Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 June 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Purge server cache

Contents 1 Gharwali Baharwali 2 Joe Kleon 3 Switch (Ashanti song) 4 Asia'h Epperson 5 Notable ahoge characters 6 Chasing Canadia 7 Píča 8 Anya Kamenetz 9 Microchannelization 10 Mood Muzik: The Worst of Joe Budden 11 List of beaches 12 Captain Underpants and the Brainy Bamboozle of Black Cheetah Man 13 As We Were 14 Cookham Dean F.C. 15 St. Luke Lutheran Church 16 First Harrogate Trains 17 Tweedy Bird Loc 18 Johto 19 Hoenn 20 Kanto (Pokémon) 21 Rachel Axler 22 Anal torture 23 The Kick Ass Tater Paps 24 Indus Center for Academic Excellence 25 Issac newton (complex) 26 Earnshaw 27 Daniel S. Griffin 28 Around the Bend (album) 29 Kinnucan's 30 Philip J. Kaplan 31 Luan Bexheti 32 Shandong Agricultural University 33 I'll be lovin u long time(Mariah Carey song) 34 Leonid Savin 35 I'm So Hood 36 CeraSport 37 Midnight Cabaret 38 Chairman or Chief 39 Compassion Forum 40 DarkGDK.Net 41 Proper Interval Locality 42 Sarbjit sohal 43 Image conversion 44 Heather Dylan 45 Eternal Wars 46 "Old Jabo" 47 Chianti (Case Closed) 48 Cian Hughton 49 First basketball league 50 Hot100Brasil 51 Judith Blake 52 Luke Tryl 53 Martin Fox 54 Obamania 55 Victor Bryan 56 Bhadrakali High School, Gokarna 57 Tobias Orrico 58 Jeroen van den Broeck 59 Arturs Vaiculis 60 Scott Gallacher 61 Elizabeth Wiatt 62 Lacine Cherif 63 Japanese Supercar 64 North America Challenge 65 David A. Wheeler 66 The Sunpilots 67 Bobbie Nice 68 Manifestations of a giant (album) 69 Door of Night 70 Art Decade (band) 71 Enson Sakuraki 72 Barry hall every career goal 73 Hudson Armory 74 Ultra Rare Trax 75 NIRVANA Ultra Rare Trax Volume 3 76 Harry Potter Fan Zone 77 NovaPDF 78 Timothy osborne 79 Otis Moss III 80 Richard De Saint Sauveur I 81 Hakkyokuseiken 82 Jaume Marxuach i Flaquer 83 Christopher Cuddy 84 ESLARED 85 Islamic Research Academy 86 Crucifracture 87 Bucknell Pong 88 SoccerProject 89 Tarryn Hoff 90 The Bunny Boy 91 The County 92 What's Up, What's Happening 93 Future chinese big plane 94 Gilberto eanes 95 Grindersparks 96 Culture of Arizona 97 Michael J. Padilla 98 Steve Padgitt 99 Painface (band) 100 Universal School 101 Kim Lichtenstein 102 Harold C. Pachios 103 March 19, 2008 anti-war protest 104 Sestertium 105 Homunculi of the Fullmetal Alchemist manga 106 Att Will 107 Aldo Barbaro 108 List of Roman Emperors from modern Serbia 109 Webster Lake Estates

[edit] Joe Kleon

Joe Kleon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Largely self-promotional biographical article about a non-notable local DJ. InDeBiz1 Review me! | Talk to me! 23:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• How do you know how notable he is? Are you from anywhere close to his state? The article has links to his radio broadcasts, from across the country. He also appears to have worked with many big name rock artists and produced a record by at least one. The article may need some cleanup, but I feel it belongs on Wikipedia. InDeBiz1 doesn't appear to have been an editor for very long and I feel he is making a mistake about this article. Englishliterature (talk) 00:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)— Englishliterature (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Not that it's particularly relevant, but I am rather familiar with the radio landscape of northeast Ohio, having been a part of it myself, at one point. --InDeBiz1 Review me! | Talk to me! 00:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, as you have contributed to the article in question, it's not exactly appropriate for you to weigh in on an AfD discussion... particularly when your main concern appears to be that I have not "been an editor for very long." As they say (reviewing your contributions, the first of which was less than one week ago), "Pot, meet kettle." --InDeBiz1 Review me! | Talk to me! 00:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Now you are judge, as to who can weigh in on an AfD discussion? I did not "contribute" to the article, I performed some cleanup and found some additional references to add. Try to get your facts straight, next time. As a commenter says below, I don't think it is appropriate for YOU to weigh in on this article, as you DO have a conflict of interest, claiming to be in radio.

Respectfully, my position in the industry actually makes me more than qualified to weigh in on AfD discussions related to it, as I am able to provide additional information that other "non-industry" editors may not know where to find. Also, any editing action to the article, regardless of what it is, constitutes contributing to the article. Regards, --InDeBiz1 (talk) 00:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep this article, Just for the record. Englishliterature (talk) 01:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Youngstown radio is not the same a Cleveland, Akron, or Canton. Most stations in Cleveland, Akron, and Canton cannot be heard in Youngtown. I am willing to try to make this article suitable for Wikipedia. I would think a 20 year career, bring heard virtually across the counry, at one time, or another, and work with many national artists would make one "notable." I hope the article can stay. Radioinfoguy (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC) — Radioinfoguy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Respectfully, your point is irrelevant. Yes, I worked in Youngstown. However, I am very familiar with all of the northeast Ohio markets. Regardless, I stand by my nomination that this article is nothing more than COI-influenced self-promotion and has no business on Wikipedia. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as not notable Duffbeerforme (talk) 04:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Joe Kleon has a long and varied career in music, radio, and other media outlets. I've followed his career for more than two decades - and he has proven himself as an on-air talent. I think the article should stay. bkh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.66.110.254 (talk) 10:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC) — 71.66.110.254 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep It seems indebiz is the one with a conflict of interest, in this matter, as he says he is in radio. Kleon is much more than just a DJ, as he has produced records by notable rock stars and worked as a photographer for many rock stars. Several of these CDs are distributed worldwide. Kleon's network radio broadcasts have been heard in the majority of U.S. states. His CNN radio broadcasts were heard in several countries. Why not help clean up the article, indebiz? Kleon's talk page says “This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography” Clevelandmusic24 (talk) 11:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC) — Clevelandmusic24 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep Seems notable to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.186.207.103 (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Kleon's main claim to fame (according to Kleon/Radioinfoguy) is that he is known for engineering, recording, co-producing, and mastering the 2003 CD Pete Way (Alive In Cleveland), by UFO (band) bass player Pete Way. I'd never heard of this, so I took a look, and read: Alive In Cleveland is a live release, from legendary UFO (band) bassist Pete Way. Recorded October 4, 2002, at The Revolution, in Parma, Ohio, "Alive In Cleveland" was mixed over two days at 609 Recording, in Bedford, Ohio and released shortly after, as an exclusive release on Pete's official website http://www.peteway.net. Majestic Rock Records, released it worldwide in 2003. Indeed, I hadn't even heard of Pete Way. The article on him is devoid of a single legend. (Or is he a legend, and the whole business thus a hoax?) Anyway, genuinely or legendarily, he made this CD. The article on it was written by Kleon/Radioinfoguy. It's released on Majestic Rock, which doesn't have an article and indeed is hardly mentioned in Wikipedia. It all seems very minor. -- Hoary (talk) 06:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • This comment was vandalized and then restored. -- Hoary (talk) 10:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Striking out of "Delete" (see below). -- Hoary (talk) 10:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep Pete Way put out his first album in 1968, with UFO and is sill going strong. They have toured the world many times and Pete's discography is very respectable. Bands like Def Leppard and Iron Maiden list Pete as a major influence. Kleon is known for a lot more than just working with Pete Way. His 20+ year radio career has earned him respect in the business and he was at the top of the ratings at Cleveland's WNCX, Savannah's WZAT and WIXV, and at Canton's WRQK. His work for radio networks has been heard in over 40 states. Just last week, the founding members of classic rock icons Molly Hatchet released a CD, under the name Gator Country, which was recorded by Kleon. His work in concert photography has found him working with many major label recording artists. just in the last year, recorded bands on Columbia records, Warner/Reprise records, Universal Records, and others. You call that minor? I say he is notable and the article should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.67.231 (talk) 12:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Clearly not notable, despite the spirited defense here. Is it time to open a sockpuppetry investigation? - Eureka Lott 13:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, the, ahem, UIDs and IPs without long editing histories who so remarkably find their way to this AfD do seem to format their messages both perversely and similarly. I reformatted a bunch earlier, but now we have the type-a-few-words-and-then-hit-Enter style, which takes a bit longer to reformat. I guess this will remain puppet-o-rama, at least until somebody remembers the name of the "Leave your meat 'n' socks at home!" template that can be slapped on the top. (Personally I'm in favor of meat 'n' socks: they have a certain comedy value.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I vote to keep this article. Joe Kleon is a top notch radio personality, who has earned much respect in quite a few different areas of the music business. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.208.187.186 (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC) — 24.208.187.186 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • This comment was later edited (here) by Special:Contributions/24.252.245.173. -- Hoary (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep This article has a lot of information and sources and the subject is notable. Keep it.
  • This comment was first written (here) by Special:Contributions/24.26.139.142, and edited (here) by Special:Contributions/24.252.245.173. (It occurs to me that the two IPs might not be unrelated.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete This user spammed me with a link to his article protesting its deletion. GreenReaper (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Aside from all the keep comments here being from blatant sock/meat puppets of sundry kinds, to work in broadcasting is not an inherently notable career. This person is not widely noted in articles/stories of which he is the topic by independent and reliable sources. I would speedy delete this straight off as blatant, personal conflict of interest advertising, but I'd rather watch this AfD play out into maybe a laundry run before doing that. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this AfD has been disrupted and broken by too many comments from editors with limited contribution histories. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I was spammed as well, despite the fact that this isn't my area of knowledge or interests. (I haven't lived in Ohio in 22 years, and even then it was Columbus.) I cannot judge his notability or lack thereof from what is here, so I leave it to others to decide. But it's a red flag when email from a stranger accuses Wikipedia of "censorship" because of an AFD on an article about the person doing the emailing. Sorry. Decisions to keep or delete should be based on established criteria of notability, not personal involvement and canvassing. --Karen | Talk | contribs 23:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete The user spammed me as well, and I replied telling him that while I disagreed with this deletion being termed "censorship," I would vote keep if I found the article to be notable. Unfortunately, after reviewing the arguments here, I have concluded that it is not, which is not helped by the only significant defense being from sockpuppets anyway. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 00:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete The justifications for his notability are weak and seem to establish his importance by virtue of association with slightly more notable people. In addition, article was made in bad faith as personal promotion, because most of the edits are from Joe Kleon (User:Radioinfoguy) himself. In addition, the images referenced at the end of the article are in a similar state and should be deleted as routine cleanup. User:Radioinfoguy seems to have written a vanity article on himself, employed sockpuppetry on its AfD, and spammed editors to save his article, for pete's sake. Such a "top-notch radio personality" has done a good job of making himself look pretty conceited and arrogant.

“

From: Radioinfoguy (joekleon@yahoo.com), An article on myself is being primed for deletion. If you could make a comment against the censorship and deletion of the article, on the deletion discussion page, it would be sincerely appreciated. The article is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Kleon Thanks for your consideration. Joe

”

Mazin07^C₪_T 00:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Is it time to suggest closing this AfD as Delete, given that the only Keep votes appear to be coming from the same user? --InDeBiz1 (talk) 00:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• WP:SNOW, yes. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think so. We know that at least one (perhaps only one) person in favor of retaining the article claims to be keen to improve it and is sufficiently articulate and knowledgable to make a better article. (Whether this article would establish notability is another question.) I'd let this run its course, particularly as to do otherwise might well bring accusations of premature decision, unfairness, etc. -- Hoary (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. A mild notability, to be sure, but notable nonetheless. And the article is absurdly well referenced, considering what it is. Ford MF (talk) 02:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I was not fully aware of Wikipedia's policies, when the article was created. Someone wrote a shell of an article, which was submitted. I then began editing the article, along with several others, after it was vandalized several times. Many reliable sources were used for the article, such as The Canton Repository Newspaper (circulation over 60,000), two largely distributed Cleveland music publications, Scene Magazine (circulation 100,000), and The Free Times (circulation 70,000), www.blabbermouth.net (visited by more than a million people each month) and www.bwbk.com, as well as Def Leppard's UK website, Alice Cooper's audio archive, Informer Magazine, radio trade publication FMQB, answers.com, Artist Direct, and others. As of this point in time, I will recuse myself from editing this article. Early on, I asked several people for help editing the article, with no results. I know I will be continually slammed by the Wikipedia "elite," and I guess I have it coming, for not fully understanding the rules. I would sure love the help of a Wikipedia admin, to make this article suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. As to the claim that all the votes to keep the article came from one person, that is just not true. You have my sincere apologies and I respectfully hope the article, with help from those more knowledgeable then myself, can somehow be allowed to stay. Radioinfoguy (talk) 02:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The contribution history shows you created this article, your first edit did not come "after it was vandalized several times," but was the first. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The idea for the article was not from myself and the "stub" (I guess that is what you call the beginning of an article) of the article was not created by myself. It was given to me and submitted using the name radioinfoguy and since the article is about me, the user name was attributed to me, by someone I know. There are several computers, using a shared IP, in my home and in my studio. I added information and enlisted a few individuals to help edit the article, who also used the same radioinfoguy name, so that the beginning of the article was not just the opinion of one person, or just myself. Was I wrong for becoming involved with the article? From reading Wiki policies, I know now the answer is yes. I became involved, because I wanted accurate and well sourced information to be used. That is all. If you don't believe me and the article is deleted, so be it. I really don't have any reason to be dishonest, since the article is probably going to be deleted anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radioinfoguy (talk • contribs) 02:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Do you share the same Wikipedia account Radioinfoguy with other people? Gwen Gale (talk) 03:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It was shared with me, but yes, as explained above. Radioinfoguy (talk) 04:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: This AfD had an abrasive start and didn't get much better. I might have exacerbated the atmosphere with some details of my own delete vote. Since we haven't already done so, I suggest that we now stop wondering about which writer is who, and so forth, and instead concentrate on the article. Although I voted "delete" I already see some value in it and am willing to have my mind changed. Radioinfoguy is (or are) as welcome as anybody else to edit the article, which I do think is salvageable. (I'm not going to edit it myself because I'm busy with other stuff.) -- Hoary (talk) 04:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by PametRiver (talk • contribs) 09:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Vandalism-only account, now given an indefinite block. -- Hoary (talk) 10:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• The last vote was by the person (PametRiver) who has been adding vandalism to my page. Now, they have created an account and added valdalism to this AfD page. I received a warning saying the edit cannot be undone. Can someone please undo this vandalism edit? Thank you. This person was already placed on a temporary ban, by Hoary. -- Radioinfoguy (talk) 10:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • You're mostly right. Yes indeed, this person messed around with a comment here. He's now history. You're only wrong in the bit about undoing vandalism: anybody, certainly including yourself, is free to undo blatant vandalism. Meanwhile, thank you for bringing this to our attention. -- Hoary (talk) 10:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC) NB if there's any more vandalism of this AfD then I for one shan't have any qualms about protecting it. -- Hoary (talk) 10:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Yes, I think the article as it is now can be kept, per Ford MF above. The article started in an unfortunate way; it's now a lot better. I don't approve of either puppetry or spamming, but for an AfD to be marred by either doesn't necessarily condemn the article. -- Hoary (talk) 10:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, it's got that smell of self-promotion about it. This could be significantly reduced by a proper copy-edit (and while you're at it, please read MOS). Although there's an impressive number of references, some of them could hardly be said to be authoritative, so please audit the ref section. This is by no means an article that WP can be proud of, although I'd stop short of deleting it right now. If deletion doesn't occur, it would be wise to keep this on our radar screens. TONY (talk) 12:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• This article is horrible. It is absolute garbage, complete and utter filth. It is putrid and vile. Having said that, for some strange reason I LOVE it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hornhead (talk • contribs) 13:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep The subject's list of accomplishments, say "do not delete" to me.

• Keep Kleon may not be Rush Limbaugh, but his work for two decades in radio, his work with many major-label artists, in different contexts,(photography, radio, recording) makes him notable in my book. Keep the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.123.224 (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] First Harrogate Trains

First Harrogate Trains (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:CRYSTAL - "proposed", "plan to run", "if the application is successful, it will start running". ukexpat (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

*Weak keep but hang on Keep at least for the time being. We need to search for sources. If the article is true in what it states, then a keep is required. Other articles like this (although better) rightly exist.Btline (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Strong Keep have looked in more detail. Keep because there is a professional website, clear proposals. There are also three other "pipedreams" on Wiki, which are similar to this one - all should stay. There is also a logo ready. This is more than a "crystal ball." [Unsigned position by Btline (talk)]

• Keep but it needs to be watched and built. First seem to be pretty serious as they have registered on built there own website for it. Worth a look if you're not convinced. --Fuelboy (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - valid article once the subject of the article has been released. Yes, WP:CRYSTAL does somewhat apply, but the fact of the matter is that there are other such articles that have been kept. --tennisman 20:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Other stuff exists is not a reason to keep. This article has to be judged on its own merits. – ukexpat (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Merge with First Hull Trains. Despite the different brand name and web address, this is essentially a proposal by Hull Trains to run a new service to Harrogate. At present, that's pretty much all there is to say about it, so a subsection of the First Hull Trains article should suffice. If the proposal ever becomes a reality, then the situation can be reviewed. --RFBailey (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge RFB says it as well as I could. There's no point having articles on every UK railproposal - assorted ideas like this are floated all the time. — iridescent 21:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Merge with First Hull Trains until at least that there are multiple independent reliable sources as per policy. At the current time I only see the company's own website and the ORR application. Adambro (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Changed to Keep as meets the notability requirements defined in WP:NOTE following Simply south highlighting some additional sources of which the article from the The Press is really what swings it for me. Adambro (talk) 13:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

A merge could be done but what about similar articles to this one like Grand Union? Year1989 (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Grand Union Railway has the multiple independent reliable sources required by policy based on a quick look. Adambro (talk) 05:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Merge. Despite the name, a quick glance at the web site makes it clear that this is a Hull Trains proposal rather than a new venture. (And yes, I would do the same for Grand Union and any other proposals that are coming from an existing train operating company.) David Arthur (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Merge, per arguments above. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

*Keep it reflects documented and referenced future plans. It should not be merged as the association with Hull Trains is purely a legal arrangement, both of these companies are part of FirstGroup, a massive company. And Hull is miles from Harrogate. MickMacNee (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

True, but in one of the communications between Hull Trains and the ORR that I read about this, there was a suggestion that trains from Hull and Harrogate could be joined (at Selby) to share a path on the ECML to London. Hull Trains are definitely the brains behind this proposal. --RFBailey (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Rename and expand - Rename to Future Harrogate open access railway or similar, as a holding article for the route and rolling stock info, and as a linking target from elsewhere. From the sources added below, it appears there is a confirmed plan for a new open access operation, which is definitely going to happen, and has been covered in WP:RS, and so is not looking too far into the future (we have articles on planes to be builit in 2020 iirc). So far FirstGroup, National Express and Grand Union Railway have expressed an interest in running it. Splitting the info across three TOC articles while we wait to see who wins it, is just unneccessary and wastefull duplication, which frankly happens too often already in wiki railway articles. MickMacNee (talk) 17:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is that rename sensible? At present, neither NatEx nor Grand Central/Union/Northern (or whoever they are) have made applications to run trains to Harrogate. Also, it's not "definitely" going to happen: the ORR has to grant permission for it, which is by no means guaranteed (especially given that they're asking for extra paths on the ECML). --RFBailey (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep no merge- only merge if it becomes definite that it will be run as a joint TOC. Remember - it has its own website and logo and NAME (!) currently. No merge. Otherwise we would have to merge Humber coast and City railway with Hull Trains (and Glasgow Trains) Don't go there, it will end up with a huge and difficult Hull Trains article!

I would also like to say that WP allows "Prospective TOCs! Btline (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The article fails the notability guidelines defining the base requirement for any article in that it fails the following: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." Therefore it doesn't merit an article at the current time and so should be merged into Hull Trains which is appropriate since this is clearly a Hull Trains side project at the moment rather than anything completely distinct. Adambro (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

A couple of independant sources, from just one google search term: [3], [4]. MickMacNee (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Neither of these sources seem to do anything to establish the notability of "First Harrogate Trains", the subject of this article, but rather these proposals as a project of Hull Trains and as such I remain unconvinced that it is appropriate for this to be a distinct article and maintain it should be merged into the Hull Trains article. Adambro (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I have changed my vote resoning, the sources establish the notability of a planned new open access operator to harrogate. Spreading that info accross three TOC articles, plus probably harrogate and other rail articles, is a completely wasteful duplication of information. MickMacNee (talk) 23:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - the argument "WP Other crap exists" cannot be applied to this AFD. This is because those other articles are valid, are notable and have been kept (and so is this as it is the same). If anything, this one is less "WP Crystal Ball" than the others! Btline (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The Grand Central/Union/Northern proposals could all be listed as subsections of the existing Grand Central article, while details about Renaissance Trains' other ideas (e.g. Grimsby, Glasgow, etc.) could easily be included in the existing Renaissance Trains article. --RFBailey (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - the connexion between Harrogate Trains and Hull Trains is not just that they're both part of First. If you go to the Harrogate Trains and click 'About Us', the 'us' that is documented is Hull Trains, not First. David Arthur (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • It really is an irrelevant connection, purely a legal arrangement. If you already have a TOC entity set up, you don't create a separate legal entity just to make a bid that might fail meaning you then wind up that entity. I really can't see how people don't understand this. For all intents and purposes, the bidder is FirstGroup, barring the operational proposal (relying on which really does violate not speculating on the future), to split/merge actual train services, it realy is an irrelevcance. MickMacNee (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Of course it's relevant. If you read the ORR material, it is clearly Hull Trains that are responsible for this. If the proposal is successful, they may well create a new company, or they may not--that's not for us to guess now. Besides, Hull Trains is not a wholly-owned subsidiary of FirstGroup. --RFBailey (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - why are we going to do things differently with this one article only? Let's just keep it simple and keep. If circumstances change, then deletion or merging can be considered. This is exacltly the same as other pages. Btline (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - it is not necessarily a Hull Trains invention. It is due to the fact of the success of Hull Trains (as are 3 other FTOCs - shall be delete/merge all of these?). If it had been a direct connexion, it would not have a separate section of website. Btline (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • • (Why have you made TWO !votes on this page?) Your comment about the three other First TOCs is irrelevant; they are quite definitely separate legal entities, each holding a distinct franchise, and each currently operates trains. If you have read the ORR application, you will have noticed that Hull Trains are behind this--the separate URL is just a branding exercise. --RFBailey (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

An AFD is not a vote. It is the arguments and what is said that counts. Therefore there was no harm in me heading up each of my comments with my decision- especially as it changed a little. I have changed the above to "comment" etc. and struck through my original vote (which latterly changed) to please people. But to strike through whole comments/ arguments was not justifed, is a form of sabotage and I was not pleased when I saw it. I was certainly not doing any harm deliberately. I will, however, not take this further this time. Btline (talk) 16:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't need a lesson from you on how AfD works, thank you all the same. I know it's not a strict counting of votes. Nevertheless, it's considered bad form to offer your "keep"/"merge"/"delete" opinion more than once in a discussion. --RFBailey (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing to take further here, striking multiple votes is standard Afd procedure, it's not like they were deleted completey. MickMacNee (talk) 16:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No! You struck the whole comment! Btline (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. If you find any admin that will say otherwise I will redact. MickMacNee (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Whether or not Hull Trains are behind it, we shall have to wait for how the service is branded. If it turns out that it will be shared with Hull Trains, then merge when the time comes. However, until this is decided it should be kept - as you said it is branded differently at the moment. WP does not predict what will happen in the future. So it is still keep for me. Btline (talk) 16:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I have no real opinion either way, but I thought I'd mention that I've done a little search and found that First Harrogate Trains Ltd was incorporated (i.e. registered with Companies House) on 14 May 2008. While it may well be a Hull Trains idea, it appears to be a seperate entity [5] Hammersfan 06/06/08, 23.01 BST

• Exactly, it is a separate company. It does not matter who dreamt it up! So until it is clear it will be merged/run under Hull Trains, it should remain on its own page! WP does not assume/guess what might happen. Btline (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not assuming anything. Read the application to the ORR [6], and you will see that it was Hull Trains Ltd. that made the application to operate the Harrogate services. --RFBailey (talk) 23:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that may be true, but at the moment they are marketing/branding it as a separate TOC. Therefore, WP observes what they are doing and keeps this page intact. I have to say, I very much doubt Network Rail will permit the Hull/Harrogate services to be split along the route, as they did not let another TOC do that (I think GC). Btline (talk) 09:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Until such time as there are multiple independent reliable sources about the subject of this article "First Harrogate Trains" then this fails the requirements of WP:NOTE and therefore any other discussion are irrelevant. Adambro (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Prospective rail operations are notable, whether they are First or whoever. This information needs a neutral article, deleting it serves no purpose, bar creating unnecessary duplication across 3 train articles, and other geo-articles. It is fully notable that a Harrogate service is planned. MickMacNee (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

So the fact that it has a website and a brand set up, AND the ORR application is not enough? They are the most reliable sources possible. Btline (talk) 18:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No-one is disputing the reliability of those sources as stating the facts of the situation. What Adambro is suggesting is needed are sources that demonstrate the notability of this proposal: not simply that the proposal exists, but that people actually care about it. In response to MickMacNee, I'm not convinced that all prospective rail operators are automatically notable. Some of the suggestions put forward are laughable (although I'm not including this one in that category). And I don't see how a merge (no-one apart from the nominator has voted delete) would cause information to be duplicated across separate articles. --RFBailey (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there are three planned bidders. It makes perfect sense to 'park' the information about the planned service in a separate article until an operator is announced, in which time it can be merged into a new oprator article as a 'history' section. The fact is, there exists right now notable information about the reasons bahind this planned service, and details about the route and stock, completely independant of who might be bidding for it, or will actually get it. Far too many developments in the rail industry are documented as insignificant and poorly maintained sub-sections of existing article, often deleted when they do/don't come to fruition. It's about time wikipedia acknowledged that the railway comprises more than just company focussed articles. This is a notable planned service. MickMacNee (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you are incorrect on a number of points. Firstly, this service isn't being offered for companies to bid for. Three, or however many it is, companies each have developed their own different proposals to operate Harrogate - London services. I am not sure that there is any one company that will be granted permission to run their proposed services, I see nothing to prevent each from being granted permission although of course the service timings may be incompatible for this and need amending. This isn't a franchise that will be awarded. I don't know in what order the ORR applications were made but presumably one company put their application in first and then the other suddenly decided they'd like to run Harrogate - London services as well. Again, this isn't a proposed service in itself, each company is making completely distinct proposals which are only related by intention to run services between Harrogate and London. Adambro (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Who are the other two companies with Harrogate-London proposals? On the ORR website, I can only find this one. --RFBailey (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep seems notable enough. Although if a merge goes ahead, might as well also merge Humber Coast & City Railway into Hull Trains. Simply south (talk) 10:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

  Why is it notable enough? Are there multiple independent reliable sources as required by WP:NOTE? Whilst there seems to be a good number of sources referring to a Hull Trains proposals for these services there is little that refers directly to the subject of this article, "First Harrogate Trains", which supports the suggestion that this should at the current time be considered a side project of Hull Trains rather than anything more distinct. I think we should consider Humber Coast & City Railway separately as the situation might be different. Adambro (talk) 11:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Ignoring the application and that, i have found these things

1. here directy referring to it,
2. here showing it is part of a Hull Trains proposal
3. Company listing

Simply south (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for finding these. As above I've changed my position to "Keep" on the basis of the notability in accordance with WP:NOTE being established. I did have a look myself for more sources but wasn't successful. It is the article from The Press (thisisyork.co.uk) that really swing it for me, which interestingly appears to have been published today. The company listing doesn't have much weight in my opinion, I'm not able to look at the Railway Herald article at the moment. I would still maintain that some of the previous reasons given for keeping this are a bit questionable though such as that they have a website. Adambro (talk) 13:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is more notable than other prospective TOCs. Because this one is likely to happen. And because it has its own brand and website already!

As for HC and C, it is unlikely to happen as NXEC and EMT are going to run the services soon anyway. So it seems like the AFD is on the wrong article. Btline (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

For you to have a solid argument at AfD you need to base your position on our policies and guidelines, not your opinions as to the likelihood of proposals going ahead. You need to consider this when discussing articles. Having a website has no influence on the degree of notability of a subject with reference to our notability guidelines. The points you have made suggest you don't understand Wikipedia policy and so continuing to make assertions as to why this article is notable for various reasons is only likely to annoy other users who understand the irrelevance of some of your comments and ultimately therefore weaken your position. Your comments have done nothing to convince me of the notability of this subject, Simply south's comments which address the notability guidelines made all the difference in changing my opinion. Adambro (talk) 19:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep This is a tough one, but after checking some of the sources linked above (as well as a quick google search) it seems that the proposal is rather relevant from a business perspective; the article could certainly use some work and especially more references, but I don't think it meets any of the deletion criteria. CrazyChemGuy (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tweedy Bird Loc

Tweedy Bird Loc (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to be a non-notable musician per WP:MUSIC. Also listing the following related articles:

187 Ride By (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

No Holds Barred (Tweedy Bird Loc album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Fuck The South Bronx (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Stop Deleting My Stuff! —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Tommy (talk • contribs) 19:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• I can't actually do the deletion, I'm not an admin. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: passes several points in WP:MUSIC. Was a member, creator and producer of the group Bloods & Crips whose albums charted and were certified gold. Also was signed to a major label (Dangerous Records). Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 20:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I do think that the article Fuck The South Bronx should be deleted, it's a very short article that can't go any further than an infobox and track listing. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 20:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Just being a member of the Bloods & Crips doesn't make him notable; he has no notability outside the Bloods & Crips (at least none per WP:MUSIC). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
      • It was my understanding that being member of a notable music group, makes him notable as a solo artist. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 21:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. No evidence of notability, no suggestion that this artist has received non-trivial coverage by third party publications. Fails WP:MUSIC as well as the general biographical guidelines. End of story. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, all of them fail to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 23:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all because they fail to establish notability under WP:MUSIC and so forth. JBsupreme (talk) 08:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep he produced several charting albums and at least one of the albums he produced was certified Gold. Live and Die 4 Hip Hop (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • It is unclear exactly what his actual involvement with the Bloods & Crips album was, nor does what I can glean from the limited sources available about the album really qualify him under WP:MUSIC criteria. As mentioned previously, there aren't any sources available which document this person in a non-trivial way, which is the major underlying problem here. JBsupreme (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Stop trying To delete My Work! Its All Good! —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Tommy (talk • contribs) 18:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all' As they fail WP:MUSIC. Perhaps a more experienced user can counsel User:The Tommy some on notability criteria and article creation so that he may contribute constructively in future (he seems very keen). Perhaps he can even create new articles for the subjects in the future which follow the guidelines and policies. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - What is this world coming to? He's notable. Well he has created at least two albums per WP:MUSIC and he has also charted with some albums with Nationwide Rip Ridaz. I clearly understand why TPH has not received adminship after 5 tries. I'll make sure to watch his page more carefully so I oppose any more tries. --Flesh-n-Bone ^{(talk·contributions)} 12:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • This is not personal, so please do not make a personal attack against TPH for challenging the notability of these articles. Creating two albums is not a criteria in WP:MUSIC, there are thousands of non-notable artists who have released much more than two albums. Furthermore notability is not inherited, so just because he played some unclear role with another album does not make this individual notable either. In this case, notability is defined by what non-trivial coverage the person received by third party sources. The answer is none. JBsupreme (talk) 14:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I didn't attack anyone. I just wanted to clear my opinion and show what I think. And yeah he is notable, just because he is not a world-famous Indie artist doesn't make him another unknown no-name guy. 99% of the delete voters have no idea of hip hop music. I can assume you that, and next time don't quote me because it's the last time I respond to anyone's comment.--Flesh-n-Bone ^{(talk·contributions)} 14:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I have seen several recent references in Hip Hop Connection magazine which i can dig up (i believe they described him as something like "the coldest rapper of all time" which, even if you don't know rap much, you have to admit is a hell of a claim); here's his own Allmusic and also Bloods & Crips', the latter of which confirms he was actually one of onely two people behind the whole thing. Also. per Tasc0 above: yep, being member of a notable group does confer notability, as does the major label presence. tomasz. 16:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • May I ask what "major label presence" you are referring to? "Par Records" is hardly a major label. If you can dig up some non-trivial references in Hip Hop Connection or another magazine I would be willing to reconsider, but as of right now the article still has the same problems it had when it was first nominated for deletion. JBsupreme (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I just went through all of the delete voters and realized they are all rock-n-roll fans. It's just annoying how when they have no idea about the music still come and vote. What? I hope it's no competition. And don't respond please. --Flesh-n-Bone ^{(talk·contributions)} 19:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Indus Center for Academic Excellence

Indus Center for Academic Excellence (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

RS coverage doesn't establish notability and ghits are trivial. Despite WP:SCHOOLS saying high schools are notable, this isn't a school as much as a private extracurricular program. Disregard the article's current state, that could be fixed if there were materials from which to do so, it doesn't appear that there are. It also fails WP:ORG: Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found._{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 18:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: appears to fail WP:ORG and WP:V. CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to Lathrup Village, Michigan. There are enough mentions in the Detroit News and elsewhere to verify its existence but there are insufficient sources to develop a standalone article. A short mention in the locality article, as we do for all sorts of institutions that don't justify their own page, is the way to go. I would add that the target article is badly in need of some content on its facilities. TerriersFan (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Per a gsearch on "Indus Center for Academic Excellence"[13] -- the search given above was just of gnews alone-- there are multiple significant awards to students here. (e.g. [14]) The link to its site, not given in the incompetent article, is [15]. DGG (talk) 01:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment a student being one of 7 winners of the 2007 Sun Life Financial Canadian Open Mathematics Challenge doesn't seem to confer notability on the academic center. I'm not even entirely sure how significant that award is, but I haven't dug too deeply on that. I won a New York State award after going through a program at Nyack Library, that doesn't confer notability upon the library. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 02:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - this is an eternal debate on here. However, I think that it is entirely reasonable that when a student who has been educated in a subject at a school, then wins an award for distinction in that subject, that it should reflect well on the school. TerriersFan (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment reflect well on the school, absolutely. Let them put in their brochures that little mAry sue won an award after taking classes there and 'your kid can too'; but make the organization notable? I don't think so. Unless you're in the area you're not sending your kid there and it falls well under the scope of local organizations. That said, I don't disagree with your merge idea. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 00:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep – appears to be notable. This source establishes the school's mathematical pedigree (a student coming in the top ten of the 40th Canadian Mathematical Olympiad is quite notable) The real notability according to our standards (significant reliable coverage independent of the subject) is established by this article in The Detroit News. Regards, EJF (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Philip J. Kaplan

Philip J. Kaplan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Proposed delete, or merge to Fucked Company. I can not find any separate claim to WP:BIO standards in the history or on google. The page is vandalized often and the history looks like a battle between the subject and some people who used the Fucked Company message boards who do not like him. As the manager of products at a small internet-ad company subject is not notable per WP:BIO. Notoriety on a single small message board does not meet WP:BIO ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete or merge as nom. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 23:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect into Fucked Company, although I'm not confident of the company's notability either.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Yes, I am not either, but Fucked Company looks like it received some minor coverage in its day. I thought about adding a tag to that page but I am not confident one way or the other about the company's notability. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. The subject meets WP:BIO being notable not just for the creation of Fucked Company, but also the subsequent book which was published, F'd Companies, and the later creation of AdBrite. If this person were notable for just one event I might be able to support a merge, but that wouldn't make sense at all in this situation. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. It is a good point that those too have to be considered, but after reviewing WP:BIO and WP:NOT carefully, I do not think the subject's book or his involvement in founding a small ad company is notable. The AdBrite page can say it was founded by the subject, and the F'd company page can say that too. Neither association makes the subject himself notable per WP:BIO in my understanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antiselfpromotion (talk • contribs) 23:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Merge/Redirect to Fucked Company, which received some pretty significant press in its day. I don't think there's enough for an article on the man himself. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. There is ample notability about the subject as demonstrated above. He was also featured in the documentary film called BBS Documentary. [18] I'm not sure why the nominator is attempting to trivialize the achievements of this individual but I find it borderline inappropriate. RFerreira (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Please assume good faith. That documentary interviewed 75 mostly non-notable people and was already a link on the subject's page. I am not attempting to trivialize anyone's achievements. Notability is not about achievement. I nominated for AfD because the subject is not notable per our guidelines. I have nothing against the subject and am in favor of a merge. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Your user name is "Antiselfpromotion", I'm not sure how much good faith you're expecting here. Furthermore, to call AdBrite a "small ad company" when it is the sixth largest ad server in the world is most certainly trivializing, and inappropriately so. RFerreira (talk) 17:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per coccyx bloccyx. bbx (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Luan Bexheti

Luan Bexheti (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable actor(?), doesn't meet WP:ENTERTAINER notability standard. Nadda in Google News. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Based on info provided, there's no indication of notability. Ged UK (talk) 19:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. He has been interviewed on the Albanian-language service of Voice of America. I added an IMDb page on his as an external link. See also the article about his documentary at Një dokumentar për aktorët shqiptarë në Amerikë --Eastmain (talk) 23:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• It looks like you understand Albanian. I don't. Is the link that you provided about a documentary that he was involved with or is it about him. Basically, has he satisfied the "significant coverage" requirement of WP:BIO?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I'll be lovin u long time(Mariah Carey song)

I'll be lovin u long time(Mariah Carey song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Poorly-named duplicate of I'll Be Lovin' U Long Time that's an unlikely search term (otherwise, I would just have made it into a redirect). I tried to make it a speedy but couldn't find any criteria that fit.... SKS2K6 (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per nom notwithstanding lack of criteria. Common sense dictates.....--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge Contents aren't duplicated. Merge relevant details and create redirect at I'll be lovin u long time. Add "(Mariah Carey song)" to the title of the other page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasynnash2 (talk • contribs)
• Delete Actually they are. They are both articles for I'll Be Lovin' U Long Time, a Mariah Carey song. The article at I'll Be Lovin' U Long Time was there before this one was created. As there is no other songs under this title, there is no need for this one here, as "I'll Be Lovin' U Long Time" is a more plausible search term then "I'll be lovin u long time(Mariah Carey song)" Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment No, actually they aren't. Maybe I'm being harsh but, duplicated means the content would be the same. It isn't. It is however, an article about a subject that is already covered. Both articles have good elements which combined make a better article than either one currently does on its own. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Redundant article, unlikely search term. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity which bit is thought to be an unlikely search term. I think not capitalising things or using the ' correctly are likely to be common errors if searching for information about this song. I grant you most people won't include "(Mariah Carey song)" in the search but, I thought this was pretty standard as part of the article naming conventions. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

People won't search it with the parentesees, that's why its an unliky search term. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I sometimes search with parentheses, especially if it's for a band or a song name that I expect will take me to a redirect page. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 18:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

True, but the vast majority of searchers would not. And besides, this title isn't exactly a common one. And it's not capitalized correctly. Nor is there a space before the first bracket.  :P SKS2K6 (talk) 19:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Contributors to this debate seem to be underestimating how very very very cheap redirects are. I'd have a redirect just for the handful of people who may have watchlisted the article we're discussing. AndyJones (talk) 12:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

A line has to be drawn somewhere. Every single article can have tens, if not a hundred, different possible search terms. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as redundant.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 23:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect per WP:BOLD. It could be deleted as a search for this namespace is unlikely; speedy close. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Leonid Savin

Leonid Savin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Still) not noticable Eiland (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per CSD G4, recreated material previously deleted after afd discussion. There's no information about activity since the last afd. No reason to have an annual afd discussion. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• abstain. I can't guage his notability in Ukraine. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete If it is in fact a duplicate of deleted material (not an admin so no way for me to compare). Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: It's been G4 tagged. WilliamH (talk) 16:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I was going to mention that it had already been tagged but, I didn't really look at who tagged it or knew of a way to verify whether it had actually been done by someone that had both copies for comparison purposes. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy declined, it was not the same article. This one is improved, with references. No comment yet on notability. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 17:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

How true! Savin has gone on the run from the Ukraine, sneaking back into to desecrate a monument to the Ukrainian nation on Mt Hoverla. (The incident had already been added to that page). This was big news in the Ukraine, even if certain environmentalists are embarrassed about how easily he infiltrated their organisations. It is a shame that rather than learning from their experience, they go into denial - even to the extent of trying to have the interesting page about him deleted.Harrypotter (talk) 00:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - Thanks for the heads up on this. Aside from my own ideas about how important it is for us to be aware of the developemnts and leadership of nationalist and racist movements - his latest actions as leader of the Eurasian Youth Movement have generated a variety of secondary source material which is independent of each other and Savin, eg
• http://www.fsumonitor.com/stories/102607BM.shtml
• http://action-ukraine-report.blogspot.com/2007/10/aur884-oct-28-memory-is-fate-of-proud.html
• http://www.khpg.org.ua/en/index.php?id=1193162601

which is notability according to Wikipedia's guidelines on notability of people. Paki.tv (talk) 07:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete His notablity is marginal at best. He is not the leader of the movement and only is one of the members. He was charged with public mischief for vandalism along with 2 other accomplices and is not being singled out as someone special. My fear is that this undue attention to petty criminal makes him out to be more important than he really is. His achievements are next to non-existant: a cleaner and a journalist. He is not featured prominently even in Ukraine, where he is charged with mischief for vandalism. The improvement over the last deleted version is very insignificant and does not change his notability per WP guidelines.--Hillock65 (talk) 12:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

He is a leader according to their own website, which is linked on the page, where it says quite clearly under a picture of him : Начальник Сумской Сетевой Ставки ЕСМ Леонид Савин Paki.tv (talk) 14:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It says he is the leader of regional Sumy chapter of a very marginal organization in Ukraine. One of many chapters. Why all of a sudden he is more prominent than, say Crimea or Kharkiv chapter leaders or the other two accomlices in the vandalism case? Are we planning to write articles on them as well? At least that will prove why an absolutely insignificant person is being elevated to someone deserving mentioning in an encyclopedia. --Hillock65 (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing his leadership makes him notable - it is you that are claiming that he is just a rank and file member rather than someone in a position of authority with in the organisation - what i am arguing is that his position combined with a variety of secondary independent sources on his activities are what make him notable - as per wikipedia guidelines. Paki.tv (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• delete he's just a petty vandal. Per WP:NOTE. Ostap 15:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. —brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete petty vandal who has been charged with public mischief, as have countless other people who also fail to meet WP:BIO standards. JBsupreme (talk) 08:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I'm So Hood

I'm So Hood (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested redirect. Song is non-notable and should redirect, per WP:MUSIC#SONGS. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable AlbinoFerret (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Notable. - House of Scandal (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Please explain what portion of the notability guidelines you are applying to say this. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. No it's not, it didn't chart and it's not the subject of any reliable sources. If it gets redirected, others will keep on undoing the redirect. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect and lock to the article on the album. Plausible search term, and any reliably sourced information can easily be included in the album's article until the time where there is such quality and quantity to justify splitting out again. -- saberwyn 21:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, redirect to We the Best I'm unsure on this one, because the vid was in MTV heavy rotation for awhile last year, but I didn't also hear it on the radio alot and can't find chart information, and usually MTV's rotation decisions are suspicious or wacky at best. Nate • (chatter) 23:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete WP:MUSIC, WP:RS.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 23:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Midnight Cabaret

Midnight Cabaret (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable theatrical group, run by students at a college. The whole article reads like an advert. Users User:Doctorniatpac and User:Divinebovine have both reverted edits made by myself and User:WilliamH. WilliamH originally added the prod tag to the page, before it was removed. I've discussed this article on William's talkpage in terms of the way forward. I originally created the article as a redirect to the film The Midnight Cabaret. I ask that if the result of this AfD is delete, that the closing admin restores the redirect. Lugnuts (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy close. This is a legitimate redirect to The Midnight Cabaret, and not a matter for deletion. If User:Divinebovine restores the theatre group info again, he will most likely be blocked for a WP:3RR violation. WilliamH (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Question Why has this been closed? I don't see any resolution. I do, however, see that the article is, right now, one about the theatre group again. The argument that this problem is covered by 3RR is wrong since clearly it's possible to edit-war without breaching 3RR. Can I propose that we simply re-open this discussion? AndyJones (talk) 12:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • ...And just to clarify, we don't need to worry that a delete consensus here would prevent the article being a redirect (even a protected redirect) to another legitimate topic. That isn't a problem. AndyJones (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rjd0060 (talk) 14:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Why was this relisted after only two days? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Answer it was closed then re-opened at my request. See here. AndyJones (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable theater group. Single reference is to a blog from the same school that the theater group is from. AlbinoFerret (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Trim and Merge/Redirect into Sarah Lawrence College.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete If this must come to deletion then I have no problem with it running its course. I think the redirect to The Midnight Cabaret is much more warranted than that which pertains to a non notable theatre group though. WilliamH (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Socs generally aren't notable. Much better sources would be needed to keep this. AndyJones (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete content and restore redirect - non notable theatre group. Lugnuts (talk) 07:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Note that Lugnuts is also the nom. AndyJones (talk) 07:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Good point, well made! That dastardly Lugnuts trying to vote more than once! Just ensuring that the redirect is kept, or if this org is notable, that it becomes a disambig page and the content is moved to Midnight Cabaret (theatre group), or something along those lines. Lugnuts (talk) 11:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to the article on Sarah Lawrence, as per the previous editor's comments. But the article needs a good trimming. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with the nom that The Midnight Cabaret is a better redirect target than Sarah Lawrence College. AndyJones (talk) 07:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chairman or Chief

Chairman or Chief (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable and original research. Not substantively edited since its creation on 2 October 2005. Scolaire (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Scolaire (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Appears to be based on a notable 1971 book, Chairman or Chief: The Role of the Taoiseach in Irish Government, but the OR has to go. Suggest moving the article to the book title minus the OR. Viriditas (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - A notable academic Brian Farrell has written and published a book on this topic, so why is User:Jtdirl being accused of original research?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Snappy56 (talk • contribs)

  Maybe because he, not Farrell, wrote the article, and it's not sourced from Farrell or anyone else? Scolaire (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect The book is the only source for the article. Suggests either OR or copyvio (though I'd guess unintentional). Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. Nearly all of the people mentioned, including two Irish Taoisigh, post-date the book's publication. WillOakland (talk) 21:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - the book may be notable, but no evidence that the term is in any wide use. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DarkGDK.Net

DarkGDK.Net (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Currently a copy of DarkBASIC »xytram« talk 13:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete or Redirect to DarkBASIC and leave it. --Triwbe (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• csd, it's now turned into an advert or soapbox and is self confessed un-notable. --Triwbe (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Add WP:NOTMANUAL it is now turning in to a HOWTO guide. --Triwbe (talk) 18:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with the proposed redirect. Marasmusine (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment As of this moment I'd say Speedy Delete (content, context, spam). Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - No Reliable sources for Verification of Notability, otherwise it's Original research ... Happy Editing! — 151.200.237.53 (talk · contribs) _{19:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)}

[edit] Proper Interval Locality

Proper Interval Locality (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Entirely unreferenced OR apparently by the author of a website of the same name, so the article may also be falling foul of WP:COI SpinningSpark 13:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, provisionally. A quite long, unreferenced article claiming to have solved some of the basic problems of physics. I cheerfully admit that I lack the qualifications to address the merits of the hypothesis, but it certainly seems like original research, and if this hypothesis has any degree of currency, sources should be added fairly easily also. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination, this is a duplicate of another website placed there by its author. The article has no references and no notability. AlbinoFerret (talk) 16:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails basic notability guidelines. Scientific hypotheses should be peer-reviewed or have significant media exposure to be considered notable. I see no evidence of either. As it stands now, this is pure original research. Nufy8 (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image conversion

Image conversion (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This was PRODded as a "non-notable phenomenon", but since image conversion happens all the time, I'm not so sure. Consider this a "25% delete, 75% merge to some topic somewhere" !vote. I'm a little bit confused - would this topic be too self-explanatory to be needed at all? And if not so, is it merge-worthy to some more informative article, or should it stay until we have something substantial on document conversion in general, or what? I'm sorry I can't make a too coherent argument for or against... and moreso, I'm even more confused because I myself instructed the article creator to work on "general" topics before tackling ReaSoft Image Converter, so I may have dug this hole myself and I don't know, in my current mental state, how to handle this. So I honestly think something should be done, but I'd definitely want to hear what the community has to say. wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment As is, it's verging on WP:NOT#MANUAL. We don't do how-tos, per se, here. On the other hand a general discussion of this topic could cover several aspects such as histograms and lossless vs. lossy formats. Some of that is probably in other articles, though, so I'm not sure what the holes are here. --Dhartung | Talk 13:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, at least provisionally, and move to something like image conversion software, because it seems to be exclusively concerned with electronically stored images. My unscientific impression is that this sort of software is encountered fairly frequently. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, it's a howto as it stands. WillOakland (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Right now it's a howto, but I think it could be rewritten as an encyclopedic article with the same title. Jkasd 05:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral As stated above, in it's current form it is a how to. Rewrite it to something more encyclopedia like and I think it would be good. Tabor (talk) 02:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Heather Dylan

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

None of the references provided are valid. A google search only brings up headlines with no stories, links to nowhere and forum discussions. There is nothing to support the claims. Daffidd (talk) 13:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - none of the content is verifiable and because this article's subject is based on a non-notable living person (their only claim to fame is being the grand-daughter of Bob Dylan but notablity isn't transferred through relationships), much of the content seems to be an elaborate hoax and would make it in violation of WP:BLP. AngelOfSadness talk 13:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I had also forgot to mention in my comment above that this particular article has been created and deleted twice in the last two or so days and that if the outcome of this discussion means that the article is deleted, I request that this article be salted also. AngelOfSadness talk 19:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No reliable sources, no verifiable info, no notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per the above Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. No reliable sources. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, convinced revising is worth a shot.~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I wonder by whom and by what evidence you were convinced? Ohconfucius (talk) 12:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep-I have stated mulitple times, I have not gathered these references, however I am in the proccess of piling some reliables ones together. This task, however can not be done overnight, as I have a life outside of the computer world. Please give time for this article to be proved accurate. I will rewrite sections that are not valid. Jjonjonjon (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep This person does exist in human form. There is a slight problem with the way references were collected and the way the article was written. I suggest narrowing the sections until more can be confirmed. BasketcaseID (talk) 18:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: Although she is not "Paris Hilton Famous" (which may explain not many news stories to be found through google.com), she is a person whom deserves at least one or two sections of her life. Like others stated above, she does exist. In my opinion, some categories on her page should be cut down until they can be varified, later on possibly.Loconut5 (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Bad sources, indeed. Article just needs re-writting to fit standards. That seems to be undergoing right now.Sandyche3kzl0l (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC) — Sandyche3kzl0l (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep It just needs some work (ok, a lot of work).Joojoobee39 (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC) — Joojoobee39 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep:I understand this wikipedia article is currently being heavily reconstructed. I agree references are bad, I'm not sure who wrote the article either.Kerrylionberry (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep for sure I've teamed with other users and our mission is to transform this article into a page that can be trusted. This article was poorly written in the first place. It can be a good article with some effort!Moomooocow8 (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC) — Moomooocow8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep! References are extremely bad, rest asure it's being taken care of.Kellykettles (talk) 19:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC) — Kellykettles (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Has potential-Once you look past the mud and dirt that is encrusted onto this 'car', you can see a shiny new car everyone wants to have. Haha, so I suck at metaphors. I'm my heart I believe in this article. I've watched it for sometime now, and have seen it at it's best and at it's worst. It's been vandalized more times than a new york city subway stop. I'm presently looking into this and making appropriate changes, as per wikipedia guidlines.Maryslambchopdinner (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC) — Maryslambchopdinner (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete No reliable sources, no verifiable info, no notability. Heather Mae Lahey may exist, but the claim that she is Jakob Dylan's adopted daughter cannot be substantiated, nor can the rest of the information about her. Most of the references are invalid, and the others are directed to pages that can be edited by anyone, where so-called "facts" can be planted. Separatehorns (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• DELETE. The sockpuppet infiltration in this thread is beyond ridiculous. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 23:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I agree. And it is inappropriate. However, by the substance of the arguments I am okay with giving them a chance to revise. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep This article in current state is not up to code. However it needs cleanup and can be improved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kittenzrctexox5 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to say-Maybe if anything, it could find it's place at wikipedia, perhaps as a stub.Kittenzrctexox5 (talk) 00:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - I can't see a solidly sourced article on a living person in here. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable and lacking in reliable sources. I'm not even convinced that the subject of this article exists, or that any sentence in this article is completely true. I note that the supporters of this article have been trying to edit the article by deleting the more poorly sourced statements, but if they keep that up, the article will be completely empty soon. (For example, the citation to a Rolling Stone issue refers to a cover date for which the magazine did not actually publish an issue.) On a separate note, I am concerned that there may be a situation in which the same person has submitted more than one "keep" recommendation in this discussion using different usernames. If that has happened, it would be a gesture of good faith for such a person to strike out any of their duplicative recommendations, because submitting multiple recommendations in the same discussion under different names is a violation of policy. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - My beef with this article is that they have not proven to me that Jakob Dylan adopted a daughter. Fixing up the article, etc is immaterial if they cannot prove this. Each day I read the official Bob Dylan and Jakob Dylan websites, and search for any article or interview I can find. There has never even been a hint of such an adoption taking place (let alone a musical collaboration). This is clearly a hoax in my opinion. Daffidd (talk) 01:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

comment- I feel sorry if you think he needs to broadcast his personal life to the world, and his adoption much like the jolie-pitts or madonna. As a true fan, you should know the entire family is very top secret. So naturally there isnt going to be a plethora of sources.( i'm sorry if that remark was out of line. It needed to be said). In my opinion, this article would fit best as a stub. Really short and to the point.And I know I've already posted on here. Jjonjonjon (talk) 01:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I think you are missing the point if you think that Daffidd expects Jakob Dylan to broadcast his personal life to the world. You say that the family is "very top secret", but you created an article about someone who you describe as Jakob's adopted daughter, even though she has never been in the public eye. So even if this article were verifiably true, the article might still warrant deletion to respect the privacy of the subject and her family. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment- ok I understand the reason why it might be deleted due to privacy concerns. But I can't take someone sitting here telling me she isn't real when she has been on Bob Dylan's radio talk show numerous times. So, if it may be deleted, let it be because of privacy. I didn't "create" the article though. I reestablished it once. that's all. I did not make it in the beginning.And I still vote that it works best as a stub article, with little information. That is more private. I thought I was doing a good thing by defending a person who deserves credit for things she has done. Sorry, don't bite my head off. Jjonjonjon (talk) 02:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - This appears to be a geneological entry for a budding or would-be starlet. I feel that the subject fails WP:BIO, having no achievements of her own. It also fails WP:NOT, which states "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. Wikipedia articles are not... [2] Genealogical entries or phonebook entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety." Having potential is not a valid 'keep' argument, as it fails WP:CRYSTAL. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment She has been on Instant Star and has written songs for them. How isn't that an achievement? Jjonjonjon (talk) 02:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment D'you mean this? None of the information can be verified. We should put an end to this charade by having it deleted (again for the third time) as a hoax, and have it salted while we're at it. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

CommentWhat is that? That is not an official site for instant star wake up!. YOU ALL CAN GO SUCK ON SOME ASS WIPES!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjonjonjon (talk • contribs) 03:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment You need to get improving those references, then. I clicked on the citation for that assertion, and that was the site I found. Please don't tell me to wake up when you are the one who's asloop. ;-) But then, as this appears more and more like a hoax, even you wouldn't be able to manufacture the citations to satisfy the AfD. You would be well advised to desist with the personal attacks. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

COMMENT: Jjonjonjon warned for the comment above and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jjonjonjon filed. Iagree with letting this play out to be sorted once and for all. Suggest it then be salted. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete! I know I have already spoken about this topic, but I have changed my mind. Heather Dylan just does not have enough references that are accredited. This article is in violation of the various terms of conditions like others have stated above. I believe, she also is a possible future starlet, but in the present, a page for her is not necessary.Wikipedia does not act as a family tree, and until she does something newsworthy she should not have an entry on wikipedia. I have tried improving this article, but seeing how the Dylan's are a family very concerned with privacy and safety, my search hasn't brought up many sources. I also second the fact that since they are so low key, they might not appreciate an article written about one of their children( which , also may explain why they haven't told the public they've adopted[to the poster above]) I am now in favor of deletion of this page. (I must apologize for changing my opinion the wrong way, for some reason my previous post didn't show up when I clicked edit, so I started a new one at the bottom). Thanks for reading what I think!Kerrylionberry (talk) 04:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete None of the references given support the facts they are linked to - except TV.com which is editable by anybody. -Hunting dog (talk) 07:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• COMMENT: In reference to Jjonjonjon's claim that Heather Dylan has appeared on Bob Dylan's radio show several times. I've listened to each one of them. Many of them more than once. No one by the name of Heather Dylan has appeared on this show, nor has mention been made of her. If you have the title or date the show was aired, I'd be happy to check again. Once again, I maintain this to be a hoax.

Daffidd (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Per nom. --Ave Caesar (talk) 04:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eternal Wars

Eternal Wars (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability (WP:N), no references independent or otherwise (WP:V). Web search shows the usual bevy of directory entries and forum discussion; nothing to satisfy notability guidelines. As a browser-based game it may qualify for speedy A7, but I wanted to give it a chance here. Marasmusine (talk) 12:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Marasmusine (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete A search turns up no reliable sources to demonstrate notability, just the myriad listing sites and forum posts. Someoneanother 23:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Old Jabo"

Old Jabo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Editor removed prod tag with "unreliable proponent" - odd, since three people had prod-2'd it. Anyway, here we are at an AfD, then. Non-notable song, unsourced, appears to be original research. Tan | 39 15:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and WP:OR. Qworty (talk) 04:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep provisionally. Lots of hits on google, and downloads, which I think is pretty significant for a song over 50 years old. It is important that wikipedia does not suffer from recentism. Does need references, which should be available from books discussing the era. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand the Google hits. I never would nominate something like this without doing at least a moderate amount of research first. I should be more specific above - by "non-notable", I meant that I didn't find that it met the applicable part of WP:MUSIC: "Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." If this song can be shown to meet the above criteria, of course this AfD should be closed as a speedy keep. Tan | 39 06:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

True that. We just need someone with a book or something. I'll alert WP:Music Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Merge to Sonny Terry. I agree with Cas, this is a case of recentism/not on web. This song is part of the classic folk blues repertoire, but I'm unable to come up with much via Google. If I really wanted to dig, I suspect that I could get this song to meet WP:MUSIC via the "covered by other notable artists" criterion, but frankly that wouldn't give us any material to expand the article. I fully expect that in books about McGhee/Terry or the period in general that there is more information, and I hope that someone with more knowledge provides it. Even in the absence of new material, however, this is appropriate for a merge/redirect. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge or Redirect probably not notable enough on its own but, plenty of stuff shows it in relation to the two songwriters and the line about Sonny playing the harmonica doesn't work for "performed by multiple artists" so would need to be removed. If it stays it needs references and some assertion of the songs notability away from the artist in the article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I have added a reference (which forced me to learn how to cite liner notes!) to a rather definitive source in demonstrating the song's cultural significance. It really needs more substance, and additional sources. Jim Miller (talk) 03:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to Sonny Terry or other related articles. Lack of notability and it's OR. Not sufficient for article. Enigma ^message 04:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to singer. Reywas92^Talk 22:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Casliber and Jim Miller. — Athaenara ✉ 23:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chianti (Case Closed)

Chianti (Case Closed) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

As an editor in the Case Closed series, I don't consider this character having any off-universe notability in the foreseeable future. A short summary of this character already exists at List of Case Closed characters. Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 20:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I also nominate two similar articles for deletion due to the same reason:

Korn (Case Closed) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Tequila (Case Closed) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 20:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Merge to List of Case Closed characters per the growing concensus that lists are the best way to handle individually non-notable members of a notable set. Not to mention per the recommendation of WP:FICT. (Yeah, most of the info is already there -- it still should be a merge instead of outright delete.) —Quasirandom (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• I understand it's probably a merger, but since there would be information loss (I plan not to add anything to the list), it'd be prudent to raise an AfD.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 19:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Merge per Quasirandom. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge into List of Case Closed characters, or delete. If the nom thinks the characters will be removed from the list anyway for WP:UNDUE, then they can also be deleted at AfD. Insufficient notability for their own articles is pretty much established already. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cian Hughton

Cian Hughton (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Fails WP:BIO Athlete. Hasn't played a professional game. Govvy (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO#Athlete failure. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 16:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Redirected - was it really necessary to put this up for AfD when it was 99% likely going to be deleted anyway? ugen64 (talk) 03:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Reply I changed it back, doesn't need to be redirected. I wasn't allowed to {{db}} so AfD was the next step. Govvy (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• AfD should always be the last resort to any article you deem is unencyclopedic - if you can do anything else of use (such as edit the article to make it encyclopedic, mark it as a CSD, mark it as a prod, mark it as a transwiki, etc.) then you should always do that first. In this case, the guy's dad is clearly notable, so instead of taking this article, which very obviously fails WP:ATHLETE, through the AfD process, it would have been easier for you to just redirect it. ugen64 (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. BanRay 17:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] First basketball league

First basketball league (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article's content is duplicated at Nba#History in a much better fashion and the two leagues mentioned also have their own articles. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 04:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete NN, most of the information already in the basketball article. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 13:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete The subject of the 1898 professional league would be worthy of an article, and the NBBL is described in Neft and Cohen's Encyclopedia of Pro Basketball (and no article seems to have been made). This one has a title that nobody would search for, and virtually no information, and so I don't see any reason to keep it. No prejudice to recreating an article entitled "National Basketball League (1898)". Mandsford (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hot100Brasil

Hot100Brasil (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

These charts show up on countless album and song pages, yet it is completely unofficial and is created by some anonymous person. The article is unreferenced and does not assert notability as far as I can see. Article itself states, "It is important to know that it is an amateur site, unofficial and according to most chart experts, not realistic at all. The charts are compiled and published weekly by an unknown amateur." Huh? How would this be more notable than any other music fan's personal chart thrown onto a website? Thoughts/opinions? - eo (talk) 02:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Also nominating

List of year-end number-one hits (Brazil) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of number-one hits of 2001 (Brazil) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of number-one hits of 2002 (Brazil) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of number-one hits of 2003 (Brazil) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of number-one hits of 2004 (Brazil) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of number-one hits of 2005 (Brazil) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of number-one hits of 2007 (Brazil) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of number-one hits of 2008 (Brazil) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Delete delete as spam. We are not their database. If they want to store their data, they should pay a server. Billboard charts are way more important, and don't store their data in here. Also, no independent second sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tosqueira (talk • contribs) 00:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, clear spam and using wikipedia as their website --Nice poa (talk) 04:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Clearly someone using Wikipedia as their free web server. Not notable, and admits to not being official Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Blatant spam for a non-notablec chart published by an indie source. And can someone please help remove all the chart positions from the song pages? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment : The Hot100Brasil page was created by InternationalHit2. The version as of March 3, 2007 said : "The official Brazilian music charts are currently compiled by Hot100Brasil on behalf of the Brazilian record industry and are published weekly." Apparently, the page has been vandalized several times by anonymous users who absolutely wanted to say that this chart was not official and not realistic. Who is right ? Europe22 (talk) 00:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• The pt-version started 12 days later, at March 15, 2007: Same text (obviously a translation)...--Gunnex (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete lists of this type have been repeatedly deleted for violating WP:NOT and WP:COPY. True or not, these should all go. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Judith Blake

Judith Blake (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per Wikipedia:POLITICIAN. Contested prod. Gamaliel (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable politician - compare to deletion after AfD for Elizabeth Shenton, also current councillor and previous parliamentary candidate, though in high-profile byelection. PamD (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:POLITICIAN as former Deputy Leader of Leeds City Council [19] As well as meeting the notability guideline for this subject, the article also satisfies our core policies through the use of reliable sources. Catchpole (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. She doesn't actually pass WP:POLITICIAN, which would require sginificant press coverage, namely "A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists". Apart from that, being a former deputy leader of a City Council doesn't confer notability in itself. On that basis, any postholder in a City Council ruling group (and that's a lot of councillors) would be notable. This is the reason why even mayors of provincial UK authorities aren't inherently notable. Black Kite 17:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Black Kite and WP:POLITICIAN. Qworty (talk) 04:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge. As the creator of this article, it was originally put in place to link to and from Leeds North West. However, on review of the notability guidelines, the bio should be in a list of Labour party candidates, per WP:AFDP. I don't think such a page is yet in existence though. LNWWatcher (talk) 09:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Even ordinary members of major city councils have been held notable, at least for those in the US. At 750,000 population, Leeds is probably sufficiently large for the purpose, though we have no agreed cut off, many of the ones kept have been considerably smaller. DGG (talk) 01:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Luke Tryl

Luke_Tryl (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

This person does not (yet) deserve an encyclopedic entry. The only noteworthy thing he has done is described in the Oxford Union article already. Being a president of a student society is not very interesting per se. Delete this article. Especially the stupid bit about coming 10th in the country in A-level politics, I mean, who cares? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeBofSportif (talk • contribs) 2008/06/03 11:50:08

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why he'd deserve a page - he was President of a student society which has 3 Presidents a year and the only notable thing he did is extensively covered in the article on the Oxford Union. If a page was to be made for every President of the Oxford Union after they left office then we'd end up with a very unencyclopaedic list very quickly. Delete. 129.67.10.100 (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep He seems to be notable for his connection to the controversy. The above seem a bit like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If the controversy falls within the "One Event" stuff though he probably doesn't meet the notability criteria. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. Seems a one-off controversy. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete - BLP1E, just. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable yet. If we had a page for anyone who was at the centre of a minor controversy/short-lived news story, then we'd be creating reams and reams of new pages every week. The Griffin/Irving thing is covered in the Ox Union article anyway. Timmah48 (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Obamania

Obamania (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

Delete. Non-notable neologism. --Mass147 (talk) 08:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. The use of terms like "Obamania" and "Obamamania" are unquestionably notable, but in the end they are all just cute neologisms to refer to the furore surrounding his campaign. A redirect is more than sufficient. Arkyan 19:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect per Arkyan. I agree that a redirect is adequate. WilliamH (talk) 00:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The article obviously needs a lot of work, but it easily meets any notability requirements. Redirecting to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008, while a noble suggestion, has some practical problems. My guess would be that any attempt to incorporate the term "Obamania" in the text of that article would be immediately deleted by editors. Also, I don't feel that "Obamania" directly translates to Obama's 2008 presidential campaign, as one could argue that it occurred before, during, and possibly after the campaign ends. It seems to me to refer more directly to Obama than to the 2008 presidential race itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.231.129 (talk) 03:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. --Npnunda (talk) 01:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per above.Biophys (talk) 00:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Victor Bryan

Victor Bryan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This person has not been in any movies released to the public as of yet. Mblumber (talk) 02:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable "autobiography" article? with no real assertion of notability or verifiability Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete if myspace/youtube don't work, please don't try Wikipedia Ohconfucius (talk) 03:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Agreed. The page seems to assert the subject's own non-notability. And it reads like an autobiography. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 04:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete This article was created by User Vbryan. Sounds like a close match to the author of this article. But there is no notability from independent verifiable sources. Artene50 (talk) 07:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable autobiography. Edward321 (talk) 23:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails criteria for notablility at WP:ENTERTAINER. —97198 talk 13:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jeroen van den Broeck

Jeroen van den Broeck (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions.
• For info the nominator was User:Yatesy1988 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 13:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. --Jimbo^[online] 18:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arturs Vaiculis

Arturs Vaiculis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yatesy1988 (talk • contribs) 11:48, 4 June 2008

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions.
• For info the nominator was User:Yatesy1988 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 13:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. --Jimbo^[online] 18:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails the above guidelines. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 23:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Gallacher

Scott Gallacher (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions.
• For info the nominator was User:Yatesy1988 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 13:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. --Jimbo^[online] 18:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Elizabeth Wiatt

Elizabeth Wiatt (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Blatant conflict of interest advertising. Also included in this nomination, her friend and Fashionology LA partner Jamie Tisch

This is a biography of a living person most likely created by her or an employee (possibly a PR firm) for publicity purposes. The charity activities are wholly ordinary for the wife of an entertainment industry executive in Los Angeles as are blurbs in the local glossy press. While the article makes some modest assertions about jobs she once had in the publishing industry, past employment at mass market magazines is not in itself notable or encyclopedic. The article is wholly unsourced and after skiving off the not-sourced and the un-notable, there is nothing left but blatant advertising linked with this thrice speedily deleted and now salted attempt to promote her new fashion/clothing store on Wikipedia with this nifty slogan as the article's content: n. Where it's cool to be u. Glamorous fun :)! Express yourself. 4 real. Fabulous. Fashion Freedom. You! Gwen Gale (talk) 11:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per the above same for the partner Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep as I've said in multiple places now, here for one. I don't think a rush to delete is necessarily warranted. Elizabeth wiatt is salted because Rdeluca doesn't or doesn't want to understand that it was moved to the proper spelling. That said, Wiatt and Tisch and their work in fashion have been covered in reliable sources. I don't think poor current quality of the articles is a reason to delete them right now as there are no BLP issues and there's material from which to write a proper article. Even the brand is starting to get some coverage and will likely be notable once it launches. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 14:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I don't think those links show them as noted for "their work in fashion" at all. I see passing mentions about LA society wives and a publicity plant or two about a retail store in Beverly Hills. One even calls them "Hollywood wives." I have yet to see anything approaching the wide coverage mentioned in WP:N. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I could be wrong, that's why I said weak. Lord knows I spent enough time trying to track down the source of the current articles because they're copyvios of something, it just happens not to be online or Google hasn't found it. The summary for this said she co-hosted a fashion show, founding member of NRDC Action Forum (no idea what it is, couple others mention her in that context as well). For Tisch: a previous small store, another calls Tisch a boutique owner. Neither is strong and they may well not be notable, but there's some RS coverage of their actions apart from society functions. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 15:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Unless it can be shown that FashionologyLA is actually a notable company, I don't see that she has any other claim to notability. The overall nature of the present article is not at all reassuring. Not that we delete for badly written corporate COI, but it doesnt help. DGG (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep due to my efforts at clean up. Please note the current version. See also here. As both articles were created but days ago, Wikipedia:Give an article a chance and given that in relatively short time I was able to make at least some improvement, please also consider Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

the effectual added content that might possibly matter are 2 articles in Variety. FWIW, The Luxist ref. is the only one about Fashionology, saying May 14, 2008, that, "This summer in Beverly Hills, two Hollywood wives, Elizabeth Wiatt and Jamie Tisch are launching Fashionology LA, " so the company at least is not yet notable.DGG (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not the company is notable, it seems that she is at least somewhat notable herself. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you at least do some more cleanup? It's still quite weak, reeks of the society columns, and remains pathetically in need of wikification. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lacine Cherif

Lacine Cherif (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions.
• For info the nominator was User:Yatesy1988 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 13:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. --Jimbo^[online] 18:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] North America Challenge

North America Challenge (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable events, the article was created from information I removed from the article Laser Quest. After some contemplation and looking at what I could find the event doesnt appear(google news search) to warrant separate detailed article. Gnangarra 11:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

North America Challenge 2007 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

North America Challenge 2006 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I have also placed a notice at Talk:Laser Quest#AFD notice as the content was originally removed from Laser Quest Gnangarra 11:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy DeleteMerge as the nom is also the author. Put any relevant information that the Laser Quest requires back and lose the rest. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

While the speedy criteria can be applied, as an admin I could just delete the articles. I cant claim it as being information I authored or sole editor of the article, its info I had just removed from the article, and think that editors who have acted in good faith in adding the info to Laser Quest should have the opportunity to respond. Gnangarra 12:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Can't you put the information back in Laser Quest then? Surely, this is about deleting the article you created, otherwise isn't it just a case of merging back into the original article and discussing on the Laser Quest talkpage? Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The article I created is only one of the nominated articles. Gnangarra 14:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I misunderstood then. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If verifiability is a problem, this may help. --CptNimrod (talk) 04:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

that verifies but its a primary source, as such it doesnt assert notability which requires significant coverage in independent sources. Gnangarra 00:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David A. Wheeler

David A. Wheeler (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable biography. David is an editor in good standing and has been with the project for years; in addition, he's contributed some essays and tools which Wikipedians are prone to come into contact with. As a user page the content is fine. As an article, however, it's demonstrative of WP's systemic biases towards free software and Wikipedia personalities, as were these not factors the notable sources (primarily an essay well known in the Linux community seven years ago) would not be enough to warrant a biography. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: fails WP:N, self published sources don't provide any evidence of notability. Aujourd'hui, maman est morte (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Sunpilots

[edit] Bobbie Nice

Bobbie Nice (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seemingly non-notable softball player. Google search for "Bobbie Nice" + softball yields only one non-Wikipedia mention, which is a list of Senior Softball teams and players. Gr1st (talk) 10:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. No evidence this player has been the subject of non-trivial coverage by reliable, third-party published sources. — Satori Son 17:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Could not find any reason to support notability. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Manifestations of a giant (album)

Manifestations of a giant (album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm pretty sure this is a hoax due to the complete absense of any google hits apart from one forum post from yesterday. Even if it's not a hoax the information looks to be speculation for which reliable sources will not be found. Guest9999 (talk) 09:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Almost certain hoax which fails WP:CRYSTAL in any case. Gr1st (talk) 10:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Highly likely hoax per the forum. Wikipedia is not for stuff made up. The actual article about the fifth Muse album can be found here - this has been a target of vandalism for inserting the same unverifiable speculative material. WilliamH (talk) 10:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, Geogre's Law in action. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Almost certainly a hoax. Spang (talk) 12:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Art Decade (band)

Art Decade (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced band article with very tenuous claims of notability. The article claims they "made it onto the initial ballot" for a few Grammy awards, but that sounds to me like something anyone can do if they fill out a form or two. They've made a few records, but at a glance they appear to be low budget/self-produced/MySpace affairs. The Googling wasn't promising. This appears to be another band that isn't there yet, but thinks Wikipedia can help get them there. I'll be happy to be proven wrong, but I don't think I will be. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Inch Deep Oceans (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Androgyny Is In (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Perpetual Motion (Art Decade Album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Innocence/Experience (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Delete all for failing WP:MUSIC. The nom is right, just not quite there yet.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 11:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Enson Sakuraki

Enson Sakuraki (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declined speedy due to assertions of notability. However nothing on Google (a poor test but a quick one). On review seems to fail our notability guidelines Pedro :  Chat  08:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I did a similar check when this article was originally posted, and marked it as a CSD via A1 criteria. It was deleted shortly thereafter. Gpp3 seems to have re-added it with no substantial changes in content since the last time. csaribay (talk) 09:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Asserts notability but, doesn't appear in anyway verifiable. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ultra Rare Trax

Ultra Rare Trax (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unofficial bootleg album. Not notable Nat Miller (talk) 06:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per Lugnuts --어국한 (talk) 09:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NIRVANA Ultra Rare Trax Volume 3

NIRVANA Ultra Rare Trax Volume 3 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unofficial bootleg album. Not notable. Nat Miller (talk) 06:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable album. Lugnuts (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Weak delete I have googled this and there are only 4 results (3 of which are ebay) but there seems to be someone selling this "album" but I don't seem to think that is enough. ·Ãḍď§ђɸŗЄ· ^Talk 18:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Ultra Rare Trax is a title that has been used for a variety of bootleg albums from many artists, including Nirvana and the Beatles. --Garyseven (talk) 03:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Potter Fan Zone

Harry Potter Fan Zone (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to be a non-notable fan site. There is nothing here that satisfies WP:WEB.  Asenine  11:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. The Chicago Tribune source simply lists the site as one of many. I agree, there's no indication that the site has WP:WEB notability compared to, say, the site currently being sued by Rowling because of that book. 23skidoo (talk) 12:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Changing to Weak keep given the information presented by PeaceNT. 23skidoo (talk) 12:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Zero indication that this "fan zone" is notable in any way, shape, or form. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:WEB. treelo _talk 19:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Not notability at all as per WP:WEB.--Lord Opeth (talk) 04:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Singularity 05:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Relisted upon request. Singularity 05:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep This is not one of our garden-variety Harry Potter fansites. HPFZ has won the jkrowling fan site award in 2007 - source. This makes the website meets WP:WEB criterion 2 because (a) it's an independent award (given by book author - J.K.Rowling) and (b) it's an arguably notable award (winners are reported by the media e.g CTV Newsnet - source) Also, I think the site satisfies WP:WEB criterion 3 since its content was "selected for preservation by the National Library of Australia" - source (see also the Pandora archive). (Sorry for commenting late and for troubling the original closing admin forcing them into relisting ;))--PeaceNT (talk) 09:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per the awards that PeaceNT found. I'm glad he thought of doing the work to find the information, and I wish the nom had actually checked, intead of nominating as "does not seem to be notable". DGG (talk) 01:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete no substantial coverage, still fails WP:WEB as the JK Rowling is not a publication or organization. And it's not very notable, only getting a slight mention in that interview.--Otterathome (talk) 05:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I think JK Rowling has no less reputation and credibility than any other organizations when it comes to judging Harry Potter-related content. :) --PeaceNT (talk) 05:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment G’day all. My name's Andy and I'm the founder of said "non-notable fan site". I'm not too familiar with Wikipedia protocol, but would like to offer my two cents in regards to why this website is in fact noteworthy. These are just my comments – if you still feel so strongly about the article's hasty removal, then so be it. Harry Potter Fan Zone received the J.K. Rowling fan site award in 2007 – one of only a handful that the author has given out (source). At the same time, the author answered questions from an open letter we at the site wrote on her official website (source). As mentioned above, the site was approached for inclusion by the National Library of Australia where it is now regularly archived (source). In terms of mentions by a "reputable publication", both the site and I were profiled in the Canberra Times in February of 2007. You may or may not be aware that Canberra is the capital city of Australia, and the Canberra Times its main publication. The article was featured on the front-page. A copy of the article was available at the paper's website until literally days ago (what fantastic timing), but I have a copy archived on the fan site (source). Secondly, both the site and I were profiled in the Sydney Morning Herald in July of 2007 (source). This was the time of the launch of the seventh Harry Potter book. The site helped host a launch party at Dymocks' flagship store in Sydney (source), which received significant media coverage. The site has also been mentioned in passing or as a reference by ABC News (source) and various other publications, though I'm afraid I don't have source information for any of these minor mentions. We've also been invited by Warner Bros. to cover the red carpet premieres of the last three Harry Potter films, and were invited to a day-long media visit at Leavesden Studios earlier this year. I can provide links to coverage if necessary. Whilst I understand the article in question does not mention a number of these facts, a quick Google search would have revealed much of the above information. I therefore submit that the site is in fact notable and not just another run-of-the-mill fan website. If necessary, I would be happy to do a complete rewrite of the article to conform to whatever standards Wikipedia obviously demands.--AndyHPFZ (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NovaPDF

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

non-notable software with no reliable secondary sourcing establishing notability. Also, article was created and maintained by user named for the software developer responsible for the software (huge COI problem). ju66l3r (talk) 05:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete spam --Nat Miller (talk) 08:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete borderline WP:CSD#G11 but not blatant enough. Created by User:Softland indicating not just WP:COI issues but also that this is simply promotional. Pedro :  Chat  08:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Otis Moss III

Otis Moss III (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Reverend Wright is notable, Barak Obama is notable, is the pastor hired after the last guy quit notable? Only mentions I can find of him are in conjunction with Wright and Obama...notability is not conferred by relationships. Perhaps a merge into the article about the Church until more is written about Pastor Otis outside of the Presidential race? LegoTech·(t)·(c) 04:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge into article about church. No independent notability as yet. May be in the future, but not yet.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete the subject hasn't received substantial independent, and seems to fall into Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable only for one event guideline. Mentions such as this in the Wall Street Journal, and this in the Washington Post only mention him tangentially as part of Obama's relationship with the church, and do go beyond trivial coverage. -Optigan13 (talk) 05:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Trinity United Church of Christ. It's a reasonably important church in the UCC and in Chicago contexts, but not of the stature that merely leading it confers notability. Wright didn't even have a national profile prior to a few months ago. --Dhartung | Talk 07:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. He is the new lead pastor of one of the most talked about churches in America, which has played and will continue to play a huge role in the 2008 election. There are over 5000 google blogsearch results for Otis Moss. 224 Google news stories. 85,000 Google web search hits. This is an obvious, overwhelming keep. Trilemma (talk) 13:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge per Optigan12 and Dhartung. Gamaliel (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The church in this case is sufficiently notable that he is an important religious figure. DGG (talk) 01:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Merge per Dhartung. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Richard De Saint Sauveur I

Richard De Saint Sauveur I (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

French noble of dubious notability. Article cites "He is known to his family as being a man of "Great Renown" for his deeds of service to the Pope." Just because he's notable to his family doesn't make him notable to us. Also, article makes no mention of what his deeds were. Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete After a quick perusal of various sources, it's not clear the existence of this individual is reliably attested; this may be just an artifact of dubious genealogy striving to give the de Lacys a distinguished ancestry. Choess (talk) 05:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hakkyokuseiken

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

Fictional fighting style from a video game series. Fails WP:Note and WP:RS...it caught my attention as the author started it with the fict tag at the top...but it doesn't show as a recreation in the logs. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 04:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable fictional fighting style. JIP | Talk 05:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete not notable (that I can see) ·Ãḍď§ђɸŗЄ· ^Talk 18:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jaume Marxuach i Flaquer

Jaume Marxuach i Flaquer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Also, I suspect a possible hoax. Only 49 Googles. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This article most definitely not a hoax.Marenach (talk) 05:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Article important within confines of its class 72.221.92.43 (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher Cuddy

Christopher Cuddy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This person does not seem notable. Not mentioned in secondary sources and his books are not reviewed. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, no attribution of notability to external sources. Reads like a CV with many external links. --Dhartung | Talk 08:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• delete I am christopher cuddy and I agree that this page does not warrant a wikipedia entry. I'm surprised it is at all and would appreciate its deletion. Christophercuddy (talk) 10:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable books = non-notable author, per WP:CREATIVE. —97198 talk 11:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable writer who fails WP:BIO. Cunard (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment My impression of Mr. Cuddy is that he is a very nice person, it's just that he is not yet notable so that people would be interested in reading about him. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above. No disparagement at all meant to the subject. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 04:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ESLARED

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

Procedural nomination. This article was originally tagged for speedy deletion, then the CSD tag was removed, and then it was nominated for PROD. The author has contested deletion, so I'm bring this here. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Unless sources can be found, in that case keep. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, no attribution of notability to reliable and independent sources. --Dhartung | Talk 08:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Info checks out via groups its involved with like Internet Society [21] and APC [22] - trying to find much more keeps giving me sites in Spanish - have added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Venezuela.-Hunting dog (talk) 08:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete there needs to be some meaningful sources to change that opinion. I didn't find them. --Stormbay (talk) 14:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic Research Academy

Islamic Research Academy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

not notable  Chzz  ►  03:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete no evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 03:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. What is more, smells of pork and so tagged for speedy deletion. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Don't you realise how offensive that comment would be to any Muslims involved with this organisation? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment So since when is it offensive to speak about pork front of muslims, then?

• Comment. If you were simply speaking about pork it wouldn't be offensive, but saying that an Islamic insitution smells of pork certainly is. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Revision to Weak delete. Appears to be an Egyptian organisation, and may suffer from systematic bias due to search language. WP:RS concerns still need to be addressed. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Weak delete The first paragraph has simply been copied from ISRA website. There's nothing notable about the article. It is blatantly promoting the ISRA. Their might be some significance we are not aware off but if the article remains as it is then it should be deleted.Ziphon (^ALL_ears) 04:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete The article is badly written without assertion of notability. However, Google news reveals some (although not very reliable) sources, and it seems to be mentioned by a lot of websites. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 04:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment the news mention the islamic research academy in egypt. But in the wikipedia article, is only about the IRSA in London. I'm not to sure if there's link between the two.Ziphon (^ALL_ears) 02:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep on the basis of the sources Wenli found. Animportant institutee with important publications in a major university.DGG (talk) 01:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crucifracture

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

This is a phrase from a passing mention in a single book; I don't see notability here, and find it hard to imagine this becoming a constructive article  Chzz  ►  03:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Merge to crucifixion. Google Books shows it in use, but always sourced to a 1965 paper, and I can find no classical uses of the term. (On the other hand, there are a handful that use the term crurifrangium.) Although it could be sourced, I just don't see this as a separate enough topic; it's just one way to terminate a crucifixion early (merciful, punitive, and merely efficient instances are all attested). --Dhartung | Talk 08:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I do not have access to the one original source that various derivative sources, possibly copying from one another, quote for the existence of the term in the sense given to it in the article: they all quote it in exactly the same way: Barbet P: A Doctor at Calvary: The Passion of Out Lord Jesus Christ as Described by a Surgeon, Earl of Wicklow (trans) Garden City, NY, Doubleday Image Books 1953, pp 12-18 37-147, 159-175, 187-208. Nor do I have access to Barbet's original text in French. If "crucifraction" is indeed found in the Doubleday edition, it must surely be a misprint for, at best, "crurifraction", or possibly for the technical term in Latin, "crurifragium", which I think Barbet will certainly have used. "Crucifraction" would mean "cross-breaking", while "crurifraction" would mean "leg-breaking". For use of the term "crurifragium", see for instance the Britannica article on crucifixion and The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. ("Crurifrangium" in Dhartung's comment is a simple typographical error). In summary, it is out of place to have an article in an encyclopedia about a word that seems to be certainly a misprint. (Yes, I know there is an Irish heavy metal band that has taken the name "Crucifraction"; but I do not think it is at all notable.) Lima (talk) 04:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment What Lima says above I do not dispute. But crurifragium as a search term reveals a cornucopia of 19th century theology revolving around the implications of its use on the thieves but not Christ (or something like that). I now suspect that a fully sourced article on the correctly spelled term is possible. On the current name, however, we are at best perpetuating what Lima appropriately characterizes as a likely misprint. Since it's used by reliable sources, though, I still think it's worth retaining as a search term. --Dhartung | Talk 05:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SoccerProject

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

Not notable  Chzz  ►  03:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable online game. JIP | Talk 05:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Bunny Boy

The Bunny Boy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Disputed PROD. Article and reference both admit that not much information is known on the album yet other than a title and that there will be 19 tracks. No other available information, including no available release date other than sometime in the fall. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Redfarmer (talk) 02:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Pure crystal. Only reference links to the official band website. Once there's more info, maybe it can be re-created, but it's a no-go at the moment. TN‑X-Man 03:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Unlike other "future album" articles, this one does not have any information at all. --Nat Miller (talk) 08:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC: unreleased albums are not notable without substantial coverage in reliable, third-party publications. None provided, none found. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete WP:CRYSTAL. Speculated with no coverage in reliable sources. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 04:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The County

The County (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Fails WP:CRYSTAL ukexpat (talk) 02:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - As original prodder (?). Article is about a TV show currently in production. Using phrases like "rumored" and "strongly speculated" does not help either. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. TN‑X-Man 02:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete As there don't appear to be any sources. This would then seem to be pure crystal ball-ery, and we don't have articles on unconfirmed future events. --Bfigura's puppy (talk) 03:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - with comments like "The show is yet to be proven true, however it is strongly speculated that it is" it clearly fails WP:CRYSTAL as said by Tnxman307. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 03:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - I could not find any sources, and per WP:CRYSTAL. Tiptoety ^talk 03:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Purely crystal according to a specific Google search, with the only true search result a Yahoo Answers question. Nate • (chatter) 04:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as a completely speculated reality show with no backing from reliable sources. I couldn't find anything on Google. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 04:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Grindersparks

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

I'm nominating this article for deletion for lack of notability. It appears to be a neogolism or slang, and is not in common use. I don't think this is an encycleopedic article, and the term doesn't appear to be in common use (a google search listed 810 hits, most on wikipedia or other sites that duplicate wiki content). Additionally, the article cites no references and has been a stub for a long time without much activity (over a year and a half). Spark could be an appropriate place for the content, or perhaps Snipe hunt.Iepeulas (talk) 01:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:A. This appears to be a neologism, or otherwise something somebody made up one day Ohconfucius (talk) 02:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Is it one word or two? A²Kafir (and...?) 02:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Wikipedia is not for things made up in the machine shop one day. There are tons of industry-specific pranks of this variety (e.g. "bucket of steam"), and almost none of them have notability. Mention in snipe hunt (a/k/a fool's errand) is sufficient given this is basically a neologism and thus an unlikely search term. --Dhartung | Talk 08:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Culture of Arizona

Culture of Arizona (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is full of broad, sweeping generalizations that are horoscope-like in their vagueness and unverifiability. I do not see how this can be taken seriously as an encyclopedia article. CosineKitty (talk) 01:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I know that other stuff exists is a poor reason to consider keeping an article, but I'm providing this comment nevertheless. I agree that this article - as it stands - is peacocky at best, and it is not sourced. However, there do exist articles on similar subjects that are more substantial and encyclopedic: Culture of California and Culture of Texas are two states near Arizona, for example. Perhaps this could be tagged for improvement instead?  Frank  |  talk  02:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No sources at all, the definition of original research; this seems to be someone's musings about why he or she thinks that Arizona is special (ideal vacation spot, called by some "a kind of paradise", nice weather, so tolerant that it's a "purple state" that's neither red nor blue)... I've been to Arizona, and it is a nice place, at least in January Mandsford (talk) 03:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Seems like a worthwhile topic. However the article as it is has little information and some stuff that doesn't relate. Sorry. I have spent some time there too I found it a wonderful state. Even in summer --- it's a dry heat. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 04:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, speculation, borderline POV, not sourced. JIP | Talk 05:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep, seems like it would be pretty easy to hammer into a sourced stub. --Dhartung | Talk 08:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Seems like a noteworthy subject. I would much rather see this improved than deleted. Unsourced, but not unsalvageable. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete A7 - this article makes no effort to explain the notability of its undefinable subject. Townlake (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Whoops, not an A7 category. So I'll fall back on the overwhelming POV / OR problems with the article. Townlake (talk) 05:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete POVish and full of OR, and it's unreferenced. Reads more like a travler's guide than an encyclopediac article. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - it says nothing (verifiable) that Arizona does not already cover. The fact that there are 0 sources for this article should stick out like a sore thumb. An article of this topic is conceptually feasible, but unless it can be demonstrated that a useful article that actually expands upon - not merely regurgitates in essay form - the information already available in the state's article, there is no reason to keep. Arkyan 19:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: unsourced, vague pseudoinformation. No WP:RSs establishing Arizona as having a culture distinct from neighbouring states, let alone a notable one. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Padgitt

Steve Padgitt (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article does not give evidence or explanation of notability Ecoleetage (talk) 01:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Wow. Article is over five years old, with not much added. Delete A²Kafir (and...?) 02:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Cannot find any evidence that this professor meets WP:PROF. TN‑X-Man 02:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep well published and his rural planning work has been covered in reliable sources. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 19:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I see 12 or 13 articles, no books at all, and several dozen conference presentations. I;m having a hard time verifying his position, but he turns out to be an Emeritus Professor [25]--not all such pages appear in Google. He apparent is or was director of one ofthe sociology units of ISU Extension per [26], Frankly, less than convincing. The GNews links almost all come from the same presentation, but I have yet to identify it. Pre-internet era faculty without published books are often rather hard to document adequately.DGG (talk) 01:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Painface (band)

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

Non-notable band Ecoleetage (talk) 01:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

KEEP It appears as though this band was the precursor to Slipknot (band) which is notable. Iepeulas (talk) 02:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Question Would it make sense to merge this into the Slipknot article? Ecoleetage (talk) 03:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Merge any relevant and sourced info into Slipknot (band).  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 12:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge. A separate article is unneeded. — _Maggot^Syn 16:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Universal School

Universal School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable grade school. Fails WP:N ukexpat (talk) 01:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Non-notable, main focus of the article appears to be rivalries with other local schools. TN‑X-Man 02:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep It includes a high school, so it would seem to pass muster under Wikipedia policies about high schools. The article needs to be developed; as with Christian schools, this Moslem school is a private institution located within a particular school district, and may be one of the larger ones in the United States. Mandsford (talk) 04:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - This article is mostly juvenile POV musings. What's remains does not indicate notability. - House of Scandal (talk) 16:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep This is a Muslim school we need to know about them as much as we can! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Totopoprockets (talk • contribs) 22:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Since it includes a high school, it likely meets the notability criteria. However, it needs to be expanded with impartial, factual, referenced content. The section on rival schools was rife with, if not outright attack language, strong non-npov wording. If a good article can come from this, let's keep it. If not, then let's revisit this if it hasn't improved after a month or two. —C.Fred (talk) 23:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - notable as not only containing a high school but as very unusual as a Muslim school in the US. Sources are available that meet WP:N and the way forward with stubs is to expand them not delete them. TerriersFan (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep definitely notable with plenty of sources available; I'll try and add some within a few days if possible (if nobody gets there first) AfD is not clean-up, this nomination could have been avoided by a Google News search. EJF (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Harold C. Pachios

Harold C. Pachios (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability is not obvious in this article Ecoleetage (talk) 01:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Checking google, he appears to be notable through the Clinton administration. I might possibly have time to add a few sources later tonight. — _Maggot^Syn 16:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sestertium

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

Dicdef accompanied by a series of irrelevant calculations involving various seeds and units of weight. (The sestertium was a monetary unit of account and never embodied in any physical form.) The use of the term to refer to an amount equivalent to 1000 sesterces is discussed in the article Sestertius, and I can't see how this could be, once the nonsense is subtracted, anything more than a dictionary definition. CSD G1 tag was declined, so here we are. Deor (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect to sestertius. This seems to be a misunderstanding of the Latin phrase as having a separate meaning, as if we needed an article dollars to fully explain phrases like thousands of dollars. The contextual discussion in sestertius is sufficient. --Dhartung | Talk 01:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - and redirect to sestertius per above, in which the use of "sestertium" as an abbreviation for thousands of them is explained. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect This really does not need to be deleted but merged with Sestertius Ziphon (^ALL_ears) 04:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I've redirected the page. Ziphon (^ALL_ears) 04:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • My bad WP:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion But I don't understand why this had to come to a discussion. Clearly it should be merged. Anyways, I'll stop whining. Ziphon (^ALL_ears) 08:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to sestertius, this article is only a misunderstanding of the term. The cited source does not verify the article. JIP | Talk 05:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to sestertius per above; sestertium is a case-form, and therefore a likely reasonable search term. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to maintain the search term, but there isn't anthing worth merging. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 19:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Webster Lake Estates

Webster Lake Estates (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability - Speedy Delete? - House of Scandal (talk) 14:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, unfortunatly WP:CSD#A7 says A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, but the is nothing in the article or apparently on google or google news that establishes notability.--Captain-tucker (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)