostage taking"

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/"Parliamentary hostage taking"

This appears to be a non-notable theory comprised solely of original research. Ani Mate 00:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; the article has only been edited by two people (the creator and the nominator), and it does not cite any sources. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:V. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources. WillOakland (talk) 01:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like a book report. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS, verges on WP:CB ukexpat (talk) 14:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, part of the article discusses valid parliamentary procedure concepts, but these are already covered in Dilatory motions and tactics and perhaps other articles. The phrase used in the title is unsourced and original research, in fact the article says the term is not used in Robert's Rules of Order and as far as I know it is not used anywhere. Neutron (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What can I add? Per ukexpat, et al Pigman☿ 21:51, 30 May 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 withdrawn, no delete votes. Non-admin closure by Lenticel ^(talk) 05:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitruth

AfDs for this article:

Oh boy... I know this is going to be controversial, but I think it has to be done. The recent AFDs of Encyclopedia Dramatica (closed as keep) and Wikinfo (closed as delete) made me reconsider this article, which is about another 'Wikipedia spin-off website'. It was once thought to pass our notability requirements, but I feel if judged today it would not. Specifically, it fails WP:WEB, the requirement of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Almost all of the references provided arguably only contain trivial coverage: brief mentions of the site in articles that are really about Wikipedia or Jimbo Wales (for example: [61], [62], [63]). One of the articles is behind a pay wall [64], but it is not immediately obvious that it would provide evidence of notability either. As it is, it appears that despite passing several previous AFDs, this site has not received enough coverage to pass the notability test, and the article should be deleted. Terraxos (talk) 00:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I had no trouble at all finding detailed news coverage of this. WillOakland (talk) 01:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Care to share? 137.111.143.140 (talk) 01:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, that's how easy it was. WillOakland (talk) 01:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. John Carter (talk) 01:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It does appear to meet the requirement of WP:WEB. Not by much, but I think it passes. Seventhofnine (talk) 01:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references in the article are obviously not all that exist. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 01:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Let's not waste editor time beating a dead horse, researching what others have researched to death. It's not like the previous AfDs were marginal, and there was some opinion that the AfDs were disruptive. If they'd been "no consensus," okay, maybe, but "no consensus" hasn't happened here since the very first one. Notability doesn't die, by the way. Once notable, always notable. In the end, the real standard is that content is verifiable (basic policy) and that the encyclopedia is useful to readers. If an error is made with regard to some notability guideline, as to where the exact boundary is, it's harmless. And, obviously, the community has had enough of this one. I'd recommend the nominator withdraw it, quickly. And since I just looked at it, might as well summarize:

20 April 2006 Wikitruth (same as Wikitruth.info, the page was moved.) No Consensus
10 October 2006 (2nd) "closed early and kept by overwhelming consensus."
29 April 2007 (3rd) "Speedy keep ... WP:SNOW."
7 June 2007 (4th) "speedy close as obvious disruption."
28 September 2007 (5th) "early close as keep, no chance of this ending in anything else."

--Abd (talk) 01:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this nomination isn't intended as disruption, it's genuinely in good faith. I honestly don't feel that this article meets our current notability criteria. However, consensus seems to be against me so far, so if no one else agrees on this one, I'd have no problem seeing this AFD closed early as a 'speedy keep'. Terraxos (talk) 02:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't intend to imply that it was, but that some might look at it that way. --Abd (talk) 03:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the fact that it's been kept at AFD several times before doesn't automatically mean it should be kept this time. See the Wikinfo AFD above, which was deleted on its 6th nomination. See also WP:NOTAGAIN. Terraxos (talk) 02:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Shouldn't a vote to Delete an article that was previously Kept just mean that we should revert to the last Kept version? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 03:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I assume nomination was in good faith, because nominator has demonstrated good faith by recognizing consensus against deletion. I support taking the nominator up on the suggestion to close as speedy keep. JamesMLane t c 02:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, probably best not to drag this out any longer than necessary when consensus is already obvious. Consider my nomination withdrawn. Terraxos (talk) 04:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete - non-admin closure. ukexpat (talk) 15:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Cass

No independent, third-party sources listed. Bwrs (talk) 15:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the above AfD wasn't properly formatted, this has now been corrected. RMHED (talk) 00:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RMHED (talk) 00:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:BIO through lack of coverage from reliable sources. Terraxos (talk) 00:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: the article is very short with no infobox, no sections, and no references. It fails WP:BIO. I think this one might even qualify WP:CSD. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete should be speedied, so nominated (A7) ukexpat (talk) 14:43, 30 May 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. My bad for declining the Speedy nomination. Clearly does not meet WP:BASEBALL and my head is hung in shame. Pigman☿ 00:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Beckham

Not Notable yet - fails WP:BASEBALL, should have been speedied IMHO. ukexpat (talk) 00:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete concur with nom.; not yet notable. JJL (talk) 00:24, 30 May 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 Keep. TeaDrinker (talk) 00:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific opinion on climate change

If views opposing those expressed in one article are unsuitable for publication on Wikipedia, then logically those views expressed in the article are also unsuitable for publication on Wikipedia. THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 00:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a useful article, extremely well sourced, and I don't even see an argument from the nominator. The nomination seems to the WP:POINTy, anyways. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep No rationale for deletion stated. Townlake (talk) 00:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is not a valid deletion reason. (The article cited as "opposing" hasn't even been deleted, merely nominated for deletion.) Dawn Bard (talk) 00:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly is a valid reason. Without the other article you don't have NPOV on Wiki regarding this topic. Will you be posting an identical opinion at the opposing article?--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 00:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Opposing views being wrongly blocked is not a valid reason for deletion. In this case the opposing views are not relevant as the scientific consensus is defined by what we can find in the peer reviewed literature and not on Senator Inhofe's blog. Count Iblis (talk) 00:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Apparently the nomination is based on WP:POINT, and it doesn't give a rationale for deletion. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:42, 30 May 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. Notability has not been proven. Malinaccier (talk) 14:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Katsuhito Nomura

Fails WP:BIO. Unnotable voice actor. Failed PROD. Removed by IP with reason of "Do a proper afd, don't be sneaky." Original PROD reason: "Voice actor who fails to satisfy WP:BIO." -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Man oh man, even when I (the author) endorsed the PROD at WT:ANIME...--十八 00:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah...we seem to have an anon-IP that comes through and randomly deprods all of the anime/manga prods for some unknown reason. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if that IP knows that removing deletion templates for no legitimate reason is a violation of Wikipedia AUP and can get that person blocked. I'm placing a warning template on that IP's talk page. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, someone else beat me to it. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't appear to satisfy WP:BIO. --DAJF (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, this article meets CSD A1. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sounds like someone needs to read the PROD page and work out why the process exists. A page nothing even links to is definitely a fair target for them. Doceirias (talk) 00:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - One Line, One Fact. Of no notability to english speaking countries. The article is a stub BIO —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prom3th3an (talk • contribs) 23:03, May 29, 2008

Um, this wasn't me; did you copy and past my user name or something? Doceirias (talk) 04:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Nominated for A7 speedy deletion ukexpat (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - declined. – ukexpat (talk) 16:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO Pigman☿ 21:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:BIO because it does not explain why he is notable. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 22:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not every voice actor is automatically notable. -- Taku (talk) 22:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but tag for expansion.Kitty53 (talk) 02:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there is no expansion to be done; he has only been in two other things. Doceirias (talk) 03:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has anyone attempted a translation of the Japanese wiki article? [65] also, there was this profile external link on the Japanese article http://www.klsp.jp/profile/nomura/. A note to Doceirias, it appears he has worked on more than just two things per the Japanese Wiki article, Code-E, and High School Girls for example. Edit: The Japanese Wiki States he is a voice actor for the following shows, I am in the process of verifying Code-E/Mission-E(verified)[66]Ōkiku Furikabutte, High School Girls, Shijō Saikyō no Deshi Kenichi, Shinkyoku Sōkai Polyphonica (verified minor speaking as "Male student A (ep 8)"[67], Rocket Girls AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 12:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A single profile on the company he works for's website does not make him notable, nor does a still small list of minor roles. Significant coverage is needed and something to show he meets WP:BIO. The Japanese Wikipedia article doesn't have that much more info than ours, just the list of works grouped by year and to more explicitly note that he currently works for Kaleidoscope. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm looking for more information, however noting he works for Kaleidoscope is a start, and it is apparent now that he has worked in more than 2 things as previously thought. Regarding Code-E the role is not minor, it is a lead protagonist role. - AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 13:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment - A google search for "野村勝人" yeilds 13,900 hits [68]English Google Search for "Katsuhito Nomura" yields 18,900 hits [69]. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More accurate Google search of "Katsuhito Nomura" (with the actual quotes) is 248.[70] not 18,900. Reversing gets 183.[71] He is not notable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged. Even so, a search for "野村勝人" (that is with quotations) is 14,000. [72].I'm in the process of finding sources to support his notability, which may or may not be in Japanese. Currently, sources we have teeter on implied notability. I agree we need additional sources to assert notability and I think they can be found. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources as I uncover them:Studio DEEN Code-E Staff list [73]AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, staff listing is not an assertion of notability. No one is questioning his appearances, but his notability. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N concerns noted by Collectonian. Eusebeus (talk) 23:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with no prejudice against recreation if his career improves. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and recreate when more information becomes available. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 04:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2009 French Open

WP:CRYSTAL Euroleague (talk) 02:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We will soon know who will be defending the title. This article will just have to be recreated at a later date. Might as well keep Francium12 (talk) 11:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL Yeah, it will have to be created later, but so will the entry for the 2040 Olympic Games. Not enough firm details available for an article yet. Townlake (talk) 15:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking too empty, like a blank sheet. Gr8lyknow (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yep, pretty empty and WP:CRYSTAL. Undoubtedly will be recreated but hopefully after this year's Open. Pigman☿ 21:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL ball. Badly written with little context or sources. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 22:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even though the French Open won't happen for another year, as time progresses this year, more information will be availible, adding to the stub that's there now. However, the external link directs to the 2008 Open, not the 2009 one. In fact, theres no info about the 2009 on the front page, but as time progresses, more info might pop up. DA PIE EATER (talk) 00:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 04:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rhys Taylor

Contested prod (by myself) - he has played for the Wales U-21 squad in a qualifying match for the 2009 UEFA Under-21 Championship. I recall some non-trivial debate over whether that constituted a claim for notability or not (playing for the international U-21s in an official qualifying match for an official tournament), but my memory isn't perfect. No vote.-- ugen64 (talk) 03:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep U21 championship sounds kinda notable, sub for notable players I'm not so sure. Sounds fine to me. Rdbrewster ♪♫♪ 08:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - player fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully-professional league; youth caps do not confer notability. Giant Snowman 11:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATHLETE. U-21 caps do not confer notability. --Angelo (talk) 12:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD#G4 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sergio Tejera. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Athlete as he has not played in a fully professional league. U-21 is not the highest level of international representation (that would be the full, senior team) and does not confer notability in my view. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn BanRay 17:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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