See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.

CLASSICISTRANIERI HOME PAGE - YOUTUBE CHANNEL
Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Terms and Conditions
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 February 4 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 February 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< February 3 February 5 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Contents
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 specifically without prejudice to a sourced recreation with greater assertion of notability. Daniel (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Allen Buckley

Allen Buckley (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable politician who ran as a Libertarian without much success in 2004. No other claim to notability made. Fails WP:BIO. Redfarmer (talk) 23:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. Fails Wikipedia:BIO#Politicians. Kakofonous (talk) 00:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Far too many substantive articles on this person at Google News for us to delete. (Mind meal (talk) 01:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC))
  • Delete per Kakofonous. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - counting google results doesn't establish notability, especially when some of them aren't even about this person. No indication of notability, unelected politician. -- Whpq (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment Most of the news links are relevant. Now, how does providing Google News search results not help to establish notability? I wonder if you could offer the logic behind that assertion? It seems to me that pointing other editors to multiple reliable sources covering an individual (as was the case here) assists the AFD process. Ralph Nader is an unelected politician, also. Why does he have an article? Oh, I know! Because reliable sources have written about him! Doh! (Yes, bad example with Ralph. He is known for many things. But, even still, I rest my point)(Mind meal (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC))
  • delete no reference, not notable enough Logastellus (talk) 19:11, 3 February 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 delete. Daniel (talk) 00:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neopets Faeries

Neopets Faeries (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Another Neopets game guide that is full of OR and gamecruft that is only of interest to the members of Neopets who play the game. Primarily WP:OR with a few minor sources that all come from the Neopets site. No real notability outside of Neopets. Send it to a Neopets wikia or something, but it does not belong on Wikipedia. Collectonian (talk) 23:49, 4 February 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 delete. Daniel (talk) 00:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bad Boy Carlos D

Bad Boy Carlos D (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable radio DJ, prod declined. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete only gets >2 pages of Google results, none with this biographical information (probable COI). Kakofonous (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability. The radio DJ work only shows up as program listing type entries. No articles feature hi as the subject. -- Whpq (talk) 10:59, 5 February 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 delete. Daniel (talk) 00:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neopian Times

Neopian Times (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Pure unsourced gamecruft that is only of interest to members of Neopets who play the game, and Wikipedia is NOT a game guide. I can't even figure out where half this "information" about Neopets member newspaper comes from, and most seems to be pure WP:OR and probably made up. No real notability outside of Neopets. Send it to a Neopets wikia or something, but it does not belong on Wikipedia. Collectonian (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, one of the biggest cruft magnets I've ever seen. As a Neopets user, I agree that there is a bit of notability to the Neopian Times within Neopets proper, but none whatsoever outside of Neopia. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per TTN, hits are contained in blogs, neopets pages and dedicated fansites. Hits on reliable gaming sites are restricted to forums and/or FAQs.--Lenticel (talk) 04:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. recommend Transwiki to Neopets wikia as well since the wikia version isn't good and the article will be deleted anyway. note that transwiki is compatible with delete.--Lenticel (talk) 06:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • As a member, I can (unofficially) vouch for most if not all of the content here, especially since I myself am a member of the NTWF. So...not made up.

As for relevance on Wikipedia...eh, I'd agree, but I'd like to see this FIRMLY ESTABLISHED on a Neopets Wiki first before it's deleted. This is much more up-to-date than other guides, like the petpage that's linked to. In essence, it's not harming anyone or anything...concentrate on other articles? Michelle (talk) 05:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete game-guide material without reliable sources. No objection to transwiki, but definitely should not be kept while we wait for someone to transwiki it (not sure if that's what the above user is suggesting or not) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Pretty much, that's what I said.

I think this is a decent article and would not want to lose it before it's transwikied...(if that's a word). Michelle (talk) 02:40, 6 February 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 delete. Daniel (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neopets plots

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Neopets plots Articles for deletion/Neopets plots (2nd nomination)
Neopets plots (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Pure unsourced gamecruft that is only of interest to members of Neopets who play the game, and Wikipedia is NOT a game guide. No notability outside of Neopets. Collectonian (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 02:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. see my comments here--Lenticel (talk) 04:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Transwiki(*) to somewhere like (by a quick search) the Neopets Wikia. Obviously, since the last nomination, an overhaul or merge does not seem forthcoming. *To be honest, I'm not even sure if "transwiki" is the right tag for these sorts of things these days; do people transwiki things anymore? Second choice: merge. (Disclaimer: A courtesy notification was posted by a bot on my talk page.)
    I'd like to note that WP:NOT doesn't quite apply - it mentions "game guide" as in an instruction manual or how-to (i.e. not a encyclopedia article), but this is really an encyclopedic-form-factor article that seems to be a bit too niche. —AySz88\^-^ 04:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm ok with the transwiki.--Lenticel (talk) 06:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge or establish on another Wiki before deleting...if I have the time, I might edit it... Michelle (talk) 05:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to the Neopets wikia per above RogueNinjatalk 09:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The page is NOT a game guide. Its a history of a gaming site, not a "how to play ". Page warrants retention somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sivvy1958 (talk • contribs) 05:41, 7 February 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 delete. Daniel (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aspro

Aspro (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete WP is not a Greek dictionary. Leuko also means white in Greek - that there are two words for the same English concept may be linguistically interesting or even encyclopedic but alas this article doesn't even begin that journey much less go there. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not an English dictionary or a translation dictionary. Kakofonous (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. It would actually be Lefko which does have a page, yet only for a disambig. I checked the history, it used to be redirected to Aspirin, anyone know why? Grk1011 (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Apparently it is used as a colloquial abbreviation for aspirin by some ([1]). Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and this barley as any context. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:48, 5 February 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. Daniel (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The History of the Galaxy

The History of the Galaxy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not published in English, author article also AfD Wtshymanski (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. Russian-language literature is just as notable as English-language literature, other things being equal. --Eastmain (talk) 01:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - no valid reason given in Nomination Statement for deletion. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 07:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep invalid nomination, WP:SNOW? Fosnez (talk) 12:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Certainly invalid nom. BTW, Chronolegion has an undoubted contribution merit in this theme. --Brand спойт 14:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - So just what *does* get excluded from Wikipedia? Is any blood-and-thunder purveyor of rack-filler paperbacks also encyclopedia worthy? Now, I like SF, but it's not for nothing that Sturgeon's Law was promulgated by an SF writer. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I wont comment for what others feel is in/out, but to me it is a lot about the Reason that something gets excluded/deleted. If something must go, at least make it for an acceptable reason. The reasoning in this perticular (and some other recent) AfD just does not reach even a basic level of reasonability. AfD is only the skelleton of a structure. The Nominator has to put the Meat onto it. The community gets to chew it over. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 04:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per the rationales described above. John254 03:19, 9 February 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 no consensus, improving sounds good. Daniel (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Andrey Livadny

Andrey Livadny (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not notable,not published in English, can't find any books by this author in English, Google hits are echoes of this article. Wtshymanski (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment - I'm not commenting on notability one way or another at this point, but it doesn't matter if his works aren't published in English; that's not an indication of whether or not he would be notable, because he could be very notable elsewhere in the world. matt91486 (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. A prolific and notable author. The fact that he writes in Russian doesn't detract from his notability. --Eastmain (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete No hits on Google Books, Google News or Google Scholar. Not notable according to Wikipedia standards. If reliable sources can be added, I could change my mind. (Mind meal (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC))
  • Comment. Please see http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%22%D0%90%D0%BD%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B9+%D0%9B%D1%8C%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87+%D0%9B%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9%22&btnG=Search for a Google search on his name in Russian. --Eastmain (talk) 01:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Prolific, yes, and a certain number of comments in Russian blogs. no evidence in that ruG list of any reviews or prizes. If there are, it will need someone more proficient in the language to find them. DGG (talk) 02:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • keep as per above AfD - invalid nomination. Fosnez (talk) 12:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. IMO an established author, notable enough for inclusion. The fact he is poorly known in Anglophone world isn't a worthy reason for prodding. --Brand спойт 15:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • keep and improve stump Logastellus (talk) 19:13, 3 February 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 Delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David "None of the Above" Gatchell

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/David "None of the Above" Gatchell
David "None of the Above" Gatchell (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable former political candidate who ran as an independent in 2006 and was never able to get his name on the ballot. There was apparently a little news coverage over his outrage at not getting his name on the ballot but, other than one Associated Press story I found, it all seems to be trivial. Fails the politician criteria of WP:BIO. Redfarmer (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - Fails Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 23:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. He was covered by at least two of Tennessee's major newspapers and was the subject of the above-mentioned AP item. Trivial coverage, maybe, but I'd like to see another good reason to delete than notability alone. Full disclosure--I am the article's principal author. · jersyko talk 00:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Nousernamesleft. — Cuyler91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 23:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge into another more notable article. This article on its own, however, fails to meet WP:NOTABILITY.--Sallicio\color{Red} \oplus 06:21, 12 February 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 Delete. — Scientizzle 16:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Emory "Bo" Heyward

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Emory "Bo" Heyward
Emory "Bo" Heyward (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable former political candidate who ran as an independent and lost. All sources trivial or primary. Other claim to fame is being a member of a non-notable band. Fails the politician criteria of WP:BIO as well as criteria for musicians per WP:MUSIC. Redfarmer (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - Not notable. "Emory Heyward" only turns up 111 ghits, "Bo Heyward" only turns up 992 ghits, and "Emory Bo Heyward" turns up 497 ghits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuyler91093 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable per WP:MUSIC, just under regs on WP:BIO.--Sallicio\color{Red} \oplus 07:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. D.M.N. (talk) 16:00, 13 February 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 Delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 14:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nino Gauthier

Nino Gauthier (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO. Article does not assert notability. No (reliable) sources found on Google. Lea (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per above. (Mind meal (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC))
  • Delete per nom. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, falls short of WP:BIO and has no references to verify statements within the article.--Sallicio\color{Red} \oplus 01:57, 13 February 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 after improvements (sourcing). Fram (talk) 12:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cumberland County Jail

Cumberland County Jail (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete contested prod; prod was removed because "places are inherently notable". Places, as in meaning settlements, towns, hamlets, villages, yes... Jails, houses, and every McDonald's franchise are "places", as are every room in such, and so on and so ont; but consensus here is that they are not inherently notable. Given that this "place" isn't notable, it ought to go - there are no doubt 1000s of county jails in the US of A, and many more city jails or the equivalent all over. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete A jail can be notable, but there is no evidence that this one is. Places does mean geographic places, not buildings. DGG (talk) 02:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep With approximately 500 inmates this is a sizeable facility (by way of comparion, Stangeways prison houses just over double that). Comparing a jail to a house or a McDonalds is not meaningful, it is not the building itself that is notable it is what goes on there. Think of it as a village with 500 (unwilling) villagers. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 03:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - Equating the facility with a school seems to be appropriate. Please provide a list of notable inmates (AKA alumni) that would have made the facility notable through history. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 07:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC) * Keep - when Paularblaster's 4% makes it into the article, it will satisfy both WP:N and WP:V. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as insufficiently notable. Encyclopedic notability is not based on number of inmates or "what goes on there." It is established by non-trivial coverage of the subject by multiple, reliable, third-party published sources. — Satori Son 13:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Although entitled to his opinion, can the closing admin please note that Satori and I have been having something of a disagreement since I questioned his speedy deletion of Trium at DRV. At that discussion the deletion was overturned on the basis of a blatant misunderstanding of A7. He has since been leaving me messages about "interpreting criteria" and seems determined to show that I cannot interpret them in the same way that he misinterpreted A7. As part of this effort he seems to be going to every AFD of articles I have deprodded and !voting delete. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Don't flatter yourself. I have participated in a great number of AfD discussions over the last couple years. It's going to take more than some newbie trolling to get me to stalk you. — Satori Son 01:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Sure, I haven't touched a nerve and caused you to harass me as this comment proves. It was perfectly reasonable for me to raise the incorrect deletion at DRV and I would have hoped for a more constructive reaction. Spamming AFDs with delete does not seem very constructive, why not try to be like the other editors who have spent time improving this article rather than just trying to delete it to prove a point (looks like you are wrong again). Perhaps the fact that this article looks like it may now be kept, along with Trium, might show that my actions are in good faith. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 20:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • keep There is no shortage of sources, to judge from google news, google books, google scholar - some (such as the report that this is one of 4% of US jails to receive national accreditation) certainly suggest notability beyond that of most jails (which are easily as notable as high schools - and in one way or another often function as high schools - but that's a discussion the google sources save us having to get into). --Paularblaster (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - I found a secondary source without too much effort, and haven't yet looked through all of the google news archive results. Addhoc (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Plenty of sources that can be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taxman214 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 8 February 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 Delete. — Satori Son 22:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conti Contact

Conti Contact (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete unsourced article about nn product. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete utterly fails to establish notability, or anything elseBeeblbrox (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - notability, orphaned, context - what not, - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Hi. There are enough crappy articles that should have been deleted quite some time ago that it seems silly to be so aggressive deleting new stubs. They should be given a chance to grow. But fine, go ahead, I don't have anything invested in it really. I guess I'll do less starting of stubs and more waiting till I have real time to invest in an article (which will of course cut down on my contributions quite a bit). As far as notability, it is a well established product line, I guess, but I'm no expert. It is a chilling effect, by the way to require a lot of expertise and time investment before one can start an article. One need not be an expert to recognize the need for an article and start a stub, and it encourages readers to contribute. There are a lot more people out there who are willing to edit something they feel is wrong or incomplete than are willing to start a stub (and put up with this kind of crap) --Treekids (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • comment You are right, there is an incredible backlog of articles that need help/deletion, and we can keep that list down by stopping new non-notable articles. However, you don't need a lot of expertise, just a minimal knowledge of Wikipedia's notability guidlines. There are hundreds of different sizes and types of tires, and nothing in this stub to indicate why this particular variety is notable. Please don't take it so personally, it is not personal at all. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:01, 5 February 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 delete.--Kubigula (talk) 04:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Victor A. Marcial-Vega

Victor A. Marcial-Vega (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Practitioner of alternative medicine who fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. A few unreliable Websites are cited, but there is no coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources. Tagged since April 2007 for notability without addition of reliable sources. A self-published (?) book and set of DVD's for sale does not establish notability either. MastCell Talk 22:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep - Notable individual; sources presented and cited. Editors should not be in the business of attempting to remove articles about individuals with whose ideas or world views they disagree, as even physicians with questionable medical ideas, if notable, are worthy of coverage in our encyclopedia. Editor proposing deletion is known for this highly flawed, POV-motivated mode of editing, which we should eschew in favor of building the best, most complete encylopedia possible (even including articles on notable individuals with whom we, as editors, disagree). Badagnani (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Two substantive Google Scholar hits (as a co-author of some papers) and one substantive Google Books hit; the other two simply list his address. These just are not enough to establish notability for me. (Mind meal (talk) 01:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC))
  • There are somewhat more Google Scholar & Medline hits from "V Marcial-Vega", which appears to be used on some of his academic papers. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • delete One of the GS hits is a patent for a mold eradication spray; the other is coauthorship on a radiosurgery paper from 1992. Not enough for notability--not even remotely. DGG (talk) 02:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 09:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. RogueNinjatalk 09:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Google found little independent of the subject, save an FDA warning letter about his use of colloidal silver [2]. His single self-published book has an Amazon.com ranking of 1,234,842 [3]. A Medline search on "V Marcial-Vega" comes up with 10 research papers, of which the latest is 1994; none relate to his current field. A Google Scholar for "V Marcial-Vega" finds a paper on nasopharyngeal carcinoma with 105 citations, and one other above 30. I'm not sure that this single coauthored paper with reasonably high citations is sufficient to meet WP:PROF, and in any case this research isn't mentioned in the current article; he certainly isn't notable as an author. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Espresso Addict. Plus, according to the article, what has this man actually done, besided "promote" certain things. Getting various post-graduate degrees generally involves publishing dissertations etc. to satisfy one's major professor and it is not that hard to get one's name on a paper somewhere. Is he beyond this state of affairs and continuing to contribute substantially to his area of expertise or has he moved on to promoting? Until more information is provided, his article is empty of substantive claims. Mattisse 14:09, 5 February 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 Delete. Plainly fails WP:MUSIC. Black Kite 23:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ordinary Day (Nick Lachey song)

Ordinary Day (Nick Lachey song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article about a song that is not notable. Released on iTunes only, no charts, etc. Pharmboy (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment I tagged for speedy, tag was removed by original author on November 30th. No noticable changes in article since then, so author(s) have had ample opportunity to assert notability, which it doesn't. Likely a potential speedy candidate as well. Pharmboy (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • well, by george, there otter be! ;) Pharmboy (talk) 23:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete When we don't have articles on the biggest selling singles by much more notable acts, why do we have this? Achromatic (talk) 05:19, 5 February 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 Delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 14:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hana Vitvarova

Hana Vitvarova (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A fairly nonnotable Czech adult model. `'Míkka>t 22:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom; no reliable sources. (Mind meal (talk) 01:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC))
  • Delete, a minor role, no significant coverage.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, falls short of WP:BIO, no reliable references--Sallicio\color{Red} \oplus 10:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was speedy keep. Misguided nomination. By wikipedia rules, all settlements are notable. However the article looks like cut and paste from some tourist guide, and I am going to butcher it mercilessly. `'Míkka>t 22:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Baykalsko

Baykalsko (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Notability not asserted. Essay-style article, contains opinions. No references, tagged since July 2007. Lea (talk) 22:24, 4 February 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 Redirect, as little content & no relevant incoming links (closed by User:Anthony Appleyard)

[edit] Robin Kimissel

Robin Kimissel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Does not meet WP:BIO. Cannot find sources on Google either for "Robin Kimissel" or "Robin Kirmissel". Unreferenced since July 2007. Lea (talk) 22:21, 4 February 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 withdrawn. Neglected topic. Easily expandable.`'Míkka>t 22:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Highway beautification

Highway beautification (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Dictdef. If anything on this, we'd need Highway Beautification Act. Lea (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • keep its a stub, but the subject is notable enough. --Asmodeus Samael (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • After googling for "highway beautification" -act, I agree. Withdrawn. -- Lea (talk) 22:54, 4 February 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.

[edit] Electromagnetic Light Curvature

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

The result was Snowball delete, obvious hoax. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Electromagnetic Light Curvature (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No sources since July; fails WP:PROF. Lea (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • delete non notable theory, no google scholar results --Asmodeus Samael (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per the Crackpot Special: NN, RS, OR, FRINGE. No evidence of the author's existence, much less his "widely debated" theory, in the literature or on the Web. Where'd he publish it, on a birchbark note thrown to sea? Bm gub (talk) 22:29, 4 February 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 -- Y not? 05:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Starfleet ship classes

List of Starfleet ship classes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Minor elements of minor fiction should not have encyclopedia articles. This is a sterile topic incapable of being properly researched because the Trek writers will make up "facts" as they go along. This list is similar to another list of imaginary space ships and has not been merged although nominated for merge months ago. Star Trek fans have their own fora and need not take up an excess amount of space in the encyclopedia. You can't search for "sensor" in the Wikipedia without hitting many articles for "Star Trek", which obscures the real-world utility of the encyclopedia. How much fancruft is enough? Wtshymanski (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I've just re-read Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) which I think applies.--Wtshymanski (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I really think in the spirit of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Proposed decision#Halt to activities this should be closed early. As for the space argument that is never an issue and the deletion of the page will not save us any space. -- Cat chi? 23:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Star Trek is obviously not minor fiction. The nomination just seems to be a rambling reiteration of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It almost makes a valid point about sensors but this article isn't actually about sensors - minor, fictional or otherwise. Colonel Warden (talk) 02:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This is, appropriately, a list of the less important ships in the fiction. Articles on them would be totally out of place & I would have said to merge them. This is the right way to do it. Possibly should be written in a more tabular fashion, not a prose.-- might be clearer. I'm not sure such article are justified for every SF series, but for this one, yes. We shown cover the most notable series in more detail than the barely notable ones. its the extensive articles on details from almost unknown series that need to be removed, not the concise ones on the most notable. DGG (talk) 02:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't agree with your point about turning the article into a table. Editors seem far too obsessed with making lists which are bad style and discourage coverage of items which are sui generis. The article, in fact, contains good material which is not list-like such as the section on registration numbers. I think the article would be better titled "Starfleet ship classes in Star Trek" to discourage it becoming a pure list. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Very weak keep Given notability, I give some credence to DGG above. Only just over the line, though, an 'err on the side of'. Achromatic (talk) 05:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment — Shouldn't this be broken-out into individual articles for every fictional starship class and every individual (albeit fictional) ship of each of those ship classes? If the writers of this fiction went to the effort of dashing-off a gratuitous line of dialogue about some particular ship of whatever class, why shouldn't wikipedia have a detailed article on it? --Jack Merridew 10:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    Oh heavens - No(at least not here). This is not the Trekiepedia. It's a total waste of human lifespan to spend time documenting imaginary spaceships that were dreamed up by some scriptwriter who needed a throwaway bit of dialog for a TV series! Is this the Pokemon principle at work? And for encyclopedia users who are NOT Trekkies or some other type of fanboy, it's very annoying to, for example, type in "sensor" in the search box and come up with imaginary spaceships. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    <non-sarcasm>Actually, I very much agree with you.</non-sarcasm> --Jack Merridew 11:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • keep obviously a split from another article. We should not be deleting content because it has been split from other articles because of its size. Fosnez (talk) 12:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Star Trek is one of the biggest and most well-known sci-fi franchises out there. While I wouldn't support individual articles on each of these ships (many of which would only be a stub anyway) I believe that they should have at least some mention here since they are a part (albeit minor) part of one of the most influential TV series ever made. The original deletion requester's justification that "It's fancruft" and "It's annoying when I try to search for sensor" seem to be just along the lines of the "I don't like it therefore it should be deleted" argument, which is NOT a valid reason for deletion. Some may find it annoying while others find these articles useful. Are the ones that find it annoying inherently better and more important than those that find it useful? By that reasoning, maybe we should consider eliminating all the articles on military weapons so they don't cloud my search when I look for a hunting rifle. the_one092001 (talk) 07:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Just because I don't like it, doesn't mean the article isn't deletable. I probably haven't put my arguments in the most persuasive form, but exhaustive catalogs of fictional trivia to me don't seem useful for a general encyclopedia. At least all the military rifles are real things - which presumably have real histories, descriptions, uses - real-world impact, capable of being researched at least in principle (although the archives of the AK factory may be inacessible, at least they probably exist). But "Star Trek" spaceships are unreasearchable fantasy objects - they are made up off-the-cuff by scriptwriters to fill a bit of dialog or background and will *never* have more information made available about them other than the attributes assigned in passing. This is what I call "Sterile" - and unsuitable for a general encyclopedia. Now, the very many Trek writers may wish to impose some episode-to-episode continuity on their fiction but the place to look up ship names in past episodes is a concordance, not an encyclopedia. (Look how much human lifespan has been wasted debating Captain Kirk's middle name - a good concordance could have saved millions of person-hours over the last thirty years.) Yes, the last Star Trek movie sold mumblety-million tickets and made umpity dollars for its proponents -that's real, in principle suitable for an encyclopedia (on a rather low "Entertainment Tonight" or "Business Week" sort of level). But, say, Raskolnikov's family tree - that's pure fantasy. Encyclopedias should be about reality, not fantasy. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:47, 8 February 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 and rename (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Celebrity bears

Celebrity bears (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Came to this article through the main page FA. Basically, I don't see anything in this page, apart from the first subsection, The Great Bear of Burtonport, which doesn't have its own article, that isn't better covered by the individual articles linked from this page and the "famous bears" category. Thoughts? Seems like it could be a redundant list. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep, rename, and improve. The presence of a category doesn't obviate the need for an article (per WP:CLS). The category is somewhat ill defined since it doesn't differentiate between fictional and non-fictional bears. Bears are a notable topic, so a List of (notable) bears is appropriate. Besides, "celebrity bears" makes it sound like the article is going to be about something totally different. Torc2 (talk) 23:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename as above. I've added a brief iparagraph on Pipaluk. There are no doubt considerably more that could be added. Grutness...wha? 00:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename as above. While I'd expected something about cartoon characters like Yogi and Bob Boo, this is about real bears that have been used in circuses, zoos, etc. To the extent that an individual bear is notable (anyone remember TV's Gentle Ben?), this would be it. Mandsford (talk) 01:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as above. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I was thinking something like List of notable non-fictional bears. Typically we're supposed to avoid the word "notable" in lists, but I think it's OK here since there's already a list of bears for species. Torc2 (talk) 19:51, 5 February 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 Delete. — Scientizzle 16:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ecosmart Home

Ecosmart Home (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

213 hits for Google: "Ecosmart Home"; orphan-tagged since July, notability-tagged since September. Cannot find (good) sources on Google. Lea (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete It looks to me like this is a term invented by home builders to sell "green" houses, no secondary sources to show any notability. Beeblbrox (talk) 01:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Beeblbrox & WP:N. D.M.N. (talk) 16:02, 13 February 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 withdrawn by nominator and no other users requesting deletion. Non-admin close. cab (talk) 03:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alakamisy, Fianarantsoa

Alakamisy, Fianarantsoa (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Orphaned substub; notability not established. Lea (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

All geographical articles whether it is towns or mountains etc are inherently notable. The problem is often accessing enough information to expand them into decent articles but because they are sub stubs doesn't mean they should be deleted. I'm sure you've noticed that there are many such articles on wikipedia ♦ King of Baldness ♦ $1,000,000? 22:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • The article doesn't tell how many inhabitants the town has (and a quick Google search doesn't turn anything up) — I don't even know if this article is significantly expandable at all.
    I'm not clueful enough on place notability, and whether it's generally a good idea to keep substubs on towns, so I'll just keep this AfD open and let other people decide. -- Lea (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep lack of information in the article does not detract from the fact that as a town it is notable for inclusion. Agathoclea (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Exactly you don't even know. Have you never heard of systematic bias on wikipedia and inequality in information on the web, google included? ♦ King of Baldness ♦ $1,000,000? 23:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - All towns are notable regardless of size. It certainly exists. Certainly more information on this town exists too. There are over 12,000 non-WP ghits [4]. --Oakshade (talk) 23:50, 4 February 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 withdrawn by nominator.   jj137 (talk) 00:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cerro del Quinceo

Cerro del Quinceo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not quite sure here (don't speak Spanish to evaluate Google: "Cerro del Quinceo"), but notability requirements don't seem to be met; tagged since September 2006; substub. Lea (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • (In case the mere existence[5] of the mountain is enough to establish notability, I withdraw my AfD.) -- Lea (talk) 00:39, 5 February 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 (nomination withdrawn). Non-admin closure Whpq (talk) 11:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alto Trek

Alto Trek (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No sources (tagged for 1.5y), none on Google, "one of the first networked multiplayer games" does not assert notability. Lea (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment - No sources on Google? IGN, Computerworld articles - they don't count? Achromatic (talk) 05:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Did you check them at all? IGN only mentions Alto-Trek peripherally and primarily talks about a port of Alto-Trek to DirectX. Computerworld only has "Alto Trek" in the subtitle, and in the dossier ("Epitaph of choice: “I developed Alto Trek [in 1972], one of the very first networked computer games. The things you do when you are young you take with you the rest of your life. So, on my tombstone: ‘Rick Rashid: He developed Alto Trek.’ ”), not in the article itself. Hardly "significant coverage" (WP:N). -- Lea (talk) 06:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 02:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep On the contrary, being one of the first multiplayer games is a big assertion of notability as a historical aspect of video games. The first 20 sites brought up from google in a search for "Alto Trek" brings up The NY Times, IGN, University of Rochester and Business Week. It may be that a merge is needed to Allegiance (computer game), but that's not a matter for AFD. Someoneanother 06:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Ouch — withdrawn! (It seems that I searched for alto-trek, which did not turn up the NYTimes, Rochester, or Business Week article, when I should instead have searched for "alto trek" or simply alto trek. Isn't Google fascinating, every time.) -- Lea (talk) 06:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Google is a sod like that, the amount of times I've switched words around or grouped them together with speech marks then suddenly been presented with sources which just weren't there before.. anyway, being human beats being something else, especially as you've withdrawn the AFD. I'll try to do something with it when I get time but you could always propose a merge or what have you. Someoneanother 06:45, 5 February 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 delete all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Melchizedek (band)

Melchizedek (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
Guarda più in là (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
...E i libri saranno aperti... (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Adamo dove sei (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Insieme (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Quanto tempo durerà (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Non così (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

No evidence this band meets WP:BIO Travellingcari (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Added their albums to the nom. Delete all, not in allmusic, google knows nothing about them or their albums. Seemingly completely NN. Jfire (talk) 08:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete all, sources neither present nor found by me.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:29, 12 February 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 Delete. --Oxymoron83 07:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Best of both worlds (saying)

Best of both worlds (saying) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Mostly dictionary definition, does not meet notability requirements. Lea (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. The fact that it has existed for almost four years in absolutely no way trumps Wikipedia is not a dictionary.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is no evidence that this article will ever accrue encyclopedic content. — Timwi (talk) 23:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. Achromatic (talk) 05:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Although the current version isn't very good, there are many worthwhile articles in Category:English idioms, and this belongs among them. The current text isn't so flawed as to make it irredeemable, and just about all of these things have historical and cultural resonances that mean they can be expanded. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • There may be notable idioms, but it's not clear to me why this would be one of them. The article doesn't assert notability, let alone provide references to demonstrate it (tagged unreferenced since September 2006).
      Also, right now the article is only a dictionary definition plus one example (plus cruft). I don't see off the top of my head what encyclopedic content could possibly be added (no history [AFAICS] or non-obvious derivation, no controversial usage, ...). -- Lea (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I totally agree with Lea. It's English language cruft. Not encyclopedic, completely appropriate for a dictionary.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy (talk) 04:03, 6 February 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 Redirect to Vojvodina (closed by User:Anthony Appleyard)

[edit] Republic of Vojvodina

Republic of Vojvodina (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Incomplete nomination. The nominator says: "Even as a strong supporter of the idea, this is just a program goal of a political party. If we would have article for every such idea, Wikipedia would have no sense. Further more, title is completely non-appropriate, as there is no such political or geographic entity. Jdjerich (talk) 12:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)" Procedural nomination; no opinion is being expressed by me. ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 21:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Merge to Vojvodina, the province in Serbia that isn't yet a republic. Mandsford (talk) 01:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to Vojvodina. I don't think there is any real information to merge. --Nlu (talk) 06:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to Politics of Vojvodina. Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 05:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, nothing referenced to merge. A redirect to Vojvodina does not seem to be warranted either, if at all to the politics article or to the party proposing it (if verifiable).--Tikiwont (talk) 09:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to Vojvodina. D.M.N. (talk) 16:04, 13 February 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 delete. The subject is mentioned in the articles on the Macmillans. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sarah Macmillan

Sarah Macmillan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I don't think being the potentially illegitimate daughter of nobility passes WP:BIO. A google search returns primarily others with the same name. Travellingcari (talk) 21:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B is not a reason for a standalone article on A". Kakofonous (talk) 00:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Kakofonous Achromatic (talk) 05:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Moving comment from Talk: This item should be retained. There is a wider interest for the 1960s with the fickleness of Lady McMillan and Lord Boothby's friendship with the Kray twins. It is a fascinating era and all strands should be maintained 86.160.170.208 (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Travellingcari (talk) 20:30, 10 February 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 Merge selected content to Daisenryaku. Action to be taken by others. JERRY talk contribs 02:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Daisenryaku Expert WW2 - War in Europe

Daisenryaku Expert WW2 - War in Europe (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Does not meet WP:FICT. Has not been tagged unreferenced, but Google does not yield sources to cite. Lea (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest merge to Daisenryaku. R00m c (talk) 05:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Concur: merge to Daisenryaku. The series of game can be shown to be notable, but it's not clear this particular edition is. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Either merge as above or transwiki to GamerWiki. Tim (Xevious) (talk) 13:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • MERGE and TRANSWIKI.--Sallicio\color{Red} \oplus 10:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to GamerWiki. D.M.N. (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to Daisenryaku. Gman124 (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge what is verifiable/referenced. Mukadderat (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge only what is verifiable/referenced. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:16, 14 February 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 Merge. No concensus for what target, so this will be left to editor discretion. Therefore: Keep. JERRY talk contribs 02:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Advanced Daisenryaku: Europe no Arashi - Doitsu Dengeki Sakusen

Advanced Daisenryaku: Europe no Arashi - Doitsu Dengeki Sakusen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Does not meet WP:FICT; no hits for sources on Google; has been tagged for 1y. Lea (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest merge to Daisenryaku. R00m c (talk) 05:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • MERGE and TRANSWIKI.--Sallicio\color{Red} \oplus 10:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Concur: merge to Daisenryaku. The series of game can be shown to be notable, but it's not clear this particular edition is. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Either merge as above or transwiki to GamerWiki. Tim (Xevious) (talk) 13:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to GamerWiki. D.M.N. (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to Daisenryaku. Gman124 (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge Mukadderat (talk) 22:58, 13 February 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 Merge to Daisenryaku. Action to be taken by others. JERRY talk contribs 02:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Advanced Daisenryaku

Advanced Daisenryaku (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Does not meet WP:FICT; no hits for sources on Google; has been tagged since September 2007. Lea (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest merge to Daisenryaku. R00m c (talk) 05:08, 5 February 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 Merge to Daisenryaku. Action to be taken by others. JERRY talk contribs 02:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Advanced Daisenryaku 2001

Advanced Daisenryaku 2001 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Does not meet WP:FICT, has been tagged for sources for 1y, quick search on Google yields no reliable non-trivial sources (critical reception, etc.). Lea (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest merge to Daisenryaku. R00m c (talk) 05:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Concur: merge to Daisenryaku. The series of game can be shown to be notable, but it's not clear this particular edition is. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Either merge as above or transwiki to GamerWiki. Tim (Xevious) (talk) 13:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • MERGE and TRANSWIKI.--Sallicio\color{Red} \oplus 10:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to GamerWiki. D.M.N. (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to Daisenryaku. Gman124 (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge Mukadderat (talk) 22:58, 13 February 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. Nom withdrawn and article reduced to stub (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Law in Star Trek

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Law in Star Trek
 Articles for deletion/Law in Star Trek (second nomination)
Law in Star Trek (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Text of the article is entirely original research, with the only two reliable, independent sources in the lead. Consequently only a single sentence of this entire article is verifiable. Current text fails deletion criteria - "Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources". Verifiability concerns have been raised in a previous AfD and on the talk page since 2006, so no significant improvement seems to be possible. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn - based on the general dissatisfaction with the state of the article below, and as an attempt to reach consensus, I will withdraw this AfD and reduce the article to a stub - by the deletion of the original research that relies on primary sources. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


Agree - the article is not currently, to wiki standards, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be brought up to par. The topic IS researchable, there has been plenty written and published on the subject. I personally feel that it is a serious topic worthy of keeping, in the hopes that the article can be improved, that could be of interest to non-fans and fans alike, and even if the interest was mainly for fans, the 'star trek universe' is a significant and notable genre. Non Curat Lex (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete per nomination.This topic is un-researchable. Stem the tide of fancruft. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The article documents a notable theme in this fiction. Not seeing the original research. Colonel Warden (talk) 02:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Take for example the section on "Death penalty", from a set of episodes an editor has divined that "planetary law and Federation law may be separate, analogous to the legal concept of federalism" the possibility of the existence of a "supremacy clause" and that the Federation of the 24th century has apparently abolished capital punishment. None of these statements are present in the original material, but this has been interpreted and synthesised by the author - this is original research. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Saying that the Federation has a federal system is a statement of the obvious. The examples of where capital punishment was or was not applicable are drawn directly from the source material. And none of this is a reason to delete since such content can be edited to taste. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
If this is not original research, in which reliable source is the existence or otherwise of a "supremacy clause" in Federation law discussed? Which source discusses the distinction between planetary law and Federation law? Tim Vickers (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep another misguided attempt to reduce the coverage about notable fiction. This is a compilation of material sourced from the primary source in an obvious fashion, and thus not OR. There's real junk to get rid of, bit we should not be deleting articles like this. DGG (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Tim Vickers. Achromatic (talk) 05:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per DGG. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 11:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • keep i feel this nomination is a WP:IDONTLIKEIT, no offence intended. Fosnez (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • None taken, but you are incorrect. Also, it is better in these discussions to discuss the content of article, rather than making guesses about the motivation of the nominator. Tim Vickers (talk) 14:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or Stubify Most of the "references" are Star Trek episodes. They are also referenced in a manner inconsistent with a general purpose encylopedia (listing TOS and assuming the reader knows what that means, as opposed to a proper {{cite episode}}.) This article is a textbook synthesis of source materials. It is based on a series of "A and B, therefore C" (the section quoted above about the death penalty in Star Trek is a good example). If someone wants to write a new article based on secondary sources, that's fine, but this article needs to start from scratch or be deleted. --Phirazo 18:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with Gene93k and Phirazo in that there may be a possibility the topic is notable (as evidenced by the book dedicated to it); but this article is wholly referenced to primary sources as it stands, and ultimately a synthesis of plot and original research and not an encyclopedic article. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete The article is entirely retelling of plot combined with Wikipedian interpretation of plot. If there are suitable secondary sources for writing an article, then what we have here is in the way of writing a proper article. Deleting everything we have here and starting from scratch is the best way to write a proper article in this case. Original research is that harmful, and there is a lot of it here. Jay32183 (talk) 03:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article is terrible; however, AFD is not article cleanup. But the claim at hand is that this is not a verifiable topic. It isn't? There is a whole book about the topic (Star Trek: Visions of Law and Justice, ISBN 0966808029). At least one chapter of that book (the one by Sharf) was originally published in the University of Toledo Law Review. There is further discussion of the issue in other scholarly sources as well, such as the article "Law and Film: Introduction" in the Journal of Law and Society 28 (1): 1-8 and even explicit comparisons with real world law and politics, including "On a Wagon Train to Afghanistan: Limitations on Star Trek's Prime Directive" in the University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review [2003]. Serpent's Choice (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that none of the text in this article is verifiable and the article has been in this state since the last AfD in 2006. I agree that the topic is in principle notable, but since no improvement is forthcoming, deleting this original research and allowing somebody to start again in the future seems one of the best options to me. If you think the article shouldn't be deleted, what do you think about the idea of cutting it down to a one or two sentence stub, but retaining the further reading and the two reliable sources? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I wholly agree that the current text needs pared down sharply. When writing about fiction, the primary material can be used for statements of fact, but not for opinion, analysis, or assumption. As a result, a lot of material will need to go, pending revision and the inclusion of the third-party sources. But, even if that process takes the form of "stub and rebuild", it is an editorial action, not a deletion. Serpent's Choice (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
It actually means trimming everything but the basic definition of Law in Star Trek. Deleting and starting over is better for the article and Wikipedia than allowing this mess to sit in the edit history for people to access later. Jay32183 (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. Some of the primary references are statements of fact from the scripts. Many more, admittedly, are OR. But there are sources on the topic, and primary statements can be used to add context to second-party analysis; the fact that this article has a lot of work ahead of it is not cause to toss the current version, flawed as it may be, down the memory hole. That's just not what the deletion policy says. Serpent's Choice (talk) 22:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
A database of fictional laws doesn't belong on Wikipedia and it is OR to selectively pick the laws from Star Trek to talk about. It can be original research simply because a Wikipedian chose an example to signify a particular importance. Jay32183 (talk) 07:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
That's why the material selected from the primary sources is used to support the secondary sources in a properly written article. We don't pick random content, the second-party sources do. But we can quote or summarize the primary source as appropriate to the context. And with so much drawn from primary sources at the moment, there's probably something that will be useful. I'd do more work on this article myself, but I don't have easy access to the secondary sources for this one. I'd promise to get to it, but I'm way behind on cleanup projects. Whoever wants to tackle it, though, please drop me a line and I'll do what I can. Serpent's Choice (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tim Vickers (talk) 19:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • keep. A quick google search enables us to add to the sources noted by Serpent's Choice: P. Joseph and S. Carton, "The Law of the Federation: Images of Law, Lawyers and the Legal System in “Star Trek: The Next Generation”", University of Toledo Law Review 24 (1996), pp 43-85; and Bradley Stewart Chilton, “"Star Trek" and Stare Decisis: Legal Reasoning and Information Technology”, Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture 8:1 (2001), available here. As TimVickers just suggests, stubbifying would be a more appropriate way of dealing with the ramified OR (drastic as it is, it's less drastic than deletion). --Paularblaster (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep sourced, and a reasonable split of Star Trek which would otherwise be enormous. JJL (talk) 04:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep It's now got at least some proper reliable sourcing and is apparently notable. The quality of the writing is not a proper subject for an AfD discussion. - Dravecky (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - the series is notable, and the concept of law within it is notable, so the article should be retained. With that established, it is sufficient to rely on primary sources for much of the material. I acknowledge that it could do with trimming. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, verify, expand... per Serpent's Choice. Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 05:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - This article is a prime example of both what Wikipedia is not supposed to be and ignoring all rules. Voting to delete would be meaningless unless most of Category:Star Trek goes with it, along with similar stuff like Category:Star Wars, Category:The Lord of the Rings, and other topics certainly worthy of articles, but not in depth examinations of topics like Category:Star Trek ships which includes vessels in its subcategories that appeared briefly in an episode. Many people who do not enjoy these topics consider articles like this to be useless information about a fictional subject, while those who support the article and others of its kind are simply doing what we told them to do. Anynobody 05:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    • WP:IAR is not a free pass and it is not all or nothing at an AFD. We can deal with articles one at a time. Jay32183 (talk) 07:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
      • That's the theory; the practice is that in the meantime articles sprout like weeds while much learned consideration is given to AfD votes on an individual basis. You end up running to keep still. It would be better (I suggest) to come up with a blanket policy, let members of the various Wiki-projects put their articles in order, and then cull the rest. Piecemeal hacking at the undergrowth isn't the way to go.--Major Bonkers (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

--Article has now been cut to a stub-- Tim Vickers (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. This is a perfectly good stub, with a reference to a law review article, for Jimbo's sake! It's better than most other law stubs! Bearian'sBooties (talk) 02:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and as above, verify and expand. The Star Trek fictional universe is one of the most documented in recent history, and the programme itself frequently raises social and cultural issues which reflect the times in which it is made. It follows that an academic analysis of the legal frameworks created therein are worthy of description as a mirror or critique of contemporary societal values, which are exemplified, for example, by attitudes in the series to the death penalty in different fictional cultures. Whether this can be properly sourced, I cannot tell; but science fiction, in my experience, has an analogical propensity to tell us more about the way we are now than the way we might be in the future. Accordingly, I think that properly written, this article has great potential to focus on legalities and their limitations and should be allowed to stand. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Paularblaster. John254 03:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with the above that a stub is adequate, but an entire article is unnecessary. Jophus00 (talk) 02:27, 18 February 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 delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pedigree of Swedish monarchs

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Pedigree of Swedish monarchs (2nd nomination)
Pedigree of Swedish monarchs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The content of this article is not encyclopedic, it is simply a listing of ancestry. It is not necessary or encyclopedic to connect an incumbent ruling house to every since ruling house as a means of "legitimizing" them or whatever other purpose such an article would serve. It simply isn't an issue big enough in Sweden to render it encyclopedia worthy. See WP:NOT regarding genealogical entries. Articles on Wikipedia already discuss the importance of these various Swedish ruling houses in Swedish history. It is not necessary or encyclopedic to compile them in lists of ancestry as in this article. Source given is two pages in a Swedish language book and original research at a genealogical website. Charles 20:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete as nominator. Charles 20:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 4 February 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 delete.   jj137 (talk) 00:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ezinma

Ezinma (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fictional character. Article had already been deleted after PROD on 1st Feb 2008, but was recreated. One editor had requested a speedy delete using CSD-G4, but this was refused as recreated prod deleted articles don't qualify for speedy delete using that criteria. Proposed for AfD to ensure a 'correct' deletion (if appropriate) CultureDrone (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Correct Delete it is then, fails to establish notability of subject. Beeblbrox (talk) 01:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Things Fall Apart, protect the redirect should the article be created as a one-liner--Lenticel (talk) 04:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Already deleted. Doctorfluffy (talk) 02:40, 11 February 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. Fram (talk) 12:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lord Tracy

Lord Tracy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete fails WP:BAND, not notable Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. Passes WP:BAND at least on criterion #6, and probably others if anyone's prepared to dig for references. The band features Pantera's ex-singer and have released several albums. Plenty of google hits, though not a lot of obvious quality.--Michig (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Michig. Bondegezou (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: contains ex-member of a more successful band. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN round of applause 09:53, 9 February 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 Delete. --Oxymoron83 07:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Leet combo

Leet combo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Term is a neologism for Halo 3. No sources or any info to show why it is notable. Both CSD and Prod removed by author. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • delete the nom says it all Beeblbrox (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I get approx 160 hits for this term, none of which is a reliable source. Bláthnaid 19:51, 4 February 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. Fram (talk) 12:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dave Marinaccio

Dave Marinaccio (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I know he has the one book, but I truly don't know whether that passes WP:BIO. Otherwise, there doesn't seem to be much else Travellingcari (talk) 19:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggest we keep the article

Granted, I am not an unbiased observer, since I created the article. But I am OK with keeping it in Wikipedia. Mr. Marinaccio has written two books (All . . . "Star Trek", and All . . "Star Trek: The Next Generation"). It is apparent that his fame/notoriety, such as it is, is based squarely on the familiarity of the Baby Boom generation with the Star Trek series, and as this familiarity fades, so will his cachet. Nonetheless, he HAS written two books which have been published nationwide, have been reviewed in newspapers on both coasts, and is an icon in the niche. I feel this is as much notoriety as football (I mean soccer) players achieve, and the Wikipedia is replete with entries for them. I vote we retain the article. Raymondwinn (talk) 00:06, 5 February 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 (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Life Extension Foundation

Life Extension Foundation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Likely to be controversial, but I wanted to bring it here. I tagged it for speedy since it was at that point nothing but spam. There have been some references added but 3/4 are from the org itself. It's mentioned in the NYTImes article, but I don't know that that is significant coverage so I'm bringing it here. I'm leaning toward delete. Travellingcari (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete the one secondary source listed has only trivial mention of the Foundation, not enough to establish notability.Beeblbrox (talk) 19:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep -- the question of notability should not be based on the sources. The Life Extension Foundation is undoubtedly the largest seller of nutritional supplements in the world, and publishes the largest and most authoritative magazine covering the subject of nutritional supplements. The depth of information on the LEF website should give some indication of the size and significance of the organization. There are not likely to be independent organizations certifying the largest supplement seller nor the largest and most authoritative magazine published on the subject, but I think that there should be SOME burden of proof required for those who deny notability. -- Ben Best (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment However the notability guideline says, A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Travellingcari (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Question: How would one go about proving something isn't notable? --Explodicle (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "The Life Extension Foundation is undoubtedly the largest seller of nutritional supplements in the world, and publishes the largest and most authoritative magazine covering the subject of nutritional supplements." If we can find sources to demonstrate either of these claims, then I think that will suffice for notability. --Ronz (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not the largest, by a long shot. But it is pretty big. The Transhumanist 00:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep - A quick search shows that it's been mentioned in The Guardian, FOX News, USA Today, and others. --Explodicle (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we need better than those to show notability. --Ronz (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
If The New York Times, The Guardian, Fox News and USA Today aren't up to your standards of notabilily sources, what would be up to your standards? --Ben Best (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem I see is that none of these articles are about LEF, but just mention it once in passing. --Ronz (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep - It's a notable organization, is a leading source of anti-aging information, is at the center of the legal fight for health freedom, and has played a major role throughout the history of life extension. Its monthly magazine has a circulation of over 100,000, is available at many bookstores and grocery stores across the U.S., has over 70,000 subscribers, and the magazine is a reliable source cited in articles throughout Wikipedia. In addition to its role as a publisher, a funder of anti-aging research, and a dietary supplement lobbyist, the LEF has been a major supplier of nutrition supplements via mail order for decades. It's one of the few organizations reported in the bestseller "Life Extension: A Practical Scientific Approach". The Transhumanist 22:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If you'd only provide sources for these claims, then I think we could agree that it's notable. --Ronz (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
It's coverage in the book I mentioned establishes its notability even without the rest. The Transhumanist 02:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The number of subscribers is required by law to be printed in the magazine. If the number of copies is as large as stated, then it's certainly more notable than a lot of other organization with wikipedia articles. Keith Henson (talk) 16:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep - the sources cited above are adequate for notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep I keep hearing about them. Bstone (talk) 01:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep Personally, I think them very close to pseudoscience, and this and the walled garden of related articles need a careful examination for POV, nut they are notable. Maybe they're even right. DGG (talk) 03:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep It's not just the NYTimes & above sources that mentioned LEF, it's the Miami Herald, Tri City Herald, Portland Press Herald & more: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22life+extension+foundation%22+herald+-alcor&btnG=Search+Archives&num=50 Edwardmorrill (talk) 06:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep and cleanup. The outside sources establish notabililty but the inhouse sources need to be replaced with reliable sources.Capitalistroadster (talk) 06:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep certainly notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by Traderb (talk • contribs)

"Keep" The LEF is an important, actually the preeminent, facility for obtaining nutritional supplements and information on all life-enhancement technology. Its roots extend back to the time of Durk Pearson and Sandy Shaw's Life Extension opus. With the whole life-enhancement industry full of so many different points of view and different arguments about whether this technology or that one is the best, LEF provides THE standard of excellence to measure all against. When we look back on this period in the vitalist movement, LEF will be one of the major foundations that enabled us to live vigorously, indefinitely.Bwisok (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkhenson (talk • contribs)

Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Explodicle (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • comment The new sources mentioned here do verify the existence of this organization, but not why it is notable. Since it's existence was never in debate, I don't see how that helps. A lot of people seem to feel passionate about this subject, which is fine, but again, not enough to establish notability.Beeblbrox (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The book I mentioned above presents the LEF as a supplier of nutrient supplements. That provides a why. The Transhumanist 23:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Notice - I've emailed the LEF, asking them for some references that verify information about them. If anyone knows where they've been covered by the news media, they do. The Transhumanist 00:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep I think people are confusing "notable" with "widely known". The Life Extension movement itself is not very old or widespread, but LEF is well-known within that field, and has been since the Pearson/Shaw book was published. I disagree that the news articles establish their existence. A phone book establishes their existence. Their name being repeatedly mentioned in most news articles about Life Extension supplements (including several in the NY Times) proves their notability. There is no known third-party publication establishing the revenues of LEF versus any other vitamin-seller, again because the field itself is still a small enough niche that no one's bothering to do that. But here are some figures about the magazine and web site: Amazon.com currently ranks Life Extension magazine as #846 in "Magazines", and #35 under "in Magazines > Health, Mind & Body > Health", one place below FLEX magazine. Alexa currently gives lef.org a traffic rank of 45,833. --Zhmort (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Question - Ben Best is a notable figure in the life extension movement. That makes anything he writes about the LEF a reliable source, right? I found this by Ben Best: http://www.benbest.com/polecon/fdalef.html The Transhumanist 00:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's a news report about the FDA raid on the LEF - The Transhumanist 01:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Interview of LEF's co-founder and directory William Faloon about the LEF - The Transhumanist 01:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's a news story that includes the LEF - The Transhumanist 01:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep The Life Extension Foundation deserves a Wikipedia article not only because it is notable (which I think has been established by previous Keep votes) but because there are things about it that are not immediately obvious — someone might wonder what it is and want to look up more-or-less-authoritative information about it in one place, which is what an encyclopedia is for. The article needs to be cleaned up and expanded (include details such as those on the Wikipedia pages for other magazines, such as Time Magazine or Reader's Digest or Men's Health (magazine). In addition, the Buyer's Club deserves its own subheading (though likely not its own page) to more clearly distinguish it from the Foundation. — Kennita 11:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennita728 (talk • contribs)

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

The result was Delete. — Satori Son 22:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Joey Marshall

Joey Marshall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I don't think it satisfies speedy, but I'm not sure where to start. The only ghits are for someone else with the same name. Even searching with he and his alleged wife, which should come up with something if the article's content is true, comes up with nothing. Hoax? I don't even know. Travellingcari (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete probably imaginary. his wife's murder should have attracted considerable news coverage, but there doesnt seem to be any, either as Charlieson or Marshall. DGG (talk) 03:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - as a hoax. It is entirely unverifiable. -- Whpq (talk) 13:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete- obviously imaginary... there are no sources found in any new outlet. Rigby27 (talk) 19:04, 9 February 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 Delete. --Oxymoron83 07:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008 double album

2008 double album (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Badly written and unreferenced (unless you want to count an unnamed interview and link to Youtube), this album has yet to be given a title and has no planned release date. PC78 (talk) 19:02, 4 February 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 Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mascotte (band)

Mascotte (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I cannot find any evidence that this band meets WP:BAND. While I agree that it could be a language based search issue, the article itself doesn't indicate any notable accomplishments. Travellingcari (talk) 18:58, 4 February 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 (nomination withdrawn), by JJL. Non-admin close.

[edit] Tom Sotis

Tom Sotis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

non notable, the martial art that he founded was just deleted for being non-notable. Prod was removed because of the claim that "spetnaz claims require an AfD" RogueNinjatalk 18:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —RogueNinjatalk 18:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep it's irrelevant that AMOK! was deleted. Spetsnaz and other claims supported in at least one well-known martial arts magazine [7]; ghits attest an active and international seminar schedule; he and his art have an article in Masters of the Blade [8]. JJL (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:WAX doesnt apply. I am saying that since it was decided that the thing he is notable for is itself not notable, he is not notable. RogueNinjatalk 21:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Regardless of the fact that the other article was deleted, the spetnaz claim seems sufficient for notability. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - the claim is nothing, it needs to be backed up by Reliable Sources. If there is none, the claim needs to be stripped out fo the article, and what is there left after that? - fchd (talk) 09:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Very well, I withdraw RogueNinjatalk 02:49, 5 February 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 Redirect to Black Holes & Revelations. Only an album track, even if the article actually had any content. Black Kite 02:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hoodoo (song)

Hoodoo (song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete nothing more than an album track, no indication why this song is notable Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete This song wasn't released as a single, and is not notable. Bláthnaid 20:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the album per precedent with these types of articles.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 08:14, 5 February 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 Delete

[edit] Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels

Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits than this article. Nothing substantial found on google, seems to copied from here. I'm sure a worthy cause, however Self-promotion are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom Beeblbrox (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep the Steering Board includes members from WWF, BP, Shell, Dutch Ministry of Housing and the Environment, World Economic Forum. --Salix alba (talk) 08:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
comment Notability of the organizations the members of the steering board represent does not establish notability of the subject itself Beeblbrox (talk) 01:46, 9 February 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 Delete. — Satori Son 22:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Madonna's upcoming Best of Remixes compilation

Madonna's upcoming Best of Remixes compilation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete this article has been blanked a number of times because it's just a rumor and it didn't materialize. So how long does a wishful rumor about a future album get to pose as an encyclopedia article especially when the rumored date of the album has come and gone? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. The album has been canceled 2007. --Red-Blue-White (talk) 11:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:NOT#CRYSTAL-- what would we do with this article were the recording released? Mangoe (talk) 12:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete An editor with the IP of 84.172 has come along at least twice to remind the world that the year 2007 came and went without the release of an album, then blanked the article. Another editor then wiped the thing clean except for the non-sentence "The album has been canceled 2007". The approach by Carlos is a lot more appropriate, which is to nominate the article for deletion. I hasten to remind the editors not to blank an article while the deletion discussion is in progress. Otherwise, people can't figure out why the thing was nominated in the first place. I'd add that there are very few occasions where taking the law into your own hands, and blanking the page, is merited. It's childish, and it's easily reverted. Somehow, we can figure out that it's now 2008 without your help, thank you anyway. Mandsford (talk) 13:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as per WP:CRYSTAL. If the album does materialize in the future an article will certainly be created then. DanielEng (talk) 01:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. How many times must we point out: compilations are not per se notable. Please find proof from good sources to show otherwise. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 02:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete- this isn't notable enough to have its own article, but it could be included in Madonna's main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rigby27 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 9 February 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 Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 10:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Puttin' On The Hits Lip Sinc Talent Search

Puttin' On The Hits Lip Sinc Talent Search (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Already a "Puttin' On The Hits", same subj. Rapido (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Redirect to the other article. Neither of them is sourced and some of the text is verbatim, but on the whole the other article is better. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   jj137 (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete A perfect example of WP:COATRACK. Note how they describe the 1984 show such an anal and overdetailed way (do we really need to know at NAPTE '84? Really, do we care which station groups picked up the show and why?), when suddenly the writer throws us a curveball...So you ask, why would a Lip Sync music variety show be successful in 2008?, which leads into a description of a revival of the show, format, sets, judges and all. No need for a merger at all because this is an advertisment for a show which right now is in a foggy ball of glass. Nate • (chatter) 02:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete useless textdump. JuJube (talk) 02:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete (provisionally), the article could be good with a lot of work, references, and third-party citations. If the author (or anyone else) cares to clean it up (a lot), I would consider changing my vote! However, this or the other Puttin' on the Hits needs to be deleted. Sallicio (talk) 03:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Sallicio
  • Delete -- Exact copy of Puttin' On the Hits, plus miscellaneous extraneous material. -- azumanga (talk) 04:42, 11 February 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. This is a good example of how elapsed time seems to help. The "play" is still talked about, nullifying the NOT#NEWS arguments. As time goes by, the keep opinions far outweigh (and outnumber) the delete opinions. That being said, Wikipedia is not in the business of "coining" new terms or catchphrases. "Scramble and Gamble" will be deleted as a redirect until it is a proven (in reliable, independent, verifiable sources) term used to describe this play. Besides the unverifiability of the term, it is a highly unlikely "typo" in that it includes quotation marks and an ampersand (&), making it an unlikely search term. Right now, the article is titled Eli Manning pass to David Tyree, which is not the best title, but is better than anything I can come up with. No prejudice against renaming/moving in the future once this is properly nicked in a similar way to The Catch or The Drive.

I am also closing the article titled The Catch (2008) as merge. However, I will not be merging any content as closing administrator. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The "Scramble & Gamble"

The "Scramble & Gamble" (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

NOTE - This article has been moved to Super Bowl XLII Manning-Tyree Pass. Torc2 (talk) 05:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

NOTE 2 - Deletion debate is here on yet another article on this one play. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 14:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

NOTE to closing admin. The article that is under discussion here has actually changed multiple times to do mergers and redirects. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This is absurdity, stretching the concept of "notability" beyond all human recognition. At best, this non-notable phrase should be a redirect to an article on the football game in question. Orange Mike | Talk 17:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep or Merge The author is a professional sports journalist and respectfully suggests that this article be kept at least until an official name is given to the play, much like "The Catch" or "Immaculate Reception" or "The Drive" or "The Play" or "The Comeback" are names given to sporting events by sports reporters. Several sports news outlets (incl. Fox Sports, ESPN, Yahoo! Sports, and CBSSportsline.com) have all raised specific commentary on this single play ranging from it being the greatest catch in Super Bowl history to simply the greatest play in NFL history. Since other single plays are known by nicknames, this article is a place which allows for similar honor SteV1der (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • N.B.: I've struck out your recommendation here because you superceded it with a "delete" below. Powers T 16:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete never asserts notability, seems to be an essay. Maybe a redirect to Super Bowl XLII? On an non-deletion note, the article cites Wikipedia as one of the references Doc Strange (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to main SB article for now. Strong keep - There's no question that this play was notable (and even if not, why move straight to AfD instead of tagging?), and has already been specifically called out in several articles. It is questionable whether it is sufficiently notable to stand alone right now, and there's no reason to think the name given will stick. Torc2 (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • reply - there's no speedy tag for this. I put a Prod tag on it, and it was immediately yanked by the author (who seems to have a personal investment in this particular phrase). --Orange Mike | Talk 21:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
      • reply - I didn't mean speedy tag it; I meant tag for {{notability}}. The editor's possible COI for the name only means that the article could/should be moved, but the event itself is notable, possibly even notable enough for a separate article (a la The Catch (American football) or the Immaculate Reception, as noted above). The information in the article itself seems valid, so at the very least it should be merged. Torc2 (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
        • reply - The event itself is clearly notable and the author's naming of the event is subject to it catching on in American parlance. Questions of notability were raised and rather than debate, the journalist in question will allow public discussion and to judge validity, but perhaps it is best to simply delete this article. Author composed it and searched for additional sources since no other standalone article on the subject existed. With respect to wikipedia reference, article inclusion is as footnote. SteV1der (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
          • query - Do you wish to support the deletion yourself, SteV1der? If so: since you were the initial creator of the article (and primary editor), if you blank the page and summarize the edit as "Blanking by author pursuant to deletion consensus", an admin will then delete the article without prejudice in case the phrase does become notable later. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
            • comment - I think that would be an exceptionally bad idea. It's clear now that the play is sufficiently notable to have a stand-alone article ([9], [10], [11], [12], [13]) The only question is the name. Maybe we should just name it Manning to Tyree until something more established comes along. Torc2 (talk) 01:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete with strong prejudice. No need for this. As an American football fan I know everything that needs to be said about this play belongs in Super Bowl XLI. The title is a hideous neologism that will never gain currency. No redirect. Quale (talk) 01:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • comment Pssst...wrong Super Bowl. Torc2 (talk) 05:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete & Delete Changing vote to go with what seems to be the consensus. One of the best Super Bowls ever, and someone's ruining the memory with an article called "Scramble & Gamble" Mandsford (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Is there any rule preventing the article from being renamed now? It's obvious people are judging only the name rather than the topic itself. Torc2 (talk) 02:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Merge - go ahead and merge this thing with whatever becomes the accepted name, if it isn't Scramble & Gamble. Not everyone has to like the name for it to be called what it ends up being called. I've deleted all references to the name in the article itself to make it easier. All nicknames require someone to publish work first, then receive the criticism or praise, but there's always a first person to read. I would think the Giants will take an official position at or after the parade through the Canyon of Heroes (and the article and the name, along with I'm sure MANY others, has been submitted to the team for evaluation. I have not received word one way or another and do not expect to, judging by the unfavorable response. However, the article is not entirely without merit. SteV1der (talk) 02:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Once there is a name, and it becomes accepted, it makes sense to have a separate article, as there already is on The Catch and The Drive. But to create a title and hope that it becomes the name is backwards. As it is, the play is already referenced in both the game and the player's (David Tyree) page, so it's not necessary to have a separate article until there is an established phrase. --Diogenes00 (talk) 02:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Neologism, if it becomes widely used, maybe a mention in the main article. MBisanz talk 05:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Moved and rewritten. Please revisit this. It clearly has independent notability established and absolutely should remain as a separate article, regardless of name. Torc2 (talk) 05:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Torc2 (talk) 06:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note - there is also a duplicate page; see Eli Manning Pass To David Tyree.--Diogenes00 (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is far, far, far, far, far too early to accurately judge the notability of this one play, and Wikipedia should not become a source of notability (nor should Wikipedia be responsible for promoting a coined name for this play, although that error seems to have been mostly rectified (pending deletion of the redirect)). Powers T 18:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • On what do you base that comment? There is no minimum time required for notability to be established. The play happened, and the next day there were multiple articles specifically about that one play and how critical it was. I watched The Daily Show last night, and Jon Stewart even talked specifically' about that play. Torc2 (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Lots of plays get talked about the next day, even dissected in detail. A week might be enough time to judge this accurately. Two days is not. Powers T 03:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
        • It's not fading away. Of all the plays in the game, that's the play featured on the Late Show, that's the one still being written about by the AP, that's the one being called the play we will never forget. Can you name a single individual play in football history that generated this much press and didn't get remembered? Torc2 (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Just how would I be able to name such a play if it wasn't remembered? You've set me an impossible task. Powers T 16:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - as news (for now). Of course there will be coverage of the play. It was a significant play in this particular game. But will it remain as something discussed in the future. That cannot be foretold, and such it is just sports news. -- Whpq (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • comment - More references establishing long-term independent notability of this specific play here, here, here, and here. Torc2 (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • There's no doubt that it's notable. But notable enough for its own separate article? I doubt it. It's the key moment in the 2008 Super Bowl, just as the Immaculate Reception was to what might otherwise be called 1972 Steelers-Raiders AFC Divisional Playoff Game. Unlike the 1972 playoff, however, the 2008 Super Bowl game already has a name. I can appreciate that someone will want to be the one who gives the play a name that goes down in history. It's not always so. The Jets' upset of the Colts probably had a lot of would-be nicknames back in 1969, but the only one that stuck was "Super Bowl III". Mandsford (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, there's "The Guarantee", which would be its own article if there was enough material on it, as there is for this article. Torc2 (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Plenty of attention has been given to this particular play, and for good reason: it was the definitive play of one of the most improbable upsets in Super Bowl history. The sources that have been provided would seem to bear that out. It isn't going to suddenly become less significant tomorrow. This article needs to settle on a proper name, and it needs to be merged with its duplicate, but these problems can be solved without deletion. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - One of the greatest plays in history. Deserves its own article. Mrprada911 (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - an important and memorable Super Bowl play. If Wide Right and The Tackle can have their own articles, this play should have one, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.34.217.222 (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Wide Right (Buffalo Bills) is notable because of its long-lasting impact and recognition, but the article we have on it is pitiful. It's unreferenced and does nothing to exhibit what it's meant to the city of Buffalo for 17 years. The play from Super Bowl XLII, on the other hand, has no such long-lasting impact and recognition because it only happened three days ago. Powers T 13:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to Super Bowl XLII - not notable enough for it's own article. JPG-GR (talk) 02:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge - see WP:NOT#NEWS, Wikipedia:Recentism. This doesn't seem to me yet notable enough for its own page; hence, it shouldn't have its own article unless there's some evidence of long-term notability. A merge into the main Superbowl article might be best, as that way it can always be moved out again if it becomes independently notable. Terraxos (talk) 03:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge as per User:JPG-GR above. - fchd (talk) 09:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge per PowersT and Terraxos. It was a great play (the Eli avoiding sacks part, the pass was OK), but I am not convinced that it (or most plays) deserve their own articles. TJ Spyke 13:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep/Merge. The play will, in all eventuality, carry the exact same notable and historic context of any other number of plays in NFL history that have their own pages. The only problem right now is that 1) it has duplicate pages right now, and 2) it has no official name. To demand all deletions of this article is to be prejudiced to the opposite side. The precedent has already been set that extremely noteworthy plays in NFL history get their own page. To disallow the page to continue merely because it doesn't YET have historical relevance is the definition of stupidity. By acknowledging that it one day will, but does not now, you are saying that Wikipedia should never create ANY articles until we know of their exact relevance in history. This is why we have editing capabilities in the first place: to expand or shrink articles in accordance with their perceived historical relevance. To rid of it entirely is to not only ignore precedent, but to call into question the creation of ANY article shortly after the event in question takes place.President David Palmer (talk) 14:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. But now The Catch (2008) needs to be merged into this one as well. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 14:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and purge all versions of this article. It will certainly be part of NFL Lore, but for now, it should exist in Super Bowl XLII. When it achieves a commonplace name, and it becomes a burden on the Super Bowl XLII article, then split off. So no separate article for the time being.—Twigboy (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge into Super Bowl XLII, which seems to be the alternative suggested by people who are saying keep or delete, and the same with The Catch (2008), which hasn't been nominated. I find it interesting that the author, Stev1der urges that the article be kept because he is "a professional sports journalist". Without knowing who he is or where he works, that can't be verified. It makes 1 1-der. Mandsford (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Merge my original article...links to my original post were deleted early into this process in order to facilitate merger, but my nine years experience in Texas and degree from a university in the state of Florida both support my 'claim' as a professional sports journalist...just to assure your 'concerns' over that 'verification'SteV1der (talk) 02:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge into Super Boal XLII. Not enough notability for a separate article. You can also merge it into David Tyree, as he only had a few catches the entire season. 199.125.109.135 (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge into Super Bowl XLII. At some point it might need it's own article, but for now, it's just one part of a Super Bowl upset. Take the info and fold it into SB42, then spin it back off again if in the future, it becomes notable. The Catch wasn't immediately notable, if San Fran had lost that first Super Bowl i wouldn't be remembered by the general public at all. Snowfire51 (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

*Delete. Although this incident has longlasting notability, this is the wrong name for the article. A redirect isn't even required because it's an unexpected searh term. Eli Manning pass to David Tyree is the best article for this incident. The article name is correct and its well written. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep, as it's now merged.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    • reply My original article was much better written, but has been chopped up in too many ways to even be called my article. I see some copying done from my article in the one you speak, even in the articles used as reference. I'm starting to agree that this should just be deleted, since it bears such slight resemblence to the original, highly detailed article, that was, according to some posters on this afd site, too hard to understand for a normal readerSteV1der (talk) 03:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • DELETE First and foremost, this was the original article, so if anything, any other Manning-to-Tyree articles should be merged into this one, not the other way around. No other article existed at the time, which is why this one was created. Now, I've seen plenty of input decrying the opinion that this is 'just sports news' but I can tell you that 'sports news' is simply 'news about sports' and dismissing the importance of one such play would be like suggesting the FIFA World Cup isn't a big deal...especially since the Super Bowl was THE most watched sporting event in American history, I'd suggest this article stay until the New York Giants release an official name for that particular play...furthermore, suggesting that it won't be remembered is RIDICULOUS, considering that a number of noteworthy journalists have been slyly vying for naming rights, by doing the same thing that I did, naming it...it's been called The Catch 2, The Play, The Slip & Grip, The Scramble & Gamble, Manning-to-Tyree, The Giant Play, and a number of other things, some of which are already names, like The Play (Stanford/Cal) and The Catch (although the '2' indicates a sequel which already exists, and wouldn't do justice even if it were rightly sequeled The Catch 3, since names like Wide Right, Wide Right II, and Wide Right III all refer to games and plays involving the same two teams (Miami and FSU) and the same event (a missed field goal). The effort to give it a name is even being undertaken by a major newspaper and the discussion can be found [14], though the contest is set to end on Friday, February 8th, 20008. There also seem to be more than a few people trying to assert an elitist slant into these proceedings by suggesting that a length of time needs to pass before recognition of the worthiness of it's notability...I'd politely suggest that they've not been paying attention to media coverage of the event, perhaps because of the political proceedings of the past few days, of which, it should be pointed out, a name was given (Super Duper Tuesday), even though there is just as much proof and even less time passed that would lend the same notability they claim doesn't exist in the Super Bowl XLII play...wikipedia certainly has proven to me that there are a few people that think too highly of themselves to be credible judges of news of any kind, sports included, and the role it plays in society.SteV1der (talk) 03:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Having articles about individual football games is borderline already, since such material is for the sports news, not an encyclopedia. However, since this is the Super Bowl final, watched by many, and one of the biggest sporting events in the US, I can accept the presence of that without much trouble. But this is not even an article about the game, it is about an event where a team scoring points in the game. It is getting to the absurd level of detail when we start having individual articles about each and every play in the game. This is like having an article on an individual goal in a football (soccer) match, an article about a single move of a chess game, an article about a particular strike-out it baseball. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. The precedent has long since been established, Sjakkalle. Individual plays of an immense magnitude that will have notability for decades to come are certainly on good grounds for their own article. The chess analogy is poor at best because the popularity and visibility of such a move would always pale in comparison to that of a Super Bowl (a Super Bowl that, mind you, was watched by more viewers than any other in history). This says nothing of the fact that individual chess games, when they reach a level of notability DO get Wikipedia entries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Chess_games). As for individual baseball plays? Well, there's an entire section on those, too (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Baseball_lore). And individual plays in (American) football games? Take your pick: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:National_Football_League_lore). Simple fact is that it was long ago decided that plays that reach an immense level of notoriety get their own article. Plays that become well enough known throughout history, and throughout the collective sports consciousness get their own articles. Why? Because of their cultural impact on millions of individuals who are both fans of the game, and non-fans.President David Palmer (talk) 15:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, I can speak for the chess games category. It is not very large, which testifies to the fact that we generally don't hold them notable in the encyclopedia sense, and the articles are on games, not on individual moves. For this article, the "greatest move ever" looks like the kind of hype contemporary media are prone to commit. (But to alleviate any fears, I realize that the "keep" side is arguing on merit, even though I disagree with them. I don't think that my opinion, based on notability, should be used to overrule consensus.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge. Just get all these articles together and merge them, but keep them separate from [[[Super Bowl XLII]]. Other major plays such as these (Miracle at the Meadowlands, The Catch, Immaculate Reception) have their own pages. All we need to do is come up with a universal name for this that almost everyone can agree upon. John cena123 (talk) 04:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. It seems likely that this play will attain the notoriety of the Immaculate Reception. TheMile (talk) 05:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Maybe once it is notorious, then we can have an article on it. Until then, no. Powers T 03:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. You have entries for some of the other greatest plays in NFL history. This deserves to be among all of them. 02:53, 9 February 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.206.86 (talk)
  • Keep This was the greatest play in New York Giants history and arguably the greatest play in Super Bowl history. Tyree drops this ball and we have an article about the perfect 19-0 Patriots season. Anyone who wants this deleted knows nothing about football —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.141.78 (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
There's no need for personal attacks here. Give your opinion, but please be civil. Snowfire51 (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - Play establishes notability. Wikipedia did not decide this - every sports media outlet has. The New York Daily News running a contest [15] to name the play satisfies any notability guideline. Not to mention the long discussions on ESPN and the NFL Network with the general consensus being that this is the number 1 play in NFL Super Bowl history.[16] --Endless Dan 04:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - will in all likelihood be one of the most memorable plays in NFL history. See also John Cena's list of other major plays. Of course, merge with Eli Manning pass to David Tyree —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Evil Spartan (talk • contribs) 09:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • If "notability" actually means what it claims to, this particular play has obviously received the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" prescribed by WP:"N" (a guideline which, mind you, should be taken with a grain of salt). More objectively, the article is neutral, verifiable, and maintainable. Keep and decide elsewhere how best to title it. — CharlotteWebb 20:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and merge with others on this same play. --Libertyernie2 (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Precedent that football plays can pass notability has been established, this one has been called by at least one expert (NFL Film's Steve Sabol) the greatest in Superbowl history. The issue is the shear number of names and accounts for the play, due to how recent it is. Keep the article for now, wait for a consensus to emerge, then go back to it later for a 'merge' debate in order to decide which of the Manning to Tyree articles subsumes the others. Normalphil (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Amazing play, maybe merge to Super Bowl XLII article, but if Wide Right and The Tackle have their own articles, this is as deserving as those other plays are. conman33 (. . .talk) 02:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable play that many analysts have been talking about and will continue to talk about as a landmark play in Super Bowl history. There is much precedent for having notable plays in Wikipedia. White 720 (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Lasting notability not established (see WP:NOT#NEWS. Merge/redirect would give legitimacy to a neologistic title being pushed by journalist who authored it, since it would lead to an article and would therefore show up on Google searches. Mcmullen writes (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Speedy Delete, CSD G11 by Philippe. Non-admin close. Redfarmer (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Space Harrier (The Movie)

Space Harrier (The Movie) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Prod removed without explanation. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. All speculation, no fact. Has not begun shooting yet and article claims it will not be released until 2010. Redfarmer (talk) 17:48, 4 February 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 Merge relevant content into Public Broadcasting Service parent article. Please note, I will not be merging any content as closing administrator. I will only be performing a redirect from this title to Public Broadcasting Service. Use the page history of the redirect page to perform the merge. Please ask if you need assistance, or see WP:MERGE. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Viewers Like You

Viewers Like You (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) –
AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Viewers Like You Articles for deletion/Viewers Like You (2nd nomination)
Viewers Like You (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(View AfD)

  • Comment: I'm completing an incomplete nomination. Remaining neutral at this time. Redfarmer (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The nominator speaks: Twinkle ate my very well-reasoned, well-considered (not to mention utterly humble and self-effacing) delete argument, so here it goes again--I anticipate catching a fair deal of hell for this nomination. This was up at AfD in July of 2006 [17] and consensus was "keep", with six editors participating. Now, six editors IS a consensus, granted, but it seems like a smallish one, and consensus can change. Having said that: I have had qualms about this article since I saw it bluelinked in all the PBSKids articles in the "funding" sections; mixed in among actual corporations and foundations, here's "Viewers Like You"--a concept, not an entity. Reading the article, I find that it's largely a list of variations in usage of this phrase, along with the dates and situations under which these variations came about. I don't see how that merits an article of its own. According to the notability guidelines, "notability" = significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The first two, we've got; the third, I don't see. Gladys J Cortez 18:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge The last AfD debate seemed to bypass the whole issue of notability and coverage in secondary sources. I'm sure there are lots of Wikipedians who have a soft spot for PBS, but that in and of itself doesn't establish anything. This article has a painful level of detail and the whole thing could be covered in two or three sentences in the main PBS article. Sorry Mr. Rogers Beeblbrox (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Normal practice when renominating an article is to post a more visible link to the first debate, in part so that people are apprised at the outset that this is a second nomination. As such, the incomplete nomination has only been incompletely completed. One wouldn't know that there had been a previous discussion, other than that Gladys volunteered that information after the nomination was supposedly completed. If it's properly nominated, then I'd say "keep" because the phrase has significance outside of being an intro and outro for PBS shows. In three words, it summarizes the nature of public television-- no commercial interruptions, but advertising in the form of acknowledgment to contributors, and annual interruptions of programming by fundraisers. Mandsford (talk) 02:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not understanding what your complaint is. Gladys is the nominator and she did post a link. Your comments above seem to be for moot. Redfarmer (talk) 13:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I hope that I'm putting the table in right. I like that expression.. the comments "seem to be for moot". Mandsford (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Now THAT's how you post a link. And THAT's how you complete an incomplete nomination. Moot moot moot! Mandsford (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment First: normal practice when entering a WP:CIVIL discussion is to avoid snarky condescension about other people's grammatical and usage errors. Secondly: The original nomination was made through Twinkle. Twinkle, as mentioned above, did something aberrant to my nomination, which included removing my original rationale. Apparently, the process was truncated somewhere along the line, for reasons beyond my control. Your insistence on a small point of process doesn't make the nomination any less valid ("if it's properly nominated...") and your verbal victory-dance, based on your "superior" knowledge and execution of this small point of process, comes off, at best, as pedantic and self-congratulatory. Gladys J Cortez 23:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I've read this discussion several times and I still don't know who Twinkle is. Mandsford (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:TWINKLE Redfarmer (talk) 02:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge into the PBS article or a PBS 'phrase' article. As this exists it is WP:OR failing WP:V, and WP:RS. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge into PBS, as PBS is the only station that notably uses the phrase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rigby27 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

move to close the only keep is based on technical issues, not the merits of the subject. Beeblbrox (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

  • MERGE, I grew up with "made possible by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting...and Viewers Like You!" The phrase is notable because of its longevity and its recognizability, however it is not that notable to have its own article page. Very few hold that honor...perhaps only those of the calibre ofthose such as, "The Few, The Proud, The Marines" could rate its own article.--Sallicio\color{Red} \oplus 10:54, 13 February 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. John254 03:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CSSE

CSSE (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

There is no need for this article; it's an article based on an abbreviation. At the most it should be transwikied to Wiktionary... and at the very least the abbreviation should be mentioned in the article(s) that it is an abbreviation of. ScarianCall me Pat 17:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Nom withdrawn - I see now that the article has been moulded into a dab page which is a satisfactory outcome! ScarianCall me Pat 17:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Keep - This abbreviation should be more of a disambiguation... There is also...

The Canadian Society for the Study of Education [18] Canadian Society of Safety Engineering [19] The Consortium for Selective Schools in Essex [20] --Pmedema (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

    • The article has been converted to a disambiguation page by User:Eastmain Great job of it too! Well I think that this can be closed now.--Pmedema (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as a disambiguation page. --Eastmain (talk) 01:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - but only as a Dab page. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 07:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as dab page. If the redlinks are deemed nn when written, we can delete this again.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 08:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Nom withdrawn - I see now that the article has been moulded into a dab page which is a satisfactory outcome! ScarianCall me Pat 17:05, 5 February 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 Delete. — Satori Son 22:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cost per contact

Cost per contact (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Speedy denied because user added tags after speedy tag was put in place. Fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:CORP. Key word here is "will receive greater attention." Let's do an article on it when it actually is notable. Redfarmer (talk) 16:56, 4 February 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 Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arlington Avenue (Ottawa)

Arlington Avenue (Ottawa) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I am proposing that this article be deleted because it topic is not notable or important. This article is about a side-street in Ottawa. If this street were notable, then surely every street in Ottawa (of hundreds/thousands) would be notable, and that is not the case. Alaney2k (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It does not pass the Ottawa project guidelines for notability: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ottawa#Structure The street is not a 'city freeway, arterial or major collector' Alaney2k (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
To quote your link 'City streets are contested, but minor streets are not generally acceptable.' That would tend to argue the point contrary to 'Keep'. Could you clarify your !vote? Alaney2k (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • "Most numbered roadways are acceptable, but should only be created if they can be described beyond the route itself." The article satisfies that.--Pmedema (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
      • The article -is- a description of the route itself. E.g., 'crosses this road, has Glashan School on it, has a Quiznos on the corner'. There is nothing beyond the description of what you would see had you walked the route yourself. The street has no importance. Alaney2k (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
      • It would be different if it were an article on the traffic calming on Arlington Avenue. Possibly there was some debate or controversy about that Alaney2k (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Reading the article, in my opinion, describes "beyond the route itself".--Pmedema (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete This is not a really major street even if I'm not mistaking, it is running behind the Ottawa Bus Terminal and connects both Bank, Kent/Lyon and Bronson all major downtown arteries Looking at the maps and some observations it's just like the similar downtown side streets such as Lisgar, Cooper, Nepean or Gilmour Streets. Not nearly as important as Slater, Albert and Somerset.--JForget 19:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. The streets linked in the article (Bank Street, Kent Street, Bronson Avenue, and Booth Street) indicate that they're major arteries, but Arlington Avenue specifically says that it's a residential street. To take a parallel from Minneapolis: Hennepin Avenue is one of the major streets, but the streets it intersects (like 5th Street, 6th Street, 7th Street, and so on until its terminus at 36th Sreet) aren't notable. (And then there was the time I waited at the intersection of 23rd and Hennepin to catch a bus. I must have waited forever.) --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as insufficiently notable. The PROD tag should never have been removed from this one: all streets are not inherently notable. — Satori Son 13:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It was perfectly reasonable to remove the prod tag to get discussion on this. In the same way that I removed it from Trium, just before you speedy deleted it under A7 and were then educated at DRV that A7 doesn't cover products and the difference between notability and an assertion of notability. You may want to review WP:CSD rather than mindlessely criticising my actions, and certainly before getting carried away with the delete button again. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I am sorry you are having trouble staying focused. Do you believe Arlington Avenue is sufficiently notable or not? — Satori Son 20:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • No. Just responding to your comment that the prod tage should never have been removed, which I guess would have given you another chance to use your delete button. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • comment I proposed it for PROD. Is that not different than WP:CSD? Was it not procedurally correct to put a prod on a place article? Alaney2k (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • No, I am not saying that it shouldn't have been prodded, I was responding to Satori who said that I should never have de-prodded it (we have a little bit of history, and he is trying to tell me that I can't interpret criteria, since he mistakenly believed that a product could be deleted under A7 - see the Trium debate at DRV). Sorry for the confusion. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Per reasoning by Pmedema, the article certainly describes more than just the route the avenue takes. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 13:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment How can putting "there is a quizno's on the corner" make it notable? Alaney2k (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • delete I cannot find any helpful sources and the article as it stands simply describes the route. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:17, 12 February 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. John254 03:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Klaus Mitffoch

Klaus Mitffoch (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC. Non notable. No third party links. Undeath (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment the band had a bestselling album in Poland. I am not a fan of their music and I don't have the album, but I remember it from being often broadcast on the radio. Finding any information in English about them seems a bit difficult though... Pundit|utter 16:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, notable band. Their album Klaus Mitffoch won several awards and is considered to be one of the most important albums in the history of Polish rock music according to RMF FM [21]. They also got sigificant airplay on Polish radio as Pundit mentions. I've added the reference to the article. Jogers (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Jogers. We should avoid WP:BIAS against non-English-speaking countries, seems notable in its own language and country, but that isn't demonstrated here.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 08:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Has had regular coverage from Poland's largest circulation non-tabloid newspaper (Gazeta Wyborcza) [22]. Unfortunately the full articles are not available online without subscription but from the Google summaries I can tell that they are all about this band. This is a far greater level of coverage by independent reliable sources than we demand for bands in the anglophone world. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Abstain Delete unless ref showing notability provided.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Notable band, they produced hit "Jezu jak się cieszę" and has article in WIEM Encyclopedia [23]. Visor (talk) 10:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Phil Bridger. Gazeta Wyborcza Daily is not very reliable in politics, in rock music they cannot afford not to be. greg park avenue (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete as hoax (just like other article by same editor). Faking references is not really a problem if you don't link them... Fram (talk) 15:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mike lewis (Student)

Mike lewis (Student) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Declined CSD, but looks like a hoax - none of the links at the bottom of the article work, and a trivial google search turns up nothing. —Random832 15:40, 4 February 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. John254 03:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arthur Skinny Graham

Arthur Skinny Graham (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete It appears that he played only a handful of games for the Red Sox (from a Blog, so not a WP:RS) - Notability not established Mayalld (talk) 15:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

He played many and his son for the boston patriots. I'll get the information from cooperstown. Plumpworth (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak keep I managed to dig up his career stats: [24] which proves the guy existed and that he played for the Red Sox in the 1930s. Still, we really need more than that for an article. Per WP:BIO, though, he was a real professional athlete, so we should keep the article. That said, if no sources better than the stats page are found in (say) six months, I'd say delete. Mangojuicetalk 16:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Provisionalkeep. Satisfies WP:BIO for athletes as competing on the highest level. Source found and added confirming he played for the Red Sox 1934-1935. But, I want to double check article for copyvio. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I notice that this page came to AfD 6 minutes after creation and 2 minutes after it was tagged for cleanup. AfD is a remedy of last resort, not a tool for new page patrolling. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep If the nominator knew anything of the eligibility rules he'd know that if someone plays even one game of major league baseball he's notable and that a player of the 1930s is as notable as one of today. Taking an article to AfD six minutes after creation is also extremely bad form. Nick mallory (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Our notability guidelines generally require substance, not triviality. I don't believe that somebody who played a mere handful of gsmes can be said to have "competed in a fully professional league". It requires more than a trivial number of appearances for that. As to the time elapsed before nominating for deletion, the nomination is on a basis of a lack of notability. The facts are not in dispute (that he played a very few games), so what purpose would be served by waiting Mayalld (talk) 08:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
You might not think that a handful of games qualifies a player but wikipedia policy and precedent holds that it does. There is no arbitrary number for 'trivial' appearances precisely to prevent pointless discussions like this. Nick mallory (talk) 10:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
It appears to me that WP:BIO is less than explicit on this point. It doesn't state that a trivial excursion into a professional league doesn't count, and it doesn't say that it does count. Clearly there is a need for greater clarity on this issue (one way or the other) to avoid confusion. As to precedent, always a tricky one, WP:CCC and it would be far better if "precedent" was replaced by clearer guidelines. Anyway, I've said enough. I personally don't believe that he is notable due to the trivial nature of his career. If others agree, all well and good. If others disagree, likewise. Mayalld (talk) 11:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:BIO is crystal clear on the matter. It says that 'Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league' are notable, I don't see any ambiguity there at all. There's no cut off in terms of the numbers of games played, there's no qualifier about what might be 'trivial', it's absolutely clear that your nomination is simply against established policy, which is why it'll fail. Nick mallory (talk) 14:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I fully accept that it is crystal clear to you. However, I believe that in the absence of an explicit statement that even a trivial participation at that level counts, there must be a degree of de-minimis. I will seek to clarify the policy (whether in favour of my position on this AfD or otherwise) in the near future. Mayalld (talk) 14:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep in mind that in this case, the guy played for two seasons in the major leagues, but also presumably participated more significantly at the minor league level, which is still a fully professional league. None of this is to say we should keep the article if it can't meet WP:V but it's hard to make the argument that sources don't exist: we may just not have found them yet. Mangojuicetalk 06:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Notability is not a function of time of tenure and a whole season in the big leagues is hardly trivial. The general idea of presumed notability by other criteria is that such people don't come out of thin air. RS coverage is probably out there and will likely be found eventually. That's good enough for a stub. In Arthur Skinny Graham's case, the basics are proven and the interesting details need sources. • Gene93k (talk) 07:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Per WP:BIO. Policy and Precedent are that if you play in the majors, you're notable.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Per WP:BIO on notability of professional athletes who have competed at the highest level of their sport. This appears to be another drive-by AfD created within minutes of the article's creation. The nomination appears to violate the nominator's obligations under Wikipedia:Deletion policy to research claims of notability, and then edit, expand or merge the article to improve it. Alansohn (talk) 03:57, 6 February 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 Delete. — Satori Son 22:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David M. Fitzpatrick

David M. Fitzpatrick (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Seems not nobable to me. And looks like an autobiography. fschoenm (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete – Sorry to say. Could find no information. Shoessss |  Chat  15:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete in the current state does not prove notability. Also, a writer without a book and publishing mainly in less known magazines by default seems a bit suspicious. Pundit|utter 16:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:BIO due to having no coverage cited about him. Just having his articles published is not enough.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 08:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete- There are no secondary sources. Not notable enough. Rigby27 (talk) 18:45, 9 February 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. Fram (talk) 12:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Psycho-Cybernetics

Psycho-Cybernetics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete promotional non-notable self-help book. None of the references (publishers site and blog) meet WP:RS and WP:V (Declined PROD) Mayalld (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep – Found several reviews from the New York Times, Time Magazine, San Francisco Chronicle and Dallas Morning News that speak specifically to the concept as shown here [25] which includes mention of both the book and author. I say that is pretty notable. Shoessss |  Chat  15:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • comment - are they reviews of this book, or just passing mentions of the "and the pop psych Psycho-Cybernetics concept" sort? There aren't any such reviews linked to in the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment – That is why I provided them! So you could base Your opinion on some additional information other than based on others opinion. Me personally, found that notability was established. Shoessss |  Chat  16:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I tried with Google[26] and found many reviews from different third parties. Pretty notable indeed. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 15:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - obscure pop-psych oldie by non-notable author. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - The book statisfies WP:N and WP:V. Author Maxwell Maltz is notable and has a long standing article about him. --Pmedema (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep links provided by Shoesss pass WP:N. Sethie (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Very notable book that has been around for a long time and is considered a major work in the field. The fact it's an "obscure oldie" (to borrow one editor's words) is not valid criteria for deletion. 23skidoo (talk) 18:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • comment - if the book is notable, where are the links in the article to citations of the work as notable? "obscure" is another word for non-notable; if it's notable, source the claim of notability in the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - added one to article to establish Notability. Will add others shortly. To Orange Mike, as an editor you are more than free to add additional cites and refernces, I provided them above, if you just take your mouse and left click on the link I provided, rather than just stamping your feet, it would be a great help. 19:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Shoessss |  Chat  19:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Well known concept notable for over 40 years, Numerous refs in reliable sources per Google Scholar [27] satisfy WP:N. Edison (talk) 01:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per above.Biophys (talk) 03:04, 11 February 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 Deleted via CSD G11. Non-admin close. RogueNinjatalk 19:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John major jenkins

John major jenkins (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

1. Question of notability, 2. Page is copied directly from Mr. Jenkins website at "http://alignment2012.com/about_jmj.html", 3. Article is very poorly written, 4. Article is named wrongly, "John major jenkins" should be "John Major Jenkins" of course Stefan Kruithof (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete I put up the CSD G11 template. Blatant copyvio RogueNinjatalk 18:55, 4 February 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 Delete. — Satori Son 21:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Helena arlock

Prod'd but removed - so AFD it is. On first glance, this well-written article seems to be that of a notable figure but closer inspection of sources reveals that none support notability as outlined by our guidelines on Music and Bios, no evidence that the multiple reliable sources that we need exist - just another Myspace based artist (no offense intended) Fredrick day (talk) 14:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable auto bio. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 15:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete – Sorry to say not enough information to establish notability at this time. However, I wish her luck and hope to be reading about her here at Wikipedia this time next year. Shoessss |  Chat  15:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - simply fails WP:MUSIC at the present time. EJF (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Does not have the standards for WP:MUSIC - --Pmedema (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't quite meet the notability guideline yet. Not quite an A7 though.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 07:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • what exactly do you need more to make this article stay? might be good to know, read your guidelines but seems like there's other pages like this out there anyway?!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Helenaarlock (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Canley (talk) 05:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese speech synthesis

Chinese_speech_synthesis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

I'm no longer sure this is encyclopaedic, and nobody else seems to have joined in at making the article any better. It's basically a collection of links to different synths with short summaries of how they're supposed to work (including a lot of personal observation, which is reproducible but not widely referenced). Silas S. Brown (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep a reasonable sub-topic of speech synthesis, and one that seems to have a sufficient number of people studying it that we could write a better encyclopedia article on it: Find sources: Chinese speech synthesis — news, books, scholar. cab (talk) 03:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment For those who may be confused, the nominator is also the article's original author. cab (talk) 03:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I do not see anything wrong with it. A number of people have now worked on it. DGG (talk) 04:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • In the history I can see improvements to the markup/headings, turning phrases into wiki links, and typo fixes, but no new material. "A number of people have now worked on it" - did I miss something? We could wait for someone to do a proper survey of the research, but if we have an article on Chinese speech synthesis then do we also want articles on Cantonese speech synthesis, Japanese speech synthesis, Korean speech synthesis, Vietnamese speech synthesis, Spanish speech synthesis, French speech synthesis and so on for every language in which there is published research on speech synthesis, and who's going to write them all? Silas S. Brown (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
      • What exactly would be wrong with having a series of neutral, verifiable articles on a series of topics on which academic papers have already been written? cab (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems like a valid article, needs work, but what articles don't? Fosnez (talk) 12:34, 5 February 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 Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Bowater

Chris Bowater (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

NN, unsourced, reads like a story Lumberjake (talk) 05:09, 2 February 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, nominator withdrew and consensus called for a keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gangaji

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Gangaji
Gangaji (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Although Gangaji is one of the most famous modern western teacher of Nonduality she has not recieved any coverage in reliable third party sources not connected to her or her organization. Fails WP:N, article has been tagged for 3 months and no new third party sources have been added. Sethie (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. The article in Ashland Daily Tidings appears to be a reliable source and proof of notability. --Eastmain (talk) 07:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 07:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 07:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I checked the Ashland Daily Tidings archive and it appears to have several articles on the subject.[29] OTOH, that's a small-city newspaper so it's marginal proof of notability. Articles in ProQuest, which archives over a hundred big-city newspapers, barely mention her. The best is a clue to another reliable source:
    • MYSTICS, MASTERS, SAINTS AND SAGES: STORIES OF ENLIGHTENMENT, by Robert Ullman and Judyth Reichenberg-Ullman (Conari, $16.95, softcover). A compendium of brief, informative biographies and writings by and about 33 spiritual models, past and present. Figures include, from the past, Saint Catherine of Siena, the Baal Shem Tov and Meher Baba; from the present, U.S. spiritual teacher Gangaji, "The Power of Now" author Eckhart Tolle, and Ammachi, the "hugging guru" from India.
    • "The Reading List Runneth Over With Tomes on Faith, Faithful; New Titles Offer Windows on Spiritual Worlds, Solace in Trying Times"; Bill Broadway. The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.: Nov 3, 2001. pg. B.09
  • It looks like many libraries in California have it. Is anyone interested enough to check it out and see if it has something worthwhile on the subject? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Although I propsed the AFD, I have changed my mind. [[30]] and [[31]] are two more sources that could be used. However I would that the afd not be closed even though I am changing my mind, two of the three main editors on the page believe it should be deleted. Btw the page needs a lot of help there are WP:NPA left and right, lack of WP:AGF all over the place and numerous WP:BLP violations and lots of off topic discussion. Sethie (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Lots of similar articles all over Wikipedia. --Dseer (talk) 19:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I find about a half dozen books on books.google.com which may support her notability, including the ones listed above. For example, in addition to the notable reference by Wayne Dyer and in other spirituality books, she's also been consulted by and discussed among psychotherapists both in person and in publication [[32]] and noted in the context of men's healing [[33]]. This doesn't include the other references in publication which simply give mention of thanks or credit to her. - Cantamagda (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as quite notable and editor who tagged this article also withdrawn his nomination. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 15:44, 4 February 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. Fram (talk) 12:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Holmes

Joseph Holmes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable Montchav (talk) 13:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep User:Hoary has added external links to the article that prove this person's notability. Bláthnaid 14:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Bláthnaid. Jfire (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 01:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment With this overly minimalist approach to nomination, it would really be helpful to have the nominator give more details on why the article was listed for AfD and how the subject lacks notability. TheMindsEye (talk) 02:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't think that you can say how somebody lacks notability. Rather, you just flatly assert it and see whether anyone can contradict you. -- Hoary (talk) 14:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as the Atlantic article suggests that people who are pretty well informed regard him as an expert in the processing and printing of color digital photographs. (I'd agree that the article is now feeble and recently was a lot worse.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC) PS, I'm starting to wonder, what with FBM's comments below. -- Hoary (talk) 00:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC) PPS Tyrenius has put a lot of work into this, and more than deserves any praise that I got above. My "keep" vote stays. -- Hoary (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete unless some notability relevant references are added. Non-substantial article puts it under "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability". References so far fail independence since we have the Breakthroughs Berkeley interview (subject has a degree from that department[34]), and the Atlantic article[35] where the author states flat out "Holmes is an old friend". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Ouch. I sit corrected. Though I think you're a little harsh on the Atlantic article, in that when writing a (non-whimsical, substantive) article for a magazine such as that, I don't suppose you can get that much mileage out of an old friend unless you can also reassure your editor that the old friend really knows what he's talking about. Still, yes, the article needs reinforcement (or deletion). -- Hoary (talk) 00:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
        • That's a misunderstanding of "independent". It doesn't mean the author or publisher has no connection with the subject. It means that someone other than the subject has written/published the material. Both the cases cited are therefore independent. Many writers and publishers would consider themselves to be friends of their subjects, but wikipedia does not veto the source on that basis. Tyrenius (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
          • The concept is that "people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it" (WP:BIO, note #4). Was the "subject notable enough" to generate those two independent references? No, the dependant criteria one author had to follow was the subject was an alumni, the other author’s first criteria mentioned was the subject was a "friend". Even if these mentions were independant, we still seem to be "trivial" here. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
            • You have failed to continue note 4 to show what is considered to be dependent. Here is the example given of that: "Thus, entries in biographical dictionaries that accept self-nominations (such as the Marquis Who's Who) do not prove notability." The specific example is given because this directory will virtually accept anyone, and the text is provided by the subject directly. Neither of the two journals in question would carry articles on that basis. One was written by Kenneth Brower and the other an interview conducted by Cyril Manning. There is nothing in the guideline to state there must be no connection whatsoever with the publishing entity, and it would be absurdly unworkable were that so, disqualifying a huge percentage of sources. The Manning piece is 1,000 words and the Brower piece is 2,400 words. Note 5 states: "Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing that does not discuss the subject in detail." Clearly they are both considerably removed from a simple directory entry and do discuss the subject in detail. The example given of trivial is, "a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot form." Tyrenius (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Coverage in some for-pay articles here: [36] Jfire (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
        • But only four, and at least two sound like mere mentions. The Chicago Sun-Times article might be worth three bucks, though; I'll have to consult my accountant first. -- Hoary (talk) 01:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Tyrenius has since added a lot. -- Hoary (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Yes, I was just about to say that! Some of the sources are slight, but telling nevertheless, as multiple sources validate notability. It would be good if someone could add material from the external links and then use them as references instead. Tyrenius (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • KEEP OneMarkus (talk) 03:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The references in the article demonstrate that he is regarded as a pioneer in his field. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:57, 7 February 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 Delete. — Satori Son 22:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Necrocannibalistic vomitorium

Necrocannibalistic vomitorium (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Many Googles, no proof of WP:MUSIC notability. Montchav (talk) 00:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete as it stands, fails WP:MUSIC. Punkmorten (talk) 15:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete – Unable to find any information in any language Shoessss |  Chat  16:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - too difficult to prove notability, for now. Pundit|utter 17:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:V and WP:MUSIC at the moment due to the lack of third-party sources available and found.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 07:50, 5 February 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 Delete all. Tikiwont (talk) 10:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Watched By More Americans Than Any Other Network

Watched By More Americans Than Any Other Network (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Like the now-departed Use your imagination, PBS Kids and you!, this is amazingly far beyond the valley of the useless and non-notable. And it has friends-- [Category: ABC slogans], for the most part, is a veritable smorgasbord of links crying out to be deleted for non-notability. Do I need to nominate them one by one, or is there a better way? Gladys J Cortez 15:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC) Gladys J Cortez 15:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment: I'm being bold and adding the following articles to this nomination, as they should all be kept or deleted on the same basis. Redfarmer (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
    • America's Watching ABC
    • It Must Be ABC
    • Let Us Be the One
    • Something's Happening on ABC
    • Start Here (ABC slogan)
    • Still the One (promotional campaign)
    • Together (ABC Television Network)
    • We're With You on ABC
    • We're the One
    • You'll Love It (ABC Television Network)
  • Comment: Thanks for taking care of that! Rather than make this into a gigantic bundle of articles, I went through and added the relevant CBS and NBC articles for deletion too. (In my search, I looked at the FOX page, as well, and IMHO, that's the way to include info like this: as a piece of the main article, or "History of ____ Network" or similar.)Gladys J Cortez 20:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. This is a slogan, not a topic in itself. By the way, WP:BUNDLE explains how to nominate multiple articles in a single nomination; however, I would recommend against trying to put too many articles in one nom. It might be better to nominate them separately. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, WP:NEO and WP:NOT#INFO Mayalld (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - not sure that WP:NEO applies, since some were existing phrases used by the networks, but I agree with the nomination - fails WP:N - and with the inclusion of the other articles. Springnuts (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT#INFO and WP:OR. Didn't there used to be (or is) a list of ABC/NBC/CBS slogans?. Totally NN. Doc Strange (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh wait, I found it: List of ABC slogans. All of these are sufficiently covered just by the chronological listing in this article. Anything else is WP:OR Doc Strange (talk) 21:04, 2 February 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.

I have attempted to merge the page here: User:Some Person/NBC slogans —Preceding comment was added at 05:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fram (talk) 13:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rock With U

Rock_With_U (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

This article should be deleted,as it does not have any reliable sources that states its going to the next official single of the album........

i dont know why its taking so long for it to be deleted....the article "touch my body" had the same reference as this one,and it was deleted several times.....and in this article its the exact same situation,and yet it still exists.....i dont get it......

  • Keep: This song, unlike Mariah's, is already out and it has been indicated toe song will be going for adds later this month. Thankyoubaby (talk) 00:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

and,also mariahs song has been indicated that it will go for adds later this month.....just because the song itself didnt leak doesnt mean it wont go for adds on february 19 as scheduled......and mariahs song has been confirmed throughtout many sources and radio stations,that it is going to be the first single,and that it will be released,janets song has less sources....and also mariahs song is also on all access ...,so thats more than enough proof......and the reference thats put on rock with u article,if u look closely ,u will see mariah and touch my body.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.21.59 (talk) 07:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep: Per sources provided. Bull Borgnine (talk) 06:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete given that it has not yet been confirmed as a single. Capitalistroadster (talk) 06:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and WP:CRYSTAL without prejudice for recreation if something is announced officially. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 15:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: The song is now available for download and is listed as "Rock With U - Single" under the artist Janet. It has to be the next single from Discipline. [37] Bull Borgnine (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • P.S. The album description also refers "Rock With U" as her new single.
  • Keep: Song will impact radio February 11.[38] THE evil fluffyface (talk) 03:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep: The date is sourced, and it's not like FMQB just pulls out random dates. As they are a radio industry site, their dates are given directly from the record companies. If iTunes also lists it as a single.... I understand the "crystal ball" aspect of it, but there are many indirect confirmations and indications, so I really don't think this should be considered as a random album song that may be released. SKS2K6 (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Is listed as a single on iTunes. ≈Alessandro ♫ T • C 15:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is an actual released music single. It is also available for sale on iTunes. PatrickJ83 (talk) 03:00, 11 February 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 Delete. Fram (talk) 13:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Starling Electric

Starling Electric (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC Montchav (talk) 13:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, local band that hasn't quite made it yet. Judging by their website, their latest album hasn't gotten any significant reviews, just local press (and broken links). Jfire (talk) 08:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: not notable enough. - Chardish (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete The group has not achieved notability at this point in time. --Stormbay (talk) 01:50, 11 February 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 No consensus to delete (default keep). I considered relisting, but I bet it would get 1 delete, 1 keep, 1 delete, 1 keep ad nauseum. Arguments for and against are of about equal strength. Ergo: NC. JERRY talk contribs 03:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of EDA companies

List of EDA companies (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails;

  • Keep. EDA is about a $5B business. Most of these companies have been written about by more or less objective sources such as EE Times. It's not easy to keep track of the industry without such a list - I work in the EDA industry, and there are companies here I'm not familiar with, but might be interested in. Also the second part of the list, EDA companies that no longer exist, is very helpful, since these are particularly hard to find by searches, exactly since they no longer exist. LouScheffer (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - it appears the purpose of the list is to present external links. That makes it a directory of webpages, and that's against our content policy WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. If the links led to Wikipedia articles, that would make this an acceptable list, but they don't. The Transhumanist 21:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    • You may happily delete external links. What I am going to do right now (moving them to talk page for future processing). Mukadderat (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • keep per Lou and Mikka. It may make sense to restrict the list to those companies that are independently notable (which appears to be a substantial fraction of the list). JoshuaZ (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS notwithstanding, this is a bad list. O, the horror! The horror!. Bearian (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup. This is a good list: veriviable and well-defined and important sector of industry. Mukadderat (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Also fails Wikipedia:Lists#Purpose_of_lists "However, as Wikipedia is optimized for readers over editors, any lists which exist primarily for development or maintenance purposes (such as a list of red link articles needed) should be in project or user space not the main space" --Hu12 (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Yuck-yuck, already fixed: redlinked stuff moved into talk page. Mukadderat (talk) 23:27, 13 February 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 userfied, clearly not mainspacve material. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ben metelits

Ben metelits (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete as per WP:BIO. Though this article has just been created but still nominating it for deletion on good faith and it is not a WP:BITE at all. Person in this article in noway meet WP:BIO. I tried with Google search but didn't find a single substantial reference that supports his career as a filmmaker and scientist. Becoming a scientist for a 2nd year medical student sounds a bit weird though. Because of all those issues, it looks like a vanity article and nominating for deletion. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 13:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I am an author on a published article regarding the Molecular Genetics of Pigmentation (see http://www.mostgene.org/Brilliant.pdf). I am also in the Honors program at NYU where I "yes, do research AND attend medical school classes!" Most importantly though, is that I am working in a lab testing out my own invention for a brand new anti-hypertensive agent which, although no one knows about it now, I am planning on patenting within the year and selling to a biotech company for further development, testing, and FDA approval. As far as the filmmaker part, I include the term loosely to mean "one who makes films, even short ones on youtube.com." If that is not "notable" enough, I will remove it. Please let me know what other changes need to be made so that my article will not be deleted. Thanks! User:ben.metelits —Preceding comment was added at 13:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment: With due respect to whatever you have done, I would like to draw your attention to some core policies of Wikipedia (WP). WP maintains strict guidelines for its articles about their existence. Those guidelines (to WP they are kind of constitution) are called policy. Who (a person) is notable to have an article and who is not, is clearly defined under two important policies WP:NOTE and WP:BIO. You may have a close look there. Unfortunately you have been proven non-notable for WP to have a standalone or partial article according to those policies. Wishing you all the best in your future life and we would love to contribute in your article when you'll become notable. Cheers. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 18:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, so you are working on something. Big whoop. You are not notable. Plus, this is a COI now. The article of yours, IMHO, is not notable either. The site is not well known, and you are not a master in the field. Still non notable. Still Delete.Undeath (talk) 15:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • And as for the film maker part. Youtube films DO NOT COUNT. They are non notable.Undeath (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, created for vandalism only. --MPerel 15:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I would like to remind everyone to remain civil and polite. Even if someone's views are hopelessly biased, treat them with respect and courtesy, and refer to policy, sources and above all be fair. Jon513 (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a perfect example of why we have speedy criteria for non-notable bios (A7). Quietly deleting this would have been much less incivil to the article's creator as it could have been worked out on a talk page between one or two editors if the creator contested the speedy. Now, an AfD record will always exist that says Ben metelits. Sorry, Ben. You may very well be notable enough someday for Wikipedia. It hasn't happened yet. In an effort to "stop the madness that is AfD", I'm adding a speedy tag to the article. Cheers, Keeper | 76 16:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. That you MIGHT be famous one day doesn't mean that you're anywhere close now. --Calton | Talk 16:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Author admits that his research is not even known now, and nothing else in the article, save for a dubious suggestion that his action garnered national media attention (15 minutes of fame is not necessarily an automatic qualifier for notability), suggests any form of notability. Also, per above, Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy applies. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. Go sign up to facebook for this sort of stuff. Nouse4aname (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just not notable. Sorry. Bstone (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • delete - less notable than I am. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment--okay, so it's non-notable. Jeez, guys, be nice--some of you need to quit snapping the poor guy's head off! Talk about WP:BITE...writing an article about oneself is a perfectly-innocent n00b error, and calls for GUIDANCE, not vitriol. None of you ever made a mistake when you started here? Gladys J Cortez 20:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree wholeheartedly Gladys, which is why I tried to get this article speedied instead of AfD'ed. It brings the troutslap out of the public arena and into the talkpages of the deletor and the creator, ne'er to be seen...Keeper | 76 20:51, 4 February 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 Delete. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008 Queen Charlotte Islands Earthquakes

2008 Queen Charlotte Islands Earthquakes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Seems pretty non-notable. I doubt the article willgrow from this simple news story TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, nothing happened. Punkmorten (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable enough of an event to justify its own article. It didn't exactly cause huge tsunamis or BC Place in Vancouver to collapse. 23skidoo (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete These didn't even happen at the Queen Charlotte Islands, unless their territorial waters are 142 miles away. It's like calling a tremor in Cuba the "Orlando Earthquake". While a 6.5 Richter scale quake would cause some damage if it were on land, this was in the Pacific Ocean without any apparent consequence. Mandsford (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete per everyone.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 07:45, 5 February 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 wasSpeedy Delete per A7-no claims to importance --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brandon Locher

Brandon Locher (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This individual does not appear to meet criteria in WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. As far as I can tell, the "Discography" section is a list of essentially self-published works, not on a major label. Deli nk (talk) 12:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete, possibly speedy. Seems to fail {{db-bio}}, as there isn't a claim of being signed to a record label or touring. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:21, 4 February 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 Delete. There doesn't seem to be any version about the more famous, older painter of the same name, so I could not restore that. This delete in no way opposes the creation of an article on Botelho (1899-1982), if that one is considered to be notable. Fram (talk) 13:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Carlos Botelho

Carlos Botelho (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Carlos Botelho (born in 1964) is an unknown portuguese painter who has the same name than the real portuguese painter Carlos Bothello (18 september 1899 - 18 august 1982) [39] [40]. He has created his autobiography on 10 wikipedia by using the notoriety of the real painter and replacing the biographies of the real painter (see in detail the 35000 google results).


He tried to cheat the portugueses by replacing the real one by his autobiography, but he failed because portugueses know the real painter. So he created pt:Bottelho.

Here are real biographies of the real painter (1899-1982): fr:Carlos Botelho, pt:Carlos Botelho, de:Carlos Botelho, it:Carlos Botelho

Here are the autobiographies by this dishonest user (1964-): pt:Bottelho, en:Carlos Botelho, de:Carlos Botelho, es:Carlos Botelho, fi:Carlos Botelho, it:Carlos Botelho, ja:カルロス・ボテーリョ, nn:Carlos Botelho, ru:Ботелью, Карлуш, sl:Carlos Botelho, zh:Carlos Botelho. --Copiste (talk) 10:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment It is an unsourced biography and unless references to reliable sources are added to demonstrate verifiability and notability it should be deleted, noting also that WP:BLP requires biographies of living people to be referenced to reliable third-party sources. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete this massivly COI article unless referenced (even then it needs much cleanup based on WP:NPF and unduly self-serving WP:SELFPUB). I did some searching since the artists seems to be the creator of a significant monument (Monumento ao Bombeiro) making this look like a slam dunk for "Keep". But Google searching that monument[41] shows all those references seem to based on Wikipedia article references or other material generated by Carlos Botelho himself (many of those articles contain a photograph[42] that Botelho shot himself). So no proof that this monument is significant. His own inserted resume entrys are split between him being a graphic designer and an arts project administrator with little reference to actual work as an artist. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • conditional rename. Clearly Carlos Botelho should be the article on Carlos António Teixeira Bastos Nunes Botelho (1899-1982); if and only if the assertion of notability for the current occupant can be maintained, the current content should be moved to Carlos Botelho (1964- ), or similar, with a WP:hatnote cross-referencing either way. --Paularblaster (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete no work exhibited in museum, no book presenting his works, no notability at all. But a great marketing guy. SalomonCeb (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Well please consider delete all illustrations on articles i´ve been working for as there are no notability in them, as well my Commons gallery. I have no intentions now to share anything with the world believe me. Im Carlos Botelho or Bottelho (b. 1964 ...) fortunately "not dead" and unfortunately with a homonymous as you know. There should be a rule to this disambiguation but .... a Im working on "reliable" sources such as City halls and museums, the article has sopme faults i know. However the "campaign" started from "France" with - (M:. Salomon... :. and copiste)with complete deletion and no historic in just two days and be sure that there are "hiden interests". However please consider deleting also Monumento ao Bombeiro just to be coherent and ask what do you want from Wikiproject Portugal. If for any reason you consider merge article to Bottelho you resolve the "problem" as they did in Portugal. Kind and clear regards Carlos Botelho (talk) 11:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Also and this is just a thought all this is related to an interview to a Central News (Lusa ) in Portugal and my position relatively to the prohibition of France press Journalists to cite Wikipedia as source... im not sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlos Botelho (talk • contribs) 12:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear Mr Botelho, I have no hidden interest in this. Any article may be restored if we get correct references. Can you please give us the titles of books related to your works, with their ISBN or OCLC, as well as the museums where we can find your works. Best regards. SalomonCeb (talk) 13:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear Salomon i have made on the article some references in order to clarify some real informations. Some and the most important are being upgrading by the Municipality. My regards ... :| Carlos Botelho or Bottelho —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlos Botelho (talk • contribs) 01:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear Mr Botelho, concerning:
The ISBN seems unknown and there is no occurence of Madrugada Interdita in the OCLC database.
Anyway, what would be really important for an article about yourself, would be a book or article of an art critic or writer, about yourself or your works. We need independant sources to validate the informations in any article.
  • Do those publications exist ?
  • Are there Museums exhibiting your works ?
Best regards. SalomonCeb (talk) 10:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Mr SalomonCeb it seems that the speed deletion on English WP do no work as in French wikipedia fortunately even beeing the biggest. About your questions i have answered before,.. those publications really exists i´m no cheating nobody, i am not dishonest user and i am sorry you don't find it. I consider offensive all this and i do not have patient enough to deal with your problem. I offended by accusations left here reporting to your country fellow user:copiste and obsessive also. Im represented yes in some museums and private collections city halls and in public places. I don't pretend prove nothing more. Its all in historic at the Portuguese and English Wikipedia. Not in French which i regret. So long wikifriends i don't pretend to make you wast more time. There's too much work to do for me and all of you quite sure. Salut Carlos Botelho (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I've searched this book too and it seems to be unknown[43].
Both the municipality of Sintra [44] and Belas [45] don't know your works, especially you major work Monumento ao Bombeiro[46], a monument to the firemen on a little traffic circle. You claim the websites of theses municipalities are in maintenance, but as you can see this is not true.
I have also a question, you did know since the beggining the existence of the notable painter Carlos Bothello (1899 - 1982), why didn't you clarified the homonymy since the beggining and why did you prefer to delete and replace his biography by yours? Is it because you can't succeed the "google test" with your other claimed name Botthelo (with 2 "t")?
Also there is the same problem of notability about your grandfather Martiniano Ferreira Botelho [47] [48]. How many articles about you and your family have you created?
No offense, there are no personal considerations about you, but there are no reliable sources about you and it just looks alot like a WP:SELFPUB. --Copiste (talk) 11:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Monsier Copiste stop the persecution to my articles. If you have cheked Portuguese Wikipedia with the doctor Martiniano Ferreira Botelho proudly my grandfather and you would save to me and other´s some boring work. Stop the this User:Copiste as well User:SalomonCeb. Keep going in peace, regards ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlos Botelho (talk • contribs) 16:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Restore - restore to the Carlos Botelho born 1899. And we should work with the other languages to see that they're aware as well. matt91486 (talk) 17:08, 9 February 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 Redirect to Doom WAD. JERRY talk contribs 03:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Doom Builder

Doom Builder (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability. No reliable, independent sources. Prod was "contested" on the basis that it received over 150 votes in some forum. Drat (Talk) 12:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep Doom Builder is a popular editor in the Doom editing community. Indeed, there is talk about a rewrite in C/C++ or another more modern language. It's a good editor that deserves a Wikipedia article. Samboy (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. It's being "good" doesn't enter into it, as that is a subjective view (see WP:ILIKEIT); I personally think it's a fantastic editor. However, it needs to be shown that sources that are both reliable and wholly independent of the subject and coder have written about it non-trivially.--Drat (Talk) 01:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. I've changed my mind, and bow to consensus. I see no harm in making this page a redirect page to Doom WAD, and adding any relevant content here to that page. Samboy (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have some reservations about the article because there should first be one about Doom level editors in general before any about individual editors, which should be kept or made only for those tools that merit it for some reason (thus I'd encourage someone to start on an article of the former type, and then perhaps consider merging or deleting). But the reasons for the deletion proposition seem rather insubstantial and merely formal. As far as reliability is concerned, the article is linking to the actual object described (its web page, with direct access to the free program for anyone to check up), and as for notability, it's clear to anyone familiar with Doom (which is a genre forging game and not just some random forgettable game) editing activity that the editing tool is widely used and well known. Who is like God? (talk) 22:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, many "formal" deletion nominations occur nowadays and will continue to occur, because uncounted thousands of fiction-related articles were shoveled into Wikipedia (in good faith) before the notability guidelines had achieved some semblance of consensus.    Xeriphas1994 (talk) 14:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I love DB, it is a very reliable, stable, and feature rich editor for Doom and Doom related games/engines. It definitely deserves its own article.Steeveeo (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2008 (Pacific Standard (-8 GMT))
  • Those are not good reasons for having a wikipedia article. To be worthy of an article, it must meet standards of notability. fraggle (talk) 09:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. I am a huge Doom fan but it isn't worthy of a wikipedia article. fraggle (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, I think it's worth pointing out that we already have the Doom wiki for Doom-related subjects, and there is already an article on DoomBuilder there. fraggle (talk) 09:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not an infinite resource that should be used for all the finer details of a specific subject (be it Doom or otherwise). There's already a Doom Builder article at the Doom Wiki, where DB is most appropriate having an article. --Mike (talk) 07:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, no third party sources means no article, as is typical with most fan software like this.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 07:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge with Doom (video_game) article If it is not suitable in that article, then delete it. Why is this discussion in category 'P' places and transportation???? Alaney2k (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • My mistake. I meant to label it as product. Should've checked the category listing.--Drat (Talk) 01:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, I think a better place for this info would be under the Editors section of the Doom_WAD page. Thoughts? Nuxius (talk) 03:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Indeed, it would be a good place for it... an Interwiki link to the Doom Wiki should also be set up so they can be directly linked to a wiki dedicated to Doom. --Mike (talk) 11:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Nevermind, I found that there's already a template for it... [[Doom_wiki:Entryway|Entryway]]/Entryway --Mike (talk) 11:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Doom WAD.  Precedent: the names of many source ports are redirects to Doom source port. [49]  Reasoning: while the overall concept of Doom extensibility is notable because it was pioneering and widespread (see bibliography), no individual utility has achieved a like measure of real-world prominence.  Choosing a Doom editor is a bit like choosing spark plugs for a particular model of classic car: life and death within the community, but cruft to everyone else.  This particular program will never be documented in multiple, non-trivial, independent publications anyway because it was originally released in 2003, when the Doom engine was already long obsolete.    Xeriphas1994 (talk) 17:57, 9 February 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 Delete. Fram (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Middle School Movies

Middle School Movies (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete as per WP:Note. A movie list; Interestingly these movies are not yet filmed! First movie is going to be filmed in this summer. A google search failed to return any substantial entry. I found a PDF [50] file that talks about Middle School Movies but that doesn't establish its notability. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 12:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Note - By WP:NOTE I tried to indicate WP:MOVIE as well. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 12:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Looks like some Jenkins hi-jinks. The link is for a list of movies appropriate for middle school audiences (Balto 3, Chicken Run, Beauty and the Beast). In this case, it looks like an extended daydream created either by a 6th grader or, just as likely, one of his parents. "Austin gets away as one of the coolest kids in school" in the sequel-- in spite of this article, I hope. Mandsford (talk) 12:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Some little kid is planning on messing around with his parents' camcorder next summer vacation. Sadly, crap like this cannot be speedied, although it's close enough to G12/spam that it would probably qualify. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I do strongly agree with you about its Speedy nomination. But, I had some very bad experiences in past where it happened that almost nonsense stuff became notable! Even just two days back I was about to tag an article for speedy which failed to clarify even its context [51]. Later, in AfD discussion it was identified (with the help of Russian WP) that it's a school and notable enough to have an article here. That's why I prefer AfD over Speedy (unless it's very close to nonsense) so that at least we can have a chance to discuss on the issues before we delete them. Cheers. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 11:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I know, and my comment was not a criticism of your nomination, but a remark on the annoying loophole that A7 doesn't apply to physical media of any kind: if this kid's movies were on youtube, they could be speedied, but if he's planning on showing them at home in his VCR (or whatever), A7 doesn't technically apply. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Snowball delete per Andrew Lenahan.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 07:40, 5 February 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 Merged and Redirected to Gummi bear#variations. Black Kite 00:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Haribo Smurfs

Haribo Smurfs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Obscurity does not seem to warrant merging into Gummi bear#Variations. Lea (talk) 12:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. Also, is anyone else a little scared by the fact that the article claims that these candies are "not FDA approved"? What are they feeding those kids in Benelux? Creeepy. Gladys J Cortez 20:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • FDA is US-American, so it's only sold in Europe — that's all, I guess. -- Lea (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • merge to Gummi bear#Variations; "obscurity" purely an instance of systemic bias (these are a readily available standard variety of sweet in at least four countries). --Paularblaster (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • With "obscurity", I meant lack of coverage in independent sources. So I don't think they are worth mentioning in the gummi bear article. (See below.) -- Lea (talk) 03:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Undecided. I'm a Smurfs fan, but these are only a kind of candy... However, as has recently been mentioned in Time magazine (!), over the last twenty years no less than 6.5 billion of these candies have been sold (yep, that's one for every human now alive!).[52]. I don't think that this can be called "obscure", only obscure in the USA, but that is irrelevant. The same fact is mentioned in the Swiss newspaper "Le matin"[53]. They are also mentioned briefly in the Boise Weekly[54]? The CEO of Haribo discusses them briefly in German newspaperDer Tagesspiegel[55]. Similar short mentions can be found in more newspapers throughout Europe. So they are known in many countries, popular, long lasting, and so on, but there are no in depth sources about them (well, what can you tell about a candy, in the end?). So I can understand the deletion of this article (and it certainly needs work if kept), but it pains me to see the subject described as "obscure", when it is actually very well known in Western Europe. Fram (talk) 14:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    • My "obscurity"-claim wasn't meant to be US-centric. :-) The best source (that says anything substantial) of the four sources you listed is, IMO, the article in the Tagesspiegel[56]. I added a (cited) note of the Haribo smurfs to the Gummi bear article. Not much apart from that is merge-worthy, since the Haribo Smurfs article is not properly sourced and the subject is too obscure (as in no significant coverage in independent sources) to warrant longer elaboration in the Gummi bear article. Redirect to Gummi bear#Variations. -- Lea (talk) 23:03, 11 February 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 Delete. JERRY talk contribs 04:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Being magazine

Being magazine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not notable; tagged for notability since November 2007. Lea (talk) 11:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was Speedy Deleted as G1. Ryanjunk (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Viva Los Penios

Viva Los Penios (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable neoglism. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Prod was removed by an anonymous editor with the comment "This is a valid article. Terms such as "pwn" which are not in a dictionary have pages too". J Milburn (talk) 11:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete As per policy. Ryanjunk (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Borderline patent nonsense - we understand that the authors made this word up, but it's sure as hell never going to belong in an encyclopedia.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Also 0 ghits apart from Wikipedia for a web-based topic with false claims of notability, which have been determined to be lies, making it a G3 candidate for blatant misinformation - it's surely not widely used. I think it's time to apply the WP:SNOW and close this now.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:28, 4 February 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 delete per WP:MUSIC. Bearian (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BrazilBeat Sound System

BrazilBeat Sound System (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete as per WP:MUSIC and WP:N. Notability is extremely questionable. Article is slightly written in the form of an advertisement. I searched on Google and found some pages on this group including [57], [58], [59], [60]. But those sites failed to provide substantial information that establishes its notability. Thus, nominating this article for deletion. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 11:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak delete. I did find what looked like some news articles from two different New Zealand websites, but not sure how reliable they were as sources, just because they were professional-looking and didn't read like adverts for the band. Still seems to fail WP:MUSIC unless anyone can prove otherwise.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I tried to find sources about percussionist Nego Beto. But all I get is trivial citation, such as [61] and [62]. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 11:16, 12 February 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.

{{subst:Afd top}} {{subst:#if: | {{subst:#switch: {{{1}}} | d = delete. | k = keep. | nc = no consensus to delete, default to keep. | m = merge. | r = redirect. | {{{1}}} }}}} {{subst:#if: | {{{2}}} }} delete --Salix alba (talk) 12:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bi-wirable

Bi-wirable (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete as per WP:OR. An article on how to make your system musical and better rhythmic. Personal observation that eventually leads to an original research. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 11:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - I'm sure he meant well, but Wikipedia is not the place for this sort of info. Gatoclass (talk) 11:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, not necessarily with prejudice; this text is essentially a how-to guide. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete almost qualifies as a speedy delete. Sethie (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's not even an article really. Should have been a PROD. Agree with everyone here.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jaybizzle.jpg

Jaybizzle.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete as per WP:N. Non-notable person, probably this link can speak more about him - [[63]]. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 11:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete A7 (non-notable people), is also close to being G1 (patent nonsense). I'm tagging this now.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:15, 4 February 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 delete.   jj137 (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unconventional percussion

Unconventional percussion (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Essay-style article; original research, no Google hits mentioning this as a specific (established) term. Lea (talk) 11:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, not necessarily with prejudice. You'd think that the gunfire in Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture would rate a mention. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research, unverifiable. If an article about this topic could be written, it'd be better to start from scratch than keep this mess.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - "In my opinion, typical music can become repetitive and booring". Yeah, that's enough of that. Torc2 (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Speedy delete as G4. (regardless of "launch", it is still not notable as was decided in the previous AfD). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LiWA Living Web Archives (Research Project)

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/LiWA Living Web Archives (Research Project) Articles for deletion/LiWA Living Web Archives (Research Project) (2nd nomination)
LiWA Living Web Archives (Research Project) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete as per WP:N and WP:OR to some extent. This article was deleted on 4 February (today) and instantly created once again. This is a non-notable project that have just started. It might be a WP article if it becomes a successful one later. But, for the time being, in noway it deserves to be a part of WP. Thousands of such projects are running under different science foundations and universities in the UK, USA, Canada, Australia and many other countries. Moreover, it seems author is directly involved in this project. As it has just started and not published its result yet, its activity through one of its participants will violate WP policy - "No OR". Taking all those issues in account, I am nominating this article once again. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 11:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment--Can't this be speedied as re-creation of previously-deleted content? Gladys J Cortez 20:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Previously this article was deleted based on a core issue that it has not been launched yet though from the very beginning I tried to focus on its WP:OR nature. Editor who created this article took the advantage of that launching issue and as it has been launched few days back, he crated it once again saying that "Okay, now it is launched!". Due to this controversy I preferred AfD instead of Speedy. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 00:07, 5 February 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 Delete. JERRY talk contribs 02:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Levator

Levator (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No mention in secondary sources except [64] — fails WP:ORG. Lea (talk) 11:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete It's a company that manufactures rowboats for competitive racing, and one would assume that it markets that product directly to rowing teams and clubs. If they didn't have a website before Wikipedia came along, maybe they can create one now. Mandsford (talk) 12:43, 4 February 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 per Snow/Nomination Withdrawn - Non-Admin Closure . Fosnez (talk) 10:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Freedom of press in India

Freedom of press in India (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Essay-style, tagged since November, no improvements since then. Lea (talk) 10:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment There does seem to be something here about freedom of the press in India, once you get past all the crap about what's in the Declaration of Human Rights and the United States Constitution. You don't have to have a license to write, as this article clearly demonstrates. Mandsford (talk) 12:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, but it's such a mess and nobody seems to be willing to clean it up, as demonstrated by the tag. It's perhaps not even that badly written (looking at the source), but it's completely essay-style. Extracting the useful bits out of it (and encyclopedizing and properly sourcing it) is probably harder than starting an article from scratch. -- Lea (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep The first step in cleanup would be just subheading and a cpyedit. Not hopeless ehoguh to delete, regardless ofits orgins as an essay.DGG (talk) 04:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • If anyone's willing to start a cleanup, sure. As of now, the article has been created in a single edit on Nov 25 2007 and seen no non-maintenance edits since; so I have little hope that anyone might clean it up later. -- Lea (talk) 04:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep cleanup seem to have been started and is looking better. Fosnez (talk) 12:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This looks a lot better than it did two days ago, particularly with the removal of the unnecessary intoduction. Mandsford (talk) 12:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn, and thanks to Calliopejen1 for the awesome cleanup! -- Lea (talk) 21:45, 5 February 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 redirect. Nominators comments suggest the archival of this discussion in favour of redirect to Diacritic. Rudget. 17:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] French accents

French accents (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Duplicate of diacritic, technical howto. -- Lea (talk) 10:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Redirect to diacritic rather than deleting. -- Lea (talk) 11:39, 4 February 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 Delete. Fram (talk) 14:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Concise Mining Encyclopedia

Concise Mining Encyclopedia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Promotional entry for a recently published encyclopedia. Entry was made by the author of the book. jergen (talk) 10:12, 4 February 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 Delete. — Satori Son 22:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lisa (Dexter's Laboratory)

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Lisa (Dexter's Laboratory)
Lisa (Dexter's Laboratory) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Prod removed with message, "Please don't delete this." Non-notable extremely minor character on Dexter's Laboratory. Fails WP:FICTION. Redfarmer (talk) 09:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom - not notable is putting it kindly. Am so over everybody who ever sneezed on a TV show once being written up here. Lenky (talk) 12:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Was she in the episode where Dexter got into his aging machine to be as old as the pretty babysitter? Haven't seen the show in years. One appearance in a 6 minute long episode isn't much of a career. Mandsford (talk) 12:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete This character is so minor I actually doubted their existence until Mandsford mentioned who it was. Got to get rid of this, way too minor even for a dedicated wiki. --treelo talk 16:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, this is an overly trivial character who has no bearing on the series. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:SNOWBALL applies so ignore Halt to activities. - Fayenatic (talk) 00:49, 10 February 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.
Articles for deletion archives This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Don Hamrick. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was "speedy delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Canley (talk) 10:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nicholas Jordan

Nicholas Jordan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Has not played in a fully pro League yet. Jimbo[online] 09:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. Does being a substitute count although I would like to see some game time.Capitalistroadster (talk) 09:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment. No, they must have actually played. Jimbo[online] 09:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO#Athletes. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable per WP:BIO. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Nominated on the substitutes bench (and thus presumably being given a first-team squad number) for three matches in one of the world's top leagues, even if he didn't play, means he is considered notable in my view. Given he is a youth goalkeeper opportunities to play are slightly more limited than his outfield counterparts and a little bit of latitude should be given here. Qwghlm (talk) 10:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - was only an used sub nearly 18 months ago. Non-notable youth team player. No problem with re-creating if he actually crosses the white line, either at Portsmouth or another professional outfit. - fchd (talk) 10:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete fails to meet WP:FOOTY notability criteria, when/if he plays for the 1st team the article can be recreated. King of the NorthEast 11:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Not yet notable. --Dweller (talk) 12:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:BIO and his role as an unused sub doesn't mean he will definitely pass WP:BIO. Recreate if he does later in his career. Peanut4 (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Speedy deletion per CSD A7. The creator of this article (User:Katney) has created several almost identical articles which have been speedy deleted.. Nick Dowling (talk) 09:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Sweeney, Director of 800 CD's

Tim Sweeney, Director of 800 CD's (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Spamtisement; most of the text is cribbed from his official website, which is named as a "source". Chubbles (talk) 08:53, 4 February 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 Delete There isn't much to merge. A paragraph could easily be added to the ]David Kirschner article without using merge. This clearly fails the WP:NFF guideline. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Child's Play (2009 film)

Child's Play (2009 film) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Explicitly fails future film notability guidelines. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Merge any relevant information to David Kirschner and delete as fails WP:NFF. Not in production yet. Redfarmer (talk) 09:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom as this project has not entered production and cannot be guaranteed to do so. If it ever does, the article can be recreated. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge any sourced information to David Kirschner. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - The notability guidelines for future films stipulate that a stand-alone article for a film should not be created until a project enters production. This is because many factors such as budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with the project. The article can be recreated when principal photography is confirmed to have begun. Steve T • C 08:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge - to either the original 1988 film article, or to a film series page...if one exists.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:08, 10 February 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 (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A. P. Balachandran

A. P. Balachandran (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Notability not asserted and I couldn't find anything on Google that made me think this person needs an article. User:Gulmammad looks like he has rv a request for speedy delete. Cutler (talk) 08:40, 4 February 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 Delete. Fram (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rob Jacoby

Rob Jacoby (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A contested prod, notability concerns. I restored it and put it here to get a consensus. No opinion from my side. Tone 07:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment See [65] - I'm not sure All About Jazz alone is enough to establish notability here, but the place is considered the source online for all things jazz. I had trouble finding mention of him elsewhere, however. No hits on Google News or Google Books; not even a mention. (Mind meal (talk) 12:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC))
  • Delete The article fails all the criteria at WP:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. Anyone can create a musician profile on All About Jazz, its a free service like MySpace. dissolvetalk 18:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete no reliable third-party sources found, appears to fail WP:MUSIC.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Same problems that most WP articles on students seem to have: Impressive achievement, but no citations and nothing that satifies WP:MUSIC. I imagine he'll be notable before too long, but hasn't happened yet. SingCal 01:24, 11 February 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 delete. Canley (talk) 11:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stranger Things (podcast)

Stranger Things (podcast) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

NN Podcast. Failed to win Parsec award. Although the involvement of author Scott Sigler (in one episode) is interesting it's already mentioned on his own page. Foghate (talk) 07:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,--Foghate (talk) 10:53, 11 February 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 (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Rules of Engagement episodes

List of Rules of Engagement episodes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Pure WP:LISTCRUFT and fails WP:NOTABILITY. Undeath (talk) 07:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - per nom.Keep, I didn't realize it was on its second full season. I do, however, find it bothersome that the AfD keeps being removed before the matter is settled. As long as this is open, the template should remain in place. IrishLass (talk) 14:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC) IrishLass (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: Valid summary-style split-off from Rules of Engagement (TV series). Merging back into the parent article is possible, but given the other summary splits, I suspect it'd give undue weight to this information, compared to the rest of the article. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Do not delete - Either keep this separate or merge it to the main article. If it's too long to merge or stylistically awkward, it has to be kept. The article conforms to even the strictest reading of WP:PLOT and WP:EPISODE, includes zero listcruft, and is all information on a notable topic. There's no reason this ever should have been brought to AfD. Torc2 (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: There's no need to delete this article now that it's finally been created. It is a legitimate episode list that needs it's own page separate from the article that it's based on. And besides merging the episode list back with the actual Rules of Engagement article will cause problems if the list ends up getting longer. —Comicbook30 (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The correct way to do things--assuming for the moment that the episodes are not appropriate for individual articles--but that's another matter. For the moment, we do it this way, per apparent general agreement everywhere. There has never been agreement to delete lists of episodes. DGG (talk) 05:05, 5 February 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 Delete. — Scientizzle 17:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Philip LaTessa

Philip LaTessa (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable local politician and businessman. City auditor, not a major local political figure; no indication of in depth coverage in reliable sources. Created by User:Mortgagephil (WP:SPA), several other SPA accounts dropped by on the talk page to claim it's not a COI, so it probably is. Jfire (talk) 07:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - local politician with no indication of significant coverage about him -- Whpq (talk) 14:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - every city has an auditor, nothing notable about this one. Travellingcari (talk) 18:02, 5 February 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 Delete as non-notable. Orange Mike | Talk 02:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Kevin and Lew Show

The Kevin and Lew Show (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article was tagged for speedy and contested. Reason for speedy tag was that the article was about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7). Procedural nomination --VS talk 06:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Fails WP:NOTE. Calvin 1998 Talk Contribs 07:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete for failing WP:N. (At worst, merge to WCHC.) It's almost worth a speedy for spam... — Scientizzle 17:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete By its own admission fails WP:N since the article was created before the show even aired. If it were a new venture for already-famous people, it might deserve an article. It's like a press release to me. MKoltnow 04:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • delete per above. Maybe should be redirected to WCHC? JoshuaZ (talk) 19:19, 12 February 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 Delete. There's a large amount of copyvio text[66], and a distinct lack of external coverage (per WP:N) presented. — Scientizzle 17:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trees 2: The Root of All Evil

Trees 2: The Root of All Evil (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No sources given to verify any claims of notability Charles Stewart (talk) 06:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. The Trees (film) article was speedy deleted, which was upheld by DRV. The content was userfied and reads like a press release (and has a copyvio notice, are those allowed on user pages?). No indication the notability of the sequel is any better. --Dhartung | Talk 06:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Userfied version deleted as copyvio (G12) Charles Stewart (talk) 07:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Copyvio. --OAS talk to me 15:17, 4 February 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. Canley (talk) 01:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thunderthighs

Thunderthighs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This backup group appears to be thoroughly unnotable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep being the backing ensemble to a tune like Lou Reed's "Walk on the Wild Side" is sufficiently notable. Chubbles (talk) 08:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. All Music Guide entry gives nothing to suggest notability (no discography), and notability is not inherited despite having worked with several famous artists, rendering Chubbles' keep rationale invalid if I'm not mistaken. No reliable sources. Also, doesn't need a dicdef for the slang term "thunderthighs", which actually hinders searching for reliable sources about this band. To be honest, I think any sources would be trivial.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Lack of multiple reliable sources to suggest notability. Fails WP:Music. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Change to Keep per Phil Bridgers evidence of an independent charted single.[67] Passes WP:Music. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 14:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. This seems so obvious that I find it difficult to give an argument other that "it's obvious". Walk on the Wild Side is a canonical recording, and the backing vocals are one of the main elements of it. Who can listen to it without rembering "Doo-da-doo-doo-da-doo doo-da-doo-doo-doo-da-doo doo-da-doo-doo-da-doo doo-da-doo-doo-doo-da-doo doooo" (cue Ronnie Ross's saxophone solo). For more objective evidence look at a Google search for 'Thunderthighs +"walk on the wild side"', which, for a subject from 35 years ago, shows a pretty impressive result. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
    • How does this suggest independent notability? The song is notable. That doesn't mean that the backup group associated with the song is notable. For example, Summer of '69 is notable, and you're going to find a lot of references to the friends that Bryan Adams referred to in the song (Jimmy and Jody), but that doesn't make those friends themselves notable even though they are fairly established as far as their identity is concerned. At the absolute best scenario, consider Huey Lewis & The News. Lewis is independently notable. The News is not, and there is no separate article for the News. --Nlu (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment. Ok, I'll admit that my previous statement was more of an WP:ILIKEIT than a policy/guideline based argument, but what does get them through the guidelines (specifically WP:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles criterion 2) is that they reached number 30 in the UK charts with their own single. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • keep per Phil's comment above. Reaching 30 on the UK chart makes them meet WP:MUSIC. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:20, 12 February 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. Canley (talk) 05:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Preditors and Editors

Preditors and Editors (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Is this a sufficiently notable Web site? It doesn't seem so to me, but I'd like to see how the community thinks. For now, my opinion is delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 06:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep but source. Google Books and Google News results (excluding press releases) indicate some domain notability. --Dhartung | Talk 06:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: While I cannot recall seeing a profile devoted to the site, given the number of times it gets mentioned (along with Writer Beware) as a resource for aspiring writers, I think it passes the notability requirements. This includes mentions a couple times a year in the magazines for just about every professional fiction writer organization out there (RWA, SFWA, MWA, NWU, et cet). —Quasirandom (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Speedy delete A7, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jeff Goodine

Jeff Goodine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. Undeath (talk) 05:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • And yes, I did go to the effort of looking for sources. The tag is on the article now.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:57, 4 February 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 Delete. — Scientizzle 17:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Little Blue World

Little Blue World (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I wouldn't go so far as to call it spam, but there is no evidence that this is a notable fanzine. Travellingcari (talk) 05:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete fanzines tend to be non-notable by definition, and nothing in this substub article suggests this is any exception. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete no reliable sources, nothing to suggest notability.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:55, 4 February 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. John254 02:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lucius Caesetius Flavius

Lucius Caesetius Flavius (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

It's not nonsense, but Google doesn't have much of a clue nor did the related search it suggested. Apart from that, the article seems to be about something he did, not the person himself. Travellingcari (talk) 05:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC) See below

Procedurally adding the following article with identical text. Jfire (talk) 05:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Gaius Epidius Marcellus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  • Redirect both to Julius Caesar#Assassination plot, from whence they came. Initial edit summary for both is "Creating a new article. Lifted word-for-word from the Wikipedia article on the Ides of March." Appears that was eventually merged to the Caesar article. Jfire (talk) 05:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Lucius Caesetius Flavius has been given proper context, but Gaius Epidius Marcellus still contains the old verbatim text from Julius Caesar#Assassination plot. Jfire (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Plutarch names him only as Flavius[68]. The name Lucius Caesatieus is used in a 1923 dissertation but little else. I would say there may not be enough in the way of sources for a real article. There are some more results if you search for Lucius Flavius alone, but separating them from the Lucius Flavius X (e.g. Silva, Philostratus) personages will take time. There are a few small things he is known for beyond the diadem incident. In any case, this isn't a BLP. --Dhartung | Talk 07:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. The full name of this Roman tribune is given in Dio Cassius XLIV.9. If I remember correctly, he appears in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar (play) as well, as the tribune Flavius. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep did I hear someone actually mention google i connection with roman history?DGG (talk) 04:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd agree with some of what you say, although I'm still leaning toward redirect per Jfire's context. Without that information, this article makes no sense. I'm not saying it's nonsense but rather the feeling that you walked into an already started conversation and someone askes for your opinion and you have no idea... Can this article, and the one that has the same exact text, be given content so that someone can follow it. It seems to be more about a) the diadem b) Caesar or c) the Roman tribune than either of these men. Travellingcari (talk) 04:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Dhartung gives the context, so go add it. DGG (talk) 15:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Others are working on the article, I'm not familiar enough to give it proper context and explanation. Travellingcari (talk) 15:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Bold text I'm happy to withdraw my nom since notability has been established -- not sure about the other that was added. Travellingcari (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Tagged it context and unreferenced, I'm happy to withdraw it and move on as well. Jfire (talk) 22:41, 5 February 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 (nomination withdrawn) Non-admin closure. Whpq (talk) 14:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Haskell

Martin Haskell (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Serious WP:BLP1E issues. Appears to be notable only for first describing a controversial abortion procedure. Article verges on a WP:COATRACK (see talk page). Sourcing is entirely primary and unreliable; there are no reliable, independent third-party sources, so in any case fails WP:BIO and the sourcing requirements for WP:BLP. MastCell Talk 04:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep as he invented and pioneered the D&X, not just "first described" it, per numerous sources in Google News Archive. The pro-life lobby has made him something of a cause infâme. --Dhartung | Talk 07:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment Just so you know, "first described" is sort of medical jargon for the first person to publish a procedure, allowing for prior independent discovery, which happens more often than you'd think. So it really means much the same thing. --Dhartung | Talk 07:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep There are far, far far too many sources referring to him, some in depth, for us to decry a lack of notability. See [69] (Google News) and [70] Google Books. (Mind meal (talk) 12:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC))
    • Comment: I'm not saying we lack sources, necessarily, but that he is notable only for 1 event. Given the current state of WP:BLP, particularly WP:BLP1E, I think it would make more sense to redirect this article to intact dilation and extraction and cover his role in that article. MastCell Talk 19:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 22:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Multiple additional sources available,and clearly notable. The invention of a significant medical procedure is not was was intended by BLP One Event--it was intended for a non notable person being involved in something essentially trivial but reported in newspapers. Its use for someone who did one major notable thing is not what was meant. And given that, he has undoubtedly been involved in significant further controversy.DGG (talk) 04:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I completely agree with DGG's reasoning here regarding the misapplication of BLP1E/BIO1E criteria. Many such trivial-event biographies fall under WP:COATRACK and the what is not a coatrack section indicates that if something is a legitimate claim to notability such as a substantive accomplishment, obviously including the invention of medical procedures, that is not a coatrack. I venture that the same reasoning applies to BLP1E. --Dhartung | Talk 06:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Given the feedback I'm getting here from editors I respect, I'm willing to withdraw the AfD at this point. I continue to think that this would be better covered at intact dilation and extraction and that there's not enough there for a separate bio, but I'm clearly in a minority here. If there's no objection, I'll close the AfD as speedy keep and start looking for some secondary sources for the article. DGG, if you have any sources handy, please drop them on the talk page. MastCell Talk 06:45, 5 February 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 Delete. JERRY talk contribs 04:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Celebreality

Celebreality (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Lack of notability Nightscream (talk) 04:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete The term "Celebreality" is nothing more than the name that VH1 gives to its reality show lineup. There is no encyclopedic information on this topic that could fill up a proper article, which is illustrated by the fact that the bulk of info currently in the article is devoted to the individual shows that are part of the lineup (which already have their own articles). Even the passage that establishes the coining of the phrase is a Toronto Star article from 1991 (long before the current reality show boom that began in 2000), and that article isn't even about reality television shows, but a completely unrelated observation about celebrities who choose unassuming, non-ostentatious looks at award shows. Nightscream (talk) 04:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Needs references If indeed this is a new cultural term then it should be floating around more. If more sources can be sited it deserves to stay. If not it should go.Georgiamonet (talk) 04:55, 4 February 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. Needs a good spring clean though, particularly with OR. Black Kite 01:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Runglish

Runglish (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Currently, almost the entire article seems to be original research, and using "Runglish" or "Russlish" I can find nothing on Google Book Search or JSTOR that could be used as a source to write a real article. Some of what this article attempts to cover could be the focus of other articles (e.g. Russian use of English as a second language; English loanwords in Russian; there apparently is an English-influenced variety of Russian spoken in Brighton Beach[71], but I don't know if there's enough reliable sources on it to make an article. And it is certainly not a "pidgin"!) But putting them all in one article is just crying out for confusion. I see no reason for there to be an article entitled "Runglish", and its existence I think can be attributed to a desire to have a complete set of English+some other language portmanteaus. Ptcamn (talk) 04:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - Per nominator. Calvin 1998 Talk Contribs 07:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - There are some good reliable sources. The article can be developed further by adding commentary on the Russo-English slang in A Clockwork Orange. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    Their reliability is arguable, but more importantly, news articles are not in-depth and do not contain enough information to write an article. Furthermore, there is already an article on Nadsat, and there is no need to confuse this article further by mixing it in along with all the other things referred to as "Runglish". --Ptcamn (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Colonel Warden, but I agree that this article majorly needs to be cleaned up because it's choked with WP:OR, and indiscriminate information resembling a how-to guide.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sources available. The term was coined around 2000 [72] [73] and has WP:RS coverage and criticism since then [74] [75] • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    Firstly, your links are talking about different things. The first two are about the "language" spoken on the space station (which, based on the quote, sounds more like alternating between the two languages rather than a third distinct language), the third is about the English-influenced variety of Russian spoken by immigrants, and the fourth is about English loanwords in Russian proper (again, not a distinct language).
    To write an article on a language, you need actual studies of the language, not just brief news articles that give a tiny sampling of words they use. These are not sufficient sources. The article on Singlish cites books like Singapore English in a Nutshell: An Alphabetical Description of its features, The English Language in Singapore, New Englishes: the Case of Singapore, and so forth. Hundreds of pages have been written on Singlish. Can you find any equivalents for Runglish? The amount published on Runglish is minuscule. All I can find about the space station Runglish, for example, is articles that basically just say "the crew speak Runglish", with no description of what it is actually like. You cannot write an article with that. --Ptcamn (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep The article needs references, not deletion. We have articles on Engrish, Singlish, etc, etc, but this WP does at times jump too quickly when it comes to Russian articles. As a native English speaker, and learned Russian speaker, I can attest that Runglish is very, very real, particularly when talking in English to a native Russian speaker and you ask where have they been, and they reply "On the meeting". This is Nadsat, which to compare to Runglish, is an insult, as a ficticious slang language, compared to a naturally occurring and evolving 'language'. The NY Times, CNN, The Telegraph (which interestingly notes that because of the intrusion of English into Russian language, the Kremlin made 2007 the Year of the Russian Language), Newsru.com, St Petersburg Vedomosti, RIA Novosti, Gazeta.ru all give this world-wide phenomenon (not just Brighton Beach, but wherever Russians speaking English can be found) notability and verifiability. --Russavia (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    This is exactly the sort of confusion I was talking about. The language spoken in Brighton Beach is Russian with English loanwords, not second-language English influenced by Russian usage which is what you refer to. They are not examples of a worldwide phenomenon, but two independent phenomena. If this article is kept, it should be made into a disambiguation page.
    Engrish, Singlish, and "Runglish" are three very different things. Singlish is a creole, a distinct language with people who speak it as their first language. "Runglish" (at least, the kind you're talking about) is mistakes made by native Russian speakers when speaking English. "Engrish" is not even a language at all, but the results of poor translations from Japanese. --Ptcamn (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    I notice that the "For the Thirsty Runglish Speaker" article has been linked to three times in this discussion already. For future commenters, could we please get some new attempts to establish notability? Preferrably ones that are actually substantial, not just brief articles? --Ptcamn (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Valid topic. Needs work, not deletion. Maybe requires split Anglicism contamination in Russian or someting, [see e.g., here]. `'Míkka>t 22:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    You can't just assert that it's a valid topic. You need to actually demonstrate that it meets the requirements of Wikipedia's policies, in particular the one on notability. How is work on it supposed to be done when there are no reliable sources to cite?
    And "contamination" is not NPOV. --Ptcamn (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
      • You have wrong understanding of the applicability of policies, and poor attention span (refs mentioned already). And contamination is not POV but linguistic term; judging from your contribs, you should have known better, colleague. Just chill down, dont take it too close to your heart, dont pick fight with everybody who disagrees with you and better spend our time writing something. Clearly this page is not utter nonsense, so that its very existence would harm wikipedia. `'Míkka>t 04:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    As you can see, I don't think the above refs establish notability. I'm not picking fights, I'm expressing my disagreement with the justifications given, and I'm going to continue doing so until the issues are addressed. "[Wikipedia's] primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting." Discussing the issues is what we're supposed to do, not just adding another "keep".
    Contamination is not a linguistic term (at least, not with this meaning). The linguistic term is "loaning" or "borrowing". Regarding loanwords as "contamination" is an attitude more associated with nationalism than linguistics (e.g.). --Ptcamn (talk) 07:49, 6 February 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 Delete. Black Kite 01:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Super Bowl XLIX

Super Bowl XLIX (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is based on a bid from Kansas City to host this super bowl, which was later withdrawn. (Also, are they really planning on naming it XLIX? Either that kcchiefs.com source is horribly wrong or the NFL is making utter mockery of Roman numerals.) This info may be worth a one- or two-sentence mention in a later article, but this article has no foundation. Grandmasterka 04:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. Yeah, XLIX is the standard Roman notation for 49, even preferred to IL (which is also valid). But since we do not have a host city, there should not be an article. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 04:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete The game would be played in February, 2015, which is still seven years away. We just got done with #42, so I think it's safe to delete #49 at this time. Mandsford (talk) 04:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Per above. Calvin 1998 Talk Contribs 07:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Based on XLIX being 49 and the above comments, it appears to be a crystal-ball. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 11:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per Mandsford's comments and above. ----AMRDeuce (talk) 12:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as crystal balling and as noted, the current article is about a big "never mind" anyway. When the 2015 SB article is eventually written, the fact KC considered a bid can be mentioned, but there's no need to peg a full article on this right now. 23skidoo (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Since the host city is being debated, I think it should be kept. All the Chiefs need to do is add a roof that links to Kaufman Stadium and it should happen. HPJoker Leave me a message 23:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep It should be kept. It's worthy of an article. It's also not crystal balling, because verified, sourced information is available on the subject. The article does not say that Kansas City might hold the Super Bowl; it says that they withdrew from the process of holding that Super Bowl. Because an article will exist eventually on this topic, there is no need to delete it. Should it be on the Super Bowl template? No. But should the article exist? Yes. —Son (talk) 03:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes it would be held in the future, but right now all we could write about is speculation and such, which is crystal balling] Delete Secret account 00:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
      • What speculation? That Kansas City attempted to go for the game and then backed out? That's not speculation - that's what happened. Anything beyond that IS speculation. --Son (talk) 02:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    • That's the only confirmed fact, almost everything else would be speculation, as for the KC, it should be mentioned when the article gets recreated in the future, WP:NOT#NEWS Secret account 22:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
      • This article is definitely not a WP:NOT#NEWS violation! The fact that you're saying that it should be mentioned when the article gets recreated is reason enough to keep the article - if it's worth mentioning when the article is recreated, then it's worth keeping in the encyclopedia now. --Son (talk) 06:28, 8 February 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 Delete. — Scientizzle 16:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hordak (band)

Hordak (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I don't see any evidence this band is notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia Oniononion (talk) 03:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SorryGuy  Talk  01:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Three self released albums and an interview and a review from a metal website is not sufficient to establish that this band is notable.Beeblbrox (talk) 02:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak merge: You could always make a note of it under Hordak. Duncan1800 (talk) 14:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I would say keep if the interview and review were from two separate reliable entities, but I agree with Beeblbrox, that it is not enough to establish notability and fails WP:Music. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete for the notability reasons that have already been stated above.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 07:19, 10 February 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 Delete. — Scientizzle 16:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Evie Lavendre

Evie Lavendre (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Tragic to die so young I'm sure but Google shows very little apart from Wiki, mirrors and a SpockSearch (??), Google Books shows none of her purported books, nor does Amazon. Wouldn't go so far as to call it a hoax, but I think it fails WP:BIO by a mile. Travellingcari (talk) 03:58, 4 February 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 delete.   jj137 (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Last Supper Drama at Moreland Baptist Church

Last Supper Drama at Moreland Baptist Church (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Apart from the dubious copyright info at the article's bottom, there is absolutely no evidence that this is notable anywhere other than the church and its community Travellingcari (talk) 03:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. This article is about a single church's production of a play originally written for another church. I don't think that Wikipedia would normally have a separate article about a single production of a particular play. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Utterly non-notable. Jfire (talk) 04:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Utter, blatant, and obvious violation of WP:NOTE. Calvin 1998 Talk Contribs 07:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete although the article is long and detailed, it gives no evidence that this is any more notable than, say, the average high-school play. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:06, 4 February 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 Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Linda Bel

Linda Bel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Disney animator and lecturer. Doesn't appear to pass either WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Newly inserted into the list of "Notable" Alumni at Sheridan College.BLACKKITE 16:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

  • She's also a university lecturer according to the article. But I see that you agree that she doesn't pass WP:BIO anyway. BLACKKITE 10:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
    • No, I did not imply that she doesn't pass WP:BIO, I just stated that most of the other animators most likely don't pass WP:BIO, which means that you have to put all those other animators up for AfD if you're going to use this as a reason against her. Please don't put words in my mouth. Seeing how many successful movies she's been involved in animating, I would say that makes her sort of notable. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 20:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Apologies. I assumed from your wording that you were including her in with these other non-notable animators. However, I have looked through the category you mention and would say that most of the people in that category are notable (there are, of course, exceptions). However per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, the existence of other non-notable articles should not be used as a reason for keeping the non-notable. BLACKKITE 20:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Yes, but she does have notable merits, wouldn't you say? I think that makes her slightly notable. She's certainly no superstar celebrity though. Plus, her article seems well-written. In any case, end of discussion for my part. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 22:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment—I added two references. The Sight and Sound review of Madagascar notes her in their select film credits. The Take 1 article is not about her in any depth, but it mentions her twice, noting that she worked for Industrial Light and Magic, and describing how American animation studios recruited a small group of Canadian animators, including her, to work for them because the work was with software that had first been developed in Canada. --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 23:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 03:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I copied this from my talk page this morning = I cannot of course confirm that the author is who they claim to be.
hello:
I'm reading the discussion regarding the notability of an article.
Concerning "Linda Bel" and her wikipedia credits on Shrek, Shrek2 and Madagascar. I am the Head of Character Animation on "Madagascar" and "Madagascar: The Crate Escape" and I can testify that Linda was not credited as "Lead Animator" on any of the three PDI/DreamWorks films listed. Her credits should read "Animator" as she has not had any supervisorial role on the three films.
Yours,
Rex Grignon
Head of Character Animation
PDI/DreamWorks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgrignon (talk • contribs) 02:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Black Kite 07:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • At this point, with no additional third-party sources appearing, I will say delete since the references are I added are not quite sufficient to establish notability, in my view. --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 16:24, 11 February 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 Delete. Her own website doesn't even mention much at the moment. Black Kite 01:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Monica's Fifth Studio Album

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Monica's Fifth Studio Album
Monica's Fifth Studio Album (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Details are sketchy, and we don't even have a title. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 03:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, fails WP:CRYSTAL, recreate when some more is known about the album. Redfarmer (talk) 09:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Speedy delete. Tikiwont (talk) 09:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Black Maiden(band)

Black Maiden(band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC. No third party sources. Myspace is not a notable source. Undeath (talk) 02:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete, an unsigned band of teenagers with a MySpace. So what? Tagging this article now.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 08:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, who is Black Maiden? Mimihitam (talk) 08:30, 4 February 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 Delete. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gregory Jenkins

Gregory Jenkins (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Claim to fame is that he worked on a Government manual. If the manual deserved an article, he could be mentioned there, but it doesn't. CitiCat ♫ 02:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. The article has enough references to prove notability of both the manual and its author. This is not just any manual, but part of a deliberate campaign to marginalize dissent. --Eastmain (talk) 02:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete It's a WP:COATRACK. Why this isn't in an article about the manual, or in Free speech zones, I don't know, but it's a clear violation of WP:BIO and horribly unencyclopedic to have an article titled Gregory Jenkins that's about one manual he wrote as a small part of his job.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete content is non-biographical, subject is non-notable. Jfire (talk) 07:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, merits only inclusion in the "author=" field of a reference for the free speech zone article. Unless Wikipedia is about determining who will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes, in which case I think he would still be a ways down the list. --Dhartung | Talk 07:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, he's already mentioned in free speech zone, as apparently a couple who were arrested are suing him. Not enough to make him notable, but it's something more than what's in the article.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I have removed the irrelevant material to this article. Unless further significance can be shown, Redirect to free speech zone. Sethie (talk) 03:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Just because we have had only a tiny bit of information on this person is not a reason to delete. Thanks to the "Wisdom Of Crowds", others familiar with him can add more details, the fundamental effect of a wiki. His influence and power have affected free speech in America significantly, so his notability is enduring, though his fame not great. His official White House bio specifies he used to be a FOX NEWS producer! This is additional evidence of unhealthy ties between the W administration and the press that covers him. http://www.whitehouse.gov/results/leadership/bio_510.html Ace Frahm (talk) 04:14, 6 February 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. Canley (talk) 01:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Morris Jones

Morris Jones (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Absolutely no notability and very little content. Infobox itself is nearly all red links as well Travellingcari (talk) 02:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. Anchor for a multi-station news broadcast, and apparently an Emmy winner. I couldn't confirm the Emmy win at http://www.emmys.tv/ , however. Perhaps the article should be marked as a stub. --Eastmain (talk) 02:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Numerous hits on Google News for this individual. See http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Morris+Jones%22+anchor&btnG=Search+Archives (Mind meal (talk) 04:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC))
  • Delete: We are not Google News! The fact that there are hits for a TV personality is about as shocking as a mountain made of rock. The question is always whether the person is "of note" (causing notice) in a field. A local TV reporter will have gobs of Google hits and be entirely unknown outside of a local market. In addition, this "article" has no biography in it at all. Wikipedia is not Monster.com and does not host resumes. What has this person done? What made this person worth noticing among TV guys? What ways has this person set the standard? Random J. TV-guy. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, the Google news search does seem to demonstrate substantial coverage, beyond what would be expected of a run-of-the-mill local TV reporter. I've deleted the Emmy reference, however, as I could not verify the claim either. Jfire (talk) 01:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was speedy delete as non-notable web content. Note this appears to have been created as Mideast Minute previously. Pegasus «C¦T» 07:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mideast Minute with Jamsheed al-Jamsheedi

Mideast Minute with Jamsheed al-Jamsheedi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable website. Alexa rank of 1,594,702, and only 15 unique Ghits, mostly Wikipedia and mirrors. None of the 'notes' section ext links mention "Mideast Minute". Shawis (talk) 02:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete web content with no assertion of notability, tagged as such. Jfire (talk) 07:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Not at all notable. Jmlk17 07:27, 4 February 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 Delete. Black Kite 01:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kokosingers

Kokosingers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable band. Prod was removed by author with a comment on the talk page. Note that I am now reviewing the articles that the author compared this one to, to see if they pass our notability guidelines. J Milburn (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep I added some info that may support the notability of the Kokosingers. I also feel that the sheer number of collegiate a cappella groups that do not fully meet Wikipedia's notability criteria justify its inclusion. "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." Night88Flight (talk)
  • Delete Non-notable. Please review WP:WAX regarding pages about other a cappella groups. SingCal 01:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • KeepThis group is historically important to Kenyon, and quite notable to those who attended college at Kenyon." PuppyTN (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    • That is not generally accepted as a valid argument, take a read of this. We work on reliable sources, not vague assertions that things are notable to certain people. J Milburn (talk) 09:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I see no evidence or reference to suggest that this band is notable as asserted by WP:N. SorryGuy  Talk  01:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 01:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article does not establish that this group meets any of the WP:MUSIC criteria. I note that one of the sources provided is the web site for one of their alumni, Justin Roberts, but Roberts' web site never mentions that he is a former member of the Kokosingers; consequently, that site cannot be used to establish the group's notability. The fact that there are other articles about non-notable a cappella group just indicates that there are a lot of college a cappella groups, all of whose members have access to the Internet and many of whom have edited Wikipedia. We have deleted various a cappella groups when they came up for WP:AFD before, but I don't think anyone has made a systematic effort to delete the others recently. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC and per WP:ORG. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: Just a college singing group, and note the highly original prose, "Are the college's singing group," where "college" hasn't been defined. It seems likely to be a clipping from a campus publication, so a possibly copyvio as well as a pleasant but unremarkable college singing group. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • There is no need for speculation. All of the text is original. No copy vio. Night88Flight (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, non notable, college group. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN round of applause 22:44, 8 February 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 Delete. Redirects are, however, cheap, so I'll leave one in its place... — Scientizzle 16:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kaleidoscope Performing Arts Center

Kaleidoscope Performing Arts Center (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A google news search returns nothing, not even events taking place at the Center. A regular query shows nothing that evidences any notability about the Center itself. Travellingcari (talk) 01:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete (or redirect to Ursinus College); no evidence of WP:N. JJL (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: No point, really, in a redirect, as those typing it in know where it is. It's a space in a school, and I'm sure it's wonderful, but it's not really notable to the world at large. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:28, 4 February 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 Delete. — Satori Son 22:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kealaokamalamalama church

Kealaokamalamalama church (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Entirely non-notable church. Google news archives show one hit, someone who was married there. Nothing on its creation, etc. A regular query shows directory listings but no evidence that this church has *done* anything. Travellingcari (talk) 01:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. No reason to keep this. New York Dreams (talk) 01:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, no assertations of notability, although I bet their name is fun to say. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters •

(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. As per reasons stated. The church doesn't warrant an article. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to parent organization. What? There is none? The church is independent? Delete then. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 03:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete But for its 18 letter name, keala okama lama lama doesn't seem to be any different than, say "Sanderville Baptist Church" Mandsford (talk) 04:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and WP:ORG. No sources are provided at all; I can't even find evidence that this church has a web site of its own. I am also skeptical that the founding minister was the brother of "the first Hawaiian minister in the territory of Hawaii". Hawaii became a territory in 1898, more than 70 years after the kingdom of Hawaii had been evangelized, so presumably there was more than one native Hawaiian who was a minister as of the date the country became a territory. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I looked for sources on Google, but I'm not sure that what came back to me was reliable sources. More just sort of trivial directory/guide-type entries... I think.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 08:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete cool name, still not notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: Here is the church, there is the steeple, open it up, and there are some people. However, with no indication that the building or mission is unique and of note, there is no justification for an encyclopedia article. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - no assertion of notability, other than it was built in 1934. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 02:19, 9 February 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 merge/redirect (to the list article). — CharlotteWebb 12:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Farley Hall (University of Notre Dame)

non-notabale university hall of residence with no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Most Google news hits you get for Farley Hall are referring to the building at the University of Mississippi. Polly (Parrot) 01:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Redirect to List of Female Dorms at Notre Dame and I guess merge any relevant information. I believe the majority of the female dorms are just redirects there anyway. Phydend (talk) 02:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect or delete This is why universities have web sites and online maps. It would be a very exceptional student dormitory that would justify an article. DGG (talk) 02:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect per my vote with the other article. Some university halls have been determined to be notable, see Andrew Melville Hall as an example.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 08:25, 4 February 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 redirect, per nominator actions. Rudget. 17:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Melon balls

Melon balls (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Does not meet WP:NOTABILITY, and could just as easily be included in Melon baller or Melon. Polarbear97 (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Merge with Melon baller and redirect the latter to this page. JJL (talk) 01:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • redirect' everything here is already in the Melon baller article, this is just redundant.Beeblbrox (talk) 02:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • comment uncontroversial- doesn't need an AfD. Simply redirect. Merkinsmum 02:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect/merge per above, as people see fit.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 08:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Definite redirect to Melon baller. A merge is unnecessary as the information is already covered by that article. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 11:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - So, are we all in agreement, should this entry just be removed and have a redirect added to the page? Polarbear97 (talk) 15:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment I certainly agree, though I'd make Melon balls the main page and rd to it. Either way is OK by me, though. JJL (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Comment - Okay, I removed the AFD tag and replaced it with a redirect. This discussion can now be archived. Thank you for everyone who participated. Polarbear97 (talk) 15:55, 4 February 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 Delete. — Satori Son 21:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cash (drug culture)

Cash (drug culture) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Dicdef of a slang term and Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Emeraude (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • transwikifi to Wiktionary, if some decent sources can be found. Beeblbrox (talk) 02:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dicdef, slang term, already transwikied, no use as an encyclopedia article.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 08:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary.com, and, honestly, this seems like it's not even quite accurate. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • my bad I don't know how I missed that huge tag delete, then Beeblbrox (talk) 19:38, 4 February 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 merge/redirect (to the list article). — CharlotteWebb 12:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Walsh Hall

A non-notable university hall of residence. Polly (Parrot) 00:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment, how is walsh hall not notable??? it is more notable than FARLEY!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weheartmarshall (talk • contribs) 00:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, despite the comment above, the article does not assert that the hall is notable for other than the fact that it is a building that exists. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 01:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment, Walsh hall is notable, for the reasons stated in the article (including but not limited to famous alums, recognizability, and long-standing tradition). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weheartmarshall (talk • contribs) 01:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of Female Dorms at Notre Dame. Walsh Hall (University of Notre Dame) is already a redirect there anyway as are the majority of the other female dorms. Phydend (talk) 02:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect Agree with Phydend. Paste (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • delete Once we start listing dorms by alumni, we'll duplicate the contents of the articles on the university, as every notable alumnus lived somewhere. For that matter, they all went to classes in various buildings and used the parking lots. It takes much more than this to make a dorm notable. DGG (talk) 04:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment, I understand that logic, but what made Farley and Howard Hall notable? Or Alumni, Dillon, Fisher, Keenan, Keough, Morrisey, St. Ed's, Sorin, Stanford, or Zahm? Walsh is much more notable than many of those dorms, even just for the sole reason that it has been around longer. And we are talking about Notre Dame, remember... everything about the place is pretty notable. A great article could be written on the parking lot, millions of people have tailgated there for the last century of football greatness. But anyways, I would like my article to remain up, I joined for the sole reason of creating it, so what am I doing wrong? Why isn't it notable? There was more information given than just a list of alumni. If you have ever been to the ND campus or taken part in its tradition, you will understand why it is notable. People are interested in the spirit of Notre Dame, and not just alumni.

And also... "as are the majority of FEMALE dorms"... why do most of the men's dorms have their own page?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.74.231.207 (talk • contribs)

I just said that the majority of the female dorms are redirects to it. There is a List of Male Dorms at Notre Dame with about half of the male dorms being redirects there. Maybe it's time for the rest of the dorms to go up to AfD (I don't want to do the tedious work though so I'm not). There was a small discussion about merging most of the pages to the newly created list back in December of 2006 (here). I had created a number of the pages when I first started editing, and since I had been the only one to reply at the discussion it went ahead. I think the majority of the articles were merged there and redirected, but many of the male dorms have been un-redirected since. It's still not a valid argument that "If that exists, then this should be kept" though. I think Walsh, as one of the older dorms, may have a chance to pass wikipedia's notability standards, but as it is right now, it doesn't. Phydend (talk) 05:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Phydend. University halls of residence are rarely stand-alone notable.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 08:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect, as above, but with caution. There is more than one "Walsh Hall" in the world, and there is no reason to believe this one should have priority over others. Therefore, redirect for now, but abandon as soon as a better claimant appears (include this debate in the talk page of the redirect). Utgard Loki (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
If it redirects, what does that mean? I do understand this logic, but what makes a dorm notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weheartmarshall (talk • contribs) 05:46, 5 February 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 No consensus (default keep). JERRY talk contribs 04:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rongjie

Rongjie (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Can't be verified, the name gets zero google hits, could be a hoax. Polly (Parrot) 00:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Not a hoax (an English google search is quite insufficient for figuring that out); Chinese name is 邢榮傑. However, I don't see enough to write an article on this guy --- just a few passing mentions in various books and lists [77][78]. Apparently the only thing that's been said about this guy even in Chinese is the one-paragraph official biography that the PLA puts out for all of its higher-level staff; the Baidu Baike article on him appears to be copied from that: [79]. cab (talk) 03:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Probably pretty notable; just needs sourcing. We need to careful of systematic bias when we compare these sort of entries to, for example, British and American generals. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm quite aware of Systemic bias concerns, but even Chinese media haven't written about him. cab (talk) 03:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think that holding the rank of major-general is enough to be notable, although there is no consensus on this. Is there a People's Liberation Army counterpart of the Navy List which might offer more detail than the Baidu Baike article? --Eastmain (talk) 03:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep but how many generals were there in the PRC army? Perhaps we should look for something distinctive--it's here in this case; the military attache of Socialist Republic of Vietnam Embassy would have been a very significant figure. DGG (talk) 04:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Between 1955 and 1965 (when ranks were abolished due to the Cultural Revolution), the PLA promoted 1,360 people to the rank of Major General [80]. cab (talk) 05:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - seems to meet notability requirements on a basic level. Finding sources might be problematic, but someone having held his positions meets notability. matt91486 (talk) 05:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: The article is a clipping. There are no sentences, per se, and just a jumble of half-stats. It can't be here in this form, as it does not establish context, and Wikipedia is not the graves registry of anywhere. It's not a biography, and it does not demonstrate notability of the figure. At any moment, the US, for example, has several thousand generals. While achieving such a rank might indicate notable achievements, it is not notable by itself. If the achievements aren't listed and context provided, this is "delete until someone wants to write a real biography." Utgard Loki (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Fails to meet verifiability standards. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete by User:Ioeth, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cambridge Central Asia Forum

Cambridge Central Asia Forum (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The article does not assert much notability and is written by presumably a user in the organization User:Cambridge Central Asia Forum. Doing a simple google search under "Cambridge Central Asia Forum", there were only 58 hits, which all seem to be published by the organization itself or were not noteworthy. Most of the article is directly copied and pasted from the external links. Lindsey8417 (talk) 00:36, 4 February 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 closure), nom-withdrawn. ChetblongT C 23:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Run-up

Run-up (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This purports to be a disambig page, but instead of disambiguating articles it simply gives three dicdefs, none of which as far as I can see can ever be more than a dicdef. Emeraude (talk) 00:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. Each of the definitions includes a link to an article that expands upon that particular meaning for the term. Perhaps the definitions and links should be reworded, but the disambiguation is needed. Previously the entry pointed to a cricket article, which is hardly relevant for the majority of Wikipedia users, as there are multiple meanings for run-up. Agateller (talk) 03:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and change those defns. to redirects to the pages indicated in the defns. JJL (talk) 01:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, perfectly appropriate disambiguation page. I'm forced to wonder if the nominator looked closely at the piped redirects (which have since been fixed). --Dhartung | Talk 07:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Does in fact do an adequate job of disambiguation, especially now the text has been reworded a little. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Accepted. Links weren't clear when I made the nom. (That's what comes of late night editing!) Now support Keep.Emeraude (talk) 12:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Is that a withdrawn nomination? -- RoninBK T C 12:53, 4 February 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 withdrawn by nominator. Addhoc (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Microsoft HealthVault

Microsoft HealthVault (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Lack of significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Addhoc (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Rewrite: The sources look acceptable, but the thing is written like an ad. It is also, more importantly, not written like an article. An article would have something about it, not just a list of services. It might suggest, for example, that there is widespread opposition to such off-site services, or that the business community has seen this as a profit center, etc. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - agree that if kept, it should be rewritten. Regarding the sources, the 'Dr. Microsoft is now ready to see you' appears to be a blog, and those following link to the HealthVault site. I've looked through google news archive without much success. Addhoc (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Article is not written like an ad, however it can definitely be expanded, and article seems to be notable. --ChetblongT C 01:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Significant product, and Google shows should be multiple sources for expansion. DGG (talk) 04:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - Needs some work, but significant product with citable coverage. --ZimZalaBim talk 16:43, 6 February 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.


aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu -