Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 March 3

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

[edit] Fondation Calvet

The result was Keep as notability is asserted per references provided below. (Non-admin closing) - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

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

This article is really short and gives no information about this museum. More, this place is really little known in France and fr:Fondation Calvet has been deleted a few days ago. Do we need an article about each little foundation in the world ?

--Pymouss44 Causer 22:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. The museum has been around almost 200 years. You can find references to individual pieces in the collections at http://jhc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/search?session_query_ref=rbs.queryref_1204590353560&COLLECTIONS=hw1&JC=hiscol&FULLTEXT=%28Mus%C3%A9e+AND+Calvet%29&FULLTEXTFIELD=lemcontent&RESOURCETYPE=HWCIT&ABSTRACTFIELD=lemhwcompabstract&TITLEFIELD=lemhwcomptitle&ck=nck --Eastmain (talk) 00:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- Bláthnaid 00:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Ty 02:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. The article was deleted from the French Wikipedia as a copyvio, not for lack of notability. --Eastmain (talk) 00:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep As the English version of the website explains, this museum houses a significant and varied collection, and is clearly notable - far more so than dozens of American museums we have entries for. I have added a bit to the article - there is far more information available. I suspect the nominator does not come from the region. Johnbod (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep. The Museum site describes just one part of their collection: "In 1947, Parisian collector Joseph Rignault gave fifty-two paintings and forty-nine watercolors, pastels and drawings from the 19th and 20th centuries to the museum. His donation included works by Manet, Daumier, Cézanne, Berthe Morisot, Forain, Guillaumin, Toulouse-Lautrec, Marquet, Modigliani, Dufy, Vlaminck, Utrillo, Rouault. There are also five paintings by Chaïm Soutine, unique in France outside of Paris." For comparison the Tate only has 3 Soutine paintings.[1] How about nom withdrawal and speedy keep? Ty 02:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep This seems a worthwhile article, and a worthwhile collection, per Johnbod (talk) and above. - Modernist (talk) 11:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep Johnbod is right I am the nominator and live in Ireland.I started the page because the foundation maintains the important natural history collections (regionally very important) of the botanist Esprit Requien (1788-1851)once it's director - see the French page which I will shortly translate - as well as those of the founder Colvet.I see now it is an important art museum as well.Incidentally the Wikipedia pages cover Velletri which is not mentioned in the English language tourist guides. It's excellent museum would never be seen despite the superb and superbly displayed Early Christian sarcophagus far better than those in the Vatican museums. Notafly (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - absolutely, for it's among the oldest and most important public collections in southern France. And please note: the Foundation is all but identical with the Museum Calvet. Therefore, the entry should be renamed (Musée Calvet), and the foundation should be described at the Founders page (Calvet). --rpd (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with the rename, except that the Foundation now runs three units in 3 locations; I think the situation is better handled with redirects, which need to be done. Johnbod (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Just one moment please, I have to check it. --rpd (talk) 22:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The founder, Esprit Calvet, has already an entry. Thus, renaming/shifting the page will cause little problem.--rpd (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you miss my point. You have the main Musée Calvet, the Musée Lapidaire, and the Library (which includes the coins, and the prints I think). In fact here there seem to be 9 different museums involved - only one "branded" as the "Musée Calvet". Johnbod (talk) 22:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's have a word on administration (the museum, for example) and ownership (the foundation, one of more possibilities), for then we are at least at the soil of the problem. The Museum Calvet houses various collections, one of which is part of the Calvet Foundation, which, on the other hand, owns (or once owned?) things which are now in the Louvre. Here at WP, it's our task not to mix up these things, I believe.--rpd (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly - but I think it is the other way round - the Louvre has deposited objects in Avignon. What about all the other musems? Johnbod (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

For the deposits of the Louvre you're right - sorry. The Musée Lapidaire is, at present, evidently seen over by the Musée Calvet (and appears on its webpage). Musée Calvet's own entry on WP was redirected to Esprit Calvet, by Wetman. All entries involved are stubs, and now? --rpd (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It should clearly redirect to this article. But the foundation also run the Petit Palais, the Natural history Museum, the Jewish museum etc etc. Since we don't have articles on these, we should add them to this article under the founation name. I'll copy all this to the talk page, where it should be continued. Johnbod (talk) 23:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 19:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hairspray Cast Lists

Hairspray Cast Lists (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hairspraycruft. Is there a place to draw the line here? Should we have a list of the cast of every production of every musical or non-musical play ever performed anywhere in the world? Sourcing on this is also incomplete - a list at the bottom of the page doesn't help the reader to understand how you know which performer appeared in which production. Corvus cornix_talk 23:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete This would be the most appropriate under the individual productions' pages. -anabus_maximus (Talk to me) 02:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as Listcruft and follow the suggestion of anabus maximus MalwareSmarts (talk) 01:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ethan Burger

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

This article was created by Wburglett (talk · contribs), who is likely to be the subject of the article. Twice notices about non-notability and reading like a CV have been attached, but this user has taken them down after a while. Notability of an academic can be difficult because many are widely published. However, this is a fact of the academic career rather than a claim of notability. All the notability claimed is self-referential. I move that this article be deleted on grounds of non-notability, keeping in mind that autobiographical articles are frowned upon. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 12:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable academic. Nothing in the article suggests notability. Dgf32 (talk) 15:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper

• Weak keep Based on google scholar, hes eems to be somewhat of an expert on the subject he works on.DGG (talk) 04:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't seem to be anything here indicating he's not just another professor. -R. fiend (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Completely self-promotional. Renee (talk) 19:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Blueboy96 13:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rodrigo Possebon

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

Non-notable footballer, fails WP:FOOTY/Notability and WP:ATHLETE because he has yet toplay football at professional level.

• Delete as nominator English peasant 23:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. English peasant 23:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:BIO#Athletes as he has never played in a fully professional league. Note that the article was also previously deleted. пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep, he has already made his first appearance with Manchester: [2]. Never mind, that's the reserves. Jfire (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman (talk) 01:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Alexf⁴² 12:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. robwingfield ^«T•C» 23:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. BanRay 13:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 19:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aidan Downes

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

Contested Prod, Non-notable youth footballer, fails WP:FOOTY/Notability and WP:ATHLETE because he has never played at professional level. Youth caps and squad numbers do not confer notability.

• Delete as Nominator English peasant 22:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. English peasant 23:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:BIO#Athletes as he has never played in a fully professional league. Until he makes an appearance, there remains the chance that he will never play and disappear into obscurity. пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman (talk) 01:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete unless citation of (even local) media coverage is added to article. --House of Scandal (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. robwingfield ^«T•C» 23:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. BanRay 13:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 19:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Grand Prix Racing Manager

Grand Prix Racing Manager (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article describes a computer game which looks as if it never got finished, has not been released, and possibly does not have a snowball in hell's chance of securing the licences it needs to be released. Tagishsimon (talk) 22:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I made the final few edits and was about to propose deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.112.68 (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 08:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete until it gets released, it fails WP:N, and it falls under WP:SNOW for the failure to secure proper licensing. ArcAngel (talk) 15:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - no reliable sources to indicate that this game is notable. It hasn't been released. It likely won't be released. And it's development has not been of such interest to generate any coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 20:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirected to British National Party#Policies. Blueboy96 14:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Policies of the British National Party

Policies of the British National Party (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Cut and paste fork of British National Party. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{aka john lennon} 22:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete, per nom. Rockpocket 22:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete There was no real discussion or consensus for this fork, and it causes major POV problems. It leaves the main article without much from the BNP about themselves, and the fork itself is little more than BNP propaganda without any rebuttal from secondary sources. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. None of the aformenetioned commeents give a reason for the deletion. The lack of concensus and the lack of NPOV aren't reasons for deletion. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. True, we could just blank it and redirect back to the BNP article. Rockpocket 23:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete - This page is just a soap box for a political party, which is againt Wikipedia policies. Spylab (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect (and merge as needed) to British National Party#Policies. This is a reasonable search term, and deleting this outright could lead to reader confusion or re-creation of an even more POV article. Deleting this page does not allow the information to be incorporated back into the article, as was brought up by Hackney. Alone the article is certainly soapboxy, however incorporated into the article, where there is possibility for discussion of other POV's, these policy summaries can provide useful information. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The information hasn't been removed from the article, it's still there. First ClueBot, then various other editors misunderstood the intentions of the edit as he didn't use edit summaries when removing it. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

'Delete The page was created by a now-banned user as part of a campaign against myself and others, which included him making several reverts, acting entirely without consensus (or reason), threatening users, vandalising user pages. It was made simply by abstracting a section from BNP, which was totally unnecessary, and one must suspect NPOV issues were involved. The entirety of the article as created is still part of the BNP page and provided there within context. The banned user has a history of this. There is no need for this page to exist. Emeraude (talk) 12:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Liar and cheater Emeraude says I vandalise user pages, when he vandalised mine and never responded to my initially polite comments. Trickster and con-man One Night In Hackney has done the same thing. The BNP accepts practising Jewish members and is staunchly pro-Israel if you read their news articles. But then again, these guys are liars, and ignore what they don't like. I won't be surprised if this truthful comment is deleted.Qwenton (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Response "Truthful comment"? (1) You did vandalise pages and were warned for it (and subsequently banned for harassing users). (2) I did respond to your comment, (3) which was intially NOT made to me, when I edited the BNP article, (4) by pointing out that the article does say that the BNP has Jewish members. (See Revision history of British National Party: "22:05, 3 March 2008(Article states there are Jewish members! Party's view as stated here has been referenced.)".) None of this has anything to do with the present AfD. You will be surprised that your comment is not deleted. I think it and your attacks on users' pages say more about your attitude than I ever could. Emeraude (talk) 11:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete, although a small consensus, the nom has presented a solid argument for deletion. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Frontline Israel

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

This article concerns an organization of questionable notability with no references provided. The call for more references has been up since July 2007 and no one seems to be willing to back up their assertions with fact. Given as no one seems to want to fix it, and I'm not sure it meets the criteria for organization notability--especially as there are no other Wiki articles that link to it, to the best of my knowledge--and that the article is also filled with inflammatory language, I doubt Wikipedia will get anything approaching an NPOV, wikified article for this group. From WP:V "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Delete. Iamblessed (talk) 21:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Merge/Redirect to Israel's unilateral disengagement plan. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _(1 == 2)^Until 13:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: Non-notable group with a POV-ridden writeup. Only 22 unique Ghits, and only 20 on the Israeli Google, which you would think would have more.  RGTraynor  15:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted: author blanked the page. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Robotic prostatectomy

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

Prodded because it was blatant original research. When the prod was removed, so were the clues of OR. There are still no sources. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 21:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Result is Delete per WP:NOT, the keep opinions did not address the issues. While this is by a notable artist, this album is not yet officially released, no prejudice against recreation once the album is released.. _(1 == 2)^Until 13:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Black Roses (The Rasmus album)

Black Roses (The Rasmus album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreleased album (crystal ballism) with little or no media coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums and songs. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 21:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 21:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete for this being the 2nd Afd for this article, and per failing WP:MUSIC. ArcAngel (talk) 21:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Can you link the earlier AfD? I can't find it. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 22:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Reply Article was prodded by User:Neon white on November 23, 2007, reason given was "wikipedia is not a crystal ball, this is unconfirmed rumour and badly sourced". Prod removed by User:72.195.139.18 four days later. No reason was given for the removal. Article was prodded again by User:Hello Control today for the reason given in the AfD nomination above. Ironically, User:Neon white was the one to contest this second prod two hours later. This is the first time the article has been sent to AfD according to the article history and deletion logs (which are empty). Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Reply Here's what I thought was the first Afd - [3] ArcAngel (talk) 15:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to The Rasmus discography until seperate notability per WP:MUSIC is established. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep although the source is the bands website and this [4], i'm happy that this album will be released, therefore deleting seems pointless. --neonwhite user page talk 05:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Being happy isn't really an argument for keeping it, even though that's probably not covered in WP:ATA. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 02:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep - meets WP:MUSIC as an album by a notable artist; The Rasmus. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Notability is not inherited. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 12:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Please read Wikipedia:MUSIC#Albums, specifically the second sentence. The article has sources proving that it will be released, so deleting now will mean the article will be created in a few months anyway. Or, just keep it now. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 22:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment I see that the second sentence says "officially released albums may have sufficient notability". Two parts of that excerpt are important to note here: 1st, this album is not (yet) officially released (or even finished); 2nd, it says "may have sufficient notability", not "does". Without independent coverage notability isn't indicated. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 23:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Irish Unionist Alliance

Irish Unionist Alliance (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)Prod contested without improvement. Tiny organisation, no independent sources, fails WP:CORP and WP:V. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete - I've had a search around the web and also can't find anything independent of any significance. Other than brief mentions in blogs and references to the Conservative-aligned Irish Unionist Alliance founded in 1885, a couple of which mention an obscure modern organisation of the same name without giving useful details, the only references seem to be located on the Ulster-Scots Online website, which isn't enough, for my money. Warofdreams talk 22:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Weak Keep - seems notable enough to me; couldn't care less, but there aren't any other Free State Unionist parties (are there?) so it may be notable for that. That's all I'm going to say on the matter. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Which part of WP:CORP (or perhaps even WP:WEB since they only seem to exist online?) do you think they meet? And WP:V requires independent sources, perhaps you'd like to provide those? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep - small but certainly notable minority organisation being one of very few Unionist organisations in the Republic of Ireland. relevant to the "Unionism in Ireland" section of Wikipedia. has been covered in Irish newspapers - Anglo-Celt and Longford Leader. has an active web-forum / guestbook hosting an on-going discussion for many years. previous version of the Irish Unionist Alliance was the largest Unionist grouping in Ireland outside of Ulster pre-1921. given that today they represent only a small minority of people they could hardly be anything other than a small organisation. --Pondersomething (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Bláthnaid 00:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The organisation described in the article certainly doesn't seem notable - I can't find any references in the Google News archive, which covers the major Irish news sources. However there was an organisation of this name which is certainly notable - the one found by Warofdreams - for which there are plenty of book and newspaper sources. If this is deleted I'll write a stub on the notable Irish Unionist Alliance. If the modern organisation ever becomes notable then its article should be called somthing like Irish Unionist Alliance (founded 2006). Phil Bridger (talk) 12:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete, albeit somewhat reluctantly. I am a political junkie, and I'm generally fascinated by small and unlikely political groups, and this one appears to be set on reviving a political tradition which otherwise disappeared in the 1920s. However, I can find no trace of them in the major national newspapers. A search of the Irish Independent draws nothing. A search of 1996-present text archive of The Irish Times produces only one hit, relating to the late 19th/early 20th century organisation, and while a search of the Irish Times's pre-1996 digital archive produces nothing more recent than 1891. A Google News search throws up nothing after 1921, I can find no trace online of any mention of them in the Anglo-Celt[5] or the Longford Leader[6]. The article says that 'The number of its members, or their identities, have not been revealed, it stating that it was using the internet to preserve their anonymity "for the moment"', so its hardly surprising that they have received no coverage. However surprising the idea of a revival of unionism in the 26 counties, this anonymous group appears to be nothing more than a relatively obscure website, with no identified individuals beyond their webmaster and with apparently no printed publications. The nominator is right: this group fails WP:CORP and WP:V, and may be nothing more than one person's website. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - surely if it was notable pre-1920s it matters not whether it has since collapsed. Over and out. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 12:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Go and help Phil write an article on the original one then, not the "man with website" who has seemingly hijacked the name. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with ONIH. Unlike this one-man venture, the original Irish Unionist Alliance is clearly very notable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. No verifiable claim to notability, indeed, no more than a website, not even truly an organization. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Anthony Appleyard as blatant advertising. Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SNEAKPEEK.CA

SNEAKPEEK.CA (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable website. Unsourced, no reference to show why it is notable. CSD and prod removed by anon IP Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete - Blatant spam. Tagged. Mr Senseless (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:SPAM. ArcAngel (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Yep, get rid of it: and as though you needed any more proof, User talk:SNEAKPEEKTV —αlεx•mullεr 22:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep; ample coverage by reliable sources is demonstrated. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Secular Islam Summit

Secular Islam Summit (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Previously nominated for {{prod}}. Although the tag had been in place for five days, it was removed before the article could be deleted.

I'm not convinced this article can ever meet Wikipedia standards. Most importantly, it fails verification. There were no references at all on Google Books or JSTOR. The first couple pages on regular Google search were all blogs and other unreliable sources. This deletion rationale was described as "nonsense" by User:Bwalker5435, but we delete articles for nonexistent verification all the time. *** Crotalus *** 15:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Did you check to see if the two sources cited were real? If they are, then this is a keep. Hazillow (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I just checked the "external links" section and this is definitely real and has been reported by notable news sources. Speedy keep. Hazillow (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • There are a small number of passing references in newspapers and newsmagazines. That might qualify for a mention on Wikinews, but not on Wikipedia. I just don't see how this meeting has had any real long-term impact, or else it would have been mentioned by some scholarly source somewhere. One concern I have is that Wikipedia's lengthy coverage of this minor conference violates WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. *** Crotalus *** 00:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
      • How would this violate NPOV? This is a factual article about a factual event. There is no POV. And how is this coverage "lengthy?" And you can spin tons of things as "passing references." The summit was notable; please check this. Fifteen hits. Is this a "passing reference?"

"In St. Petersburg, the Secular Islam Summit, sponsored by a humanist organization called the Center for Inquiry, featured Muslim speakers who ranged from angry ex-believers to devout reformers. They differed sharply on particulars, but all shared the conviction that Islam must be compatible with secular democracy. Their closing manifesto, "The St. Petersburg Declaration," affirmed the separation of mosque and state, gender equality in personal and family law, and unrestricted critical study of Islamic traditions."

Also, many of the speakers at the summit are notable individuals, for what it is worth. Keep. Hazillow (talk) 01:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This did happen, and it is useful and relevant information. I don't see why it should go Jpineda84 (talk) 06:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper

• Keep an article in the Washington Post and live coverage on CNN alone give adequate verifiable sources and clear notability. Add in articles in the Wall Street Journal and the Toronto Sun and the US News and World report and there can be no doubt that this is well sourced and notable. Gwernol 20:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to Center for Inquiry, the organazation behind the summit. Although there was coverage from reliable sources, the coverage wasn't substantial enough to make this one-time event establish long term notability. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete per WP:NOT#HOWTO and possible copyright issues. Blueboy96 14:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Envirotainer

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

Looks like a copy/paste article from a user manual. Notability of instructions, WP:HOWTO, unreferenced, uncategorized - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Envirotainer is a manufacturer of temperature-controlled containers for shipping temperature-sensitive materials (pharmaceuticals, for instance). This looks like an instruction manual for their product, which isn't appropriate here. A description of the company and their product might be, although I have no idea how notable they are. Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:Not#Manual--Pgagnon999 (talk) 04:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Pathetic attempt at spam. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Blank or delete. I found this: [7] Not sure about the notability of Envirotainer in general, but this article has to go due to its howto nature. If it is kept, then the possibility of copyvio needs to be investigated. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Regardless of coverage or not, city councilmen from major cities--in this case, the capital and by far the dominant city in Ireland--are inherently notable. Blueboy96 14:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Daithí Doolan

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

Recreation of previously deleted page. [8] As per previous deletion: "An unsuccessful candidate in the 2007 Irish election who does not meet WP:BIO For politicians this is: >>Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures.[5] Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[6] Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability.<< Doolan doesn't meet any of these criteria and google [9] only shows entries related to his unsuccessful candidacy and to his work as a city councillor - which is not in itself notable." Subject doesn't appear to have done anything of note since then. Valenciano (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as well as being a serving politician he has courted a lot of controversy due the murder of Joseph Rafferty and has had a lot of press coverage. BigDunc (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Not notable. He's mentioned in passing in sources about Rafferty not in his own right. See WP:NOT#NEWS "When a person is associated with only one event, such as for a particular relatively unimportant crime or for standing for governmental election, consideration needs to be given to the need to create a standalone article on the person. If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted." Also see WP:BIO above, being a serving politician is only relevant if he is a member of a national, state or provincial legislature. Dublin City Council just doesn't cut it, I'm afraid. Valenciano (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as for BigDunc.--Padraig (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep a serving politician in Dublin City Council, very out spoken which has courted a lot of controversy. One of the main spokes persons against the proposed incinerator a Poolbeag, which is only one of a number of campaigns I know off. --Domer48 (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • As above, Dublin City Council isn't a national, state or provincial legislature so that is irrelevant. I've no doubt that numerous politicians can boast of similar campaigns but that doesn't qualify them for inclusion. Valenciano (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Bláthnaid 00:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4 as recreation of deleted material, otherwise Strong delete because Doolan clearly fails WP:BIO. The article makes two claims to notability: that Doolan is a member of Dublin City Council and that he was an unsuccessful candidate at the Irish general election, 2007. WP:BIO says clearly that "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability", and those are the only claims made in the article for Doolan's notability. The sentence in WP:BIO continues "although such a person may be notable for other reasons besides their political careers alone", and notability on those ground would be assessed in the normal way by the test in WP:BIO#Basic_criteria, requiring that he be the subject of substantial coverage in independent sources. Several "keep" !voters above have made claims that Dolan is notable on these grounds, but the only references in the article are external links to Sinn Fein and to Sinn Fein's local organisation in Dublin South-East, and no further evidence has been offered at AfD of substantial coverage which could provide evidence of notability. So far as I can see, the "keep" arguments here have no basis at all in the notability guidelines, and amount to WP:ILIKEIT. I am surprised that experienced editors such as the keep !voters do not appear to be familiar with WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • PS This article was first created as one of dozens of short articles on Sinn Fein candidates for the 2007 general election: see User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive_006#Category:Sinn_F.C3.A9in_politicians. The recreated article is almost identical to the version deleted at the previous AfD. (Note that only admins can read the deleted text). In the discussion in the archives of my talk page it is noted that Doolan was a member of Sinn Féin's Ard Comhairle (or national executive committee, see Sinn_Féin#Organisational_structure), distinguishing him from the other unsuccessful candidates. That may be the case, but holding party office does not confer notability, which would still need to be established through Doolan being the subject of substantial coverage in independent sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep on the basis of member ship on the city concil of a really important city. We accept that as noability intheUS, and I dont see why Dublin would be different. DGG (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:BIO#Politicians point 2: says "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.6 Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city". Please do read the the linked footnote, which says that "Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians. A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." No evidence has been offered that Doolan "been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Here are a couple of examples of significant press coverage, where the articles are about him rather than just giving him passing mentions.[10][11] Also there are plenty more references available in the Google news archive, some of which are just passing references but many give him a couple of paragraphs. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - municipal councillors in cities in Dublin's league are almost certainly notable, and evidence has been provided of meeting WP:N with regards to coverage by reliable third party sources. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Here is a list of independent sources regarding him. As you can see he is also Sinn Feins spokesperson on the environment. BigDunc (talk) 08:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was that there is little support for deletion here, as Europe22 says it's a chart single. But it may be better for the organisation of the encyclopedia as a whole if it were merged to the article on the album. I will close this as "no consensus" and recommend that those interested in merging discuss the matter on the article's talk page. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This Is the Life (Amy Macdonald song)

This Is the Life (Amy Macdonald song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable single. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{aka john lennon} 20:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

yes it should be deleted for not being notable. She already has an entry for the album.--The Smoking Nun (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ——Torc. ^(Talk.) 06:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep : Meets WP:N : the single was charted. Europe22 (talk) 03:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to album - Notability is met, but there's still not enough information to warrant an article separate from the album. Per WP:MUSIC: "A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; permanent stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." —Torc. ^(Talk.) 03:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Btw, this article was created on February 11, 2008 (it isn't a permanent stub). There is also WP:CHANCE (even if I think this article will never be expanded... ;-)). Europe22 (talk) 02:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think three weeks is enough of a chance for it to move beyond what it is now, and "permanent stubs" is just shorthand for 'articles that are highly unlikely to ever progress beyond stubs'. I'm not all that optimistic about this article's chances. That aside, the first part of that sentence still definitely does apply. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 04:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete by Jimfbleak with the edit summary "G11: Blatant advertising". Non-admin closure. Pixelface (talk) 11:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Red & Ginger

Red & Ginger (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This animated film is not notable. I did a quick Google search to look for reliable sources, but I was unable to find any after the search yielded 20 results.[12] Furthermore, it is obvious that the creator of and primary contributor to the article is Barry Martin, the person who wrote this film. Also, this guy has spammed other websites to promote this film.[13] I believe this article was written strictly for promotional purposes, and fails our inclusion criteria. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 08:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 08:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. If it receives coverage by film critics, I could conceivably see the article being recreated. --Pixelface (talk) 10:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• I've added a {{db-g11}} tag to the article per WP:CSD#G11. --Pixelface (talk) 10:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete, no verifiable, possible nonsense. _(1 == 2)^Until 13:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Formula 17 (Sailing)

Formula 17 (Sailing) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Ghits show a lot of false positives but not one iota of notability for this class of sailing. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 20:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I found this quote: "And apparently there really isn't a formula 17 class. Nacra just uses it as a sales pitch."[14] I found several other similar references that suggest that this is something of a fraud. Mangoe (talk) 00:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete per consensus below. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RushCon

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

A fan convention that fails to establish notability. A google news search doesn't turn up any third party sources, therefore failing WP:RS. Wizardman 19:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"RushCon is the biggest convention in North America of fans of the rock band Rush.' is an assertion of notability. A google news archive search does find third-party sources as does a google search. 75.177.84.51 (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: Fails any measure of notability by a lot. When one actually tracks down the handful of sources, one finds quotes like this from a website mentioning the con: "The event attracted just 200 or so diehard fans ... 'The lack of enthusiasm was not a total loss,' smiled fan Ken Hoffman, from Walnut Creek, California. Rush, also among the no-shows, were unavailable for comment." The Toronto Star blog entry just mentions the con, and the other cites are all trivial mentions. Is there so much as a single reliable source about the convention?  RGTraynor  15:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - no substantial coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, compassionately, as this would embarrass me if I were a Rush fan. --Dhartung | Talk 18:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm a Rush fan myself, but the article just doesn't appear to be notable. scetoaux ^{(talk) (My contributions.)} 20:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete A3 non-admin closure by Lenticel ^(talk) 11:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Billboard Philippines

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

From what I can see from the page and Google, this subject appears to be something created by a random person who just happened to have a lot of time on their hands. The "official" page is a multiply.com page, most (if not all) Google hits refer to the original multiply.com page, and there is no third-party source showing the legitimacy of Billboard Philippines. Basically, it just looks like some guy ripped off the Billboard template, used some data (including "internet votes"), and compiled a list. A lot of effort, but certainly not "official" or "legitimate", and therefore the page should be deleted. SKS2K6 (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete WP:HOAX. Total hoax. Only source is its website, and I think that Billboard would've made an actual site instead of a blog on Multiply. Its a poorly made hoax. No reliable sources to its officiality. Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 20:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• G3 as hoax, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Page's author added some bogus chart positions to some song articles. I reverted them. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The Philippines don't have a Billboard chart. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. The NY Times story is pretty convincing.--Kubigula (talk) 22:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Frankford Candy & Chocolate Company

Frankford Candy & Chocolate Company (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

RS coverage are directory listings and ghits don't assert any notability. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Commment: Lots of Google News Archives hits. Corvus cornix_talk 00:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yep, most of which are directory listings, company reports and profiles, nothing that establishes notability. No coverage discussing the company per se. It's existed for a long time and if that alone makes it notable then it may be, but there doesn't appear to be much coverage. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 01:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Amongst those Google news hits there or some which give substantial [15] [16] or semi-substantial [17] coverage. Surely we have room for the maker of over 100 types of chocolate bunnies and Gummy Body Parts? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - yeah, I like to know Where Chocolate Bunnies Come From (read presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources). Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedied. --Golbez (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of role-playing game groups

List of role-playing game groups (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Mandatory AFD; hangon template placed. Speedy placed per CSD A1. Belinrahs (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not mandatory to post an AFD just because a speedy is opposed. I would have speedied this. But since it's got an AFD, let it run. For myself, delete. Only one (non-notable) entry; open invitation for everyone to add their clan to the list. Better off without it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete wow. Obvious speedy too. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedied. --Golbez (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No consensus to delete. Multiple verifiable sources do exist for the subject. _(1 == 2)^Until 13:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] James Ogilvy

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

Following discussion at WikiProject Royalty, I am nominating this for deletion on the grounds of insufficient notability. This person does not carry out any royal duties, and the only claims he has is that he is 35th in line to the throne (not high enough to warrant an article in my opinion), and that he is Princess Eugenie of York's Godfather. Bear in mind that being a parent or off spring of a notable person does not confer notability, as per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Invalid criteria and WP:NOTINHERITED, therefore being a Godfather should not either.  —  Tivedshambo  _(t|c) 19:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Mr. Ogilvy has no individual notability for the purposes of an article on Wikipedia. I have always contended that inclusion on a notable list does not make each element of that list notable. Charles 20:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I think he is notable enough. If he is mentioned in the line of succession then naturally one wants to know who he is. Andres (talk) 22:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• If he is mentioned in the line of succession, he's mentioned in the line of succession. Do you propose articles for all 1400 or so people? Really now... The elements of a notable list are not all notable. Charles 22:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Read also this: Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED. Charles 22:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep If more info could be added (that Times article seems to be a good source) about his business and things like that. I'm surprised his sister's article was deleted, she at least sparked countrywide controversy with her out-of-wedlock pregnancy and subsequent marriage, so she was at least notable. Flesh out James' article with more info though. He is notable. Morhange (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• "that Times article": What Times article? ¶ "Countrywide controversy": Maybe among the tut-tutting readers of the Daily Mail; I think other people had other stuff to think about. ¶ "He is notable": For what? -- Hoary (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete unless a better claim to notability surfaces. He enjoys some small note as the publisher of Luxury Briefing, but as the magazine itself has a rather low profile I don't think this in itself is enough. Mangoe (talk) 00:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. It's autoplagiarism time: This chap Ogilvy just tags along to the odd wedding or funeral: no speechifying, no bottle-cracking, no ribbon-snipping. Being in line to the throne is perhaps significant when it's imaginable that those above will all die. I cannot believe that more than twenty (indeed, more likely ten) would disappear other than in a nuclear attack or whatever so ghastly that even the most ardent royalists would be unconcerned about kingship. When he's not wondering about the day when 33 -- no, 34 people have been wiped out by an asteroid, it seems that our man is concerned with the publication of Luxury Briefing, a newsletter for those involved in selling expensive goods and services (says the Telegraph), making money, enjoying his wristwatches, and dreaming of an Alfa Romeo. Well, OK, but not notable or even obviously columnworthy. -- Hoary (talk) 01:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: He seems to have been de-Dutched. -- Hoary (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Notability isn't the biggest, best or smartest, its when the media takes notice of you for any reason. The Telegraph and other articles make him notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • What are these "other articles"? -- Hoary (talk) 12:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • These articles James Ogilvy in Google News Archive --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I see 151 hits for "James Ogilvy". Quite a lot of them are obviously about this or that James Ogilvy who's irrelevant to the one we have here. Of the rest, it's not always clear what the article is about unless/until one hands over the credit card info to buy a copy of the article; however, many give the impression that Ogilvy (probably or definitely this one) is barely mentioned. Of course I can't expect you either to guess what they're all about or to pay money for them, but could you perhaps specify three or so among them that appear to say something significant about our man? -- Hoary (talk) 04:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Notability is not inherited. --Veritas (talk) 04:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Actually I think that he is notable. Axl (talk) 12:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • For what? -- Hoary (talk) 12:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
    • This & this. Axl (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
      • The former link tells us that he's just a normal chap who happens to be rather obsessed with expensive goodies and with money. (Very slightly interesting in its revelation that the nobs have no qualms about expressing a fondness for lucre. We can bury the dead concept of infra dig.) The latter one is new to me. It starts with a bit of pseudo-Windows (pretty hilarious when viewed in KDE) saying Congratulations! Guaranteed WINNER! Congratulations you WON! Click 2 [sic] Claim. I ignore that drivel and a pile of other advertising to read that (i) our man has carved out a successful niche as an editor in the publishing world for the past ten years by launching the magazine Luxury Briefing in 1996; that (ii) he claims it is The only business publication for the luxury industy [sic]; that (iii) this costs £375 for ten issues; that (iv) the Ogilvys and Windsors continue to be close, and that in conclusion (v) life really is one of luxury for James Robert Bruce Ogilvy. If this is the only business publication for the luxury industry, then I must have simply hallucinated a great number of others. It's so notable that, well, see for yourself. He's rich and happy and knows people: do write-ups for this in one newspaper column and in one article in an advertising-drenched royalty gossip site constitute notability? -- Hoary (talk) 02:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete Notability isn't inherited (although nobility clearly is!). At number 35 in the succession to the British throne, it is surprising there aren't more reliable sources available which have substantial coverage of this individual, whose Mum is the Queen's cousin. It is extremely unlikely he or his descendants will ever become monarch, unless the higher 34 all stand on a metal framework during a storm to get their picture snapped. Edison (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Update: R A Norton has put a lot of work into the article in the last 24 hours. But we don't learn anything new. Ogilvy was born to famous grandparents, aunties and so forth. His immediate background wasn't just low-rent, it was no-rent (paid for by Mrs E Windsor, as I vaguely understand it). He's had a normal life. He went to a famous wedding, he has two kids, and he founded and publishes Luxury Briefing, about which nobody has bothered to write an article. And that still seems to be it. -- Hoary (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Update Your thinking of the Guinness World Record version of notability where you have to be the biggest, or the best. Wikipedia only requires that you are written about by "multiple independent sources", and that all the facts can be verified. So you can have one biography in the BBC or the Daily Telegraph, and be notable, or have a half dozen smaller articles be the source of the article. He has both. When the media takes note of you, your notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • No, I am not thinking of the biggest or the best. Ogilvy's had multiple media mentions, as you pointed out earlier. The BBC noted his birth. A gossipy column in the Telegraph wrote him up as a normal person who has a somewhat unusual candor about his love of money and expensive goodies. An advertising-drenched website wrote him up in one page. The media have taken little note, and when they have it has been very minor note. We read: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. For these two gossipy sources, "intellectually independent" is a bit of a stretch. -- Hoary (talk) 00:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Well, either your research skills are lacking, or your the Oliver Cromwell of Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The article I read seems to show a person whose notability is based on reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 03:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment When I came across this article the other day, I saw little of notability in the person concerned, and as the article already had a {{notability}} tag, I decided to raise a discussion at WikiProject Royalty, expecting members there to come up with good reasons for why he was notable, and hopefully improving the article to prove this. Instead, the only responses were to take to AfD. Since then, R A Norton has done a great deal of work updating the article and providing better references, though whether these reach the standard quoted in full by Hoary above is debatable. I suspect this will go through as no consensus, though I don't envy the admin who has to make the decision. —  Tivedshambo  _(t|c) 08:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Rutherford House. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Friends of Rutherford House Society

The Friends of Rutherford House Society (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability, while museums are notable I don't see how "Friends of" societies could ever be. Kevlar67 (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Rutherford House. There is already a small paragraph about this society in Rutherford House. That paragraph could be expanded. Bláthnaid 19:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect as above. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Boldly redirected to Fly Like a Bird per consensus, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fly like a bird

Fly like a bird (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Page is nothing more than a short list of flying-related topics. The page claims to help readers hoping to fly like a bird, which makes it a violation of WP:NOT#HOWTO; outside of this, it's just a short version of List of aviation topics. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 18:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• WTF? Delete. Not an article. Senseless.. -R. fiend (talk) 18:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect, per TPH below. I'll do it if no one objects. -R. fiend (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. There was no need for an AfD discussion on this article. This article qualifies for speedy delete. Dhshah (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree with the suggestion of Redirect to Fly Like a Bird. Dhshah (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Fly Like a Bird, the Mariah Carey song. No need for anything else on this page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Agree with the above, page should become a redirect to Fly Like a Bird once the current content is deleted. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 18:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Very few songs are of sufficient notability to warrant an article; a redirect isn't feasible, as Century (song) isn't a likely search. I'll make a mention of this at Century (disambiguation). faithless (^speak) 11:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Century (single)

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

future expected album with no notability on its own; wait for it to hit charts - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Non Notable single maybe if charted could try again with this article. BigDunc (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ——Torc. ^(Talk.) 05:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Per nom. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 05:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral (leaning towards Weak Keep). It is a release by a a notable, charting band on a very notable label, but i'd merge it with its parent album until it charts or at least is released physically. And should be recreated as Century (song) when it is. Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 18:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Federation, A Star Trek RPG PBEM

The Federation, A Star Trek RPG PBEM (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable RPG game... Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 17:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Completely unreferenced and next to impossible to search for (hundrends and hundreds of similarly non-notable games/sites). Notability could only be established by tyhis game being published by a notable gaming company. Not so here! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. No need to search for it - there's a link at the bottom of the article. Looks as though this isn't a RPG gaming system - it's an instance of a Star Trek RPG. This could probably be a speedy as a non-notable club, but as that's a bit subjective I'll let it stand for discussion. Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Per Zetawolf. Poor article of non-notable fan-made rpg of Star Trek. Zero Kitsune (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Sigh Not notable. Axl (talk) 12:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 05:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flatlands Volunteer Ambulance Corps

Flatlands Volunteer Ambulance Corps (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence of notability. It's a local organization that doesn't meet the WP:CORP guidelines. Ghits are directory listings and minor coverage of calls they responded to, nothing asserting any notability. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 17:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Local organization contains no assertions of notability. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per failing WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 17:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:N Professor marginalia (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy close. Duplicate AfD of duplicate page, now redirected to Prof Jacqueline Eales (we can fix the page name later if this survives AfD). For the still-open AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prof Jacqueline Eales. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jacqueline Eales

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

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prof Jacqueline Eales αѕєηιηє ^t/_c 17:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy, speedy delete as duplicate. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 17:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: didnt need an AfD... was already tagged for speedy. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 17:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete faithless (^speak) 11:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Camp Bournedale Outdoor Education Program

Camp Bournedale Outdoor Education Program (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems unremarkable, and Google only throws up one relevant link, not that that is a reason to delete it, but just an thought. αѕєηιηє ^t/_c 17:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete - admirable, but utterly non-notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete - fails to assert notability, no more notable than any other local program like it. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 18:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait a few days. May go nowhere, and I wish editors would have at least minimal sourced article content together before article creation, but wouldn't hurt to hold off for a few days. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No consensus to delete.. _(1 == 2)^Until 13:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prof Jacqueline Eales

Prof Jacqueline Eales (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems unremarkable person αѕєηιηє ^t/_c 17:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete Non notable... Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 17:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Lately I keep seeing people treat "non" as if it were a standalone word rather than a prefix. Have they completely stopped teaching the concept of prefixes? Michael Hardy (talk) 02:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do not comment on the commentator... your comment is taken as a personal attack. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 12:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Note: Also has a duplicate article under Jacqueline Eales which was created by same person today. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 17:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. I closed the duplicate AfD and redirected the duplicate article to this one. We can sort out what the proper name for the article should be later, if it survives this AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - wildly un-notable. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 17:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:PROF. JohnCD (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Non notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhshah (talk • contribs) 18:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keeep Two major books by importanbt publishers. That would be enough as an author, and the professorship adds to it. DGG (talk) 04:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete May be notable, however, contributions to huge multi-editor works such as dictionaries don't seem to qualify as notable unless there are reliable independent references that indicate her contributions are unusually important within the realm of reference publications (asserted, but not backed up). --Pgagnon999 (talk) 04:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete not notable enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC).
• Keep Notable author satisfies professorial inclusion standards. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - clearly valid - David Gerard (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. A leading academic in her field, as worthy of near-automatic inclusion as people who kick, carry, throw or otherwise interact with spheroid objects in the field of sport, &c. The content of the article appears to be able to meet WP:V and WP:NPOV and WP:NOR (although some references would be good) so unless it offends against WP:BLP or WP:NOT, it is line with our inclusion policies. What the guidelines might say is of no interest, I stopped paying any attention to those a long time ago. As for the name, the good professor's own website says Jackie Eales and that's how she signed a letter to the Telegraph. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - based on Find sources: Jacqueline Eales — news, books, scholar there appears to be significant coverage in reliable sources. Addhoc (talk) 04:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Never Wanted to Dance: The Remixes

Never Wanted to Dance: The Remixes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

original individual song(s) contain(s) no chart-based notability - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - how is this notable? —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 17:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete If it didn't chart, then it fails WP:MUSIC, and therefore fails WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ——Torc. ^(Talk.) 06:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete faithless (^speak) 11:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flyathlon

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

Apparently nn event that never took place due to the coordinator's death. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - advertising, non-notable spam. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 17:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per all. ♥Shapiros10WuzHere♥ 21:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Redirect to parent article. Black Kite 22:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Supina

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

individual notability not established; individual is not notable enough for his own article; information in this article is largely trivial - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per failing WP:N and WP:NPOV. ArcAngel (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect (no merge) to A Wilhelm Scream the band that this person plays for, because it is a plausible search term. There is not enough notability for this person outside of that band. Bláthnaid 19:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• redirect per Tahoma. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Union League Golf and Country Club

The Union League Golf and Country Club (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Mandatory AFD: hangon template placed Belinrahs (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Am I missing something here? Since when does a hangon = mandatory AfD? If the speedy is declined by an admin, AfD may be appropriate. – ukexpat (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment As far as I have learned, hangon = AFD nom. The nom reason could be interpreted as the reason put for the speedy. If anyone handy in Wikipedia policy can give me input (and corresponding proof, such as a link to that policy) on this matter, tell me on my talk page. I'll continue to do what I'm doing until I am told otherwise. --Belinrahs (talk) 19:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You have learned wrong. A hangon does not require an AfD. The removal of a PROD tag reqires an AfD if the initial prodder or anybody else feels that the article should still be removed. Did you read the hangon tag? :Note that this request is not binding, and the page may still be deleted if the page unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if the promised explanation is not provided very soon Corvus cornix_talk 00:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 17:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - any course designed by Alister MacKenzie is notable in my book. ArcAngel (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep In any case, I just declined the speedy, since it is a very famous club of great historical significance in California, and there are abundant sources. I don't understand "delete per nom," since there is no reason for nomination given. I suppose it means "because its spam" , since it was speedied as G11. However, I think any spam can be removed or rewritten, & the article is not primarily promotional . DGG (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Needs cleanup and copy edit, but definitely appears to be a notable golf course. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, and per TPH, needs cleanup and wikification. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • comment - and sourcing! --Orange Mike | Talk 20:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Maxim_(talk) 23:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Taliworks

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

Mandatory AFD: hangon template placed Belinrahs (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and improve; there must be sources out there. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 17:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Meets WP:CORP because it has been written about in reliable sources. Bláthnaid 19:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. —Bláthnaid 19:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep Notability is unambiguously confirmed. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 22:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] London Bulgarian Choir

The result was Keep Notability is asserted. (non-admin closing) - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

London Bulgarian Choir (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Mandatory AFD: hangon notice placed Belinrahs (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The first nomination is irrelevant, Twinkle somehow messed up and didn't finish the task. This is a first nomination. --Belinrahs (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Can't see reasons here or in other page - perhaps due to same Twinkle problem?
• Keep Reasons from Wikipedia:MUSIC 4. Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country. 9. Has won or placed in a major music competition. 10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable 11: Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network. (admission of bias: I wrote the article as it stands)Catafalque (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - notability has been established to my satisfaction. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - no reason for nomination given —  Tivedshambo  _(t|c) 22:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep For above reasons. Note to Mike... the revision which you placed the CSD tag on pretty clearly asserted notability. A PROD tag may have been more appropriate. SingCal 07:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per CSD G3 (hoax) by Orangemike (non-admin close). —Travis^talk 16:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Noveninsky

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

Hoax entry, zero hits in Google (outside of an older hit on Wikipedia). Justin Eiler (talk) 16:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Further info Article started by a now-blocked, vandal only account. It was {{prod}}-ded as an obvious hoax, but the prod notice was removed by User:Drhaft, a new user (possibly a sock--removing the prod notice was that editor's first edit). Justin Eiler (talk) 16:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete G3 as hoax. Picture is of Radom. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete WP:HOAX, blatant vandalism Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 16:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete, does not meet notability standards for cooperations. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PIRA Energy Group

PIRA Energy Group (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Was prodded, but then removed by an IP. Reads like an advert and possibly a non-notable company. -WarthogDemon 15:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - I believe it fails WP:CORP. ArcAngel (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. This is not a public utility, but a consulting group. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep It does read like an advert, but I think that this consulting firm is notable. Looking through a Google News search, most of the hits are when the opinion of a person from this consulting firm is included in the article (eg these New York Times articles [18] [19] [20]). There are some articles behind paywalls that are about this group Mark A. Schwartz joins PIRA as managing director PIRA gives big points to biggest oil companies. Bláthnaid 20:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• What the NYT articles reveal is that people from this consultancy group have been called and quoted by reporters in stories about other things entirely. They don't really tell us anything about the company itself. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, that is why I differentiated between articles including an opinion from a person and articles about this group. To me, the presence of so many articles that include opinions from members of this group indicates that they are an important source of information in their field. This says that 300 companies use PIRA as a consultant. A tiny bit of information here There is a snippet view from Google Books here that unfortunately cuts out possibly useful information. I don't have access to articles that are behind paywalls, but what I can find indicates to me that this group is notable. Bláthnaid 23:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Withdrawn, nom's concerns were adressed; this is now a perfectly valid dab page. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wallimann

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

None of the listed individuals in this purported disambig page has a WP article so is it a valid disambig? ukexpat (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. The nomination was completely valid, but I replaced the purported dab page with a real dab page, with three bluelinks. Now it deserves keeping, I think. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. - after the excellent work done by David Eppstein. Thanks.  – ukexpat (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - we have articles like this. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 17:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete can be recreated if reliable sources can be found. --Salix alba (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Turbine Toucan

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

Delete nothing to indicate the significance of this aircraft. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 17:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment There is some info on this plane on the web. Examples [21] and [22], but i'm not 100% sure if these satisfy WP:N. For now neutral but interested in others opinions on the sources.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• A bit of a puzzle. It's obviously notable to the degree that everyone who follows that sort of thing appears to know about it. Online justification for notability doesn't fit the standard rules, however. It may be necessary to go after print sources. Perhaps delete but without prejudice. Mangoe (talk) 00:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice to re-creation if/once notability can be established. Cube lurker's link [2] above appears to be just reproducing a press release; link [1] is much better but not enough by itself i think. To quote from that, "It will be up to Erickson to develop an airshow program featuring the Turbine Toucan for the 2008 airshow season." If that succeeds (I almost said 'gets off the ground') then there's likely to be little problem establishing notability in a few months' time. In the meantime, WP shouldn't be used to aid their marketing to airshows. Qwfp (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Left anarchism

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

Procedural nomination. User:Max rspct requests that this article be deleted on the grounds that "Its a non-notable or fringe term that belongs in wiktionary + the page is just being filled with fringe right-wing libertarian claptrap". See Talk:Left anarchism for further details. скоморохъ 15:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been listed as an Anarchism Task Force-related deletion debate. Lord Metroid (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge, The different concept do have notable circulation and sources are plenty to be found as shown by reference section in the article. If Left anarchism is not notable enough to deem keeping then I propose that a new article is created called something alike Right and left anarchism where Right anarchism/Market anarchism and Left anarchism is being explained in relationship to each other. Lord Metroid (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep When people come across this pretty common concept, the concept of a left-wing form of anarchism, they want to be able to look it up in the encyclopedia. Why not allow them the opportunity? Information is what Wikipedia is about isn't it? Operation Spooner (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep or Rename:This article doesn't just cover a term used by free market anarchists to describe libertarian socialism. The Post-left tendency is hardly "right ring claptrap". They see "left anarchists" as a negative term, but not out of a preference for conservative values. They desire to push anarchy towards a more radical tendency, and critique its historic relationship to leftist politics. And there is a tendency among some anarchists to see anarchism as an extreme leftist tendency, and thus accept it as a positive term. Bookchin saw it this way before he abandoned it. An alternative may be to rename the article, though counter to Lordmetroid's suggestion, I would advice "Anarchy and leftism", so that it not only cover the use of the term "left anarchism" in a subsection, but also anarchist perspectives of leftism.--Cast (talk) 17:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• strong keep - really exists. Could be one of the few serious articles on Wikipedia, if only it could be expanded with better, more historic sources. Definitely doesn't stand at the same level as your typical AfD-nominated article! AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete, subject is not identifiable, thus no verifiable information can be found, thus no valid encyclopedic article can be made. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Colonel Shabeel

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

The article doesn't even give his full name, so it's hard to identify him or find any sources in the web, outside of Wikipedia mirrors. [23] mentions a "Colonel Mohamed Hassan Shabeel - a former division commander in the Barre regime who was responsible for the Genocide in Northern Somalia in 1988." Maybe that's him, though I couldn't find much else. The article should probably be deleted unless someone can identify him and cite reliable sources. fschoenm (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, unverifiable in present form. Jfire (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep faithless (^speak) 12:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] House of Lords (band)

House of Lords (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources to establish notability. --Explodicle (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Having Gene Simmons as a manager is an indication of notability, and there is an article about him and this band here. There is a review of one of their 1980s concerts here. Bláthnaid 21:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• A famous manager isn't one of the criteria for inclusion on WP:MUSIC; are there any sources that address the House of Lords in more detail? The first one only has a couple of sentences about them, and the second one just seems to talk about how unsuccessful their performance was. --Explodicle (talk) 02:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• A famous manager makes it more likely that the band has been written about. This is the case in the first article that I linked to. A review of one of this band's concerts means that the band is notable. There is also an article about the band here, and German reviews of 2 of their albums here and here. Bláthnaid 13:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Bláthnaid 21:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• They appear to meet criterion #1 of WP:MUSIC, as there is a fair amount of coverage in third-party sources. Keep. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as per Paul Erik. They sound terrible though. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 13:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Meets numerous criteria; here are two (or three, depending on how you look at it): two major label albums (on Gene Simmon's vanity label though RCA), both of which charted on the Billboard 200 (refs added), founding member Gregg Giuffria was formerly of Angel and Giuffria (the latter band apparently morphed into House of Lords). WARNING: Unencylopedic comment ahead—They were pretty bad. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Non-notable, crappy article. Needs a full rewrite if keep. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 19:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Notable subject w. a bad article. Peter Fleet (talk) 10:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Black Kite 22:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flashcolony

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

Neither the English nor Arabic ghits demonstrate any notability and there's no evidence of RS coverage to meet WP:WEB. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 15:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable website. Jfire (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge. I have redirected the articles; knowledgeable editors are encouraged to merge relevant information. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yoopanese

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

Culture Shock (album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Camp Fever (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Yoop It Up (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Yoopy Do Wah (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

One Can Short of a 6-Pack (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

For Diehards Only (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

We're Still Rockin' (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Jackpine Savage (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I hate to do this, since I really like Da Yoopers, but unfortunately, it seems that their albums fail WP:MUSIC. All of these albums were released independently; the only sources that I can find for them are either the liner notes or short, mostly one-sentence reviews on All Music Guide -- in other words, no substantial coverage whatsoever. Also, the first four albums were cassette-only releases that have been out of print for almost a decade now; therefore, they're especially unlikely to have been covered.

Even though the band is clearly notable by criterion #7 of WP:MUSIC (the article's sources assert that they're prominent representatives of Michigan's musical scene), the lack of available information on their albums concerns me. Since it would be far too much information to simply merge the albums' track listings into their page, these album pages should probably be deleted for lack of individual notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The later albums feature slightly longer AMG reviews; however, I feel that this is more of an all-or-none case, so I'm listing them all. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 17:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge At first I was concerned that TenPoundHammer might be off his rocker, saying "slightly longer AMG reviews" because "reviews" means "secondary sources", and articles with secondary sources should not be killed. But upon reading the AMG reviews, they seem quite monotonic. Basically, the encyclopedic content of the album articles, and of the AMG reviews, boils down to "they wear thin after a while". All the rest is just lists of skits and songs without much interpretation, and the few skits that the AMG reviewer does single out for comment could be mentioned in the main article. So merge the albums into the main article, minus the lists but plus the specific criticisms. Paddy Simcox (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• There's really nothing to merge, since the band's page makes mention of all their albums already. Also, as far as I can tell, AMG is the only reliable source to have reviewed the albums -- and to base their critical reception entirely on AMG might be undue weight. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Redirct to the page on the band, so that people searching for the albums can find the information located on the band's page. -- saberwyn 02:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Merge all to Da Yoopers or alternately a new Da Yoopers discography page. --Dhartung | Talk 19:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge albums to main article of notable band or create a subarticle. While the band meets WP:MUSIC, unfortunately, the albums do not have enough coverage to warrant articles themselves. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Clearly we want to include the information about these albums somewhere in the encyclopedia. Either in their own articles or as part of the article on the band that recorded them, neither or these options requires deletion. Catchpole (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment We seem to be headed for a consensus to merge. Therefore, I am taking Dhartung's idea and making a separate Da Yoopers discography page, which will use the {{tracklist}} templates to save space. I've gotten a start at User:TenPoundHammer/Yoopers sandbox. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support da merge to Da Yoopers discography page dere, eh? (Right towards the bottom end of Da Yoopers country here in SE Wisconsin) Nate • (chatter) 22:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 22:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brutal Core

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

Can find no reliable evidence to support the existence of a "brutal core" or "brutalcore" music genre (cf. most entries on List of hardcore genres which satisfy WP:V and WP:NEO). Most GHits are various bands, labels, usernames, etc. ~Matticus ^U_C 15:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NEO, no evidence that this is a widely used term at all. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment- The term exists, but notable, I don't think so [24]. If notability proven, move to Brutalcore. Welt^anschaunng 16:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Rewritten as Fire-retardant gel and advertising stripped out. There may be a better name for this article, or indeed an article may already exist that I've missed - please feel free to move it there if so. Note: I speedied the FireAde article as blatant spam, which it plainly was. Black Kite 22:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barricade gel

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

The page looks like an advertisement. No other Wikipedia page links to it, but it can be found using google if you know the product name ("barricade gel"). The article lacks sources and I think it is non-notable. It was written mostly by one author with minor modifications by others. KarlFrei (talk) 14:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Note also that it links to articles on similar, competing products like FireAde; that page is even worse than this one. Question: is there a general article about this class of firefighting gel material? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Replace with general article on class of products. As noted above there seem to be other articles on competing products, so this isn't exactly unique. I do agree that the type of product is deserving of an entry, or at least a mention in an appropriate article on firefighting/fire prevention methods. --BrucePodger (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete (again) by Seicer (talk · contribs), non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] St. vespalian society

St. vespalian society (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Mandatory AFD: hangon notice was placed Belinrahs (talk) 14:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Possible hoax; no real assertion of notability, no sources; "hang-on" request says that members are also members of notable groups, but notability is not contagious. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Reads like a hoax: "The club's president or chief officer holds the title of Grand Bizzledorp," for example. Fails WP:RS, WP:V. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete G3 as hoax, so tagged. The word "bizzledorp" says it all. (Or at least it says more than the words "Yakka foob mog. Grug pubbawup zink wattoom gazork. Chumble spuzz.") Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. There are too many things wrong here. As was pointed out, if an article such as List of human fatalities caused by animals each year could be created, and reliably sourced, then it may be viable. But this article as it stands (a) is mainly OR (b) is unclear about the definition of "animals" - does that include insects? (c) is unclear about causation - do mosquitoes actually cause malaria deaths, or are they purely a mechanism? and (d) leaves logic holes - does the fact that, say, cattle, horses or kangaroos cause many deaths every year through road traffic accidents make them dangerous? (e) is flimsily sourced (WP:V). Black Kite 23:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of most dangerous animals

List of most dangerous animals (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete as POV article. While it might be possible to ascertain how many deaths are caused by certain animals, verifying it all is essentially impossible. Ranking most dangerous animals by deaths, when you can't verify those deaths, is bad. Even the one source the article currently has can't make up its mind whether mosquitos cause 2 million or 3 million deaths per year. That's a variance of 50%. This list can never be accurate. Hammersoft (talk) 14:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as POV article per nom. I mean, heck, I could put my cat on here because she bites everyone hard. It would also be very neary impossible to verify the number of deaths by certain animals (deranged Siamese-tabby mixes included). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - this article is outlet for POV editing and original research. EJF (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I think I'll stay away from the polar bears and mosquitos and croc's, as for domestic dogs, I'll take my chances. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete One of the most utter nonsensical article I have ever seen. Complete original research. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Same thing as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Organisms that are dangerous to humans. Punkmorten (talk) 20:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • When I removed the {{prod}} tag, I figured there must have been an article about this sort of thing already but I didn't know the name. I think this article is different than that one. This list would show the top 10 or top 20 animals responsible for human deaths each year, while the other article would show any animal considered dangerous. --Pixelface (talk) 02:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Seems a shame to delete it. Wikipedia could be a great way to collate reliable citations. On the other hand, perhaps there are not going to be sufficient reliable citations for this article in my lifetime (especially if I go near a mozzie). Smithsonian magazine, January 2006 gives an example of the problem: Although accurate numbers are hard to come by, lore has it that hippos kill more people each year than lions, elephants, leopards, buffaloes and rhinos combined. I'd accept sources giving 50% uncertainty as being statistically responsible, but I guess the sources available are simply not conclusive enough. OK, it goes against my natural inclinations, but... Delete. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Subjective, unmaintainable list. Author seems to be an SPA to boot. Blueboy96 23:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Like Fayenatic, I liked the article (or more to the point, I liked the America Online link), but ILIKEIT isn't good enough for a keep, nor is "INTERESTING". Since the AOL article itself is unsourced, I consider this one to be unsourced as well. However, the premise might make a good article if reliable statistics could be found-- a ranking, in effect, by number of deaths caused by a particular animal. Even with the data, it's still subjective-- the delayed reaction from a mosquito bite ranks ahead of the bloody violent death from a shark bite, and lions, tigers and cougars are all listed as "big cat". Mandsford (talk) 23:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • We don't require sources to cite their sources. And I also found it strange at first that "big cats" was a category, but just as there are many different kinds of sharks, jellyfish, bears, etc, there are different kinds of cats. We even have an article on Big cat. I assume each of the articles for each of these animals have statistics on the number of human deaths they cause yearly. That information can simply be collated into this article. I suggest this article be renamed, given the subjective nature of the term "most dangerous." --Pixelface (talk) 02:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

  Somehow, an entertainment piece on America Online doesn't strike me as being a very reliable source. I'm not sure what you mean by "we"... Mandsford (talk) 04:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep There are lots of government statistics on the causes of human death and the big killers like malaria are very well documented. Here's an example of a reliable source. The article just needs work. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I think there is some room for an article discussing animal attacks and the risks thereof, but a list is never going to work. Mangoe (talk) 00:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and improve. I just recently removed a prod from this page and added a citation to AOL Travel. I believe this article can be improved. It just lists animals and the number of human fatalities they cause each year. The page can be renamed to List of human fatalities caused by animals each year if you don't like the current title, and citations can be added. National Geographic says "Malaria kills more than a million people worldwide each year—90 percent of them in Africa; 70 percent children under the age of five." The shark article says "The average number of fatalities per year between 2001 and 2006 from unprovoked shark attacks is 4.3." and cites this site. We don't have to verify each death, we just have to cite a reliable source. Animal caused fatalities is a notable topic. Animal Planet has the show Ocean's Deadliest. There was a TV show called The World's Most Dangerous Animals. I'm sure the Discovery Channel has several shows on the topic. --Pixelface (talk) 01:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Rename or Delete I would support the article if the name were changed (as indicate above) to List of human fatalities caused by animals each year. The current title introduces gross (no pun intended) subjective POV bias into the content of the list.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 04:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• KEEP IT COUDL SAVE UR LIFE!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 15:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep if it is well-sourced and renamed to something more objective. The AOL article is interesting, but obviously only focused on the "scary" animals, because it neglects the deaths caused by dogs and horses, for example. --Itub (talk) 12:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and Improve. I went to search for just such a list, and specifically chose to look at the wikipedia first because my previous experiences with it being much better referenced and organized. I think the subject matter is appropriate to wikipedia as per Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). Unlike the "dangerous organisms" list mentioned above, this one appears to subject that isn't too general (as mentioned in the stand-alone lists guidelines). I see no reason why this subject matter has to be PoV and I don't think it is that highly PoV right now, although it could certainly be improved. The exact number of people killed/hurt per year is not required for such a list either. A google search on most dangerous animals shows a lot of potential sources/references, as well as a lot of interest in this subject. I would say that this article needs to be given at least another month or two to improve. Wrs1864 (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: people keep saying there can be references for this. This is flatly false. There is no central repository for a definitive database that lists all deaths from X type of creature. The list can never be accurate because of this. It's based in large part on speculation, wild estimates, and impossibly unrectifiable data. Does anyone honestly think that record keeping of deaths from mosquitoes in Kenya is going to be as accurate as Zimbabwe, or South Africa, or Indonesia? We can't possibly keep this list accurate. It's pure speculation and wild guesses, nothing more. We might as well try to keep track of the most popular episode of Law & Order by the number of times it's actually been watched...worldwide...in every country...on every TV. You can't. Neither can you from this list. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that an exact count is practically impossible. However, if there are published estimates from respectable organizations, then we could quote those. --Itub (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Sure, if they had some connection to reality. The only source cited in this article can't agree on whether a million people died from mosquitoes or not. We can all agree that people die from mosquitoes. Developing a list of the most dangerous things based on that? Hardly. Besides, people don't die from mosquito bites. They die from the diseases carried by them. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Have you checked for references in the mosquito and malaria articles? This is a list of animals responsible for the most human deaths each year. --Pixelface (talk) 12:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• And Mosquitoes aren't even animals. Neither is Malaria. As I noted, mosquitoes don't kill people. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Mosquitoes are most certainly animals from a biological point of view. Humans too, so we should add humans at the top of the list. ;-) --Itub (talk) 13:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• keep Sourcing isn't that hard for most of these. Itub actually makes a valid point we should note in the article that humans are not counted for this purpose but would be on top otherwise. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep faithless (^speak) 12:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deakin Business School

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

Article of non-notable sub-school of a university. Fails WP:N Twenty Years 14:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Twenty Years 14:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Merge are redirect with the university page. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep major law, medical, business and similar schools, whether called schools or colleges, are notable. In this case it apparent accounts for almost half of the postgraduate enrollment.DGG (talk) 04:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG - non-notability need to be substantiated - SatuSuro 07:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, very notable school at the university. Per DDG, this is probably the most important and high-profile part of Deakin University. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC).
• Keep, I agree it's notable, but it is young and dynamic. In a few years time it will have quite a substantial number of distinguised individuals that have made their mark in the corporate world such as Chris Lynch of BHP-Billiton. To make the article acceptable, it should be expanded to fully reflect the institution it is. Jaker5 (talk) 11:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No consensus to delete, recommend merging and redirecting to Hull University ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hull University Union

Hull University Union (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

For a simple reason, this article serves a purpose to promote the student union and nothing else. Also, god knows if individual student unions are notable in its own right, hence not notable at all, therefore fails WP:N, this is why this is nominated. Also I wish people don't come here and write as if they are writing a holiday brochure. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to Hull University TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 14:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep the Union is separate from the university and is a notable entity to which all of the students belong. It needs referencing and some clean-up but should remain. Keith D (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment, but the article doesn't states why it is notable. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete This union is no more notable than any other - it certainly fails to assert any notability through use of reliable third-party links - all references are links to the SUs own site. Some unions, like that of say Oxbridge or similar, may be notable. The vast majority, this one included, are carbon copies of one-another, and are not notable enough for their own entry. _TalkIslander 20:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, Almost all colleges have a student union. Unless it has some kind of special history or architecture or something, it is not notable. Paddy Simcox (talk) 08:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC) — Paddy Simcox (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Oh gee, now I'm an SPA because I noticed a proliferation of student union articles. I also speedy delete tagged a lot of articles, which you can't see because they're mostly gone now. At least I'm not arguing that student unions are "inheritently notable". Paddy Simcox (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Using an account mainly for one thing - in your case prodding and deleting, can often be construed that way. Please be civil; attacking others simply because they have a different view of notability isn't very civil. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Keith D. Student unions are inheritently notable. GreenJoe 16:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • This GreenJoe guy is the one who undid the propose deletion tags on all the student union articles I found, and marked my opinion as coming from an SPA. He seems to have overlooked my efforts to clear out non-notable concert tours, make redirects and do a few other things that interest me. Paddy Simcox (talk) 03:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - why? Where does it say that SUs are inheritently notable? I don't believe that.. _TalkIslander 16:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:ORG. AN organisation with thousands of members every year for decades. That's where notability comes from. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment, As I have said on my other comment, student union are notable...but only to those who study at the university and never to those who study outside these faculties because...the students get told about them on their freshman week, thats why. Personally I agree with Paddy's comment that every universities have a student union, try name one that haven't, therefore I won't be buying into GreenJoe's comment that every one are inheritently notable. My pure reason to nominate this for deletion is, this article is nothing but pure spam, a total misuse of this site of you all tell me, plus there is nothing that is salvageable in this site for it to stay. In all student unions are only notable to those who studied at the faculty, not to mention that every educational faculties have one. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• AFD is not cleanup. The union like any such union gets covered in the local papers from time to time although distance from london and general lack of causeing trouble will likely keep it out of nationals for the most part.Geni 18:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Unfortunately the local newspaper removes its on line articles after 6 months so looking on-line is not particularly useful and you need to look at the originals at the local studies library. Keith D (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• So? just because something only exists on microfilm doesn't mean that it isn't a valid source.Geni 20:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No the issue is that it's local coverage only. Student unions are of interest to the local populations that they serve, which is why they fail WP:CORP TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 20:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Generaly unions stick to serveing students. The wider community does tend to take an interest from time to time (traditionaly rag week but there are other reasons). Local newspapers are not normaly run by the student union.Geni 20:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Sorry I think you took my comment the wrong way round. I was just attempting to point out that on-line sources may not be available to show third party coverage of the subject. Keith D (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Reasoning for failing WP:N poorly conceived. TorstenGuise (talk) 19:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No, not at all, as this is what I have been recommended to do. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 11:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Merge - the info here is better served by including it with the main article.--RedShiftPA (talk) 02:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no main article.Geni 14:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes there is - University of Hull. _TalkIslander 14:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No that is about the university. For very solid legal reasons unions tend to be seperate bodies.Geni 19:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

...However, the union would not exist without the University, and it's in the University's best interest to aid and promote the union. Yes, the two are legally different bodies, but the two are so reliant on one another that for all intents and purposes they can be regarded together. _TalkIslander 19:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really. One is an education and research institution the other is focused on more social issues.Geni 20:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm impressed - you managed to completely ignore my entire stance on the matter, and state yours again regardless. Very helpful. _TalkIslander 21:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Hull University Union was viewed 364 times in February, and University of Hull was viewed 3813 times in the same month. So (if they scroll down) about 10 times as many people are reading about the Union on the University's page. From this perspective, a merge is better for all concerned. Paddy Simcox (talk) 01:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Those stats do not have any relevance to this debate. Mostlyharmless (talk) 08:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, do WP:RS, WP:N and WP:ORG have relevance? Because the article fails all three. In any case, I wasn't saying to get rid of the article because it has few views, but to make people feel better if it is merged or deleted. Paddy Simcox (talk) 13:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Merge and be civil. There are no arguments for notability except that "inherent" and that is not backed by any precedent. Matchups (talk) 02:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to the University article. I'm unimpressed by the claim that "student unions" are legally independent entities. Maybe so, but generally so are alumni-run college sport booster clubs, and we don't have separate articles for them. Every college has these student unions, their "membership" seems to dovetail with the student body count, they lack reliable sources discussing them in non-trivial contexts (when was the last time you read a newspaper article about your local university's student union?). Etc.  RGTraynor  16:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - as with other organisations, student unions need the necessary secondary sources to meet WP:ORG. This one hasn't and doesn't. TerriersFan (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge to Loughborough University. Consider it done. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Loughborough Campus Radio

Loughborough Campus Radio (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Heres my reason why this is nominated for deletion, does being aired 4 weeks annually make this radio station notable? Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 13:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Merge to Loughborough University TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 14:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to Loughborough UniversityJasynnash2 (talk) 14:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge as above. _TalkIslander 20:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge as per Travellingcari. - Dravecky (talk) 13:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge per above. An RSL station in the UK may not necessarily merit its own article, but it still unequivocally merits a subsection in the article on the university that operates it. Bearcat (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crystal kelly

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

Contested PROD. Individual is notable only for breaking school records and being rather good at basketball in college. Doesn't appear to satisfy WP:BIO or WP:ATHLETE Fritzpoll (talk) 13:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, no indications of notability or reliable third party sources. -R. fiend (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete for now. As far as athletes go, the rule of thumb is they should have played at 1) the professional level or 2) the highest amateur level. There are some exceptions to this, of course. For Crystal Kelly, that would mean playing in the WNBA or for the United States women's national basketball team. When she does that, she'll warrant an article. faithless (^speak) 12:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above, unless better cites can be found ASAP, to show National acclaim. Bearian (talk) 19:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to University of Leicester. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lush Radio

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

Heres my reason why this is nominated for deletion, does playing twice yearly make this radio station notable? Most of its notability is within the campus and not outside it. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Merge to University of Leicester. - Dravecky (talk) 14:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge per Dravecky. An RSL station in the UK may not necessarily merit its own article, but it still unequivocally merits a subsection in the article on the university that operates it. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I created this page, and would suggest it is worthy of inclusion. The station does operate on an RSL licence twice a year, but at other times throughout the University of Leicester academtic term it broadcasts continually on an internet webcast. I would also cite other student radio stations, such as those of the University of Warwick (RAW) and Univerity of York, which have their own undisputed Wikipedia pages. These stations operate similar broadcasting timetables and services (RSL) to that of Lush Radio. Further to Dravecky's point - Lush Radio is a media group of the University of Leicester Students' Union - which has oversight of the station. It is not strictly an organ of the University of Leicester as a whole and so merging it with that article may be innacurate. ellcol (talk) 00:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

But that is still calling for a merge, considering it is not notable on its own. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 11:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Reply I would not call for a merge, since the only article with which Lush Radio could conceivably and accurately be merged with is the University of Leicester Students' Union - which is itself under AfD discussion. I also would reiterate my previous comment that other student radio stations have undisputed Wikipedia articles - could you suggest why this station should be different? Also as a distinct UK radio station which broadcasts both locally (on FM Radio) and potentially internationally on a in internet webcast - should the station not be worth of inclusion? ellcol (talk) 00:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete or merge. Non-notable radio station, no claim to fame. Lucky to avoid {{db-web}} . WWGB (talk) 11:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep --JForget 01:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] University of Leicester Students' Union

University of Leicester Students' Union (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

For a simple reason, this article serves a purpose to promote the student union and nothing else. Also, god knows if individual student unions are notable in its own right, hence not notable at all, therefore fails WP:N, this is why this is nominated. Also I wish people would stop coming to this site come here and write as if they are writing a holiday brochure. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 13:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to University of Leicester TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 14:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and source with, perhaps, material from a local newspaper? Sounds possible. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 17:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - better have a look at Category:Students' unions before saying student unions are not WP material. Kevlar67 (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply, just because other articles exist, I don't see why this is exempt from WP:CORP's Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found. Or am I misunderstanding your point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travellingcari (talk • contribs) 19:29, 3 March 2008
• Delete I'll happily state that individual SUs, by and large, are not WP material, because as Travellingcari points out above, other stuff exists is not a valid argument. Most UK SUs are carbon copies of one another, so although there are definitely a small few that are notable, the vast majority aren't. This is one of them - it fails to assert any notability as far as I can see. _TalkIslander 20:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete There is a continual supply of undergrads writing articles about their student unions (and their dorms), which loom large in their lives. These articles then are deleted. And so it goes... Paddy Simcox (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep This article has a value - as do others about Students' Unions. The relationship that students have with Unions is often both temporary and disparate. Temporary because the average length of an undergraduate degree is only three years - this means that knowledge easily leaks away from both the organisation and the students. Disparate because students will typically only interact with one Union; wikipedia is an almost unique source that allows these organisations to be compared. The article has the opportunity to grow as a store of historic information.Mjs59 (talk) 22:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Articles about students' unions do have value, as the organisations generally have quite rich social and political histories. These could easily be backed up with journalistic sources and university records. Although individually perhaps they are mainly of interest to those associated with the locality or the university, this is the same as with many other WP articles / categories. Prlewis0 (talk) 22:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep the major student organisation in a university is a major division of the university, has an important part in the life of the place, and is a good place to merge articles on individual student organisations. DGG (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Students' Unions are notable in general because they provide a "student life"-based perspective not covered within other student organizations. The local newspaper, Leicester Mercury, has steady coverage of this Students' Union; but I added 2 BBC articles in External Links. The University of Leicester Students' Union is notable in particular because it received the "2005 Students' Union of the Year" award from magazine Club Mirror (I added a citation), and because of the national precedent set by its soft drink VAT legal case (which should be included within the main article, but for now, I added 2 External Links). Coffee4me (talk) 05:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment to all above 4 keep nominations, I'm sorry to say, dosen't all student unions do that - provide a "student life"-based perspective not covered within other student organizations, plus local paper will do what they do, tell local stories and support local causes such as universities, that is the case with my former university. If you want this article to be kept, I recommend you all delete all these spam pieces, otherwise I will continually see this as a AfD candidate until all this is done. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 23:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Reply, I'd sorry but I must object to your viewpoint. All students unions may provide a "student life" but the manner is which they do so varies and each student typically identifies with a single union; while others (particularly graduates) will be interested in comparisons between different organisations. Regarding notability; is a students union any less notable than the class of rolling stock that Virgin Trains use on a particular route? I'm not attempting to reference "WP:Other Stuff" merely pointing out that granularity has value. Furthermore I would argue that the union is notable for the following reasons: A membership circa 20,000 with 6,000 new members each year diverse both nationally and internationally, it is a distinct organisation from both the University of Leicester and the NUS, it won Students' Union of the year in 2005 and was nominated in the two following years, it was one of the first unions to have and "International" sabbatical role and since one of the first to not have a "President", the list of musicians that have played at the venue and the media outlets that it supports. I would invite further discussion regarding the tag of "Advertising" and references to "Spam" and invite anybody to reference any issues on the Talk pages of the article to further improve the article.Mjs59 (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Reply, I'm sure that every SU will have no trouble having this many members considering how many students are there. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Ongoing discussion on notability of student unions/student governments on TF:SA and WP:UNI. This article should not be deleted (along with all the other student union articles on AfD at the moment until clear guidelines on student unions may be reached. WP:NOT#Wikipedia does not have a deadline. Also note possible proposal of WikiProject Students' Unions, which is in the WPCouncil at the moment. The supporters of the project believes that all students unions have inherit notability regardless of sufficient coverage using standard WP:ORG. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 11:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge into University of Leicester. Student unions are rarely, if ever, notable independently of the universities or colleges whose student bodies they serve. Bearcat (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep As creator of the page I was asked to comment, and a deletion is inappropriate in this case. The page should stay albeit with significant modification. The Leicester Students' Union is notable as a gig venue (several gig venues appear on wikipedia on their own), it is notable in legal precedent (as shown in the external links), notable in the etymological field (examine the Ripple article linked) and for its scale. Any proposed merge with the University's page would itself be an error, as the 2 institutions operate independently, have separate philosophies (one is fundamentally charitable (the union) whilst the other is an educational establishment.) To highlight this difference, the 2 organisations came to blows in a court case recently (in Private Eye at some point.) I have modified the section that could be labelled as "advertsing" so this tag is probably no longer needed. MichaelSalter (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, per WP:ORG. Thousands of members for dozens of years. Mostlyharmless (talk) 07:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Maxim_(talk) 23:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Learning Center Foundation

The Learning Center Foundation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Article was created by an WP:SPA account (with the same name) with no other edits other than related to The Learning Center Foundation. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 13:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom (plus WP:COI). —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 17:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable. --DAJF (talk) 05:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 01:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bloog

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

Minor detail (namely, one monster) from Commander Keen games. Would better belong to a devoted wiki (the article lists two). Delete. If I were really generous, I might have suggested creation of a page like "Creatures in Commander Keen series". (Contested WP:PROD.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 13:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 08:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maxim_(talk) 23:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete holy crap this is gamecruft to the extreme. I'm a Keen fan, but this is ridiculous. JuJube (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Lectonar per CSD G10. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yarukku Yaaro

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

This page is unnecessary and it is exploiting Wikipedia's resource for personal use. 210.81.12.108 (talk) 04:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC) Text copied from article talk page. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 12:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: Released film. Notable. Just needs clean up. Universal Hero (talk) 16:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 17:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence of notability as established by reliable sources. A google search turns up nothing but YouTube videos and a few blog comments. PC78 (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral, if more reliable sources turn up, I'll be happy to change to keep. The Dominator (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, The article is just evolving. this is just like any other movie related article. No personal use involved in this article. The supporters will try and complete the full fledged article in a span of time. Yutha vasanth (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Maxim_(talk) 00:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The argument that this utterly fails WP:V and is probably a hoax is much stronger than the argument which says it's only a reference problem thus no need for deletion

[edit] Neofuturism

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

Get rid of this article. It is primarily the work of a single editor, who has only two edits (the other edit was an upload of a photograph of, supposedly, himself). Merge it, delete it, I don't think it matters. But as it stands, this article is very much below Wikipedia's standards. 75.111.18.26 (talk · contribs) Copied from article talk page. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 12:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Question - Specifically what is of concern to the nominator? Does he/she mean to say this article lacks notability? Or just that it is not well sourced and could have COI? AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 14:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Needs a rewrite, but it shouldn't be deleted. --Belinrahs (talk) 14:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Afd is not the forum to submit articles that have WP:PROBLEMS. Google Books/Scholar verify this is a notable topic. скоморохъ 18:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Hmmmmmm.... This article seems to be a hoax. It's hard to wade through all the buzzword noise, but google suggests that that neofuturism is actually an artistic movement, rather than philosophical. So I say, Delete. Mangoe (talk) 01:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 20:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: agree that it needs a re-write but a google search shows that this is notable. -- Roleplayer (talk) 21:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep but with {{unreferenced}} tag. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 21:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with Mangoe and the nominator that, once you sort through the sesquipedelian bullshit, the article does not square with the traditional definitions of neofuturism in art and architecture. The author appears to be having fun with this as an intellectual movement, a literary movement, an aid to "the impoverished field of future studies" (it provided "greatly needed neologisms and paleologisms", thank you). And there's now an intellectual divide in the school, which (naturally) makes adequate deconstruction impossible. Naturally. Mandsford (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. An article might be written on one (or more) of the several movements or trends that the word has been used to denote—in particular, the Russian artistic movement—but there's nothing to do with this particular article except to jettison it. Obfuscatory goobledegook intended to disguise a complete lack of meaning. (And, by the way, it fails WP:V, since you'll not find any sources to support the "information" contained in this mess.) Deor (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete article reads like someone's pet Sokal hoax, in the total absence of WP:RS sources this completely fails WP:V and has to go. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. All Copyvio appears to have been removed, and - as noted - sources have been added. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inverse Doppler effect

Inverse Doppler effect (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article makes extraordinary claims with no references. At best, it is a complete misunderstanding. Habashia (talk) 12:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup When searching for this, I can find several sources which mention this, including this article which describes in more detail the experiment in our article, as well asthis abstract from MIT that specifically goes out to prove that this does not exist, proving that, as the nominator says, this phenomenon is a complete misunderstanding. While conflicting, there are multiple reliable sources to confirm that this is not a hoax and was actually honestly researched. The article could be cleaned up to describe the experiment in better details and enumerate why this theory is incorrect. I've added the above sources to the article. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 13:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep it is now sourced and seems to meet the WP:N standards. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The article meets basic wiki standards and can be improved further. Dhshah (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete I agree with Minimaki. It is a copyright violation. Dhshah (talk) 10:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete This apparently is a copyright violation of this article from 2003, and stayed in Wikipedia essentially unmodified since 2004. An article about the term may or may not make sense, but the current text has to go. --Minimaki (talk) 12:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• I removed the copy violation and added another ref. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 21:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• I still think it should be deleted - now the copied text is in all revisions except the last one. --Minimaki (talk) 03:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• keep meets WP:RS, quite a lot of press[25] and academic coverage [26]. Seems to have quite a long history of investigation. --Salix alba (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, but expand to include sources mentioned by Hersfold. --Reinoutr (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• I have amended to remove the (I think false) implication that the phenomenon was demonstrated conclusively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Habashia (talk • contribs) 12:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete faithless (^speak) 12:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How to Live Though an Executive

How to Live Though an Executive (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article in its current state has zero secondary sources, it is entirely comprised of large blockquoted material from primary source, self-referential material affiliated with the Church of Scientology. I did a few searches in news and other archives in attempts to find any secondary WP:V/WP:RS sources that significantly discuss/analyze this work. Though How to Live Though an Executive is mentioned in a few books, this is only in the context of listing works by Hubbard, in other books by Hubbard, or a brief mention in passing, no significant discussion, no reviews/analysis. A search in the news archive Infotrac for the title brought up zero results. If there is any significant discussion/analysis/reviews in secondary sources, I have not been able to find any, after searching in multiple archives. Cirt (talk) 12:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Foobaz·o< 13:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom without prejudice for recreation if at some point independent notability is established. John Carter (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Belinrahs (talk) 14:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all the links (that work) are to sell the book.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Maxim_(talk) 00:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Click MusicalKEYS

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

I see one trivial review ( I read Spanish so the language isn't an issue) and once you filter out download locations, ghits don't assert any notability for this software. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —αlεx•mullεr 12:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable software. Listed sources are not reliable sources. Jfire (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per CSD A7 by Seicer (non-admin close). —Travis^talk 16:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conway Hall

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

Seems to fail WP:MUSIC only a myspace site linked, zero google hits. Probably would be a speedy if I knew whether a "studio album" was notable enough? SGGH ^speak! 12:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete A7 Three possibly self-released albums, and they toured with a non-notable band. That amounts to zero assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Arguably this could have (and should have) been speedied under CSD A3. There may be a valid discussion here somewhere, but it should probably be part of the Quran article. Nandesuka (talk) 04:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Final testament

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

Seems to be a WP:OR essay, not contributing to the encyclopedia. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arabic bible for the AfD on another article by the same user which is link to in this one. SGGH ^speak! 12:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment There do appear to be sources that say this is an established cognomen for the Qur'an. Indeed, the disambiguation page on Testament includes the Qur'an for that reason. I'm inclined towards a redirect if there are no other articles which could also use this title; otherwise, it could be turned into a disambiguation page for the articles. --Sturm 15:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The google book search revealed atleast one other book than the one mentioned below[27]. So we may have a disamb page here. Welt^anschaunng 19:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• The Final Testament does seem to refer to the Quran according to this book [28]. As for the content of the article, it seems to be telling nothing more than Qur'an. Redirect to Qur'an. Welt^anschaunng 16:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Essentially OR. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Not at all OR. It is a well known argument in Islamic thought that the Quran is the final testament. See for example the book referenced above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logifix (talk • contribs) 12:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the article has been modified since the last comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logifix (talk • contribs) 01:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maxim_(talk) 00:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Dan Patrick (Texas politician)

The result was keep per WP:SNOW (non-admin closing) - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Dan Patrick (Texas politician) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Obscure figure with little to none references have turned this article into an advertisement. Kibbled bits (talk) 06:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - Sitting state senator in a district which includes a major city, published author, television and radio broadcaster who has appeared on national radio and television programs in either guest or host roles. Inherent notability (at least to me) seems to be established. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Seems notable enough to me.--Habashia (talk) 12:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Sitting state senators are inherently notable per guidelines for politicians. Feel free to cleanup the POV-ness if you like. DarkAudit (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Members and former members of state/provincial legislatures are notable per WP:BIO#Politicians. Clean the article up as necessary. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems notable. Dhshah (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per extremely explicit sentence on the subject in WP:BIO. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete most of the content is without citations. If it's not deleted then I will be force to do heavy cleanup  :( --Kibbled bits (talk) 05:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That is, with respect, an absurd reason for deletion. Besides that, nobody says you have to do it. I mean, we'd certainly appreciate it if you did, but it's not like it's automatically your responsibility. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

To me it is not. I do not think this figure is very noteworthy and most of all I don't think being a state senator (which there has to be well into the hundreds?) or a state rep (ditto) automatically qualifies you for an article. I do think there are issues with people of little interest being populated with misinformation, which IMHO is worse than any information at all. --Kibbled bits (talk) 13:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• WP:BIO seems pretty clear on the notability of office holders. Dan Patrick passes. Active politicians are always a problem. That's why there is an "activepol" flag. It just takes more vigilance by responsible editors. The Dan Patrick article seems more lopsided than unverifiable. Balance is a surmountable problem. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• There wasn't a tag. There is now. You're welcome. (And thanks to the followup editor who moved it to the correct spot.) :) DarkAudit (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

As the wiki-gnome who made the follow-up edit, you are welcome. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Well, Kibbled, if you want to change the guideline that state-level elected office-holders are notable, you might want to take it up at Wikipedia talk:BIO. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Per above, members of state, provincial or national legislatures (current or ex-members) are automatically notable per WP:BIO.--JForget 01:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Elemental Drake (Dungeons & Dragons)

Elemental Drake (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable Dungeons & Dragons monster appearing in one supplement. Already mentioned in passing at Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons). No evidence of any third party coverage. J Milburn (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Trim and Merge to Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons) Web Warlock (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - non notable. shadzar|Talk|contribs 18:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete — non-notable. Mention in a list. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: This is already mentioned in a list of dragons that we have- probably all that is needed. J Milburn (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 08:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable fictional creature with no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside D&D canon. This article fails WP:NOT#GUIDE as the primary source is a gameguide, and the descriptions fail WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF as well, so there is no benefit from keeping this fancruft.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] George Anaghwilliam

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

Non-notable bio, zero non-Wikipedia google hits. Anonymous user (author?) deleted prod tag with no explanation. Also see related articles Sir George Charles Anaghwilliam and George Charles Anaghwilliam, both of which should be deleted as well. Tanthalas39 (talk) 04:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete all three. Lack of references and zero ghits suggest a clear lack of notability at best, or a hoax at worst. PC78 (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep per discussion below, indicating that the subject satisfies the criteria for notability and verifiability. Non-admin close. --jonny-mt 04:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kart Fighter

(English) (delete) – (View AfD)

Another Chinese ROM pirate that fails verifiability and notability. Wiki22445 (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and Improve. While the article is bare bones, since when is Kart Fighter something you can't find plenty of information on?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, does the fact Gamefaqs list this game count for anything?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No. Someoneanother 14:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep A quick Google search has revealed some additional references. The article currently has 6 references, including one published by IGN Entertainment's GameSpy network. While the article is short and definitely needs to be improved, it does not fail verifiability nor notability as claimed by the nominator. FightingStreet (talk) 10:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 08:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, per everyone above. - Master Bigode from SRK.o//(Talk) (Contribs) 13:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. A proper article is possible, but this isn't it. Hopelessly incomplete, poorly referenced and the author doesn't seem interested in developing it. faithless (^speak) 12:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of NFL Relatives

List of NFL Relatives (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN ^{aka john lennon} 18:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait a bit - As the original PRODder, I had intended to wait a bit before going to AfD, along the lines of WP:NEWBIE, as the original poster intends to improve/restructure the article soon. --bd_ (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Since the original poster hasn't returned in a few days, I change my vote to Delete. --bd_ (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Viscardi

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

This person obviously created his own Wikipedia article. Considering the sheer number of people who have the same level of accomplishment as he does, it is ridiculous to leave this article here. Cami Solomon (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Plenty of relevant ghits suggest notability, and the ABC article is a reliable enough source of information. No evidence whatsoever to suggest that this is a vanity article created by the subject himself. PC78 (talk) 00:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Erdős number of 3 is evidence of notability. Lots of press coverage of Siemens Westinghouse Competition win. Significantly high level of achievements for a 17 year old. No evidence that this is a vanity article. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• DEFINITELY Keep "Sheer number of people who have the same level of accomplishment"?? Has the nominator already forgotten all the headlines about Michael Viscardi from two or three years ago? All the TV news programs, all the articles in places like Newsweek and the New York Times? The nominator should explain with complete specificity the evidence that he created this article himself. I looked at the edit history. I don't see it. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I disagree with Gandalf61 that his moderate Erdős number has anything to do with notability. But the competition win and concomitant press coverage should be enough, I think. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Look at List of people by Erdős number, go down to "3" and count the blue links and the red links. Nearly all are blue. Should this one be an exception? I don't think so. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I have no opinion on this article, but if it is deleted, we'll just remove it from the list. The red links there are intended for people who should eventually have their own articles. Ntsimp (talk) 23:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment To avoid controversy I have removed my remark about Erdős number. It was only one of my four arguments anyway, and probably the weakest. My vote considered opinion remains Keep. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Here is USA Today's article about Michael Viscardi.
  • Here is a New York Times article about Michael Viscardi.
  • Here is the Globe and Mail (Toronto) article about Michael Viscardi.
  • Here is Pravda's article about Michael Viscardi.
  • Michael Hardy (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• keep meets WP:BIO. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pterafolk

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

Non notable Dungeons & Dragons monster. No evidence of third party coverage. Has appeared in a couple of supplements relating to a single setting. J Milburn (talk) 13:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - minor monster at best. Maybe a brief mention on the Faerun page. Web Warlock (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - non notable. shadzar|Talk|contribs 18:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Web Warlock and others above. Non-notable. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per failing WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 13:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 08:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

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