Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 January 25

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nakon 17:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SAP Business Suite

SAP Business Suite (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Reasons for my deletion request: 1) duplicate to existing article MySAP Business Suite, which could be moved to this name 2) lack of useful content, mostly advertising language Mopskatze (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

More reasons: copyright violation of [1], see creator's talk page --Mopskatze (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete - copyvio, spam; should have been speedily deleted as an advertisement. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:10, 30 January 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 WP:BLP concern can be addressed by editing the article. Article on notable subject can not be deleted unless by office action. JERRY ^talk _contribs 06:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas Lloyd (porn star)

Thomas Lloyd (porn star) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Having consulted with Thomas Lloyd about this article over the last couple months, I am requesting on his behalf that it be deleted. He tells me that half of what is written on the page is true and half is not. In particular there is an insulting slur included that apparently is hearsay spread by someone who wishes to do Thomas' reputation harm. This can be considered 'unreferenced negative content in biographies of living persons'. Thomas was unaware of the entry before I brought it to his attention. I've known him over the net for several years as a friend. I offered to write him a proper biography here with actual facts, verified and approved by him. He thought about it for a few weeks. We discussed it today. He saw no point in repairing the misinformation. So I offered to have the entire entry taken down. He enthusiastically approved my proposal. Essentially, he has no interest in public attention these days. He still has his old website up from 2000, which contains as much information as he currently wishes to share. His entry at IMDB.com also remains and I am attempting to provide it with some level of completeness. Please contact me directly about the situation if you like. As for Thomas getting involved, I am can ask him to provide verification of his wishes. Otherwise he is not interested in discussing the matter. :-Derek Derekcurrie (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm afraid that articles cannot be deleted because their subject requests it; the subject cannot dictate what is done with the article, either. Sorry. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 05:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep What the nom is asking for can be accomplished by editing the article and removing the content that is violating WP:BLP. It is not necessary or prudent to delete the entire article in such a case. JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per the obvious that we don't delete articles just "because", and certainly not via second-hand requests. Unless Lloyd himself sends the request personally to OTRS, this matter is closed. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 05:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep While a Google search is fairly useless due to the common nature of the name, his appearance in The Fluffer, coupled with his GayNV award, make him notable in my opinion. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 05:54, 26 January 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, defaults to Keep. Nakon 17:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vista Transformation Pack

Vista Transformation Pack (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, per WP:N. Visor (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Can you be more specific on why this isn't notable? It gets a lot of Google hits, suggesting that there are probably some reliable sources out there. --L. Pistachio (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • It's just one of many GUI update which transforms one OS look to the another one. Just a collection of styles and GUI elements bundled in one pack. Do we really need article about every OS transformation pack? If so, we need to create lots of articles... All Vista transformation packs, as well as its icons, wallpapers, etc. became popular over the Internet during 06/07 when Longhorn/Vista was introduced. Check Ghits for "Vista icons" and you'll get about 315,000 Google hits. That's why argue about Ghits is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia (WP:GHITS). For this moment, notability guidelines for software is defunct, so I included link to WP:N, where general notability guidelines are. Visor (talk) 12:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• I believe this article is more like a readme file and therefore needs to reach wikipedia standard. I cannot decide on its notibility per WP:N. However, I believe that the phenomenon of users attempting to upgrade the look and feel of their Windows XP to Windows Vista, rather than actually buying Windows Vista, is notable. This articles author might consider writing a stub on this matter, thus introducing this program in it. At this time, I do not disapprove deletion.Fleet Command (talk) 08:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 17:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable. "the phenomenon of users attempting to upgrade the look and feel of their Windows XP to Windows Vista, rather than actually buying Windows Vista" belongs in the article on Vista. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - this is really known software. Kubek15 - Talk, Userboxes, Contributions 17:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Firstly, read WP:IKNOWIT. Secondly, as I mentioned above, Vista icons are also well-known and popular. So are they deserve a separate WP article? Visor (talk) 20:52, 30 January 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 Nakon 17:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vista Customization Pack

Vista Customization Pack (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, per WP:N. Visor (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 17:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. For futher explanation, see also debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vista Transformation Pack. Visor (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable. The phenomenon of users attempting to upgrade the look and feel of their Windows XP to Windows Vista, rather than actually buying Windows Vista belongs in the article on Vista. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:15, 30 January 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 Nakon 17:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bookovsky

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. Myspace is not good enough to assert notability. No other links are given. Searches bring nothing but the myspace page. No major record label either. Delete Undeath (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:MUSICJeepday (talk) 02:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Myspace doesn't count. Reywas92^Talk 23:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - fails notability check. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:16, 30 January 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Schtick (game)

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

I came across this article while editing shtick, and saw that it was lacking in references. I decided to see if I could find some, since it seemed interesting. After a while on Google, I can find no references to this game's existence beyond this article (and mirrors of it) and the "official website" that is linked. And after a while spent investigating the claims of the official website, I find its authenticity to be dubious. For example, it claims that, "In Sydney, Australia, they have held World Pan-Pacific Schtick Championships multiple times since December 2001," but Google returns no hits on "World Pan-Pacific Schtick Championships" at all. Likewise, there are claims that it was "featured" at a Washington State University Ultimate tournament, but the website for that tournament makes no mention of it. After reading the History of Shtick page and seeing the prominent position of photos of a specific group of friends, I have concluded that this is at best non-notable, and at worst, something someone made up one day. Ig8887 (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete "Official site" is a Wordpress blog, tending to support WP:NFT rationale. (By the way, given the rampant kneejerk NN noms lately, I'm so refreshed to see a well thought out nom I could kiss you...) -- RoninBK _{T C} 00:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Schtop lack of references beyond an official site doesn't look good, so delete. Mandsford (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - could not find anything further either. Risker (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - either an outright hoax or totally non-notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:18, 30 January 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kathleen Alcalá

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BIO. No link. Nothing to give notability. Searches yield nothing. Delete Undeath (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --L. Pistachio (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. What searches yield nothing? Google News reveals plenty. I've put three references in the article to reviews by major newspapers. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 17:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Google News search alone returns over 130 relevant articles, I think there is something here. (jarbarf) (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep It turns out she also won a few awards, one of which I added to the article. Teleomatic (talk) 03:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:HEY. Good work, Skomorokh ^confer 17:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable regional writer. The "award" was too minor to tip the scale. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. If she's a "regional writer" then how come the reviews I referenced come from major newspapers published in three widely separated cities. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• --Hi there - I don't know who created this page, but I am happy to have it. There are plenty of links and national reviews. kalcala —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalcala (talk • contribs) 06:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep given that the article contains reliable sources. Capitalistroadster (talk) 07:48, 31 January 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew David King

Andrew David King (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is about a precocious high school sophomore who edits a non-notable web site that publishes fiction/poetry by unknown writers. He has apparently been published in the apparently non-notable "Other Voices International Project" which has a web site. There is no evidence of other publications. The subject is thus not-notable per our guidelines at WP:BIO, specifically those in the section on "creative professionals." Apparently a smart, creative, and ambitious high school kid but not someone who warrants a Wikipedia article at this time. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Bigtimepeace,

Thank you for your comments. I understand the reason why you are nominating the article regarding me for deletion. But please, before you delete this article, allow me to explain myself and answer some of your concerns.

The citations provided on my page are of third-party publications, save for my Blogspot account, the Wings of Icarus webpage, and my nonfiction page. Everything else involves writing that was published by a third party. I have had my poetry published in many different venues, by many different people and different crowds. If you would like a complete list of these citations, please visit my Blogspot page at http://andrewdavidking.blogspot.com, where they are individually listed and cited, as well are critical reviews I have received from other authors.

Apparently, a while back, the page was edited to show all of my publication history—maybe you didn’t see that. Around 15-20 magazines were listed.

Also, the user Dissolve posed the issue that I had “no credible third-party publications”. Should links to all of my published works be posted in order to verify this? That is possible, if it is a necessity. However, I find this a huge irony given that Dissolve has absolutely no citations whatsoever for his own abilities and claims that he makes on his page.

In continuation of my argument, here is a list of pages on which no (or very little) citations are provided. These are only a few authors I happened to click on in the “B” section of “Category:American writers”:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Batson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davey_Beauchamp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Beinhocker
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leila_Bela
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hy_Bender
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Lundwall
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.172.169 (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Most of these pages have no citations; some only have two or three. As I review my page’s History, I can see that at one point, it had eighteen references. Still, if you feel that my page is rightly being deleted, then I, of course, can reasonably expect the same thing to happen to the above listed pages. You can’t apply different standards of judgment to selective pieces—if this is possible, then by definition, no standards exist in Wikipedia.

Also, I disagree with you that the Other Voices International Poetry Project is non-notable. Participants in the project have been Luis J. Rodriguez, Ursula K. Le Guin, Jimmy Santiago Baca, Lisa Zaran, and Sheema Kalbasi. All of these people exist on Wikipedia. So, are they not-notable as well?

Thank you for your time, thanks for hearing me out on this. I'm leaving it up to you, now.

Andrew KingAndrew King (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Classic case of why we recommend against writing your own Wikipedia entry. Sure, there are some name-checks out there, but the best we seem to be able to do for a reliable source is a newsletter from the diocese which runs the school the subject attends, hardly independent. We need major independent sources treating the topic in some depth to judge whether there is true notability (a word which means something specific in Wikipedia terms). The editor above, if the subject, is using what about X? and commutative deletion arguments that are not applicable to our project. Each topic must demonstrate its own notability, and notability does not transfer from one topic to another connected topic, nor do all topics of a certain type have or lack notability. --Dhartung | Talk 01:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The subject may well be notable in the future but the article lacks reliable sources uindicating notability at th moment. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Just having been published does not establish notability, especially if the publication is not itself notable. Andrew King, you seem to be a talented and ambitious individual, so don't take it as an insult that you don't merit a Wikipedia article at this time. --L. Pistachio (talk) 01:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:BIO. I agree with Dhartung that the only reliable source cited amounts to trivial coverage (WP:BIO#Basic criteria). I would ask Andrew King to refer to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to avoid COI edits in regards to participating in deletion discussions related to yourself. I think you are confusing a user page with an encyclopedia article, but please take up any issues you might have with my user page up with me on my talk page. dissolve^talk 01:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. As the creator of this article, I find that the arguments by Dissolve and Dhartung fail to recognize the hypocrisy of their own statements. In the statement above, apparently written by the subject himself, several citations are made to pages that have far less credibility than the page Andrew David King. However, neither Dissolve or Dhartung will agree to recognize this because it exposes them as blatant hypocrites. Maybe the subject was right. Does Wikipedia have a standard of judgment, or does it not? I believe that is the question. I will refrain from using specific examples as the subject himself does above, but it is this simple: if there is not a common standard by which to judge all related articles, then no one here is truly striving for an accurate encyclopedia. RMX2245 (talk) 02:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)RMX2245

• Dhartung in referring to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x? and his further comments, summed up the response to these arguments. dissolve^talk 02:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

RMX2245, you will probably find that calling other editors "blatant hypocrites" does not get you very far in an AfD debate (or in any other argument on Wikipedia). The fact that there are other articles which may warrant deletion but have not been listed for AfD does not mean that this article should be kept, just as the argument "other people were speeding too" will seldom convince a traffic cop not to give you a ticket if you were doing 64 in a 45.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. If anyone believes that a certain article is lacking in references and is non-notable, then they may nominate it for deletion. If the articles you (Andrew King) listed are lacking in references or importance, then they, too, should be deleted (or at least nominated for such). However, it is up to someone to put them forth for deletion, because this is an impossibly big encyclopedia, and everyone can't be expected to check every article every day for notability. It is the responsibility of users to call attention to articles that deserve review, and just because no one has done so for a specific article does NOT mean that the article is justified in existing. It just means no one noticed it yet. So in summary, the fact that your article was put up for deletion before those other ones is not a sign of some secret conspiracy, it's a sign of inefficiency in finding unacceptable articles. But there's a good chance that now that they've been brought to the attention of editors on this deletion debate that some or all of them will end up facing their own deletion nomination. In fact, if they truly offend you, you can put the up for deletion yourself. But either way, their existence will not weigh in anyone's decision regarding your article. --Ig8887 (talk) 15:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:BIO and WP:COI. Vultureofbook (talk) 10:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Publication in non-notable works is still non-notable, or else anyone could get into Wikipedia by self-publishing via Lulu or CafePress. Remember that having or not having a Wikipedia article does not in any way indicate your worth as a human being or a writer. Heck, I'm a professional writer—that's my "day job"—and I've never written anything that would qualify as "notable" by Wikipedia standards. Thus, I don't have my own Wiki article, and I manage to live a happy, healthy life with a successful writing career nonetheless. --Ig8887 (talk) 15:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument. Lots of us are professional writers without deserving our own WP articles. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:22, 30 January 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 Nakon 17:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Codex of Ultimate Wisdom

This was proposed for deletion last week by Judgesurreal, and although the proposal was contested I have to agree that this is largely an in-universe plot repetition with no evidence of real-world notability or reliable third party sourcing. So here we are. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as the nominator of this page. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete; there's no evidence that this item has any notability independent of being the MacGuffin of a few computer games. --Ig8887 (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - The Ultima series is fundamental and seminal to the RPG genre, and among the most popular series ever created. I don't see a compelling reason why the Wiki should not include an entry on an endgame object from the game. - Corporal Tunnel (talk) 23:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The reason put forth by the nominator is that the article is not notable—that is, it does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements of Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). If true, this is a compelling argument. That the Ultima series is notable has no bearing here, as notability is not inherited. The Codex must have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject in order to warrant an article. Can you provide such sources? Pagrashtak 00:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm reminded - let me digress for a moment - of how annoying it was a couple of years ago when a literal-minded and presumably well-meaning editor went after New York neighborhood articles with the citation tag. Once I got over wanting to throttle him, it was interesting to reflect on how little of what we know can actually be sourced at all. You can say things like "The street grid of Manhattan is largely bounded by Houston Street on the downtown side," but it's nearly impossible (and completely pointless) to actually find a source for that statement, other than "Yo, I was just down there." After a few days of mayhem, he quit it with the tag, and for all I know he may have become a useful editor. All he was doing, after all, was consistently and carefully applying WP:V, with no regard for the quality or type of information he added the tag to. It was outrageously destructive.

      Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) is both disputed and only vaguely applicable, though there isn't much else that's any more on point. I don't even have to hit Google to know that there isn't going to be much to be sourced out there - it's only necessary to know that the game was released in 1985, before the Net had its current format and at a time when computer gaming was considered a fringe activity by and for the lunatic geek streak. In 1985 there were only a couple of magazines covering computer games. Computer Gaming World, probably the biggest, only published five issues that year. They are not indexed and exist only as PDF files.

      I just checked; there are under 8,500 hits for the Ultima IV. Compared to that, 2,600+ Google hits for the Codex itself give some indication of notability. In contrast, there are 315,000 hits for Ultima Online, which was played after the Net reached something like its current form. My point here is that the details of modern sourcing often have little to do with notability and much to do with the ins and outs of the medium.

      In any case, I don't think this is so much about the rules, which we all know, as it is about how we apply them. If they were easy to apply, it wouldn't be necessary to talk about them (and most of the time, it isn't - I'm a Deletionist). Asking for "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" is cutting with a mighty big knife. That can be and often is a way of establishing notability. In this case notability, if it exists, will come from a different place, since "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" is hardly ever associated with computer games - or rap music, or snowboarding, or literary television, or thousands of other popular subjects - outside of the last few years. I don't reject WP:NOT, but I do urge that it be applied carefully.

      My personal instinct to keep is from this: I last played Ultima IV in 1991, or perhaps I'm confusing it with Ultima VI - whatever. Long time ago. The Codex appeared in many or most of the Ultima games. While browsing the AfD section I saw this and instantly knew what it was. I'm cautioned by WP:ILIKEIT, but like I say, that's how I'll apply the rules this time through.

      To wrap up, I note the comment about Ultima designer Richard Garriot in The New York Times, October 20, 1997 [2] - "With Ultima IV, he changed his thrust and added social commentary to the plot, making a goal of the game achieving 'the eight virtues of the avatar.'" The eight virtues are embodied and represented by the Codex, although the Times - no surprise - doesn't mention it by name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corporal Tunnel (talk • contribs) 02:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

  Duh. After all that, you'd think I'd sign the damn thing. - Corporal Tunnel (talk) 02:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Except that we already have an article on the virtues of Ultima, which is what your reference is really about. Is there any notability to the Codex that isn't actually notability of the virtues of Ultima? Not that I can see. This is simply an in-game object that you get when you've mastered the virtues. --Ig8887 (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: Central aspect of a very significant and influential video game. The Ultima games are based on a very comprehensive philosophical system, where the article's subject is a central aspect. That said, the article could be improved, which, however, is something not really accomplished through deletion. Miqademus (talk) 13:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

As above, we have an article on virtues of Ultima. Therefore, this article needs to demonstrate notability separate from the virtues themselves and their philosophical impact on video gaming. The Codex is just an object in a video game unless a third-party source says otherwise. At best, merge the best part of this information into the virtues of Ultima article if you must. --Ig8887 (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 03:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Has this fictional item had substantial independent reliable coverage? Let's start with a web search. "Codex of Ultimate Wisdom" -wiki gets me 125 hits. Unless I've missed one, these are all fan sites, game guides, trivial mentions and Wikipedia clones. There's nothing here that can't be mentioned (with WP:V, natch) in Ultima. Marasmusine (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: The codex has never been substantially covered in reliable sources, its essentially non-notable outside of the fictional ultima universe and will only ever be full of in-universe information and trivia. PirateMink 19:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom and PirateMink. There's really not much more to say about the Codex than is already covered in the respective articles on the game in which it appears, and they're already covered there. The item doesn't need its own article. Xihr (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons given above. We already have an article about the Virtues of Ultima, but sadly it too lacks in any type of encyclopedic sourcing. (jarbarf) (talk) 03:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Besides saying that those who want to improve the quality of wikipedia are not being "useful", there is really no argument based on Wikipedia policies that supports keeping this article, and its notability and referencing issues remain unaddressed. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Slavlin (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Any true Ultima fan has to see that this is not the way to write about it. User:Dorftrottel 10:04, January 29, 2008
• 'Delete - no third-party sources about this in-universe MacGuffin; nothing here that can't be incorporated into other articles, if actually needed. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge into Virtues of Ultima per Ig8887's response to Corporal Tunnel's impassioned point. I've already started to WP:BOLDly merge some info in. -- RoninBK _{T C} 20:11, 30 January 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 1994 Fairchild Air Force Base B-52 crash Nakon 17:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bud Holland

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

This individual is notable only for a single incident. Almost all of the information in this article is also in the article for that single event, which is 1994 Fairchild Air Force Base B-52 crash. Also, since he died in that crash, there is little chance that he'll do be doing anything else that might make him notable. Cla68 (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Cla68 (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO1E and WP:NPOV#Undue weight. The only reason for this article is to establish a history of behavior by Holland. Whether intentionally or not, this provides inappropriate weight against other factors that may have contributed to the accident in question. --Dhartung | Talk 01:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Redirect and merge valuable content in this article into his crash article. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 02:11, 30 January 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. Nakon 17:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Emergy

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

When first I read this article I was left wondering it it might not be some elaborate Sokal-stye hoax experiment visised upon us. Besdides in the works of Fr. Odum and the charmingly named Scienceman, this nebulous concept of "emergy" does not appear to have achieved mainstream current, neither in popular media or in scientific puplications. (with the exception of a single EPA funded study "Environmental Accounting using Emergy: Evaluations of the state of West Virginia"} The blizzard of rererences given often have little or nothing to do with the ostensible topic of this article. It's not exactly a WP:HOAX, but ultimately it's a non-notable fringe theory.<eleland/talkedits> 22:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

1.Re: mainstream current. It is not the case that a concept needs to achieve "mainstream current" in popular media before being considered appropriate for Wikipedia. Hence there is no valid argument.

2.Re: emergy is not in current scientific publications. A search of science direct had 161 Articles Found which mention emergy in title, keywords, abstract. 9 to be published in 2008. It is current. Hence there is no valid argument.

3.Re: references. It is not the case that that a longer list of references qualifies an article for deletion. Hence there is no valid argument.

4.Re: notability. Criteria for the evaluation of notability are not specified. Hence no argument is possible. Sholto Maud (talk) 11:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy keep (and cleanup) There are hundreds of Google Scholar hits for "emergy" by about a dozen different authors, including several in Science. It looks like its heyday was in the early 90s. Bm gub (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite. There is a remarkable amount of confusion to be removed, and no attempt at all at an objective article. The term however has been used to a significant extent. DGG (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. It's certainly a reasonable topic for an article, especially if Odum used it as indicated, and the notability is there even if a bit on the fringe. The problem, of course, is the painful presentation, that is over-wordy and often obscure. The topic is sufficiently complex and outside of my field that I don't feel at all like trying to simplify it, but the article needs editing help from someone. Tim Ross·^talk 11:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The article is beyond repair. By my informal count, the success rate of "keep and rewrite" for this type of out-of-the-mainstream article (with a very small group of past-but-still-active major contributors) is close to nil. And while this type of article languishes, it diminishes WP's reputation. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 19:57, 29 January 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] People Talk

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

• Delete NN film per WP:NF Mayalld (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Totally non-notable. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 17:46, 26 January 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Haven (Stephen King)

Haven (Stephen King) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This can be a notable fiction but not the village. Delete as per WP:NOTE. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 22:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 22:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable fictional place. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable. Macy's123 ^{(review me)} 23:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete A Stephen King novel set at a fictional location in Maine? Gosh, how often does that happen? Mandsford (talk) 02:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Has no value at all.--NAHID 08:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Non-notable. Doesn't have any information at all. --Nobody can see me 23:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - Not even remotely notable! TheProf07 (talk) 16:09, 29 January 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lethal Weapon 5: The Return of Sing Ku

Lethal Weapon 5: The Return of Sing Ku (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This was up for speedy, template was deleted by another user (who probably didn't realize he wasn't supposed to delete it without consideration). It's either: a) obvious hoax; or b) crystalballing, because there's no such movie. In fact, after searching Google, the only articles I'm coming up with about "Lethal Weapon 5" are random people speculating about it and the actors repeatedly saying "NO". Gromlakh (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Per WP:NFF, "Films which have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced shooting should not have their own articles." This movie--regardless of whether or not the article is a hoax--does not meet our notability guidelines.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:HOAX and WP:NFF. Doc Strange (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 17:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per WP:HOAX -- there is no such project in development. There are zero headlines for this so-called project to be released this year. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Struck out "Speedy" per JuJube. I'll remember that for the future. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as above, this is WP:HOAX fodder. (jarbarf) (talk) 03:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, hoax.--The Dominator (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete hoaxalicious. Note that being a hoax in and of itself is not a valid reason for speedy deletion. JuJube (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per JuJube. Risker (talk) 21:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete this crap already. --Ouzo (talk) 14:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - I did a quick search on Google and found nothing about this film. TheProf07 (talk) 16:15, 29 January 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Shakespeare day"

"Shakespeare day" (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete as non-notable event, possibly neologism per WP:NEO and possibly WP:MADEUP Mayalld (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not something I made up (see various newspaper references: and there are more) and has been an issue discussed in the media and senior UK politicians, esp in late 2006. It is not a neologism.

I have nothing to do with theatre, literature or Shakespeare.

This page was "condemned" before the first sentence was even completed (i.e. before I could outline the discussion in national media and by senior politicians of this issue). It is not worth my time trying to do this now that the gauntlet has been thrown down.

The speed of its condemnation suggests to me that the issue here is narrow mindedness of the wiki-executors.

If you were to try adding it to the shakespeare page they tell you there is not enough room!

Comment none of the sources refer to an existing celebration where Elizabethan food is eaten. They refer to a proposed new public holiday. Mayalld (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You are commenting upon something which you condemned before the very first sentence was even completed! You should give people a bit of time to do something before you condemn them for not do anything. Your objectivity as a deletor of wiki articles could be questioned by the speed of your deletion. If you do not like the contents (or do not think them relevant to the newspaper articles) then howabout suggesting ways to make it relevant, rather than just wiping it out?

There is obviously no point doing this now I have got your back up!

I expect that the issue of a shakespeare day will come back to the national media headlines (as it did in 2006) and possibly then to wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eminence2008 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment The article was nominated for deletion at such an early stage, because it was already clear that it was going nowhere. The only notable thing that could be the subject of an article (the campaign to have the day recognised as a holiday) was clearly not what the article was about, and the subsequent edits show that this was to be a single section amongst many. The single sentence that was written was simply untrue. There is no notable celebration of "Shakespeare Day", involving dressing up, or eating Elizabethan food. The sentence as written was at best talking about a single, local non-notable event, and at worst was invented as what might take place on a hypothetical public holiday. Wikipedia deals in fact and does not engage in crystal ball gazing. The same sentence also made the classic error of all poorly researched articles about him, and stated that he was born on April 23rd. The simple fact is that his date of birth is not known. It is known that he was baptised on April 26th, and some people like to conjecture that he was born on the 23rd both because it ties in with St Georges day, and because it means that he died on his birthday, but such a dating is merely conjecture and artistic licence. You complain about the speed with which it was nominated. The article was nominated as soon as it became clear that there was no hope for its survival. In what way would it have been better to leave it for 24 hours? Had I done that you could have spent a day adding to an article that was still going to be deleted. Mayalld (talk) 11:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete The proposal for a holiday is not the same as a holiday. If and when this becomes something notable, we can write about it then. Perhaps the article editor - welcome to the Wiki - might spend some time here learning how the Wiki works and what it is, before creating new articles. In the shorter term, the template promising information for clothes we might wear on Shakespeare Day and food we might eat on Shakespeare Day is unrealistic at best. - Corporal Tunnel (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. When this "holiday" becomes a reality recreate. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete at this point. If there is more discussion, write an article. DGG (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Article has nearly no content and per above. Reywas92^Talk 22:59, 29 January 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 Nakon 17:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Elbryan Wyndon

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

This article consists almost entirely of plot summary without real-world context or analysis, which breaks WP:NOT#PLOT, and has no secondary sources to indicate notability per WP:FICT. Google returns few hits that appear to be only non-reliable fansites and the like which indicates this topic has never recieved substantial coverage from acceptable secondary sources. As such, it is unlikely any amount of rewriting or improvement can bring the article up to policy by providing real-world significance or establishing notability. Once unencyclopedic, in-universe material is removed (per WP:FICT#Non-notable_topics), there would no content to merge into another article. Doctorfluffy (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• I've nominated another character from the series as well. The discussion can be found here. Doctorfluffy (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 17:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm not finding much in the way of sources to support the notability of this character either. Contra nom, per WP:WAF not all in-universe material need be removed, and primary sources are acceptable for in-universe information. Per WP:FICT, the next thing to try is merge, but I'm not seeing an obvious merge target. Possibly selectively to a new Main Characters section in The DemonWars Saga. Will wait to !vote till I think some more. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "per WP:WAF not all in-universe material need be removed": "In-universe" is a particular style of writing, not identical to "information from primary sources". Primary information as far as useful should of course be included in the article (e.g. a concise plot summary), but it may not be written up from an in-universe perspective like is the case in this article. Adjusting for the real world as frame of reference would indeed leave this as a substub. Also, consider the all-important and widely misunderstood difference between writing about the plot (which indeed requires secondary sources in addition to the primary sources) and summarising the plot (which is not sufficient as sole content for an article). User:Dorftrottel 10:15, January 29, 2008
• Delete per fully qualified and well-worded nom. User:Dorftrottel 10:15, January 29, 2008

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nakon 17:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Avelyn Desbris

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

This article consists almost entirely of plot summary without real-world context or analysis, which breaks WP:NOT#PLOT, and has no secondary sources to indicate notability per WP:FICT. Google returns few hits that appear to be only non-reliable fansites and the like which indicates this topic has never recieved substantial coverage from acceptable secondary sources. As such, it is unlikely any amount of rewriting or improvement can bring the article up to policy by providing real-world significance or establishing notability. Once unencyclopedic, in-universe material is removed (per WP:FICT#Non-notable_topics), there would no content to merge into another article. Doctorfluffy (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• I've nominated another character from the series as well. The discussion can be found here. Doctorfluffy (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 17:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm not finding much in the way of sources to support the notability of this character either. Contra nom, per WP:WAF not all in-universe material need be removed, and primary sources are acceptable for in-universe information. Per WP:FICT, the next thing to try is merge, but I'm not seeing an obvious merge target. Possibly selectively to a new Main Characters section in The DemonWars Saga. Will wait to !vote till I think some more. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Same as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elbryan Wyndon. User:Dorftrottel 10:19, January 29, 2008

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nakon 17:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Snuttis.com

Snuttis.com (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Self-promotional only, no notability, related to Andreas Swahn. Mats Halldin (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy (talk) 12:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 17:49, 26 January 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 Nakon 17:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Festivalinfo.net

Festivalinfo.net (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Self-promotional only, no notability, related to Andreas Swahn. Mats Halldin (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy (talk) 12:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 17:49, 26 January 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Schmitty Robinson

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

Non-notable, probable partial hoax article about a "wrestler" who is a member of a trampoline wrestling league. Guest9999 (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. May or may not be a hoax, but certainly not a notable figure regardless. Even the wrestling league this person is supposedly affiliated with is not notable (assuming it's real, which is not real clear to me from a quick glance at their web site).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

A quick sampling of the links from the Media section of said website ([3], [4], [5], [6]) gives only youtube videos. Guest9999 (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 17:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, whether it is real or not...it still isn't notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Nikki311 03:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Nikki311. D.M.N. (talk) 10:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete this page and the original version (Schmitty robinson). There's no way this isn't a hoax. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Nikki311 and D.M.N. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - seems to be a hoax, and non-notable anyway. NiciVampireHeart (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete oh dear god get it away and quick, someone's idea of a joke that's just not funny. Hasn't it snowballed already? MPJ-DK (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I'm surprised this is still up for debate. DELETE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandlerjoeyross (talk • contribs) 22:34, 29 January 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 Nakon 17:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Studentis Group

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

Self-promotional, non-notable, relatated to Andreas Swahn. Mats Halldin (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Nothing to establish notability, no sources in English. --L. Pistachio (talk) 03:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per notability concerns. AniMate 20:27, 30 January 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. Nakon 17:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blogcatalog

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

Delete NN blogging site with no reliable sources Mayalld (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I've done some cleanup work on the article, and advised the author on how to show notability through proper sources. As the article stans it is not adequately sourced and does not assert notability, specifically it fails WP:ORG. Unless proper sources showing notability are forthcoming the article should be deleted. Gwernol 21:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • • • Because blog catalog is essentially a website its notability is better argued from a WP: web perspective. Notwithstanding that From the WP:Org perspective organizations that are on a national or international scale are generally Notable. I have seen notability argued elsewhere based on size and scale of membership.--Kdgoodman (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• If this is not worthy then wikipedia is somehow failing - or it's moderators are vandals. Actually I should not use that strong of a language as I am sure it is inadvertant but the influince of blogcatalog is evident to any one who looks around. That's my opinion Kevin Goodman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.99.201 (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I suggest you read our policies on assuming good faith and avoiding personal attacks. On your substantive point, please note that your opinion that Blogcatalog is notable is not enough. As has been pointed out to you on at least two previous occasions, you need to meet the notability criteria laid out in WP:ORG. These standards have been established by the Wikipedia community and all articles are held to this standard. Thanks, Gwernol 00:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• I would also like to note that it is here because I was suprise that it wasnt listed - though I seen there had been two attempts to do so. I understand the matter of credibility but I would hate for this matter to rest only in my hands and the under impartial. Give it seven days - make it a stub. But I am not going to use wikipedia if this is not worthy because this deserves reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.99.201 (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • • A day wiser – this comment was not meant to substantiate the topic but to clear myself as ‘promoting’and is one reason I was 'Touchy'.--Kdgoodman (talk) 02:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • You have five days before this AfD debate concludes. If Blogcatalog is as notable as you contend, it should be easy to find independent sources to show its notability in that time. Google and other search engines are extremely good at finding mentions of companies in th press, you might want to start there. Gwernol 00:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete WP:ILIKEIT isn't a reason to keep this. If notability can't be established this isn't a failing of wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of all human knowledge, or a vehicle for advertising, etc.--Crossmr (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Those who would read this article would be researching social media and blogs of which there are only – maybe thirty platforms and one of which is blog-catalog. I believe notability is achieved – read elsewhere. To say that “Wikipedia is not a collection of all human knowledge, or a vehicle for advertising, etc” is highly suggestive. It is neither insignificant for its area nor is it an advertisement.--74.130.99.201 (talk) 02:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge Given the wee state and relative unimportance of the Technorati and MyBlogLog articles, this seems much overblown, though I don't believe it's completely undeserving. The original author's colorful assertions notwithstanding, this appears to be a reasonably large site in its field, serving its own members reliably. It is clearly a secondary player; perhaps the information could be added to one of the existing articles. However, given the other articles mentioned above, I don't think this fails the guidelines - or rather, I think this is one of those cases where the guidelines might not be applied firmly for best advantage. Note that the MyBlogLog article prominently lists the Google and Alexa ratings, incidentally. Hey, it's a blogger thing. - Corporal Tunnel (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

  Using an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument to ignore the guidelines doesn't seem compelling to me. Its only evidence that those articles need to be looked at.--Crossmr (talk) 01:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

  Well, of course there are articles on Technorati and MyBlogLog. I am comparing their content to the content here, as one does with birds of a feather. (Edited to remove my snippy tone - what was that about?) - Corporal Tunnel (talk) 02:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

  In AFD articles have to stand on their own merit. There are millions of articles on wikipedia and comparing one article to another during AfD isn't really a compelling argument since all kinds of things can slip through the cracks.--Crossmr (talk) 02:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

  As you like. I will maintain my Keep vote, then, and you can freely disregard my comparisons to the other articles. Nothing there changes my position or the thrust of my point, in any case. - Corporal Tunnel (talk) 03:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment It is a discussion, not a vote, and "votes" that maintain a position that is at odds with policy don't count for very much Mayalld (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Gwernol - Your reference to Wikipedia policies is well taken. My complaint is not against individuals or you. But more at how quickly moderators act, If I had not contested the original delete, how long would it have taken? I do believe that the extent of ‘Notability’ is being somewhat presumed after reading Wikipedia Notability Guidelines. It is suggested that http://mashable.com is not notable and that it needs to be something as significant as “The New York Times’ – I disagree but will keep looking. The link to the press release is something I included because it was a specific source for something (I don’t remember what) and was not meant to create notability but to convey a specific facts. It would be nice to get contributions instead of immediate threats of elimination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.99.201 (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

  I am user 74.130.99.201, I apologize for not being fluent with the technology and the etiquette. I still feel as though this debate represents something larger. I will not express it here as I do not know if this is the appropriate place for it or how much it really has to do with this 'Subject'. Thank you for showing me how to sign hopefully this is looking better--Kdgoodman (talk) 17:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Secondary sources are not adequate to satisfy WP:WEB / WP:ORG. Doctorfluffy (talk) 12:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 17:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I have read the Wikipedia Notability Guidelines very carefully and cannot find anything that substantiates this – in fact the policy is the vice. A primary source by definition comes from the source it’s self – presumably the press release was from Blogcatalog and therefore a primary source. In fact ‘secondary sources’ are mandated by Wikipedia for establishing Notability as a matter of credibility. --Kdgoodman (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Only coverage I found in reliable sources is either trivial, or reprinted press releases [7] [8] [9] -- pb30<talk> 17:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • As of yet I have not crossed any kind of references that seem to come from traditional media. That is not the sole criteria of Wikipedia’s Notability policy which demands – any one of three criteria conditions -. My opinion is that some of the references qualify as condition three. Also note that the intent of those references was to illustrate particular facts. Please remember that those who would read this article would be researching social media and blogs of which there are only – maybe thirty platforms and one of which is blog-catalog. User darkgreen has my respects for personally researching the matter.--Kdgoodman (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I think it is time we stopped requiring traditional media. We will becoming increasing stuck in the 20th century. The sources are appropriate to the subject DGG (talk) 01:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I would consider anything on the Alexa top 500 to be notable (and Alexa as an RS), but this doesn't qualify. Maybe there's something else out there which is nontraditional but reliable, but until I see it, I'll go for deletion. Matchups (talk) 03:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Blogcatalog.com does rank in the top five hundred sites for the US at 478! 475 for Canada, and 607 for the UK on Alexa.--74.130.99.201 (talk) 04:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I finally got Alexa to load. According to this, "Blogcatalog.com has a traffic rank of: 181,421" If you have different information, please provide a link to it. Matchups (talk) 12:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Very wierd - this comes right from doing an analysis on alexa (overall traffic rating is 1,421)and at the bottom of the page it tells you traffic ranking specific to different countries (US 478)and that is the information I posted http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/blogcatalog.com--74.130.99.201 (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
      • actually I just looked at your link and it is telling the very same information - I don't know how you are geting 181,421 as it is 1,421 and if you go to the bottom of the page you see it has a traffic ranking of being in the top five hundred for the US, Canada, Malaysia, 291 for india and 607 for the UK--74.130.99.201 (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It is definitely strange. I am getting all kinds of weird stuff when I look at the page. But I did finally see the same numbers as you. I am not sure if I think that a rank of 1,421 and barely within 500 in U.S.A. confers notability, so I will revert to an abstention. Matchups (talk) 03:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Having revisited some of the references I can see they are not that great. Searches have yielded some credible mentions in major media sites such as ABC but these are trivial. I am amazed that there was not greater media significance but I have learned that Blogcatalog despite being founded in 2004 has really only been a social networking site for about ten months.

However – blog catalog has seen a meteoric rise in the following months as demonstrated by Alexa and is the 478 most visited site in the US, 475 most visited site in Canada. As for media references - clearly there is an interpretation of guidelines as it can be argued that the reference to Mashable meets notability guidelines. 1. The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster;[7] except for:  Trivial distribution such as hosting content on entertainment-like sites (GeoCities, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.) In these considerations we might consider looking at ‘cumulative’ evidence. There is not any dominate mainstream media coverage – the fact that it is mentioned on well over a thousand WebPages is significant evidence of notability. Blogcatalog is also referenced in a few books http://books.google.com/books?q=blogcatalog&btnG=Search+Books%20I But my contention is not to rereference this – the debate should be about the topic and not the article as Wikipedia is about collaboration. The Final argument for notability is that it is of International scope with only 25% of its members being from the U.S. – Alexa does a fine analysis – And notability guidelines for organizations presumes national and international organizations are notable. A US fortune 500 company would probably be notable for being just that. You are about to remove a website that has become the 478th most visited site in the US. This is clearly not a perfect argument and I doubt it changes any predispositions. The subject was attempted before me and the evidence of notability and growing notability is clear whether it is construed and accepted within Wikipedia guidelines – though by opinion it does meet guidelines. I doubt the article is accepted but hope this attempt does not bias it as another person will probably attempt it.--Kdgoodman (talk) 04:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Blogcatalog was the feature story in Techcrunch, yesterday January 29th--74.130.99.201 (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - the world is moving away from newspapers and magazines, which are Wikipedia's traditional reliable sources, to media that are solely web-based. Sooner or later we are going to have to realize that new media are sufficiently reliable for our purpose. There is a multitude of sites totally independent of Blogcatalog that are talking about it. Google found about 300,000 hits outside of the Blogcatalog.com domain. Yes, I know that ghits don't count for much, but it should count for something in evaluating this article. Alexa shows that its daily reach has grown about 50% in the last two months.[10] It is worldwide - almost 3/4 of its users come from outside the U.S. Its traffic rank is in the top 500 in four countries, including the U.S., and is 601 in the U.K. More than 3400 sites link to it. It is notable. If our guidelines don't allow us to recognize its notability, then our guidelines need to be modernized (or maybe ignore the guidelines in detail, while following their intent). Sbowers3 (talk) 01:09, 31 January 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Andreas Swahn

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

Self-promotional only, no notability, only contributor is the subject of the article. Mats Halldin (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete. This is WP:COI at its most obvious, as well as being non-notable. --Ig8887 (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with above, self-promotional article only. Snowfire51 (talk) 03:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and others. Doctorfluffy (talk) 12:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 17:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Please also note the related articles Snuttis.com, Festivalinfo.net, and Studentis Group; as well as the related redirects Snuttis, Festivalinfo, and Studentis.

/ Mats Halldin (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Additionally: Swahn (logged in or not [11] [12] [13]) removed his own name from these articles to hide himself as associated with the brands he own.

/ Mats Halldin (talk) 20:37, 26 January 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 Nakon 17:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Heather Bauer

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

Article concerns nutritionist and author of upcoming book. This appears to be a promotional blurb written by a publicist. Her only claim to notability lies in giving several media interviews as a spokesperson for Nu-train (a company that itself teeters on the verge of obscurity). ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No independant coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. No evidence of notability via substantial coverage in secondary sources. Doctorfluffy (talk) 13:00, 26 January 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 Nakon 17:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] World Natural Health Organization

World Natural Health Organization (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No indication of satisfying WP:ORG. Google returns unreliable sites, directory listings, and other trivial mentions. Appears to be more of a website for one man to express political opinions than an actual organization with members. Doctorfluffy (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Much of that article as well as the information on the site provided looks more like original research than actual facts. Also the notability of the articles topic makes me question if anything on the site is credible. Tarret ^talk 22:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable "organization" with an agenda and no evidence of significance. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:42, 30 January 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. Punkmorten (talk) 22:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Frits Thaulow

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

Article fails to establish notability. Article fails to cite sources. Based on the information contained within, all we know is that the individual existed and painted within the defined era. This is insufficient to establish notability without sources or actual content. Kershner (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• I agree, even a speedy would have been appropriate. But not anymore, so keep. Punkmorten (talk) 22:13, 25 January 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shadow hunter enter the ninja

Shadow hunter enter the ninja (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable movie made as a school project. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 21:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Also nominating Shadow Hunter: Enter The Ninja (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• I forgot to mention this is a contested PROD. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 21:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete-per nom.--TrUCo⁹31¹ 21:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Also delete Shadow Hunter: Enter The Ninja. Jfire (talk) 06:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• As Shadow Hunter: Enter The Ninja also exists, can we Speedy Delete this article? Dchall1 (talk) 06:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • No. We list them both here. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 13:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per others. However, I do recommend that everyone takes the time to watch a few minutes of it on Google video. Doctorfluffy (talk) 13:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:00, 26 January 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 89X, Saucier New Rock Alternative

89X, Saucier New Rock Alternative (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Apparently non-notable radio station. The article says the station transmits at just 0.3 watts, and a previous version of the page said the coverage range was only half a mile. No third-party references are given to establish notability. —Bkell (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Per nomination. -- Atama^chat 22:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy (talk) 13:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Mh29255 (talk) 04:28, 28 January 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Power 89.5, Saucier Hit Music Channel

Power 89.5, Saucier Hit Music Channel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Apparently non-notable radio station. The article says the station transmits at just 0.3 watts, and a previous version of the page said the coverage range was only half a mile. No third-party references are given to establish notability. —Bkell (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Per nomination. -- Atama^chat 22:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy (talk) 13:06, 26 January 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 Nakon 17:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HouseFront

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

Promotional article on non-notable real estate search engine. This is a new entry into a field that includes dozens of similar services and there is nothing in the article to indicate significant membership or recognition. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as blatant advertising and certainly non-notable per WP:N. Doctorfluffy (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I disagree with the case in point that HouseFront is a non-notable real estate search engine (it's noted that I am with the company). First off this is not a new entry, only new changes (the article was first added on May 30,2007). While the field is crowded with many competitors HouseFront has made its fair share of contributions to the field and has its own niche (being the mobile market). HouseFront was the first company to offer real estate data via SMS (with other companies following similar suit thereafter), and its website was designed to compliment its mobile search. The company was also the first real estate search company to design a page just for the iPhone (again following its mobile centric approach).
• Regarding Doctorfluffy's concerns of the article being blatant advertising, this is an issue to address, I have been making changes to HouseFront's page under the pretense I was making it better. This is my first time working with/on Wikipedia and regret that the changes may have been more self promotional than knowledgeable or encyclopedic. I have made significant changes to article in hopes that is seems less promotion and only addressing issues that HouseFront has contributed to its field. If there are still objections to the changes, those can be addressed too, but complete deletion of the article in my opinion is unnecessary as HouseFront is a notable company making headway in the mobile real estate industry. Corndog1337 (talk) 17:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Addressing Orange Mike's issue, the article is written in a neutral tone, clear of bias and blatant self promotion. The article has also had contributions from others. Secondly, no where in the article does it claim the company is "making headway" or "fast-rising", the company has had "Significant coverage" (a general guideline for notability) which implies notability. See The Wall Street Journal, Denver Post, Popular Science, along with many more mentions in articles and blogs written just on HouseFront (such notable ones as LifeHacker, and Inman News. I understand the concern but think the conflict of interest is unwarranted when looking at the evidence, and very much notable as I described above when commenting on the admins concerns.Corndog1337 (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • response - You are the one using the phrase "making headway", just four lines above your response! Only the Wall Street Journal bit is a meaningful reference; the Denver Post piece is a short squib, and the Popular Science "link" is to your own website. Blogs, of course, are of no value here. Your case is still weak; a single article alone is not enough. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Ahhh, I did miss that (sorry). The reason the Pop Science article links to our site is becuase it was in the print magazine only. While you may not agree with the Denver post article, there was also a significant article in the Denver Business Journal too, another source: Halloween of 2007 HouseFront was referenced around the country in many major news papers regarding Haunted Houses (further showing the companies increasing appeal and notability). Blogs may not play a big role or be reputable, but it does help show how the real estate industry has responded to HouseFront. You can't ignore the fact that HouseFront has received recognition and even been copied by others in the industry (which added a dumb down version of SMS search to their site after HouseFront launched). Corndog1337 (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence presented of notability. "Making headway" is one of those arguments, like "fast-rising" and "going to become a major player," that implies that the subject is not yet notable. Your personal interest is clouding your judgment here, Corndog. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:47, 30 January 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 Nakon 17:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jay Fawcett

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

Insufficient evidence of notability. Lost Congressional race by substantial margin. Article has been tagged since late August in hopes of more content, but nothing substantive has been added. Googling seems mostly to turn up pre-election expressions of hope. SlamDiego_←T 19:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. While this may have had hopes of being a notable article in 2006, outside of the election which was lost, from one district in Colorado, nothing substantiative has come up since, even from the creator of the article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable politician that does not meet WP:BIO's standards for inclusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Does not meet specifications for a bio page. Not a substantive figure. Firefly123123(talk) 19:24, 26 January 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 Nakon 17:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hakka-Pac

Hakka-Pac (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails three things. Fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:BIO, and most importantly, WP:MUSIC. Delete Undeath (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete-per nom.TrUCo⁹31¹ 21:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - 1) subject of published article 2) sang duet with (very notable) R&B artist Lee-Hom Wang Chewyrunt (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:10, 26 January 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Phantom arcade

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

Gaming website "set to be released in June 2008 to the public". Given that the external links don't work, CRYSTAL applies and possibly it is an hoax. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete unless coverage by independent, reliable sources if provided. So far, none. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 03:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete It's either crystal balling or a total hoax (because the links don't work) Doc Strange (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete At best, it is OR. At worst, it is a hoax. Either way or anywhere in between, it should be deleted. Slavlin (talk) 01:26, 29 January 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 Nakon 17:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Chips

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

Fails both WP:NOTABILITY and WP:CORP. Delete Undeath (talk) 19:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable company that fails WP:CORP. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The article doesn't do justice to the subject, a company that has existed for decades and operates over a wide area. Some will find it difficult to believe that there were people who would get home delivery of potato chips and other snack foods that could be purchased in a supermarket, but it's true. Since this won't be a snowball, I'll look for sources. Mandsford (talk) 02:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Plenty of sources at Google news. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment "Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization. In other words, they satisfy the primary criterion above."Undeath (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. That's exactly what those Google News hits confirm. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Surely this is a WP:HEY candidate, but with minimal effort I can see that this brand has been covered by the New York Times, amongst other reliable publications. (jarbarf) (talk) 03:06, 27 January 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, defaults to Keep Nakon 17:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cordelia's Dad

Cordelia's Dad (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band. There is a thank you note from the band to the editor who created the article. That creates the appearance that this is a form of advertising. Jehochman ^Talk 19:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - a few references are listed, but they are obscure and offline, and under the circumstances I do not believe they establish notability. Jehochman ^Talk 19:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, bad faith nomination Primary subject of three substantial published profiles, including a 900 word biography in Allmusic, a profile in Guinness Encyclopedia of Popular Music, and a profile in Folk & Blues. Internationally touring band [14], released seven albums both domestically and abroad, 1 1/2 of them recorded with Steve Albini, two notable members in Tim Eriksen and Laura Risk, multiple album reviews in domestic and international press. Meets WP:BAND on multiple grounds. The provided sourcing is fully sufficient, "offline" sources are perfectly acceptable per WP:RS. And if the "obscure and offline" sources and Allmusic aren't enough, how about Time Magazine? In case you missed it, the comment on my user page is a comment about Wikipedia, not about the band. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Why would you accuse another admin of a bad faith nomination? Multiple instances today of you appearing to misunderstand the process of AfD, per the AN thread started by Uncle G. Please rewrite your comment above into an actual keep argument. ^Avruchtalk 19:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Because, per your own argument, this has nothing to do with the notability of the band but with the discussion at WP:MALLSECURITY. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable band, one of the references given by Trialsanderrors above link to trivial coverage of the band - the Time magazine article quotes a band member and identifies the band, but says not one single other thing about it. ^Avruchtalk 20:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The Allmusic profile trivial? Don't embarass yourself. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, not embarassed. ^Avruchtalk 20:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note on the offline references - given that you cite the Times article, which has only the most peripheral mention of the band, can you quote sections of these sources that demonstrate they actually discuss the subject in a non-trivial way? If so, I'll switch my vote to keep. ^Avruchtalk 21:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I've heard of them because they're a local band in my area, but I'm not finding enough references, here or elsewhere, to convince me of their notability. Kafka Liz (talk) 20:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • There are three full-length profiles listed in the references, plus a variety of reviews. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Multiple references, plus they are featured in the standard specialist guides (Colin Larkin, Guinness guide). Catchpole (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Multiple references. Here are a few more. Village Voice review. Prairie Home Companion (trivial)]. Sing Out! brief. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps somebody would volunteer to add them to the article? Right now it looks like any old Myspace band. Jehochman ^Talk 21:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Myspace bands don't get their albums produced by Steve Albini, nor do they get their albums released for the German market by one of the two major German alt-country labels, Normal Records. They also don't have their frontmen being asked to work as musical consultants to the soundtrack of Cold Mountain, get their albums reviewed in international music magazines or have a 900 word biography in Allmusic. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That's all wonderful. Add references to the article and then it will not be deleted. This is easy to resolve. Do you use Firefox? Jehochman ^Talk 22:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is referenced to the tune of 4,000 words, in case you didn't look. Do you have anything to add in your defense that this is not a WP:POINT nomination, or can we close this as purely frivolous? ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop assuming bad faith, and I have nothing to defend whatsoever. Everyone will have a chance to express their opinion. Jehochman ^Talk 23:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have to assume it. It#S right there in your nomination. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete The sources found are too trivial. Epbr123 (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Inadequate sources to establish notability. Doctorfluffy (talk) 13:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Multiple sources are given. They appear sufficiently non-trivial to me. Can any of those proposing deletion explain further why they feel the sources are too trivial? Bondegezou (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Allways hard to assess this pop-groups, but this one seems to be more than passing the usual demands for publicity/longevity/albums etc. A bit weak on online sourcing, but I will give them a bit for having broken up in 1998. Greswik (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Fwiw, Factiva is an online news aggregator. It's just behind a paywall. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This was an important alt-country band. WP:NMG is clearly satisfied. GreenGourd (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - significant coverage in reliable sourses Addhoc (talk) 20:59, 30 January 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 Nakon 17:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inez Cain

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTABILITY. The parents are more notable than the actual person. Delete Undeath (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete self-publishing a novel doesn't meet notability criteria for creative professionals. Teleomatic (talk) 03:23, 27 January 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brownfield architecture

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

Delete unsourced one-liner, no indication why this is notable or just a neologism or protologism. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Brownfield land is a term used in Urban Planning for former industrial sites, so I thought this was a related term when I clicked. However, for this term, there are no sources, no verifiability, and no apparent notability, so it should probably be deleted. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete WP:CSD#A1, insufficient context. I read the line of text in the article and I learned nothing. So tagged. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Delete It does make logical sense - to me at least- as an extension of the brownfield term used in the building industry, but I can't find any evidence of significant usage, although if there was, it might be a reasonable redirect to Legacy systemFlowerpotmaN·(t) 04:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computers-related deletion discussions. —FlowerpotmaN·(t) 04:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, unfortunately. Has to go, possibly as a CSD A1. I did try to save it, but there really doesn't seem to be anything. Unreferenced, probably WP:NEO, and a complete lack of anything on the Internet could mean WP:MADEUP. — alex.muller (talk • edits) 10:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I did much the same as you there. "Brownfield architecture" as a phrase didn't bring up any context-relevant references in itself, although there were quite a few IT-related webpages where brownfield and architecture were mentioned with legacy systems, but these were in connection with IT issues relating to (bricks-and-mortar) architecture. However brownfield (without the architecture) does seem to have some currency in the InformationTechnology field. This, for example, from Cisco systems, where the term seems to be used in the expectation that the reader is familiar with it, rather than as a handy explanatory metaphor. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Alex Muller. Doctorfluffy (talk) 13:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. and others. Like UltraExactZZ, I expected this to be related to industrial sites. Tim Ross·^talk 18:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• More a comment than anything else, but brownfield deployment, with much the same meaning as that used in this article, does seem to be a term in common usage in the field.FlowerpotmaN·(t) 02:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Ah, you make a very good point. It took all of 30 seconds for this to give this – more research would be necessary, but I'm wondering whether it's worth a move to Brownfield Deployment and expand... decisions, decisions — alex.muller (talk • edits) 02:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
    • (slightly late in replying :)) Possibly it should be expanded within the Legacy system article. It seems a valid topic, but having it as a section within the Legacy system article would give it context, rather than just a definition. Redirects (and possibly alternate use messages) would be fine. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep/Redirect to Brownfield deployment A simple definition that I can't see is doing much harm. It's not a vanity page or something controversial. If someone knows more about it then they can expand or reference it (may be a better use of time than haggling over if it should be deleted). Who is harmed by this mirco-article existing? Mike Young (talk) 10:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:NEO. "A simple definition" belongs in Wiktionary, not here. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:50, 30 January 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). brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Feloni

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

Clearly unnotabe. At first I redirected the page to Coming Out Stories. Then I realized that it would be more appropiate to redirect the page to Felony, which is it's misspelling. The creator obviously disagrees. So I brought it here. Should it be deleted, kept, redirected to Coming Out Stories, or redirecred to Felony? brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep assuming reviews here are verifiable. Hobit (talk) 19:43, 25 January 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Beauty Killer

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

Contested prod. Violates WP:CRYSTAL and WP:MUSIC. Proposed album is self-published (no major label), and its releae is far from certain. No independent sources. If the album does come out and meets WP:MUSIC guidelines, we can reconsider this then, but right now it's just a Mypace "celebrity" with one self-published EP. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per comprehensive nomination. tomasz. 14:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Honestly, I think the paltry amount of information it gives combined with the fact that it's a self labeled release would have qualified it under CSD:A7, but now that it's here, per nom. SingCal 21:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep It's only just been anounced not long ago, more info will b added soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TBSfan1223 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - if it ever comes out, mention of it can go in the performer's article; but it certainly fails WP:MUSIC very badly. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:53, 30 January 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 with CPS (arcade hardware) Nakon 17:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Capcom CPS Changer

Capcom CPS Changer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

It's just the home version of the Capcom Play System, not notable enough to deserve its own article. Can be merged into the CPS (arcade hardware) article. Master Bigode (talk) 17:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Merge with CPS (arcade hardware).Undeath (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge as suggested. *** Crotalus *** 21:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 03:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge that which can be sufficiently verified with CPS (arcade hardware). If better sources become available the page can be forked from there at that time. (jarbarf) (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Merge Merge. Split again if enough info is contributed later. Slavlin (talk) 01:23, 29 January 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 Nakon 18:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Larry Givens

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

Non-notable boxer with unremarkable record - does not meet criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia per Wikipedia:Notability (people). Also, extremely dubious and unsourced statements contravening WP:BIO has been removed. Eqdoktor (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete Per A7. Record? What record? There aren't any sources to show that this person ever even existed, let alone boxed professionally, if at all. DarkAudit (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral The article now is not what I !voted on before. Kudos for expanding the article. DarkAudit (talk) 04:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep this is notability in the wrong direction, see Eddie Edwards and Maurice Flitcroft for other examples. Catchpole (talk) 21:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I'm the original author of this article, before I learned to conform my articles to Wikipedia's formatting guidelines. I've added a citation to prove Larry Givens is a real person and divided the article into sections. Larry Givens is notable as an example of a Tomato Can, the definition of which is linked in the article. Brain Rodeo (talk) 01:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete comment: I have no problems with a Wikipedia article on such a boxer but Larry Givens does not fulfill the requirements of notability and Wikipedia:Notability (people). His record is mediocre but I can't find any independent verification (apart from the google hits on his record and Wikipedia itself) that he was remarkably bad enough to be notable. In fact, several boxers listed in Tomato Can has even worse records than Givens. Eddie Edwards and Maurice Flitcroft all have notable articles about them in prestigious reliable sources that fulfills WP:BIO requirements - I cannot find any such sources for Larry Givens - failing WP:V. He is not "bad" enough to be notable so to speak. The amended article then goes on to call him a Tomato Can - an un-sourced insulting term failing WP:BLP. The article fails a lot of Wikipedia policies as to be a borderline attack article. --Eqdoktor (talk) 09:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • A 10-10 record would be mediocre. A 3-46 record is incredibly bad. As boxing fans would know, it's amazing that this man could even get licensed to fight with a record like that. And Tomato Can is a descriptive term, not necessarily an insult. "Bastard" is a similar label; descriptive if it's used right, or an insult if you use in an insulting way. Brain Rodeo (talk) 14:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: No doubt its his record is bad, but the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.- from Wikipedia:Verifiability: "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Calling him a Tomato Can without an independent reliable citation backing it up based on a simple boxing record is simply originial research on your part. It also stomps all over Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. I cannot find any independent reliable source that cites him as a boxer exceptionally bad enough to warrant an article in Wikipedia. --Eqdoktor (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment: I'll try to be logical. If the Tomato Can article defines what a tomato can is, then the reader has only to click on that link to self-verify. But if your interpretation of policy says that self-verification via wikilinks isn't sufficient in this instance, then it sounds to me like your complaint is stylistic rather than documentary, since Givens' identity is verified by the citation from www.boxrec.com. If you feel strongly that the "tomato can" reference is defamatory, then edit the article; don't delete it. The 3-46 record is still exceptionally, notably bad. Brain Rodeo (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Comment: I have removed Larry Givens name (and two other boxers with no real citations) from the Tomato Can (sports idiom) article and in place provided several real NOTABLE boxers that have been independently cited as "Tomato Cans" by reliable sources. I have made my point here I believe - Givens may be a "bad" boxer but he is not notable enough (not cited anywhere failing WP:BIO, WP:V, WP:NOTE) to be in Wikipedia. No, the boxrec record is not enough as it is just a simple list of his fights - drawing conclusions like "amazingly bad boxer" from it is unwarranted original opinion. Also its just plain libel to call someone a Tomato Can and "unsucessful boxer" (your not an expert) - that breaks WP:BLP policy. -Eqdoktor (talk) 07:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:12, 26 January 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, defaults to Keep Nakon 18:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Card Football

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

An IP user added WP:PROD tag five days ago and the article has got very little notable content. Delete TheProf07 (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete This page should be deleted, but just FYI, if an article already has a prod tag you do not need to submit it to AfD. On the contrary, an AfD nomination means that the prod must be removed. If you endorse the deletion of a prodded article you can add a "prod-2" template. After 5 days if the prod is not removed an administrator will review the article and reason for the prod and likely delete it. -- Atama^chat 21:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Card football is the name given to several card-based games. Seemed notable, so I muted the promotionalism slightly and made some modifications, including two other card football games. I hope someone who knows about the history of card games can add to this, if there's more to add.Wageless (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

- I've added some more about the game--which incorporates elements of poker--and the names of the developers and some cites.Wageless (talk) 18:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep - at least one of the cited games has a small but real claim to notability. The article needs clean-up, but not deletion; and I'd move it to "Card football" instead. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:58, 30 January 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 but leaning slightly towards keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deepankar De

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTABILITY. No sources. Searches yield nothing. Delete Undeath (talk) 16:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - same reason as User:Undead warrior. TheProf07 (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. What are these searches which "yield nothing"? A simple Google search yields loads of sources which yield the fact that he has starred in two critically acclaimed films by one of the world's top directors, along with plenty of other notable stuff. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Google hits appear to be trivial mentions or simple directory listings. Fails to meet the standard of WP:BIO. Doctorfluffy (talk) 13:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. WP:BIO says that actors "with significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions" are notable. The New York Times and San Francisco Chronicle sources which I put in the article confirms that that applies here. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Notability is not inherited. It's a stretch to argue the man himself is notable merely by confirming that movies he's been in have reviews in newspapers. Sourcing is the basis for the establishment of notability and the films themselves appear to be barely notable based on available sources and the actor even less so. In fact, the sources you added shouldn't even be on this article. They say nothing about the man himself and are more appropriate for the articles on the movies. Ultimately, notability is a matter degree (which WP:BIO acknowledges) and in this case it hasn't been established satisfactorily. Doctorfluffy (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. The quotation I gave above comes directly from WP:BIO, so simply asserting that notability is not inherited doesn't refute the fact that actors with significant roles in notable films are themselves considered notable. The sources I gave confirm that the subject had significant roles in these films. As for the films themselves being barely notable, did you take the time to follow the wikilinks in the article? If so you will have seen that Agantuk won the best film award at the National Film Awards in 1992, which is pretty much like getting an Oscar for best film, except that it is awarded in a country with a larger film industry than the country which hosts the Oscars. Also you will have noted that the director of these films, Satyajit Ray won an Academy Honorary Award (lifetime achievement award) at the Oscars in 1992, which hardly makes his films "barely notable". Phil Bridger (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• I am quite familiar with WP:BIO and was aware that you directly quoted it in your first comment. I don't think you really understood my point. That is, notability policy is flexible. Merely meeting one set of criteria does not automatically ensure that a subject is worthy of inclusion. One must exercise discretion and review each case separately. Virtually all policies and guidelines acknowledge this. In fact, WP:BIO states "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." I believe this is one of the latter circumstances. This actor has no mention in any reliable secondary sources. As far as I can tell he has been in only the two movies listed in the article which indicates his career was rather limited. Perhaps he was in a notable film or two, but ultimately no one seems to have taken any notice of him whatsoever. All of your comments above are about films he was in and, two degrees separated from the subject of this AFD, the awards those films won and the others involved in their production. It appears that the roles themselves are what's notable here and the fact he was the person who played the roles is incidental. I understand your argument and that you are likely to point out again that you quoted WP:BIO directly, but ultimately I feel this man is non-notable. Doctorfluffy (talk) 00:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. The article, while short, includes New York Times and San Franciso Chronicle references, i.e. reliable third-party sources. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - has had major roles in two movies. Million_Moments (talk) 20:39, 30 January 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) 22:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Con Tinta

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY. No reliable information. No other sources other than their own site. Non notable. Delete Undeath (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. AniMate 20:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - lack of coverage in reliable sources. Addhoc (talk) 20:56, 1 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 National Maximum Speed Law. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 55 mph

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

There is nothing particularly notable about a speed limit of 55 miles per hour that isn't already exhaustively covered in Speed limits in the United States or National Maximum Speed Law. There is also nothing really unique about this speed in a scientific or transportation engineering sense; it's just one of an infinite number of speeds you could pull out of a hat, each of which has its own unique but hardly notable set of costs and benefits.

What next, do we need 65 mph because lots of (most?) rural US Interstates had 65 mph speed limits between 1986 and 1995?

By allowing this page to exist, we would create notability where it does not exist or validate what is most likely an arbitrarily-picked number. Nova SS (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete (or possibly Redirect to National Maximum Speed Law) -- as one of the original authors of the page, I agree with the nominator. A number is not really notable, though 55 mph does have special significance in national history. -- KelleyCook (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to National Maximum Speed Law on the principle of least surprise. If someone types this into the search box, that is the article they are probably looking for. *** Crotalus *** 21:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, or merge into (subdisambiguation in) 55 (number). The fact that there are songs associated with this, not necessarily directly related to the National Maximum Speed Law, seems to make 55 mph notable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment the two songs that I am aware of associated with 55 mph namely "I can't drive 55" by Sammy Hagar and the title song from the movie "Convoy" were both directly protesting the former U.S National speed limit. -- KelleyCook (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect per Crotalus horridus. Majoreditor (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect, per KelleyCook and the rattlesnake. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as redirect is us-centric. MilborneOne (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I think this is a strong argument. The reality is that if this page goes bye bye, searches for 55 mph will find Speed Limits in the United States first per [15]. That is a good hit. Nova SS (talk) 03:03, 31 January 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. This is Articles for deletion. No-one wants an administrator to press a delete button here. This is an ordinary editing dispute that is addressible with ordinary editing tools. It was pointed out a Deletion Review that that was the improper venue for discussing this, and that the proper venue was the article's talk page. AFD, too, is not the proper venue for discussing this. What 81.104.39.63 (talk · contribs) wrote at Deletion review is quite correct. Articles for deletion is for discussing deletion, the pressing of a delete button by an administrator. Do not bring articles here if an administrator pressing that button is not what you want. The correct venues for discussing redirects, mergers, and other ordinary editing matters (which do not involve deletion in any way) are, as 81.104.39.63 pointed out, the articles' talk pages, employing Wikipedia:Requests for comment if necessary. There is enough traffic at AFD discussing articles where deletion is genuinely involved. AFD is not a way of gaining a wider audience to a talk-page discussion. That is Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Other venues for raising matters for general discussion are the Wikipedia:Village pump, and Wikipedia:Centralized discussions. Uncle G (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Invalid closing statement stricken. This was a procedural nomination per WP:DRV so reasoning addressing editorial nominations does not apply. In any case, this is a snowball keep. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bulbasaur

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

Listed at deletion review because a long history of edit warring led to a protected redirect to List of Pokémon (1-20). Since "delete and redirect", "redirect without deletion", "merge" and "keep" are all possibilities, a community discussion on content is needed. Procedural nomination, I have no editorial opinion on the topic. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Former featured article on the Main Page, no clear reason for deletion/redirection was given.- PeaceNT (talk) 14:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. By virtue of the fact that this article was promoted to Featured Status, a great deal of verifiable, notable information exists in this topic. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 14:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Reluctant Keep due to Featured Article status. Madman (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect - The article was a featured article, but as time passes, standards change. After being removed from FA status, the article couldn't become a good article. It was decided by the Pokemon project to remove all besides Pikachu because it is the only one with relevant information (feel free to compare and contrast). Also, please do not say that this has enough information to hold an article. Most of the first two hundred could easily get up to this standard. Should be bring those back too? TTN (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I asked you several times before to give me the links to the relevant discussions that, as you said, had reached consensus, but you refused to do so. Now, I ask you again, please provide the links so the AfD participants can judge the case on its merit. Thanks, - PeaceNT (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. TTN (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy keep it's a previous TFA, for god's sake Will ^(talk) 16:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep a major character in the series. The article is sourced and was formerly featured. What is the supposed problem? — brighterorange (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - When the article was redirected, several editors attempted to put the information in the List article. It was repeatedly removed, and stated that the list was for summaries only and that was too much information. IF there is too much information for a summary, then it is clear that an article is needed. Redirection has resulted in citied information being removed from wikipedia, an action contrary to the goals of the project. Last, TTN's assertion that "It was decided by the Pokemon project to remove all besides Pikachu" is absurd. A look at the talk page and other conversations will show there was HUGE opposition to this. Just because a few months passed and THEN it was redirected without discussion or consensus does not mean that people's former opinions have gone away. Even the redirect was reverted and only remains because its creator and TTN edit warred over it, against other's opinions so it is pretty clear that there is/was/never was consensus for that action. pschemp | talk 16:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - As several people have pointed out, the article was once a Featured Article. If this article was at one time considered to be one of the absolute best on the entire of Wikipedia, then there is obviously enough relevent information on the topic. Yes, it was delisted, and no, it's not even a Good Article now, but if information was lost or made muddling since it became a Featured Article it can be restored. MelicansMatkin (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep. I have explained why this article should be kept lots of times at at the Pokémon Wikiproject talkpage. I won't repeat myself here, unless I need to; read the archives at WT:POKE. Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 16:49, 25 January 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 & redirect for Munchee cheese (the recent page move): I did some google research and figured out that it is Mun-chee cheese. There is no reason to propagate ignorance by redirect from "munster" `'Míkka>t 01:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sweet Muenster cheese

Sweet Muenster cheese (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Previously speedied but restored as controversial per WP:CSD. Procedural nomination, I have no opinion on the merit of the article. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• delete article created as part of WP:POINT campaign of disruption by Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of MathStatWoman as a complaint over the existance of the article Utz chips, and serves merely as a WP:COATRACK for a recipe for microwaved cheese on crackers. Article is unsourced, save for one on-line recipe which includes the product as an ingredient. Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep, but rewrite. I don't know anything of this campaign-of-disruption business, but a Google search for "Sweet Muenster cheese" (in quotes) does turn up quite a few hits outside of the link provided and Wikipedia/mirrors. Howevere, I've had my run-ins with MathStatWoman and User:Alfred Legrand (I'm not quite sure which is a sockpuppet of which), so in another way I'm tempted to vote for nuke just to get rid of that plague of Wikipedia. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• This appears to be a real type of cheese but I don't see any sources except ones that include it as an ingredient. So redirect to Muenster cheese until sufficient sources can be found. --W.marsh 20:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• A google search excluding recipes returns a mere 39 hits, a number of which are wikipedia-derived. There appears to be some slight evidence that this is a real product but nothing I can find points to who makes it or substantiates any of the claims made in the article. Without better sourcing than this and given the concerns about probable bad-faith described above, delete and start over once we know what to actually say. By the way, Munchee cheese also appears to exist but I've been unable to verify the claim that it is an alternate name for "Sweet Muenster". Rossami (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• I'm going to ignore the provenance of the article, but even looking at the recipes I fail to see that this is something other than Muenster cheese. Absent sourcing by the end of the nomination I opt for deletion and starting from scratch at Muenster cheese. There is currently nothing worth preserving (no pun intended) in the article. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 08:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect so that GFDL history is kept. --Solumeiras (talk) 12:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • If this is really "Munchee cheese", maybe the article should be a redirect to that cheese variety. I believe there is not yet an article Munchee cheese, so this could be moved there. If the recipes were deleted from the article, there would be nothing related to the deleted mathematician at all. Keep, but possible under the lemma "Munchee cheese"--Bhuck (talk) 13:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
    • When running a google search for ("sweet muenster" "munchee cheese" -wikipedia), only two articles show up: one is a blog-like entry claiming the two are synonyms, the other is a menu from a deli--under cheese varieties, "munchee" is not listed, but "sweet muenster" is listed separately from "muenster" (which makes sense since "sweet muenster" is a processed cheese food, while muenster is a regular cheese, obviously these two are different, so there should NOT be a redirect from "sweet muenster" to Muenster cheese as someone above suggested!), whereas they make a sandwich which has "munchee cheese" as an ingredient...presumably, if they have munchee cheese available, they would list it among their cheese varieties, and "sweet muenster" is as close as it comes, so I think there is at least circumstantial evidence that these terms both refer to the same kind of processed cheese food.--Bhuck (talk) 13:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Solumeiras, content doesn't appear to have been merged to any other page so the GFDL considerations would not appear to apply. Do you have evidence that content was moved to another page? By the way, what redirect target are you recommending? Rossami (talk)
• delete. Not verifiable as a separate product. No redirect. What next, a redirect form Muenster cheese sold in halfpound blocks? `'Míkka>t 21:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Since when is processed cheese food the same as cheese??--Bhuck (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above, Note: I have struck out my earlier nomination. --Solumeiras (talk) 18:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• I have the distinct impression that people are not reading the articles in question carefully enough and cannot distinguish between cheese and processed cheese products. I have reworked the article on Munchee cheese and moved it to that name in order to make the difference between the two products clearer. I also removed the recipes that were causing the "coatrack" problems noted above. Since a kosher processed cheese product is clearly not the same thing as a regular cheese, the people arguing for deletion on the basis that this is really the same thing as Muenster cheese are merely speculating without regard for cheese labelling requirements. The only other thing that seemed to be bothering people about the article was the "provenance" (and the surrounding issues), but now that I have re-worked the article and removed all references to the mathematician, I cannot understand why it should be deleted, unless this is a case of guilt by association, and a deli cheese product is being scapegoated because a certain mathematician likes to melt it on Triscuits...--Bhuck (talk) 08:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I generally accept that my "delete, unsourced" opinion is ignored in the closing when sources are subsequently added to the article. I can't see that here, although the clarification regarding types of cheese is appreciated, the article is still unsourced. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Without some kind of sourcing to substantiate the claims made in the article (even as rewritten), this page still has to go. Who makes it? And why does this commercial product meet our generally accepted inclusion criteria for products? Rossami (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete The defenders of the article failed to address the major concern: verifiability. Mukadderat (talk) 16:39, 28 January 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 Nomination withdrawn with no !votes placed; nom's concern has been taken care of . Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Susana A. Herrera Quezada

Susana A. Herrera Quezada (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Most of the article is still in Spanish. The article was created on November 3, 2007 and has been tagged as not english and listed in WP:QTN since January 8. SWik78 (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Nomination Withdrawn - The article has been translated. It still has some problems but that will be dealt with separately. SWik78 (talk) 17:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I translated it from Spanish to English, but see, if I done any mistakes! Kubek15 - Talk, Userboxes, Contributions 15:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, can you say on this AfD that you end it? I translated all of the article! Kubek15 - Talk, Userboxes, Contributions 16:15, 25 January 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 g11 ad, a7 no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hero Film School

Hero Film School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

All I'm finding on this are trivial mentions. No substantial secondary source coverage. No claim to notability. Fails WP:N. Redfarmer (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Sourceless, no hint of any actual impact, and obvious spam, to boot. -- Calton (talk • contribs) 10:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and tagged as such. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:05, 30 January 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sara Albert

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

Article was recreated after previously being deleted via the AFD process. Not only does she still not meet WP:BIO, but according to this article, she quit modelling about a year ago, so she isn't even pursuing "notability" in that arena anymore. To top it all off, as it is now, the article is a possible copyright infringement, with the text largely stolen from here. Dawn bard (talk) 15:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete Re-created article that is no different from the first one. Fails WP:NOTABILITY.Undeath (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. 4th place and nothing else doesn't produce notability. Bondegezou (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete rarely do contestants on reality shows merit their own article. AniMate 20:32, 30 January 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 both. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DW Three Kingdoms

DW Three Kingdoms (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Also nominated for deletion:

The Greatest of Heroes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

A relatively new publisher whose only claim to fame is, as of now, one book, The Greatest of Heroes, which I am also nominating for deletion because it is no more than fanfiction that managed to get (self-)published. The articles reference themselves (primary sources/original research) and a blog that gave it a passing mention about pretty pictures. In short, no claims of notability. _dk (talk) 15:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I agree with the nominator. The publisher appears to have been set up by the book's author. Until they get noticed by reliable sources, these articles are not notable enought for Wikipedia. Bláthnaid 17:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I actually think it should be given a chance, because it is relevant to Three Kingdoms in the modern world, so could at least be merged somewhere as I think its already mentioned in a few other articles. Its how I actually found their site originally.

The main thing is its well written, but granted if has no notability then cant have its own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattpikous (talk • contribs) 03:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Please Keep It does need to be given a chance I hope. I respect that it lacks resources, but as the writer of the pages I would really appreciate some more time to add to the pages. The problem is that though it actually is notable, where it is in China and Australia, there isn't so much information online that you could find through google, etc.

I have received many replies from emails I sent to them at info@dw3k.com but I presume none of that information is admissible as evidence. Please know that I wrote these articles as a fan which I've become since I got an advanced copy a couple months ago which I'm now reading a third time. I have been a longstanding fan of Three Kingdoms, and know san guo yan yi very well.

If you haven't read any of the story I can only recommend it to you, or at least to read some of the free chapters on the website (especially before you dismiss it as fan fiction - because if you get a copy you will see it is serious work).

In the end I guess it will be up to the admin, and I can only request that they give this a bit of a chance, at least more than 5 days. I hope that others will contribute to the page, because even I have criticisms of the story which I am yet to add.

Thankyou to those who concern themselves with this page, and I too appreciate the care for Wikipedia, however I hope the community can give a little faith that this is actually a serious article that connects to alot of things on Wikipedia.

Lukedddd (talk) 07:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I cannot fathom anything that calls Cao Cao "Kao Kao" being anything more than fanfiction. _dk (talk) 09:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. No substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Doctorfluffy (talk) 13:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply to _dk That's because you're chinese and you fully understand the name. For the vast majority of westerners who first read 'Cao Cao' they wouldn't fathom its pronounced 'T'sao T'sao', rather they always say 'Cow Cow', or what is 'Kao Kao' in chinese. Look at KOEI - they still call him 'Cow Cow' amongst all their other mispronunciations, yet KOEI is half responsible for the tens of thousands of foreigners who are now fascinated by Romance of the Three Kingdoms.

Ignorance to foreigners who pay interest in chinese culture and make mistakes is no excuse to dismiss them. Your conclusion is invalid. 88.134.80.117 (talk) 14:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If the book tries to be anything serious it would have tried to correct that assumption. I've never said that calling Cao Cao "Kao Kao" is a reason for deletion though, my argument for deletion still stands. _dk (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• delete borderline G11 spam. Combined spam for the renovelisation "With extravagant wisdom and extreme violence" of what the article calls a "notorious" series, and for an antismoking campaign. DGG (talk) 02:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply to _dk so now you say: I've never said that calling Cao Cao "Kao Kao" is a reason for deletion...

but you said: I cannot fathom anything that calls Cao Cao "Kao Kao" being anything more than fanfiction. and that you are: ...nominating for deletion because it is no more than fanfiction...

so buddy, you were nominating it for deletion because its really fanfiction? or you just don't like the work? I don't think either reasons are valid for deletion - only the fact the articles are new and incomplete. Why don't you show some respect and offer this up and coming thing a chance instead of trying to wipe it out in its opening hours?

Don't forget - from Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion: before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD.

and: # first do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the {{notability}} template, if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth.

-Well, these do look like good articles to me, and I hadn't heard of them either until now, but I'm interested and I appreciate them.

Caocow (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I nominated these articles for deletion because, primarily, they failed to demonstrate notability. The notion that they are fanfiction is secondary to the nomination. The template was used on the article before, but Lukedddd removed it. I'll withhold the rest of my refutation to assume good faith. _dk (talk) 03:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Firstly I'd just like to say that I agree the articles partly appear as what I found G11 to be: advertising, because I use some nice words about the book (call it what you want) and I'm sorry to make it sound biased. I really want to keep it neutral and objective, so I'm totally intending to improve this (help welcome), while still keeping things nice sounding and interesting to read.

And I think I should point out those who say delete this article, apart from _dk, I don't think know of Romance of the Three Kingdoms, and that is actually what I am saying is famous/ or notorious - not this new book itself. Because of my articles' relation to the very famous ROTK I felt it was worthy enough to have its own pages (especially because I love the new book). If it was an ordinary unheard of book (that I still loved) I wouldn't have put in the effort.

Yes, I removed the tag you said _dk, sorry about that. The secondary source I just threw in their swiftly because it was the first I could find, even though I couldn't read it myself (its chinese). My aim is to satisfy proving 'notability' now, because that is what seems to be the greatest opposition here. Any help will be appreciated, but I will endeavor to find some myself.

And can I just ask - are wiki references required to link to things online, or can you refer to non-online evidence? I would have thought referring to the book itself would allow for huge amounts of writing, just like in the Romance of the Three Kingdoms and related articles themselves. Lukedddd (talk) 06:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the place for a general discussion of "how to write for wikipedia", but I've put a link and a few words about sources on your talkpage. --Paularblaster (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Wow! I must say thank you so so much :) you've really gone out of your way to help me! :) Lukedddd (talk) 04:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• So in this final hour I guess I should just say that I request the admin to keep the page and not delete because they could simply revert to the tags: {{unreferenced}} {{notability}} or {{primarysources}}

I am really working on these problems now, and should have the requirements within a matter of weeks or days. I never really got the chance to fulfill these requirements because _dk felt this was merely fanart and not 'notable' stuff and so put it up for deletion almost straight away.

I think he has since agreed to have good faith and let me (and hopefully others) develop the pages, so it is unnecessary to delete them because I would just replace them with appropriate ones in the very near future anyway.

Anyone who is interested please visit the TGOH talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Greatest_of_Heroes

Lukedddd (talk) 04:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see some reliable secondary sources to prove its notability, seeing that you claim to be able to fulfil those conditions. Keep in mind that the articles can still be deleted if you fail to provide those sources. _dk (talk) 04:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Absolutely, and I know why now. Definitely my main aim now will be to provide those sources, and in the meantime I would only reduce the content in the articles. Lukedddd (talk) 10:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete - This is still a minor publisher of an obscure single work. It fails WP:COMPANY very badly. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • clarification - my call for deletion applies to both the book and the publisher. Notability is not contagious; a retelling of a notable story is not therefore in any way itself notable, and this is a classic example of non-notable: a company set up by an obscure author, to publish his own fanfiction (with cover illustration by himself). It fails in the strongest terms, and should have been speedied long since. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Obscure work. Fails WP:COMPANY at every detail.Undeath (talk) 00:22, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Altrisuoni

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

It doesn't quite meet WP:N / WP:MUSIC. It has WP:COI issues, and has become a PR spam clearinghouse of sort. Evb-wiki (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - advertisement, with footnotes that don't even begin to approach our standards of reliable sourcing. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Orange Mike. AniMate 20:34, 30 January 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 to keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NeoGAF

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

Non-notable video game message board site. Fails WP:WEB. It should be noted: the article was deleted in the 2nd nomination, but then it was re-created only a few months later. In that time, I highly doubt the site just became notable. Also: [16] shows the article has been deleted 4 times already. I think if this does get deleted again, it needs to be protected from being recreated. RobJ1981 (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete G4 and salt. This is a recreation of deleted material and about the seventh or eighth time the article has been recreated by the looks of things. Redfarmer (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy salty deleteper nom. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

  The article was restored by Andrevan (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights), so it cannot count as "recreation of deleted material" because the admin must have had a reason to do so. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: This article does not fail WP:WEB. Here's an earlier quote on the discussion: "The website has been discussed by notable websites such as The Escapist[17] and Gamasutra[18]. Also of note is its constant use as a source by gaming websites, and its 523,000 Google results. --Teggles (talk) 09:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)". WP:WEB states that coverage of (any of) the site's content by multiple publications presumes its notability. The article has this, it passes WP:WEB, is notable, and should be kept. --Teggles (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 03:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• And this is funny, this is telling, pattern emerging... hrm.. Someoneanother 04:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep None of the sources above are substantial, however NeoGAF is the focus and the site is being referenced around the hardcore videogaming blogsphere (and I mean Kotaku, Joystiq etc). Someoneanother 04:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - I am convinced that the totality of sources available makes the forum notable, even though any of the sources alone wouldn't. They do allow for a verifiable article. User:Krator (t c) 14:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep It does seem to be a standard that, when major sources are lacking, numerous minor sources can suffice. I would say that this could be a viable source of notability for this article, though it does need a serious rewrite. Slavlin (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  I would like to peek that standard. Without reliable sources, minor blogs cannot be sufficient to prove notability. Otherwise, we should be prepared for the influx of MySpace links that will come just because blogs refer to them. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  Note that I said standard, as in this is what happens often, not policy or guideline. My experience, as someone that would rather have no article than a crazy and/or bad article, has been that minor sources can supplement when major ones aren't available. I don't mean unreliable ones, like most blogs, just minor, in size or in their own notability. From poking around, I see enough mentions in areas that could be valid from a sourcing perspective. Slavlin (talk) 04:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per nomination. Unneeded spam. Wikipedian06 (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  This is not "spam". The subject is notable, as shown above. --Teggles (talk) 08:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per nom. Fails notability.Undeath (talk) 05:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  False. This passes notability, which I showed above. Failing notability is not a reason for speedy deletion, either. --Teggles (talk) 08:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  Actually, failing notability is the reason for speedy deletion under A7 (non notable group of people, web site, etc). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  A7 clearly states that it is distinct from questions of notability --Teggles (talk) 05:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - continues to fail to meet WP:WEB standards --Orange Mike | Talk 17:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  Why does this continue? I have shown above that it passes WP:WEB. Please don't ignore it. --Teggles (talk) 05:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - Those speedy deletes are ridiculous, given the contentious nature of notability as mentioned in A7. This is an established gaming forum and is cited as the source for many news stories. You'll find many sources reporting on NeoGaf material on google news. It might be worth stubbing the article and only presenting the bare bone facts and what's important, things like rival spinoffs, and hosting history should be reconsidered. - hahnchen 21:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  But the article does not have any notability claim. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  It's list of noted members is a claim to notability. It does need sourcing however. - hahnchen 23:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  Fails every point of Wikipedia:Notability (web), as far as I know. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 23:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  No, it passes one of them, and it only needs to pass one. --Teggles (talk) 05:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

  Which one? The fundraising? We are not a news outlet: Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 05:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Notability is claimed and established. Speedy delete votes are entirely unjustifiable. Alansohn (talk) 04:34, 31 January 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Freed (name)

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY. I think it's just nonsense. Delete Undeath (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Per nom. GreenGourd (talk) 01:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, does not appear to be salvageable. (jarbarf) (talk) 03:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete "The 4094th most popular last name" The article argues against it's own notability.Beeblbrox (talk) 01:07, 31 January 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. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Buffalo Club

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

Doesn't seem to be a useful disambig page; I don't see how Buffalo (drinking game) could possibly identified as "Buffalo Club", and the nightclub in Vancouver doesn't seem to be notable. Also, the album link is a redirect to The Buffalo Club, a band that does meet notability criteria. I could have just redirected this dab page to The Buffalo Club, but I felt that this merited discussion first. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• weak keepDelete/redirect to The Buffalo Club "A group of people playing the game often form Buffalo Clubs" (from Buffalo (drinking game) would be the cause of that link... the phrase I just quoted is unsourced however.--Kiyarrllston 15:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Despite the nightclub not having an article at the moment, I do think it is notable.--Kiyarrllston 15:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see any notability for the nightclub at the moment; if you can find any notability for it, please do show me. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. With multiple uses, having the dab page is reasonable. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:09, 26 January 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 Federation for a Democratic China. Action to be taken by others. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chin Jin

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

No sources. No cited works. Does not meet WP:BIO. Delete Undeath (talk) 14:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Only the barest assertion of notability prevents a speedy, but only just. DarkAudit (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to Federation for a Democratic China. Gets quoted a lot in newspapers in relation to his work with the FDC [19], but doesn't actually get sources written about him. Searching in Chinese [20] gets a bunch of articles written by him, plus a few also about his work with the FDC like [21]. cab (talk) 07:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 07:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge. Agree with above - merge with said article. Not notable enough for an independent article. Snake66 (talk) 18:38, 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 delete. --MCB (talk) 08:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Desmond Fannin

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

Does not meet WP:BIO or WP:NOTABILITY. Delete Undeath (talk) 13:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as spam. Original author is User:Chefdez (user's one and only contribution), so COI issues abound. This is his corporate bio, not an encyclopedia article. DarkAudit (talk) 15:40, 25 January 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Allerian Empire

The Allerian Empire (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable forum based game, searching for sources brings up nothing but press releases and fansites. Seems vanispamcruftisement-y. PirateMink 14:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete yup, definitely vanispamcruftisement Doc Strange (talk) 15:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 03:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete AniMate 20:35, 30 January 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Rausch

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

Does not meet WP:BIO. No sources. No links. What makes this scientist notable? Nothing. Delete Undeath (talk) 13:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per A7. He's a scientist. He works at a lab. That's it? DarkAudit (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. It takes major accomplishments for a Ph.D. student to be sufficiently notable for an article, and I don't see that here. It's a little difficult to distinguish his publications from the other "C. Rausch"s appearing in Google scholar, but I don't see anything special e.g. in this search. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable Xxanthippe (talk) 09:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC).
• Delete for what its worth, the lab group's page [22] indicates he just got his degree. Not that the total of 4 genuine publications (name+university in Web of Science) make him notable at this point. DGG (talk) 02:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. No notability asserted, meets speedy delete criteria. GregorB (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. A 2007 PhD would have to have done something special to merit an article and there's no evidence of this here. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Seems like self-promotion. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 02:14, 30 January 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 per WP:SNOW and per discussion at AN/I. Keeper | 76 17:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008 Italian political crisis

2008 Italian political crisis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Obvious soapboxing that is not notable. I merged this in full over at Romano Prodi. [23] Anything worth keeping the folks in that article can worry about, after this article is deleted. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Strong keep. Very notable event, the article is well written and well sourced. I grant that an extension may be needed, but that's no reason to delete the article. There are multiple similar articles on political crisises resulting in a government's regignation. JdeJ (talk) 13:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

JdeJ, this belongs in a political blog, not a Wikipedia article. The "2008 Italian political crisis" is such a generic, broad term and even calling it a "political crisis" seems to be POV-pushing.

It might seem notable... if you live in Italy, now. But 5 or 10 years from now, there will be dozens and dozens of political scandals in Italy, even several more more potential "political crises" in Italy, in 2008. Unless the Prime Minister was beheaded and the people were rioting in the street, I see no reason to keep this article. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep How does this possibly fail the notability test? It doesn't matter if there are a dozen of these in Italy in 2008: this one, as well as the eleven others, will/would be notable. Granted, this isn't anything like the July Revolution in France, but it's a notable event anyway. Moreover, it's not a POV problem, and POV isn't a reason to delete an article unless the entire idea of the article is a POV problem — and surely an article about the fall of a government isn't inherently POV. Merger is a different question (thus the merger discussion), and the name too is a possible problem, but neither are a good enough reason to delete the article. Nyttend (talk) 15:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Merge with Prodi II Cabinet. This is about the second Prodi cabinet, and this content should stay there. --Angelo (talk) 15:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Given all the coverage this is getting in international press, it is clearly a notable event. As for the possibility of POV in the title, "crisis" seems like a fair description. For example, the BBC refers to it several times as a crisis in a recent article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7208315.stm). Perhaps the name of the article should be changed if a better alternative could be suggested. Jcobb (talk) 15:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep until the "crisis" has subsided, then merge what proves to be the relevant material into articles as above. And NPOV it at the same time. -- 62.25.109.196 (talk) 15:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Merge. Certainly a notable topic, but this information would be fine if merged to Romano Prodi, Prodi II Cabinet, and other similar articles, and we should find a good target to redirect this to. It's not necessary to have a totally separate article on every event simply because of notability. -- RG² 15:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, highly, highly notable. The crisis and Romano Prodi are not the same thing, and moreover you cannot treat this in detail in the article on Prodi—the man has had a career's worth of other events to fill up his article; details need to go in separate articles like these. I suggest we close this debate early; to debate whether or not we should have articles on major political events is senseless. Everyking (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, how does this differ in any way from any other political event that has its separate page? -- JT^Holla! 16:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep A major event that involves more people than just Prodi. 143.210.182.197 (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment the fact is definitely notable, however I don't really think it's a good editorial choice to have a single article for each political event in the whole world. This particular event regards the fall of the Prodi government, and it would be better suited in the cabinet's own article rather than in a recentist article of its own. --Angelo (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep Absolutely, notable crisis! --Felisopus (talk) 16:58, 25 January 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Little Green Footballs awards

Little Green Footballs awards (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is a list describing "awards" given by Little Green Footballs, a politically extremist blog, to various individuals. No reliable, third-party sources are cited, so this list fails verifiability requirements. Furthermore, the "c" section is in violation of the BLP policy, since its only purpose is to repeat criticisms that were never published in reliable sources. I don't see any reason to believe that this will ever be a valid encyclopedia article and I think it should be deleted. *** Crotalus *** 13:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comments: The fact that Little Green Footballs is extremist is irrelevant. Your analysis of the “Fiskie” rejects the assumption of good faith. Can you defend that rejection? Certainly reporting that one party made a claim about another is very different from reporting that claim itself as fact. —SlamDiego_←T 19:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Please read the official Wikipedia policy on verifiability. It says, "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." There is no reliable, third-party source on the Little Green Footballs awards. Therefore, we should not have an article on them. *** Crotalus *** 21:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    • My comment did not concern verifiability. It concerned the relevance of your description of the site as extremist, and your employment of an argument that rejected the assumption of good faith. You cannot address these concerns by invoking verifiability. —SlamDiego_←T 22:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
      • The description of the website is irrelevant to the AfD. I say Delete either way. Fails WP:N. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete The only references which come up in a Google search on this topic ([24]) are a handful of blog posts, many of which seem to have been cross posted from the Little Green Footballs blog. As such, I don't see how these awards pass WP:NOTE ("A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject"). I agree with the WP:BLP concerns raised by the nominating editor and don't think that any of the content should be merged into the Little Green Footballs article. --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. No indication of notability. —SlamDiego_←T 23:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep.This is a prize on an internet site which attracts hundreds of thousands of visitors. The prize itself is decided by voting by tens of thousands of registered users. I think anything that manages to attract that kind of attention lives up to a criteria on notability – regardless of what wiki paragraph someone can cite. But do what you want. I’ve largely lost interest in the English wiki. Too many petty bureaucrats who thinks citing obscure paragraphs is more important than common sense or trying to form an clear argument of their own. Rune X2 (talk) 14:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete For reasons clearly expressed by Crotalus, above. smb (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - blatantly non-notable; can't even incorporate information into the main LGF article, for obvious BLP reasons already explained. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:24, 30 January 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. --VS ^talk 03:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NorthamptonParkFC

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

Is this club really notable? I have my doubts. A "Sunday League" team formed in 2007. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - Yes this club is notable, we are a registered Football Association team in Northampton England. I feel we deserve a Wikipedia page. Ikskwizituk (talk) 13:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: The last two pages in the External Links that are published by the FA don't mention you, Northampton Park FC, at all and neither does a quick search on their site. That looks like an attempt to trick people in thinking you are notable and hope they don't check the links. Poeloq (talk) 14:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete - Non-notable club, brings up 2(!) GHits for "Northampton Park FC" and 0 for "NorthamptonParkFC". No mention in news or books. I would say this is CSD A7. Poeloq (talk) 14:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• If you actually looked, the Full Time website, select Division: Division Two you would see us there. With the Grassroots website, again, search by Club Names and you will find Northampton Park. Please do your research and stop this? I've spent a lot of time on this page just for it to be slated. We're a registered club to the FA. This page is genuine I would not spend the time I did on it if I did not feel that this page is deserved. Thank you. Ikskwizituk (talk) 15:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete - not a notable club. Links given are not enough to support the article. They are just a trivial schedule and some even do not mention the subject. Dekisugi (talk) 15:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• This is a notable club. Just do your research correctly if you care so much lads. We are listed/registered to the FA. Article is genuine and should not be deleted. I honestly don't see why people have a problem with this? I could understand if it wasn't genuine but it is. If you don't take my word for it and seek further confirmation you can by all means contact the English Football Association. Ikskwizituk (talk) 15:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - the FA registration doesn't help. The standard for articles for football clubs is still that the club must play in the top six levels of the Pyramid. Sunday league clubs don't meet the standard. -- BPMullins | Talk 15:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• I don't agree, I'll await the final decision but I feel this article has every right to be on Wikipedia. I have every intention of maintaining the page and keeping it to a high standard. I personally don't see the problem here. Ikskwizituk (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete The team does play FA soccer (sorry, American here!), however per previous comments, does not play at a high enough level on the English pyramid to warrant a article. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment to Ikskwizituk - you don't need to shout keep so many times. The admin will hear your first one. Dekisugi (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Apologies to Dekisugi, I am new here. Semi thanks to Wildthing61476 for at least confirming that we are a team. I understand what you are saying about us not being within the top tiers of English football but the mere fact that we exist should at least count for something. The article is going to do no harm to anybody nor is the content. The article is merely their to acknowledge the fact that we do exist and also to benefit other teams within the Northamptonshire football leagues. I hope this article is kept. Ikskwizituk (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete and tagged as such. Non-notable club. We have guidelines for a reason Whitstable (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Okay lads, I understand everyone's views on the article in question. I do feel strongly about the subject, and still remain that the article should stand, but if your 'guidelines' state otherwise then I don't have a leg to stand on. I just don't understand why clubs at a lower level are forced to remain invisible, some recognition sort of speak would be nice. Anyway, ciao. Ikskwizituk (talk) 20:37, 25 January 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Thorpe

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

Hoax article about non-existent physicist. I can find no independent evidence online for any of the supposed research articles by this physicist. Page creator has removed hoax tag multiple times without attempting to substantiate claims or providing reliable sourcing. Scog (talk) 13:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as an almost certain hoax. At the very least there are no reliable sources to verify notability. It is the authors responsibility to add those sources and especially as there are no obvious sources to support his claims. The article was full of potential BLP concerns which I removed. -JodyB _talk 13:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete as a hoax and also salt it because of constant removal of tags by author. Doc Strange (talk) 14:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• delete hoax Xxanthippe (talk) 09:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC).
• Speedy Delete blatant hoax - the Cambridge Journal of Physics doesn't exist and neither do the articles Teleomatic (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - per everyone elses reasons. TheProf07 (talk) 16:12, 29 January 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 Minor characters in CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. Tikiwont (talk) 11:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Keppler

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

Recurring character on CSI: Crime Scene Investigation for four episodes while William Petersen was gone. Does not meet WP:FICT and probably never will since his character was killed off in his final appearance. Redfarmer (talk) 10:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redfarmer (talk) 11:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I would personally prefer someone merged and redirected the thing to CSI:_Crime_Scene_Investigation#Past main characters --Sin Harvest (talk) 12:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

He's not a past main character, though. He appeared in four episodes of the show. The characters in that section were regulars on the show spanning multiple seasons. Redfarmer (talk) 12:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment He did get a major character arc in those four episodes, and CSI:_Crime_Scene_Investigation#Past main characters would seem to be the best place for him. Or, maybe, having read the page, expand the section under notable guest stars so the section for Keppler contains the useful information for the characterRed Fiona (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That's against the current consensus of the major contributors on what should be on that page. The page at one time became overly messy because every recurring character, which CSI has a lot of, were listed on the main page. Redfarmer (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

He's a bit of an awkward character because he's not major enough to have his own article, but he's a little too major for just a two line, 'was in episodes X, and was played by Liev Schreiber'.Red Fiona (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge and Redirect to Minor_characters_in_CSI:_Crime_Scene_Investigation then. He really would not fit with the characters on the main page. Redfarmer (talk) 00:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to Minor characters in CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. It would be great to get rid of the "Guest stars" section from the main article, merging it (with Keppler) into Minor characters would be perfect.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 19:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redfarmer (talk) 09:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to Minor characters in CSI: Crime Scene Investigation seems like a good idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sin Harvest (talk • contribs) 11:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Travellingcari (talk) 12:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to minor characters per Peyton Driscoll. Good idea, User:Redfarmer to try and have the same standards for the minors across all three CSIs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by travellingcari (talk • contribs) 12:58, 29 January 2008

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Swordfish EDM

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

Advertising for a product with no claim of encyclopedic notability. Weregerbil (talk) 11:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - this advertisement; should have been speedied as spam. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • update - I've removed most of the advertising-like material, and the irrelevant fluff about the parent company; but it still is an article about an obscure software package, with no meaningful third-party attention and no evidence of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Per spam. MBisanz ^talk 08:12, 31 January 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. --MCB (talk) 08:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline: Philippine Standout Events (2006-2007)

Timeline: Philippine Standout Events (2006-2007) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article/list/whatever is basically a rehash of 2006 in the Philippines and 2007 in the Philippines, excluding some events that shouldn't be in encyclopedias. --Howard the Duck 10:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Agree with nom. The lists are redundant to the 2006 and 2007 in the Philippines articles.--Lenticel ^(talk) 10:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, Cleanup and Merge with 2006 and 2007. The names of assassinated leaders could be included in some list of assassinated people. Delete -Ravichandar 11:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply: I doubt the "assassinations" are really "assassinations," for example, "Jomel Bocalbos, (2007), Makati deputy chief of police (killed by robbers)" and these are fairly unnotable people (# Pablo Glean, (2006), Makati business manager and bodyguard of Makati Mayor Jejomar Binay -- job hazard?); of course the most notable exceptions are the assassinations of Akbar and Bersamin (which both were mentioned in 2007 and 2006 articles, respectively.). --Howard the Duck 11:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Right, it does seem like a set of clippings from regional newspapers. Reporting the death of the wife of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Philippines etc. is unencyclopedic as the individual herself is non-notable as also reporting an earthquake which caused a minor incident as disruption as not a single human casualty-Ravichandar 04:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Argument against deletion:I was invited to share my thoughts (Vide my talk page). As a just one year user / editor here, my passion is to create articles about law and Filipino events or persons which caught global attention or do have the impact, inter alia. Now, I created this 2006-2007 articles with simple tones; when it was first nominated for deletion, I submitted my points and argument, and the result was no consensus. Why? I tried my best to EDIT AND ADD therein the top Philippine papers' most read and watched news of these 2 years to make it Wikified. I spent TIMES. I reproduce the template here:

This article was nominated for deletion on 25 December 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

The archived things there stated: "Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 am sure that a 2nd nomination for deletion might be improper since it said that all further comments must be on the discussion page, but not on a new one like this. I respectfully petition therefore, for NON-deletion of this article since most of the events thereat are fairly neutral and one of the top events in 2007. As PROOF: *Inquirer.net, top 10 Most Read Stories, Columns on INQUIRER.net in 2007- Our top newspaper Philippine Daily Inquirer published the top events of 2007, above. I browsed about ON WHAT WIKI IS NOT as suggested by the Bot that notified me. I am sure, that I am entitled as creator of the article, to be given a Bill of Particulars that is, what sections or sub-sections of that Wiki rule inter alia did I or the article violate to merit deletion upon consensus or vote by the editors and admin here. While I admit that it is the first time I saw that there were 2 previous article already covering my article, still, my article satisfies very well the neutral and notable view of Wiki. There are lots of articles in Wiki that cover same thing, person or event example: Jesus, University of the Philippines, Ateneo de Manila. Many written articles on these overlap. WHEREFORE, premises consider, I ask that I be enlightened as to what rules of Wiki like What Wiki is not, inter alia, which makes my article squarely FOR DELETION. Thanks. -- --Florentino floro (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that other articles already exist with the exact purpose and arguably better formatting and presentation means that this should be deleted.

Note: The original author has a penchant for creating parallel and redundant articles, his The Joseph Estrada Verdict (created 15:22, 12 September 2007) which now redirects to Trial of Joseph Estrada, which was created hours earlier on 09:40, 12 September 2007. --Howard the Duck 13:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

comment: don't take anything said here too personally. It's clear just from looking at the page that you've put in a lot of work on this, and several parts of it are more detailed and better sourced than the articles 2006 in the Philippines and 2007 in the Philippines; on that score commendation rather than condemnation is in order. But given that there are already those two articles in existence, and that they follow the more usual format found here on wikipedia (so will more easily be found by people looking for digests of Philippine events), can I make the suggestion that you put in a little bit more time to transfer the information to those articles (thinking of yourself as an editor of the encyclopedia, rather than the creator of a particular article)? --Paularblaster (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete The term "Standout Event" is opinion. What is a "standout event" to the author may not be a "standout event to anyone else". Also, the proclaimation that this from a newspaper basically makes this plagarism. There's better places for this on OTHER Wikipedia events. Also "I worked hard on it" is not a good reason to keep something Doc Strange (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the term "standout event" is just an unconventional way of saying "notable event", so you might like to rethink your rationale for supporting deletion. --Paularblaster (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. We already have 2006 in the Philippines and 2007 in the Philippines. What's the use of this? Starczamora (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question: as an article it's redundant to those you mentioned, but some of the content is more detailed and better sourced; "merge" would be preferable to "delete". --Paularblaster (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Some of these "detailed" accounts are not fit for an encyclopedia. Although I'd like to see the sources in the timeline article of the events already found at the 2006 and 2007 articles to be added there. --Howard the Duck 04:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If so, then why create a separate article, when you could actually include them from the articles I've mentioned? That is, if those information are notable and referenced enough. Starczamora (talk) 05:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete agree with Doc Strange and Starczamorza above. Also 2006-2007 is a totally arbitrary period. If this article stays we might as well create Standout Events 1973-1992. No one is going to come to this page looking for information. maxsch (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, redundant article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 22:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to 2006 in the Philippines and 2007 in the Philippines; some of this is actually more detailed and better sourced, so it would be a real waste just to delete it outright only because it covers the same period. --Paularblaster (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• ReplyWith all due respect, If there is no consensus, then I would say DO NOT DELETE; but I also agree with the wise argument of Paularblaster on merging, since precious materials are in my created article which are not in the 2 articles. So, I submit to the wise consensus of all in this debate. -- --Florentino floro (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "No consensus" refers to the first nomination where actually only a few people took part. This is a second and different nomination. --Howard the Duck 04:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Not all events should be copied; Wikipedia is not a link repository of every news event that happened, even small fires were even included in the "Timeline." --Howard the Duck 04:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

comment. The five pillars of wikipedia make mention of combining the qualities of "general encyclopedia, specialist encyclopedia and almanac". I'd be the first to argue that these details shouldn't be given a string of individual entries, but as a list of almanac-type material it seems fine. Of course, my familiarity is mainly with 17th-century almanacs, where all this (including the editor's rationale) would be par for the course. Perhaps almanacs have changed? --Paularblaster (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If you'd read the 2006 and 2007 articles, there are several entries that don't and won't have articles. The timeline article includes the most mundane of events such as fires, and so-called "assassinations." Actually the almanac "quality" isn't really an almanac where every event that made it to newspapers gets in, otherwise the articles about per-game results of the Premier League would not have been deleted. As you can see, as long as there's a reference, it gets in. Wikipedia isn't like that. --Howard the Duck 03:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

rejoinder. Without going into the details and finer points of the 5 pillars and Wiki rules, suffice it to say that even learned jurists are highly divided on matters of paramount import. The United States Supreme Court Justices would often be highly divided on freedom and religion issues, not to mention education or abortion and even lethal injection. Who are or will be the readers of Wiki articles and bios? Are they just or will be Filipinos, or in generations to come, will Americans or British or French read my articles or these articles when they or their children would later study law and current events or history? Even [[[Vincent Van Gogh]] took his life since his paintings were not on the 5 pillars at that time. There are finer points and gray areas regarding deletion of articles. FIRES, yes mystic fires. As to whether they are common or not, it depends upon the reader/s or the time and places. 2007 mystic fires, do they happen in decades or just in 2007? Deaths, yes; if a janitor dies, that is not notable. Neither is the death of a parent of a judge. But when 3 parents of Philippine Supreme Court Chief Justices, all died at once after the dwarf decision was released on BBC, etc. on April 6, 2006 and these 3 deaths (heart, heart, heart, respectively for Luz, Narcisa Puno and Hilario Davide, Sr.) 2006 - 2007, well, I really want to end this debate if someone would say that such is not in the 5 pillars. Now, if Rene Saguisag and wife Dulce Saguisag met their fate on Nov. 8, 2007, that would not be notable if one forgets how powerful they were in the news from 1987 until today. He is my counsel of record whose very own lawyer Atty. Bibing Timbangkaya made, drafted and finalized my decision - ruling that I consult elves. Oh, never mind Nancy Reagan or George Bush who talk to astrologers and Chang the mystic warrior to defend the Iraq Invasion, respectively, but not to pen decision. Forget Antonin Scalia and the 9th Circus Court of California, the penis pump Judge. Oh they have no Duende (mythology). Rene Saguisag is also the counsel of Joseph Estrada, and when he met his fate on Nov. 8, all the top officers flooded the internet with news like paparazzis. Alfredo Benipayo who caused my 7 years suspension, might not be the cause of the University of Santo Thomas curses (read the news on the 2007 UST trauma), and when he was operated angioplasty on Feb. 21, 2001 as I predicted in writing filed with the Court, in disbarment cases I filed against him, etc., and when he was nominated 7 times and failed, you would not say that the healing dwarves made it, but his 2006 resignation is not a farce, it is utter pain and ended his career. Is it not one of the 5 pillars. Well, I debate this way, as mere follower of law, since I am handicapped here to debate and discuss on the 5 pillars, pardon me if my mind cannot yet as of this time comprehend these basic Wiki laws, except if you give me TIME. But since we editors or users want to expand and create a good and neutral encyclopedia, let us not be scared of the gray areas or finer points on the deletion of the article. Lest I be misconstrued, I boast not and I do not claim to be endowed with the power to annihilate in broad daylight as I wrote, and my dire predictions happened with impeccability. All I say is that in good faith, I made this article and I debate and discuss that it is sufficient in form and substance to remain here for eternity. Submitted for decision. Amen. -- --Florentino floro (talk) 08:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Not an encyclopedia article. TheCoffee (talk) 14:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. I will add that much of this also smacks of Original Research. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:30, 30 January 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 00:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kolath

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

Sorry for nominating this-lengthy-written-(but no proper source) to AfD. I think Kolath is quite prominent family in Central Kerala. However, the question is that do we really need an encyclopedia article? A google search has some results (but many are not clear and talking different, [note kolath naadu & many other kolath' accessible]). Earlier I had a post on this. But nobody responded. In my opinion, a minor section about this family may be included in Saint Thomas Christians article. Thanks. Avinesh Jose  T  09:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/India.--Avinesh Jose  T  10:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia is not the place for genealogical entries. Some of the historical content given are widely disputed, and might also qualify as original research.--thunderboltz^(TALK) 19:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Absolute crap in the line of Kiriyathil Nair, Unnithan, Thankal, Vazhunnor, Kaimal, Jenmi etc. A bunch showing dirty caste chauvinism is seen here. Somebody should make bold and delete all those stinking turds. Articles related to Kerala are hotbeds for idiots' monkeyism.

59.91.253.73 (talk) 05:38, 27 January 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. Wizardman 01:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Symbolicks

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

Doesn't seem to be verifiable. A quick google search turns up nothing related. MER-C 09:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No sources to prove that this item was notable in any way. DarkAudit (talk) 15:46, 25 January 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 article was a copyvio from here. --VS ^talk 02:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Great Banquet

The Great Banquet (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A protestant Christian ministry. Written too much like a sermon with very little attempt to demonstrate notability. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as copyvio of this. Redfarmer (talk) 11:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Copyvio, and also it's one event at one church. Definitely not notable. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Definitely not one event at one church, (cursillo movements) occur at hundreds of churches worldwide - see the community listing at (http://3dayol.org/Communities/Communities.html) for just a small listing of locations (multiple locations in every US state, and locations in at least 40 international countries). Not copyvio - see discussion message. Rmsphoto (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Can you quote secondary source coverage? Event listings are not enough to establish notability. Redfarmer (talk) 23:27, 25 January 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bioethinomics

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

No references so must assume that this is a neologism / original research. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete - definite protologism, no non-wiki ghits. MER-C 09:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. GreyCat (talk) 11:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO, this is clearly a non-notable neologism that has no place on wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:58, 28 January 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. The article has been trimmed nicely, and as a stub, it is referenced enough to be kept. Keeper | 76 17:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Generation Z

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

Good god, where to begin. Gen Z is a basically blank article when we remove all the original research, dealing with what is essentially a US media buzz word. There is absolutely no real scientific source or research and a surprising majority of the sources refer to the Delaney incident. It had had a deletion debate resulting in a delete but has apparently been recreated. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 08:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete potentially Speedy/CSD G4 (Previous AfD)-- RoninBK _{T C} 08:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Let's wait until this generation described here gets into middle school before the media slaps an unnotable (and dare I say, lazy) 'buzzworthy' label on them. Right now they're just kids and that's good enough for me. There's also another tag which unfortunately will define them a bit more and is in more common use; Generation 9/11. Nate • (chatter) 11:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete G4 and salt. Second recreation of deleted material. Redfarmer (talk) 11:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete agree with all above. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The above is no longer relevant because the section that was objected to as a "recreation" has been deleted. Please delete this request for deletion and help write a better article it you object to stubs. Can anyone doubt that the article will grow in the future? It is a good stub. Don't pull up crops just cuz they are not full grown. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

With the OR removed, the article is now essentially a dictionary definition. Thus, I maintain my delete vote under WP:NOT#DICT as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Also, would seem to fall under WP:NEO as this seems to be a term which is new to come into existence and does not have an agreed upon definition. Redfarmer (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Goggle shows 18400 hits for the term. Let the article live long enough to become more. "Not being a dictionary" does not we delete all stubs. WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed your separator, I did not object on grounds of recreation, I merely noted that after my objections to the article in order to provide a complete picture, as I would have assumed was obvious. The editors who voted did so fully able to look at the article and its history themselves, without your guidance. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 05:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

comment Maybe I've missed something, why do the nom and others think this is not notable/unsourced when it seems to list several articles, a book etc that reference it, some of the articles in reputable newspapers? Perhaps you could all take another look at the article, maybe it has changed from the version upon which you are commenting. We might find the idea of this annoying, but it is well sourced. It doesn't need to be based on 'serious/scientific research'- not saying that's bad/wrong, but for wiki purposes we're not a solely science-based wiki, it just needs to be discussed in reasonably reputable media. Merkinsmum 17:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

what I mean is, several articles in fairly mainstream media (even if it's not highbrow). Merkinsmum 17:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Clear Keep How is this not notable? Washington Post article alone does it. Further, it clearly is going to be a widely used term, so salting it is just crazy seems unwise. Hobit (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • According to whom, exactly? There is no one authority on generational terms and they can just as easily change if some other event defines a decade. Let's also note that the Washington Post needs features articles to fill out their paper so they write these stories that do so and generate debate about what a generation cshould be called. What may be correct now may not be so at the end of 2009 or 2019, and I could come up with quite a few names off the top of my head that could be credible (The MySpace/Facebook/vogue social network of the day Generation for instance). Nate • (chatter) 21:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Sure, it might not become hugely popular. But a Washington Post article solely on the term establishes notability (plus the other sources). And I think it would be unwise to salt a topic that is at least likely to be a common part of our cultural vocabulary. I'd certainly take an even money bet on this one. Hobit (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I agree that salting isn't the best course of action at least (too rash), but I stand by my statements. Nate • (chatter) 23:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
        • At the top you said "Let's wait until this generation described here gets into middle school". This article applies to everyone born after 1990; 18 years old and younger as of 2008. You "stand by" your claim that media judgements about them are too early? The media does not agree with you. Are you wikipedia's authority or are reliable published sources? WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The media also collapses into a collective orgy every time Paris Hilton replaces her slippers but we don't publish that. We don't have to give in to every whim of the media, let alone a place-holder buzzword. And the sources are shady at best. As for "media judgements", let's not go down that slippery slope. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 05:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - as I noted above, the article has changed enough so the reasons given to delete no longer apply. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

"Gen Z is a basically blank article when we remove all the original research, dealing with what is essentially a US media buzz word. There is absolutely no real scientific source or research..." - which part of the primary objections doesn't apply? +Hexagon1 ^(t) 05:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Very weak Keep Most of the references given were to unreliable newsletters and blog postings, the apparent result of taking everything however marginal to be found in Google. I have removed them. I am less than happy about two of the remaining ones--there is no good documentation for the relations to the book Generations, and the Corey article is as close to a blog posting as a newspaper can get. I think it is probably a notable term, but it will need much better documentation. DGG (talk) 02:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • In response to the initial reasons given to delete the article, I removed what was claimed to be a recreation of a deleted article on a specific person noted widely as a representative of Generation Z and added the first half dozen google hits. Goggle shows 18400 hits for the term. I in no way added everything Google could find. Maybe we should add back the specific person noted widely as a representative of Generation Z? WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You have ignored all what I've posted in reply to you. Please re-read it. My initial criticism wasn't the fact it was recreated, as I explain above. I fear you may have misunderstood my qualms with the article. And if by the person "noted widely" as a representative of gen Z you mean Delaney, I'd like to see some sources backing up such an assertion. Multiple, if possible. Thank you +Hexagon1 ^(t) 06:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to List of generations, where it'll fit in nicely without having to be a stand-alone article.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:58, 1 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kun-Hee Yoo

Kun-Hee Yoo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Some kind of combination of non-notability, hoax, and/or crystal ball gazing. "Ever since he was 5 month old, he showed the potential to be the greatest mixed martial arts fighter." Riiiigt... Jfire (talk) 08:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Utter hoax. All English GHits are copies of this article [25]. Putting the name in Korean order [26] or searching in Korean language combined with "mixed martial arts" or the name of his birth city gives nothing related [27][28][29]. cab (talk) 11:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per CaliforniaAliBaba. Definite hoax. Doc Strange (talk) 14:39, 25 January 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Irish wrestling

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

Article appears to be about a non-notable online club or phenomenon at best and a complete hoax or fabrication at worst. Since none of the CSD criteria fit and a prod tag (added a little bit after the article was created) was removed by an anonymous I.P., it's time to bring it here for discussion. jonny-mt 08:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. Bláthnaid 17:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. A bit confused still about what the club actually does, after visiting their site, but still non-notable and as for the phenomenon of Irish wrestling described in the main body of the text, it is unreferenced, unsourced and... well...., it doesn't exist. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Notes on "druids and wrestling in ancient Ireland" unsourced and decidedly dubious. Remainder looks like total fabrication. (Frankly I think could be a speedy candidate.) Guliolopez (talk) 23:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I thought of that, but given that it is coherent and identifies the subject (thus clearing G1 and A1), doesn't fall under any of the A7 criteria, and isn't really disruptive enough to qualify as vandalism (and thus G3), I thought it best to bring it here. After all, should it be deleted here and then recreated in the future, it could be quickly deleted again under G4. --jonny-mt 02:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• There's nothing non-notable (let alone non-existent) about Irish wrestling, but this (no doubt humorously intended) article has absolutely nothing to do with the subject. Rather than keep a hoax at the root of an edit history, delete this without prejudice to a future article actually on the topic. --Paularblaster (talk) 21:56, 27 January 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. JERRY ^talk _contribs 21:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zipera

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

No indication of notability. Nothing has been added to this substub since the no-consensus AfD in 2005. Jfire (talk) 07:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as clear-cut WP:CSD#A7. No reason to even have an AfD imo. User:Dorftrottel 08:14, January 25, 2008

Articles that have survived an AfD are not eligible for speedy deletion. Jfire (talk) 08:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. My intention was to get people interested in keeping this one-sentence stub to do some serious looking for sources. How the other AfD ever went down as a keep is simply beyond me. User:Dorftrottel 09:52, January 25, 2008

• Keep. AfD shouldn't really be used as a way to get people to edit an article, but anyway I've copied over the discography from the Polish Wikipedia article which indicates that they have have had two albums released on Prosto Records, which satisfies WP:BAND as the label has been established for 9 years with a significant roster of performers. Also Google news reveals that they have been reported on regularly by Gazeta Wyborcza, Poland's highest circulation non-tabloid newspaper. Unfortunately the Gazeta Wyborcza web site seems to be unavailable as I'm writing this, but the Google summary of the second item in that search list, entitled "Hip hop ze stolicy (Hip hop from the capital)" starts with the words "Gwiazdy krajowej sceny hiphopowej - zespoły Zipera, Flexxip i Grammatik... (Stars of the national hip hop scene - the groups Zipera, Flexxip and Grammatik..." (my translations). If Gazeta Wyborcza reports on them regularly and calls them stars, then I think they also meet the general notability guideline of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as per Phil Bridger. And, as Phil says, an AfD should not be used to encourage people to edit an article! Bondegezou (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Are these "not what AfDs are for" comments replies to Dorftrottel's comments or my nomination? It seems to me that the nomination was perfectly valid given that there were no substantial edits since the previous no consensus AfD and little to no English language sources. Not everyone speaks Polish, you know... Jfire (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I intended my comment as a reply to Dorftrottel - I certainly didn't mean to imply any bad faith on your part. The article in the state that it was nominated was certainly a reasonable candidate for AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I would never nominate an article for deletion in order to motivate editing, but agreeing with deletion as an incentive for others to come up with half-way reliable sources that I couldn't find is ok imo. User:Dorftrottel 09:20, January 29, 2008

Well, I think your tactic worked - you spurred me into action, anyway! I only meant that remark as a piece of harmless banter, so if it offended you in any way I am happy to apologise for that. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Did I sound offended? User:Dorftrottel 09:53, January 29, 2008

• Keep - Looks to meet notability. Maybe we can get some of the Polish article translated to better demonstrate it. But remember, neither lack of English sources nor lack of activity is a valid reason for deletion. matt91486 (talk) 21:42, 31 January 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bikerfox

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

Non notable self-styled internet celebrity. Most of this article has been written by the subject themselves and has an incredible bias. Article was previously nominated for deletion, and the result was "Keep and rewrite". The article was again rewritten by the person in question, completely defeating the purpose of the original nomination. Article either needs to be deleted or (if decision is keep), completely rewritten without any involvement by the person in question. Save-Me-Oprah^(talk) 07:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per the article failing any of our core policies: WP:NPOV, WP:A, WP:COI, WP:AUTO, etc. If the subject himself feels the need to constantly advertise his own notability, then it suggests he has none. His one claim to notability, the "front flip" appears to have also been proven untrue by a number of editors. Any other attempts to make the article less one-sided appear to have also been removed by the subject. It's also the only article I've ever seen with a ridiculous "registered" after the subject's name and four different "problem" templates. Some of the actions of the subject in keeping the article as he likes, as detailed at the Conflict of interest report, are similarly unacceptable. Bob talk 10:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Excluding the subject's own COI edits, the article has seen only minor contributions. I usually would have preferred to recommend the alternative option of issuing a partial ban on the offending editor and reverting his contributions – however, as has been mentioned, hardly anything would remain of the article, and I personally find it unlikely to be rewritten by an uninvolved party any time soon. CounterFX (talk) 12:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

  Suggestion: If the outcome is delete, maybe the article content should be copied/moved to the subject's user space at User:Bikerfox. There, it could be worked upon, by the subject himself or by any other interested editor, to rectify the policy violations discussed in this AfD, including: establishing the subject's notability through independent third-party publications, and eliminating the POV and autobiographical bias from the present article. Should it someday meet Wikipedia standards, it could then be moved back to the main namespace; otherwise, it could remain as a user page or subpage indefinitely, without compromising the quality of Wikipedia articles. CounterFX (talk) 03:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

  I wouldn't do that. This user is not here to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia but rather to vanispamcruftise. Let's not give him the recognition of having a Wikipedia page until he discovers the mission of Wikipedia. Pages like this serve as an attractive nuisance for even more crap. MER-C 06:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

  I primarily wanted to avoid the situation where we discard the content of an article (which had been considered to pass WP:N in the former AfD) simply on grounds of its subject's contentious behaviour, but you have a point. CounterFX (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Amazingly, the article seems to have gotten worse since the prior AFD. This suggests both that it could be better and that something is keeping it from getting better, a sure sign of tendentious editing. --Dhartung | Talk 03:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Simply calling oneself an "Internet celebrity" is not quite enough to claim that ephemeral mantle. Reliable sources are obviously lacking; the only "sourcing" provided are a few docket records that should be available for anyone who has ever been in court. As a side note, even given the article's brevity, it is still an incomprehensible mess. Did the subject legally change his name in 2005? If so, then why does the article use the words, "in August 2007, DeLarzelere"? How could there still be a DeLarzelere by that date if his name had changed? And why do the court records from 2007 give "DeLarzelere" as his real name and "Biker Fox" as an alias--wouldn't a legal name change result in it being the other way around? Is the information in the article claiming a legal name change accurate? Heather (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - pure vanispamcruftisement. The sources provided are forums and (likely) unlicensed copies of copyrighted content and thus shouldn't be there. MER-C 06:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Most of the edits on this page can easily be traced back to Tulsa, which is where the person the article is written about resides. All but one of the 'references' on the page link to the DeLarzelere's own website. Six of the eight links in the Newspapers and Magazines section link to forum posts. Six of six links in the references section link to Delarzelere's own websites, or blogs. Out of the last 50 edits on this page, 30 of them are registered to a Tulsa, OK IP address. The last eight consecutive edits came from this same IP address. andrew240 (talk)

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

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

The result was Keep; non-admin closure. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Seigo Nakao

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

Article fails to assert notability per WP:NOTE. Musashi1600 (talk) 07:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 11:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 01:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC).
• Weak Keep Head of a department at a university. But the real notability is being the editor of several major standard Japanese-English dictionaries, . The editor of a major reference work is notable. XXanthippe, what are the reasons for your !vote? I'd like a chance to show why they dont apply, but you need to say what they are. DGG (talk) 11:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as I stated when it was de-prodded, he passes WP:PROF by authoring a reference work that is widely used/cited. Neier (talk) 12:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Neier: meets WP:PROF #3. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, per DGG & Neier. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:21, 28 January 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. Wizardman 17:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fifteen Minutes (band)

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. Bebo and Myspace are not good enough sources. Delete Metal Head (talk) 06:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete Non-notable Myspace band. Lugnuts (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Not sure a speedy is really appropriate here, but failures at WP:MUSIC combined with misplaced WL's make it otherwise a no-brainer. SingCal 22:00, 26 January 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. --MCB (talk) 08:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tony R. Rodriguez

Tony R. Rodriguez (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The only claim to notability is that the author published 3 books. The article fails notability guidelines set at WP:BIO#Creative professionals and fails WP:V by lacking any reliable sources that are not self-published (WP:BLP#Sources). dissolve^talk 06:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Regardless of literary skill or merit, there is no evidence provided of a significant critical or cultural response to the subject's work. --archym (talk) 11:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and lack of notability. See also this similar AfD.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable minor writer. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:24, 30 January 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.