Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 August 26

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

The result was all articles deleted. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 17:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Big Kuntry King

Big Kuntry King (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable rapper who fails WP:MUSIC. Associated with hit-makers but he hasn't achieved that status yet. One non-hit album with a group and a solo album that may or may not be released later this year. Also nominating a non-notable song by the same artist, and 2 redirect pages. Precious Roy 00:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Big Kuntry (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Yeah I'm On It. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Yeah I'm On It (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I saw this page with a friend in the room and he immediately shouted that he had heard of Big Kuntry King. Apparently he has enough notoriety to be recognized and henceforth would deserve an entry, however brief...Themodelcitizen 02:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all; fails WP:MUSIC. Your friend hearing of him is not one of Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. --Geniac 04:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all per above. Look forward to a revised article if/when the individual has a notable work published. --Oscarthecat 10:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all - not notable yet. May be one day, at which point this article can be recreated. As is often stated, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball in which future notability can be detected. Euryalus 05:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all. Fails notability criteria for inclusion. ♫ Cricket02 12:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all. Not notable and google search for "Big Kuntry Kung" generates only 2 results. Thaurisil^t_c 09:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cypress Creek Town Center

Cypress Creek Town Center (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Recommended deletion per WP:CRYSTAL. Mall does not appear to be notable, it is under construction and has no tenants. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 23:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I have cited three articles from the St. Petersburg Times regarding the status and prominence of this mall. There is no reason this should be deleted. If you delete this article, delete every other article about malls along with it. Thank you.Blaze33541 23:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep the articles do show sufficient local notability, though they seem almost indistinguishable from PR in their contents. DGG (talk) 00:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep megamall that makes specific claims of notability in the article supported by multiple reliable and verifiable sources to meet the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Despite the widely held misinterpretation that WP:CRYSTAL prohibits any event or development that will occur at any point in the future, the policy actually states that "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced." Every statement is verifiably sourced and referenced, and would more than meet Wikipedia standards of notability if the mall had already been built. Alansohn 00:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Alansohn, I fully concur. There is no speculation regarding this project. The construction is underway, occuring as we speak. Although on a grander scale, the project of Burj Dubai draws comparison to this. Not yet completed, but well underway with solid and definite progress as pointed out by published sources.Blaze33541 01:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep per DGG. Doesn't violate WP:CRYSTAL; every claim in the article is sourced to a reliable source. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 02:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Is it part of the Globex Corporation...? Lugnuts 07:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Not part of Globex, but it is in the Hammock District. Alansohn 20:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Sources say all permits received, completion expected 2008, super-regional at 1.3 to 1.5 million square feet, "2nd largest in region". Precedent in 2007 has been the keeping of superregional malls. Edison 20:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG and Edison, there is sufficient notability demonstrated here. Burntsauce 21:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG and Edison. The nom seems to have misunderstood WP:CRYSTAL. --Oakshade 05:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 possible due to multi-nomination. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American International School Hong Kong

American International School Hong Kong (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No claim to notability has been established. Just another international school in another foreign country. Luke! 23:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all international schools in Hong Kong with no assertion to notability.

California School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Korean International School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Yew Chung International School of Hong Kong (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletions. -- Luke! 23:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep some, delete one:
  • Keep Korean International School, has news coverage. Even got themselves investigated by the ICAC, according to these (Korean) newspaper articles: [1][2]. Then again, every man and his dog get investigated by the ICAC these days ...
  • Weak keep American International School [3] seems to get some GNews hits too, though there doesn't seem to be as much to say about them.
  • Not sure about Yew Chung, but the chain as a whole may be notable where its individual branches are not
  • Delete California School, which seems the least likely to be notable; based on their official website, they appear to be a one-room operation running out of a building on Nathan Road. [4]

Anyway, putting these as a bundled nomination doesn't seem to have been a particularly good idea, the only thing they have in common is that they're all "international" schools located in the same city. cab 01:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep both the American International School and Korean International School articles since those schools have received fair news coverage. I'm undecided on the last one, a merge perhaps? Burntsauce 20:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Some Keep all but the california one, the others could be notable, especially in Hong Kong.Mbisanz 05:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment on Yew Chung International School of Hong Kong --- found an article on them through CQVIP (sorta the JSTOR of mainland China) in an academic journal put out by the Shenzhen Department of Education ... dunno how high their inclusion standards are, and I can't access the article itself, so I don't know whether it's just boosterism by an alum or something. [5] cab 11:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• keep please for systemic bias concerns these schools are important to their communities yuckfoo 06:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep some, merge some. My sympathies go to the closing administrator who has to wade through this multi-nom to find some sort of consensus. RFerreira 22:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete California School as unsourced and non-notable, Keep the other three. Ohconfucius 05:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC) Ohconfucius 05:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Herb Tyler

Non-notable former college football player, only reached the semi-proffesional leagues, fail WP:BIO Delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Played for Houma Bayou Bucks (I added wikilink when reading article). They were a pro indoor team. While I totally agree that this is kinda weak, this meets policy here and pretty much every player than played for an indoor team gets a pass to be on wikipedia, just as any AAA baseball player does. Needs references and verfication, but that isn't a reason to delete. Now with the wikilink to his former team (which is notable by wikipedia standards) I think you have to keep him. Pharmboy 23:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • It's just a minor league football league, not "fully proffesional" as required by WP:BIO, unlike the AAA which is fully proffesional, of course the team and the league is notable, but not the players. There is also consensus in AFD supporting that they aren't notable, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Royal Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
    • As you know, the results of a AFD aren't policy for future decisions, and honestly, I would have to disagree with the result of that AFD anyway. Arena football IS the minors for all intent and purposes, it is televised, and the subject and teams are notable enough to be articles here. We just disagree about threshold of what is "professional" enough, and I would rather err on the side of being inclusive rather than exclusive when it comes to areas like sports, music and the arts as it is often in the eye of the beholder. Pharmboy 23:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm a american sports expert I think you may have gotten confused with another league, this league is not Arena Football League, (which is the fully proffesional minor league, and those are the players who meet BIO somewhat), the league he used to play for was just an average semi-proffesional league that isn't affiliated with them and there are tons of them with thousands of players. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep 3 year starter at a major D1 program, with significant coverage like this, this, and more at google news Corpx 04:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  05:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for the same arguments as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Wickersham. MECU≈talk 12:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, per above. The player had a significant career at the top level in American college football --a sport which is, as anyone who lives in America and pays attention to the sport can attest-- as big a sport as any pro league, and bigger than smaller professional leagues such as Soccer or even Hockey. Article could use clean-up, though. --Bobak 16:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Again same with tens of thousands of others that never reached the pros Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 16:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Corpx, who I have come to trust in these discussions. Burntsauce 21:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Corpx. Seancp 23:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete as non-notable subject engaging in self-promotion. I didn't see a cite from the Globe and Mail, and the other refs aren't third-party sources. He's not Bill Gates or Steve Jobs – there's no comparison except all three are male. KrakatoaKatie 11:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ken Evoy

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

procedural nomination This was previously considered at AFD Jan-Feb 2007 (User:The Epopt) and was nominated for WP:PROD-based deletion in Aug 2007 (User:Hu12). The new nomination was accompanied with the reason for deletion "Self-promotion, Spam, NN". The old nomination was originally a speedy deletion candidate; it was taken to AFD with the reason for deletion "This short bio reads like a résumé or perhaps spam." The outcome of the AFD was 'no consensus'. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete. Self promotion, spam, and I am confused how you get no consensus on an AFD. Even the claims of notability are totally vague and don't provide enough info to even assert notability. It just says 'he is important' without asserting the meat of WHY. He is "highly regarded", and yes, the rest of the article is also weasel words. No brainer, IMO, this is speedy. Pharmboy 23:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

~ While I started this article a while back there have been a lot of contributions (revisions and reverts) since then. The bio was made shorter due not wanting to repeat what could be found in the cited articles. Looking at a page like that of Steve Jobs or Bill Gates, however, it would seem that the repetition of information is accepted for bios. If this is correct, then the page could conform to a "Jobs/Gates" format prior to deletion. Or am I missing the point of bios? This is my first one so it's possible. Thanks for any input you can provide! Maltiti2005 04:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Modifications have been made to the article. They address the apparent need for additional content, further proof of notability and standardized "bio format." Placeholders have been added for future additions. Maltiti2005 09:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as article fails to demonstrate notability per Wikipedia:Notability (people). --Gavin Collins 14:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M.V.E.i. (talk • contribs) 19:49, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Note Wikipedia is not a democracy so just 'voting' is meaningless. Consensus != majority vote, and a vote without explanation is not a vote at all. Pharmboy 23:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as original article's previous attempts to demonstrate notability were modified. Further, a reasonable amount of time should be granted to update the article. Maltiti2005 03:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - the article cites two references in which Ken Evoy is the primary subject of the article. The Globe and Mail is a major Canadian national paper and the Montreal Gazette is a major Montreal daily so this satisifies WP:BIO for multiple articles from reliable sources. -- Whpq 21:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] National U

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

Defunct student magazine thar never achieved any notability and with no sources fails WP:V. Delete view. Bridgeplayer 23:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. It was a newspaper run by the National Union of Students and distributed to university campuses all around Australia for many years. On what basis are you asserting that it "never achieved any notability"? It just needs a good expansion. Rebecca 01:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Rebecca alexis+kate=? 03:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M.V.E.i. (talk • contribs) 19:49, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I think the nominator need to ascertain what methods of checking for notability or sources - has any standard check of the australian national library collection been made - unless some verification by the nominaor of why and how never achieved any notabiluty can be proved - most curious. SatuSuro 01:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as article does not present sufficient evidience notablity WP:CORP, although it may still be held in esteem by its former editors and contributors. Lack of access magazine archive means it won't achieve notability any time soon. --Gavin Collins 12:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Seems semi-important and historically relevantMbisanz 06:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Smell the history. Joestella 15:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

• Delete per WP:ORG. Unless someone can cite a reliable source (defined here), this should go. --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Recurring dreams 11:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: of course it is notable, it was influential in its (my) time.--Grahamec 14:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep - Non-admin closure. :: maelgwn - talk 04:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Empire Times

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

Defunct student newspaper that never achieved any notability. Fails WP:V due to lack of sources. Delete view. Bridgeplayer 23:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. It was a university newspaper that was in regular publication for more than forty years. This is a bogus nomination - the nominator has randomly nominated a bunch of newspapers asserting "never achieved any notability" without the slightest research or evidence. Rebecca 01:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Per Rebecca. Twenty Years 15:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I do not believe the nominators assertions - unless they know something about australian history sources that I do not know about - more evidence of what in fact has been checked is needed to make this a valid Afd nomination or not SatuSuro 01:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and improve - Clearly it's notable, per what Rebecca told us. But if it was around for 40 years, I'm sure there must be some sources that discuss it. Add them. — Giggy 08:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Rebecca. Hard to understand the rationale for "never achieved any notability". I assume the nominator has made a simple error. Lankiveil 10:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC).

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MastCell ^Talk 23:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disney Channel graphics

Disney Channel graphics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Original research about a subject which is not encyclopedic. —tregoweth (talk) 23:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, entirely WP:OR, somewhat lacking in context, unsourced, difficult (if not impossible) to verify. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 23:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge anything useful with Disney Channel and delete. Dbromage [Talk] 23:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Very narrow content that seems to be "interesting" perhaps but not notable enough by itself to warrant an article. (why not an article on IBM's logos over the years? Or McDonalds, Chevy, GE.... ) Merge might or might not be appropriate, but info doesn't automatically qualify for a merge so I wouldn't nom for that. Also, the images that 'seem' to be ok with licensing are likely copyright violations. You can't just take a picture of a logo and release that picture into the PD for anyone to use. It is still a TRADEMARK and Disney is famous for aggressively defending their rights, and these seem to violate those rights. Pharmboy 23:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is an article on the Slogan's of McDonald's but it needs a fair bit of work. I could make a case for Chevy being a marketing emblem in itself. But I'd suggest doing a review of their marketing practices instead. And believe it or not, it could be sourced. Their advertising is often in the news. FrozenPurpleCube 00:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Dbromage [Talk] 01:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

See WP:DISCUSSINGANISSUEBROUGHTUPBYANOTHEREDITORWITHOUTREALLYCARINGABOUTTHEARTICLEITSELF. Sheesh. Forgive me for making a comment that I thought might be informative for them. FrozenPurpleCube 02:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't be a dick. Dbromage [Talk] 04:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I make the same request of you. I feel your comment was dickish. FrozenPurpleCube 13:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per original research + lack of notability Corpx 04:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable OR. Shoester 06:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Total fancruft. Dannycali 22:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Mickey is a cultural icon and seems to be well written and describing a major part of a major tv channel. Don't quite know how to deal with the COPYVIO issues.Mbisanz 06:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The article isn't about Mickey. Also, an article can be well-written but still be about an unencyclopedic subject. —tregoweth (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I was looking at the IBM] Article. Would anyoen be interested in merging it to the Disney Channel article in that style? Mbisanz 17:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete as indiscriminant collection of information. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 21:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Gateway products

List of Gateway products (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic, unreferenced, aging list of Gateway products. Wikipedia is not a directory. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipeidia isn't an advertising medium. Mikeblas 22:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• weak delete This might be useful (which is not a reason to keep, per policy) and *could* be encyclopedic if it gave something besides just being a list. Lack of given referencing and "aging equipment" are not valid reasons to delete. I don't think this would qualify for a wp:not#directory delete either. I think the only legit arguement is the indiscriminate list issue. IMO, it would require a complete rewrite to keep, and would need to add references and additional context to the list, thus delete and if someone rewrote it properly and could satisfy those conditions, it could stick. Pharmboy 23:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, for reasons given by nominator. —tregoweth (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Jakew 23:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment You may wish to add Gateway monitors to this discussion. FrozenPurpleCube 00:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• While you're at it, you may also wish to add List of past Gateway products. I wonder how many other Gateway catalogs are out there – is there a way to add them to this discussion? I would say Delete them all. Eldar 00:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete put the notable ones in appropriate categories, but we're not a directory of gateway models Corpx 04:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: not encyclopedic; these lists likely exist elsewhere and are probably more complete (e.g., my Gateway laptop is not listed here—nor should I add it). +mt 16:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT, especially since this list can be probably be found on Gateways website. --_{Hdt83 Chat} 20:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Rename it Gateway related topics like List of Microsoft topics they're no different in what they convey. Or break big lists down into more specific lists like Intel's seen here & here, or Apple's here for example. CaribDigita 23:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Better as a List in article or a category Mbisanz 06:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Compliant with WP:LIST. Provides information beyond a category; provides structure and navigation; clear inclusion criteria. Deletion policy/Brand name products seems to indicate that consensus is that lists of products are acceptable. If we want to change that (and maybe we should), start there, not by AfD'ing selected lists. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 14:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete because the only reason I could think of to keep is WP:ILIKEIT, which isn't good enough. spazure (contribs) (review) 08:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment On the other hand, not giving any particular reason to delete it — in particular, not addressing any of the various other arguments raised above — seems to me like WP:JUSTAVOTE.  :-) —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 12:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep (withdrawn by nominator). Melsaran (talk) 10:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ...In Pains

...In Pains (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Album does not appear to be the subject of any significant independent coverage, and article is essentially a track list. Under those cirucmstances, WP:MUSIC, while vague, suggests that the album may be non-notable. MastCell ^Talk 22:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep If the band is notable enough to be on Wikipedia (they must be, they are here and you didn't AFD them) then their released albums are notable. MANY bands have albums listed here with no more info than just the tracks, so this is consistant. Yes, not ideal, but the norm. Pharmboy 22:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:MUSIC; if the band is notable, then generally their albums are notable. A look at Cadaver (band) suggests that they meet at least one criterion of WP:MUSIC, so the album stays. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 23:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: My impression (in response to this and the above comment) is that notability of a band does not make all of their albums automatically notable. The WP:MUSIC guideline is a bit vague about albums, but it would seem that (in keeping with other notability guidelines) there needs to be some sort of independent secondary-source coverage for an album to warrant its own article. Track-list articles (of which this is one) seem to be deletion material. Correct me if I'm wrong - I don't work on this area much. MastCell ^Talk 02:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment My claim that if the band is notable, then the album is, is a matter of experience rather than policy. I agree that 3rd party verification should be on any article but I have found myself being a bit less of a hard ass on these points simply because WP:RS is hard to apply in a strict sense to any of the arts. ie: it seems practical to cut some slack on a single album if the band itself is notable as what makes a single album notable is much harder to define, whereas what makes a BAND notable is easier to determine. Again, not policy, per se, but my own pragmatic compromise here. Most albums from lesser known bands (but notable per policy) don't have coverage from media that meets RS strickly anyway. If we get really strict on WP:RS, most of the album entries would disappear on wikipedia. Pharmboy 00:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I guess my question, then, is how we can build an encyclopedic article (i.e. something beyond a dressed-up track list) if the album has no outside coverage to speak of. Even if there were some evidence that it had charted somewhere, or there was some story behind it that was relevant to the band's career, that might be one thing. But here I'm just not seeing anything to expand the article or encyclopedize it with. MastCell ^Talk 01:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
        • As someone who works on articles about obscure metal bands, I can assure you it is important that we have these articles. However, in response to the specific point about sources/significance- there is a review of the album here, another here, and is described as significant in terms of genre here- "It [referring to a different album] is a great slab of death metal, a modern classic maintaining the heritage from the heydays of Norwegian old school death metal, where albums such as Darkthrone's 'Soulside Journey' and Cadaver's 'In Pains' saw the darkness of daytime." Other mentions include a short review here and constant references to this album being one of the few by the band. J Milburn 13:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment/Question I agree with the nominator that the key issue seems to be coverage in third-party sources ("Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage" - WP:MUSIC). Does anyone know of such sources? Jakew 23:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep No different than many of our other album articles Mbisanz 02:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I was the one who contested the prod. A studio album by a notable band, released by a notable record label. J Milburn 00:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: That's fine, with the sources and context you've provided above, the article probably passes WP:MUSIC and this AfD can probably be closed. I know you're busy like all of us, but if you have a chance to include those refs and context in the article so that it's more than just a track list, that would be very helpful. Thanks for looking into it. MastCell ^Talk 16:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of characters in the Harry Potter books#Owls. MastCell ^Talk 23:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pigwidgeon

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

Even though certine things in the Harry Potter books do deserve their own articles, this dosent, the character dosent play a "Major" role in the books at all and there is hardly any information. I think the information that is coved in the Ron Weasley article clearly covers this topic as well. **Ko2007** 22:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect to Ron's article, we don't see him that much often and is not a key character in the series.--JForget 22:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Ron Weasley per above. Pigwidgeon isn't notable enough for its own article, but deserving enough of a mention in the article on Ron. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to the Pets section of List of characters in the Harry Potter books. Or Weasley family Possibly mention at Scops owl as well. FrozenPurpleCube 00:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to List_of_characters_in_the_Harry_Potter_books#Owls, mention in Ron Weasley. KTC 01:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with the list of characters. Major series, but the character never had a major role in the HP books. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect - No notability, should be a minor section somewhere. Judgesurreal777 03:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Ron Weasley. It's a pattern in the Harry Potter articles anyway, that the information about the pets are in the articles about their respective owner. See the subjection of Trevor in Neville Longbottom and about Hagrid's different beasts. Neville Longbottom 08:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to Ron Weasley. Pigwidgeon should be mentioned, however I don't think he should have his own article as he's not very important and there is not very much information about him. Shmooshkums 17:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MastCell ^Talk 23:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Record of the Day

Record of the Day (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

You'd think with such phrases as "Record of the Day is also acknowledged for unearthing unheard artists and bands through their daily audio feature" and "The Record of the Day online message board that accompanies the magazine online has achieved cult status" this page would have references. Or that I could find reliable sources via a google search. New England ^{Review Me!}/Go Red Sox! 22:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, spam, nonnotable. —tregoweth (talk) 23:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, can't find anything on it. Italia^vivi 20:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unity Committee

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

Non-notable rap group. Has been tag for "this article may not satisfy the notability guideline" since Feb 2007. No references either. New England ^{Review Me!}/Go Red Sox! 22:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete A7, no notability asserted, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete view - no evidence of notability. Bridgeplayer 00:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)o
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ♫ Cricket02 12:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fails to assert importanceMbisanz 02:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 & Merge. This doesn't seem to be developing and is otherwise a dicdef with no real life sourced cited. We already have this at the list of blogging terms so a redirect and merge (help yourselves) seems the sensible course for a permanent semi-stub. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blogroll

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

Per WP:DICT and WP:NEO. The result of the debate nearly two years ago was Keep, but the page has improved little if any since then. New England ^{Review Me!}/Go Red Sox! 21:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NEO, fails WP:RS, WP:V with a dash of WP:OR and WP:WEASEL thrown in. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep It's been around long enough not to be a neologism. Wl219 22:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to blog, as a fairly minor aspect of blogs not really needing its own article. the wub "?!" 14:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect Presents useful info and isn't biased or stubby, thangs I'd look for in deleting a current events style articleMbisanz 02:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This has been around long enough to have become regular parlance; it is definitely no longer a neologism. Italia^vivi 19:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - just landed on the page today and it was informative —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.175.109 (talk) 21:46, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
• 'Keep At first I was going to say merge and redirect, but Blog is starting to get somewhat bulky already. It's fairly minor, but it's still a notable term at this point, and more than just a dicdef. In short -- I see no reason to delete. spazure (contribs) (review) 08:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Selectively merge with Blog. Article has not demonstrated subject's individual notability. Most of it is original research, too. --Alksub 20:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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: evidence of significant coverage in multiple third-party reliable sources has been provided (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dylan_Howard#H), satisfying Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Additionally, most established users commenting after evidence of such coverage was provided at this AFD have favored retention of the article; the nominator has withdrawn the nomination [6]. John254 14:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dylan Howard

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

I think this does not meet WP:NN. Brusegadi 21:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, no obvious route to notability, no sources. --Dhartung | Talk 21:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above.--Hooperbloob 00:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Don't Delete Understand above, but this article just needs to be cleaned up and more accurate and better sourced material added. This reporter deserves a page, due to his "notoriety" in his reporting. We may not appreciate its content, but this reporter does have a place in Australia media history Bcollier 05:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I tried looking for sources but failed. If you can find sources and meet WP:NN that would be fine. Otheriwse, deletion and a future re-write are in order. Brusegadi 06:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Firstly, this article has to meet notoriety as a person not as a subject, see WP:BIO. As a "Creative Professional" / Journalist, Dylan has played a significant role in the "Illicit Drugs in the AFL" story, and what has happened over the last few days [7] has seen some of that vindicated. His place in this should be noted! Bcollier 14:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - By WP:NN I mean WP:BIO since it is what applies here. The point is that the article does not establish notability by any of the guidelines mentioned in BIO. Am i missing something? Is he frequently cited? If so, make it known! As the article stands it only makes a vague mention of a sport's cheat, says the guy is controversial and does not really say why; and it may violate WP:BLP because it makes a claim about some guy being accused of cheating without providing reliable resources (I added ref tags for that)... It seems messy and if it belongs, it probably needs to be rewritten. Brusegadi 06:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Granted Brusegadi the article isn't well written and needs some work. But until this AfD is resolved, it is pointless to work on the article especially if in 1 or 2 days time it is decided to delete this article. I am happy to do the work, but just don't want to waste my time if the consensus is to delete. Cheers Bcollier 13:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete and Redirect to Seven News. Notability of sportscasters is highly subjective. Cary Bass ^demandez 15:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Firstly Bastique, this guy isn't a sportscaster, as the general definition of that term is "someone who commentates or calls a game for radio, TV or internet broadcasts". This guy is a journalist, and correct me if I am wrong, but we would have to delete alot of living person's bio's due to this reason. This reporter has recently contributed quite alot to the debate surrounding illicit drug use in the AFL. Some might argue this reporters methods, but there is no doubting his notoriety! Bcollier 08:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Although he may be a "journalist" and not a "sportscaster," that in itself doesn't assert notability. And nothing else does. — Giggy 08:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - OK Giggy, but you know that this guy's story and its fallout is leading all the news bulletins and current affairs programs across all channel's including the ABC, Ch9 & Ch10. Plus he has been written up and his reports commented on in many national newspapers and has been given many column inches. I can link all the articles here if you like, but would rather do it in the actual WP article. I am not going to correct and fix the article until this "Delete"/"Don't Delete" issue is settled. CHeers Bcollier 08:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

*Keep. His name is currently splashed all over the news in relation to a recent story in which he published the confidential medical records of two AFL players who have twice tested positive to recreational drugs. This is alleged by some to be a major breach of journalistic code of practice and ethics, and has resulted in an injunction against further publication, and a major rift between the AFLPA and Channel Seven, including threats of AFL players boycotting the Brownlow Medal. In short, this guy has both created, and himself become the subject of, back page news in Australia all this week. Surely that's notable enough. [8][9][10][11][12] Hesperian 13:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Breaking news: The AFL have just announced that they will no longer deal with Howard because he claimed that they had approved his story. The Howard headlines continue to roll in.... Hesperian 06:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete with extreme prejudice. This guy is not notable, and never will be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.178.83 (talk) 16:17, August 28, 2007 (UTC) Note this editor has made only 4 edits over a 3 year period, though it may be an established editor who wasnt logged in. Gnangarra 15:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Agree with Hesperian that the current controversy and the coverage of his actions in this latest story probably make him notable enough for an article. My concern is where we can find reliable sources with enough information so that the article does not focus on this one issue alone and that the article complies with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. I fear this may be difficult. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattinbgn (talk • contribs) 01:44, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
• keep subject is a complex case, his story may be more notable in the short term than the person but atm neither a sufficiently distinguishable to be clearer as to what the stronger subject maybe. pure speculation on my part is his profession is more likely with time to establish separate notability. Either way there is enough notability it just needs time to establish the correct format/location for the article. Gnangarra 15:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• keep* whilst his actions and that of seven maybe questionable, it is still newsworthy!!!! who is requesting the deletion the afl or one of its friends??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.248.37 (talk) 21:32, August 29, 2007 (UTC) — 124.168.248.37 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• strong keep* The notability of the reporter is without question, in the same way Craig Hutchison is also attrubited to questionable journalistic practices. Redmulletfish —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redmulletfish (talk • contribs) 05:51, August 30, 2007 (UTC) — Redmulletfish (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• TIME TO WRAP THIS UP - I think that there is enough evidence that this article is relevant and worthy of a place in WP and enough support above. Can we wrap this AfD up and get on with editing the article up to WP standards? Cheers Bcollier 09:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• • I GAVE UP!! - I have just completely reworked the article. Please review revised edition and comment! Cheers Bcollier 16:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I've got no doubt the subject is notable enough. I believe that more information will come to light as the Medical Records scandal unfolds. The police are currently conducting an inquiry into this journalist. Don't delete the article. However, the article does need a clean-up. It needs better references, as various news reports have directly linked D.H to the scandal. So, this journalist is at the centre of a very big scandal, whichever way the police inquiry goes. The story, and the commentary about D.H is going to increase. Lester2 21:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Withdraw Nomination - The article has improved considerably so I will like to withdraw the nomination. Now it is a matter of providing a few links, but that is not enough reason for an Afd. Thanks for all those who improved it, as I was unable to find info on the subject. Good day, Brusegadi 03:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 04:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James O'Higgins-Norman

James O'Higgins-Norman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Autobiographical article with unsupported assertion of notability. previous Speedy nom failed as there is an assertion of notability. Delete as fails WP:BIO in general and Wikipedia:Notability (academics) in particular. Springnuts 21:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 21:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Only passing mentions found; fails WP:PROF. --Dhartung | Talk 21:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Hooperbloob 04:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - chair of a department, three textbooks, sounds like he passes. Bearian 20:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete. He is more precisely from his web page, " Chair of the Graduate Diploma in Education programme" at the School of Education Studies in Dublin City University. that is, chair of a program within a school, and not a department. A person who is only a lecturer (=US assistant professor) would not ordinarily be chair of a full department at an important university--this is just an administrative position running their postgraduate program. The books do not seem to be all significant--one is published by his own university, and the other two by relatively minor academic publishers. It would be necessary to demonstrate that they were widely used to show that he is important. DGG (talk) 00:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Insufficient independant sources to meet WP:MUSIC. No objection to recreation as and when the subject does become notable. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Veronica Ballestrini

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

Non-notable musician who doesn't meet anything close to WP:MUSIC. The article's creator has constantly removed any and all CSD and notability template tags in spite of several warnings. Has also contravened the WP:3RR rule several times. I've nominated this AFD for notability and also to stop an edit war occurring WebHamster 21:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. This may be borderline but she is signed with a notable label and is on tour albeit a promotional one. However the article is sourced. Keep for now. --JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 21:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Only one of the sources is independent, and I'm not sure how reliable Coquet Shack is. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 21:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Coquet-Shack is a completely independent web site. It has no affiliations with ANY music label or artist. It is regarded by the Country Music Industry as an honest (sometimes too honest) reviews web site. We can produce dozens of e-mails to prove that point. So, Ten Pound Hammer, beware impugning our reputation or face legal action against yourself and this web site. John D Lewis, for and on behalf of Dawn Lewis, owner, Coquet-Shack.com. (unsigned comment was added by Shackman (talk •contribs))

FYI - personal opinions when stated as opinions and clearly not stated as fact are not subject to libel laws regardless of the media they are published on. I gather the US is rather protective of its citizens' rights to free speech and doesn't look kindly on people who try to put that down with empty threats.--WebHamster 10:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

As to the Ballestrini entry: Hey, bin it. The we can all be absolutely certain that Wikipedia is just another MySpace, a quasi-user based site which is in fact, a publicity machine for the big labels who NEVER sign new artists before they've been tried out on smaller independent labels. And since a Wikipedia criterion for NOTABILITY is charting in a major national chart, we strongly suggest you check out Music Row's Country charts for the last six months. Ballestrina (an appalling artist with an appalling debut single,) meets that criterion. John D Lewis, for and on behalf of Dawn Lewis, owner, Coquet-Shack.com. {unsigned comment was added by Shackman (talk •contribs))

One single does not constitute notabiity. Suggest bringing the article back when notability is established per Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion and has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. ♫ Cricket02 07:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Additional note: The one independent source/review provided,coquet-shack.com, albeit reliable, is trivial at best, and says: "If the single sells, her career will take off.", so it is not even known yet if the single will even sell. Again, wait and see how this artist does, and bring back at a later time. ♫ Cricket02 07:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

WHOA BOYS! Shackman DID sign the entries above: Shackman is JOHN D LEWIS.

...and possibly another couple of user names too. See talk page for details. --WebHamster 16:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

And Cricket02 : You shopuld get your head round reality before mouthing off like that. NO-ONE can know, before a single is released for sale to the public, whether it WILL DEFINTELY sell well or not. Take Garth Brook's last single. One of the biggest names in Country music and it didn't even make the charts! It didn't sell well. Our comment on Ballestrini is neither trival, nor spurious. It is a genuinely held opinion of one of our reviewers, a guy who has been producing, recording and publishing Country music for more than 34 years. He's an industry expert and I'd say his opinion is anything BUT trivial. Now, tell us what the weather's going to be like tomorrow! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shackman (talk • contribs) 06:43, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

It will be either wet or dry, does that mean I have a career ahead of me if correct? --WebHamster 14:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I most certainly hope that she does do well and wish her every success. Until then, her notability is not yet established for inclusion in this encyclopedia per WP:BIO and WP:Music. ♫ Cricket02 09:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• The label itself is further down today's list for AFD, it doesn't have any notability either. WebHamster 22:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The label doesn't look notable to me - it was started last year. The tour is a radio tour - what's a radio tour, just interviews? No other sign of notability. MarkinBoston 22:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above.--Hooperbloob 00:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Possible KEEP/Weak DELETE. I think that the article is possibly salvagable. An artist signed to a label with notable artists and having referenced, reliable independent sources, while not a household name, may be notable. BaldDee 12:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• [COMMENT to WebHamster, I think it's a little odd that you nominated both articles for deletion, then pointed to each other's nominations as evidence of the non-notability of the subject of the nom. I'm not questioning your motives, but it gives me pause to wonder... Why not simply state, "I nominated both articles for deletion because they were both non-notable." or something similar. If another editor had nominated one of the articles, your statement would carry slightly more weight as an argument. As is, in nom Y you're saying "See nom X" and in nom X you're saying "See nom Y"]BaldDee 12:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Because that was the way I chose to word it, you would have chosen your way, vive le difference. WebHamster 14:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment for perspective BaldDee has been shown to be a sockpuppet of a user who has been stalking me and making numerous bad faith AFDs against my articles--WebHamster 21:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, fails WP:MUSIC and no Reliable sources to boot. Her website isn't one. Seems like possible promotional here. I did speedy the article before. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 14:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I think this is a good article, and will become more reliable with more sources soon. Veronica is climbing the Music Row chart. Keep for now, wait it out and you will see. 27 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.2.209.103 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 28 August 2007

unsigned comment was added by 75.2.209.103 (talk•contribs) (sole contributions have been to articles in question)

Comment for perspective: This anonymous user is actually the creator of the article under discussion. --WebHamster 14:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete. This artist has released one single, completely fails WP:Music with regards to notability. One new user has created this article and the article for the label for the sole purpose of self-promotion/advertising. (Special:Contributions/ChelseaBurns and Special:Contributions/75.2.209.103) and should refer to What Wikipedia is not. ♫ Cricket02 03:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: The article is somehow contradictorious: it states Veronica Ballestrini is a songwriter, but then bases her notability in a song she didn't wrote. Wouldn't be logical to also show one of her own creations? But the article doesn't mention anything outside that single that she didn't even wrote, so, according to the article, a she's just a cover-singer... Sounds like autopromotion, sincerely. Apart from that, she is only 15/16 years old (born in 1991) and we've got a photo of her; that may be unsuitable (or maybe even illegal) in some countries without her parents' consent... --Neigel von Teighen 10:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• [COMMENT to Neigel von Teighen, Just because Veronica did not write that song, does NOT mean it is a cover. Almost all singers, sing songs that other songwriters wrote.--Bob1 11:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.2.209.103 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 29 August 2007
  • Strange though how a person trying to carve themselves a name as a singer/songwriter chooses to do so by not using her own material. I wonder if she was advised not to do so. If so I wonder why? --WebHamster 16:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • (Reply to Bob1) Yes, you're right. --Neigel von Teighen 13:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This is all completely irrelevant and childish to this discussion on whether this artist is notable for inclusion, based on guidelines alone, and not opinion, and should end here. ♫ Cricket02 16:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You should know that AfD discussions should be based on guidelines/policies more than opinions. Look at WP's Deletion policy. --Neigel von Teighen 10:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arnold the Palm Tree

Arnold the Palm Tree (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I can find absolutely nothing else about this character. While the claims may be true, this article faces a serious verifiability problem - and a likely notability one too. The Evil Spartan 21:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as nonsense. Delete as hoax. "Arnold the palm tree" gets ONE Ghit, and that's this page, oddly enough. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 21:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Sorry, but I'm afraid it's not nonsense. It may be a fraud, or a hoax, but it's at least coherent enough to be a bit more than nonsense. FrozenPurpleCube 21:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I'd love to speedy it myself but some folks are demanding A7 be hyperstrictly applied. Also, MM makes a decent point about nonsense. But the article needs to go.--JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 21:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as I can't find any evidence that any such cartoon ever existed. Nor any for the purported creator, Sid Fortunes. FrozenPurpleCube 21:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, nothing found in Google Books or Google News Archive, fails WP:V. Ridiculous hoaxes, however silly or obvious, don't fall under the nonsense rule, for good reason. --Dhartung | Talk 21:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V - put simply if nothing can be found on it then it's obviously not verifiable.--danielfolsom 22:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Smells like a Hoax and if not looks very nn. The only page is redirected to a Wikipedia bot sub-page.--JForget 22:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unsourced and possibly WP:MADEUP. Dbromage [Talk] 23:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This has "hoax" painted all over it. Not even on IMDB. Spellcast 09:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator, smells like SOMETHING, but I'm not sure that smell is a hoax. Burntsauce 21:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::Talk 13:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tellius

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

Doesn't assert any notability. Anything worth mentioning can be summarised on the main page Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 21:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete non-notable fictional location. Kariteh 21:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete without merging. Indiscriminate collection of information, no out of universe content. User:Krator (t c) 12:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete – no out-of-universe context (design history, etc); also contains bits of original research here and there. Marasmusine 20:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KrakatoaKatie 10:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Motorola products

List of Motorola products (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

List of some products (but not others, with no rationale) from Motorola. Unencyclopedic, unreferenced, and an arbitrary collection of information. As such, easy to feel like it's just advertising. Mikeblas 21:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a (product) directory. Jakew 21:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a directory, however, this might be able to become a category. Useight 21:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a place for ad fliers.--JForget 22:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Motorola has been around for many decades, and this unreferenced article/catalog just lists current products and then says "Vintage Equipment. Myriad radio and television receivers." Very superficial and arbitrary listing. Edison 20:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as per my argument on the Nokia list. I really don't understand why this is considered an ad directory. It provides information on products not notable enough to have their own article, and simply needs referencing. Rwhealey 02:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep.
  • This seems perfectly in keeping with the letter and spirit of WP:LIST - it provides both structured information as well as navigation (surveying the product history of Motorola).
  • Motorola is definitely a notable company. Many of their products are notable (witness the considerable number of bluelinks in the list). Listing all of their products in the main Motorola article would be infeasible.
  • This list is nicely formatted, separating things by category, providing overview information, and links to individual products.
  • Maybe the various redlinks should be de-linked, as I don't think we need articles on every thing Motorola ever made. But that doesn't mean "delete the whole thing".
  • Yes, this list is incomplete. So are hundreds or thousands more. Per Wikipedia:Editing policy, Perfection is not required; an incomplete list is okay. Deleting this list means it cannot be improved to be more complete, so I don't see how that helps.
  • I don't see how this can be considered an advertisement, when all it does is list information and link to a variety of existing articles.
  • It seems to avoid being Wikipedia:Listcruft. It's not an indiscriminate collection; it's a list of a notable company's products. It is verifiable. It is maintainable and limited to Motorola products. It has content beyond a category, by providing structure and overview info.
  • —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 13:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment. The point about the article being incomplete has more to do with this being a completely arbitrary collection of Motorola products. The most notable products are missing, and this really is just a list for cell phone fans. Motorola's 6809 series of microprocessors is one of the most widely used processors today, vastly outselling the Pentium. It's not in this list, nor are any of the company's notable semiconductor products.

Since there's no rational guideline for inclusion, then this is an arbitrary list and absolutely not what WP:LIST is about. Imagine that it's 15 years earlier. Instead of being full of cell phones, this article would be full of pagers. In 15 years, we'll wonder why we hvae tens of dozens of articles about cell phones. -- Mikeblas 14:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Response. You seem to be arguing from the premise that "the page will never change". As I noted, we have have hundreds of lists that need expansion. It is perfectly okay for a page to start small and be improved. • It does look like the list creator mainly knew about cell phones, but so what? We do not require editors to have comprehensive knowledge of every page they touch. I will improve this list, if I am allowed. • I suppose we might want to have a policy of "No lists of a single company's products", but this AfD is not the place to decide such a policy. • Finally, your point about the semiconductors is totally bogus. This list explicitly states that such are now part of List of Freescale products, and sure enough, the 6809 is there. Did you even look?  :) —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 17:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Response'. You're allowed to improve the article right now, and have always been allowed to do so. Yep; I looked. I hope you'll forgive me for not finding the single sentence (or two?) buried amid all the other advertising. -- Mikeblas 20:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Response. The point with "allowed" was that if the list is going to be deleted, it cannot be improved. I just found this thing yesterday. • It seems that an assumption in your argument is that any list of products is "advertising" and thus should be deleted. This search would seem to indicate that we have many, many such lists. • While there is only the one sentence directing you to the current holder of those products, it is given in a top-level heading, "semiconductors" and appears as such in the ToC. I'm not really sure what more could be done. Suggestions? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 21:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• And one more: If we need to delete this list because it is not comprehensive, doesn't that mean we also need to delete the thousands of stub articles? I really don't get this strong sentiment of "Delete anything that isn't perfect right now". —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 20:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It doesn't look like an arbitrary collection of information, it looks like the criteria for inclusion is: product manufactured by Motorola. While I'm wary of advertising creeping into Wikipedia, I see no language in this article to indicate that it's advertising. Wikipedia:Deletion_policy/Brand_name_products says "Minor products from a company should be merged into a 'list of minor products from this company' which is kept in the company article, unless it becomes too large as above." If the nominator is serious about cleaning up product lists from Wikipedia, I think he's got a long road ahead[13]. He can start by nominating List of Google products and List of Linux distributions. And I have to wonder why iPhone and iPod was not nominated in your recent attack on cellphone/catalog articles. --Pixelface 05:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep as per my argument on the List of Sony Ericsson products AfD. —TigerK 69 02:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep and split mobile phones into List of Motorola mobile phones. I would not find the PowerPC, even if it was included in the list. (Not to mention the Motorola 68000 series.)-- Petri Krohn 01:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Splitting the list into multiple lists might indeed be a good idea. It would also help highlight List of Motorola products#Semiconductors, which states that Moto sold that stuff to List of Freescale products. You're the second person to miss that note, so I have to think it's a real problem. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 01:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep & cleanup This list could benefit from better organization and annotation of specific product lines. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep For a person to come across this list, they would have to search for it deliberately--as opposed to the advertisement coming to them. I find this list useful for finding past products that are no longer available on the company's website. Instead of destroying articles, Wikipedians should be improving them, and this article already has an extensive index, we shouldn't waste it all. Drant 05:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (with possibility of merge or other rearrangement). Cool Hand Luke 00:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of characters in Titanic (1997)

List of characters in Titanic (1997) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

List of characters from the movie Titanic, contested prod so bringing it to AfD. This may garner lots of enthusiastic WP:ILIKEIT support, but it's hard to see how these character lists accord with WP:LIST and WP:WAF. Eusebeus 21:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless the secondary sources needed to establish notability can be found (per WP:FICTION). Jakew 21:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Titanic is clearly notable. As a film, covering the characters in the film is reasonably part of the article. But I can see how there's enough people in the film that a spin-off article is reasonable. FrozenPurpleCube 21:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

That said, I do agree with the cleanup concerns expressed below. FrozenPurpleCube 22:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep But trim it way down. They're not their own articles, which mollifies me. i ^said 21:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, acceptable adjunct to film article. Since many of the characters were real people, they surely pass WP:FICT-standard "real world notability", but most really need just a short identification, not a paragraph of plot summary. I don't think the Jack or Rose sections need to be so exhaustive either, but they probably have plenty of sources in reviews and the like that could be used under WP:FICT. --Dhartung | Talk 22:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Titanic (1997 film), but cut waaaaay down to a plain list, and not a summary of the film. —tregoweth (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment If we can source the list, I think that's the best option. Jakew 23:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is an existing list there. FrozenPurpleCube 23:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Titanic (1997 film) per tregoweth. Dbromage [Talk] 23:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge I loved the movie but yes, merge to the main movie article would be the appropriate thing to do here. -WarthogDemon 00:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - biggest grossing film of all time, with entire books devoted to the film. Just clean it up and add some sources. - Peregrine Fisher 00:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I would suggest giving the main characters an article of their own and changing this to List of minor characters in Titanic (1997). At the moment half the article is taken up by 3 characters. Dave101→talk  08:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. The list is in desperate need of sources. Many of the elements can use the film itself as a primary source, but "He [Caledon Hockley] was educated at Harvard University and was vacationing in France when he settled an old claim to the famous, "Heart of the Ocean" diamond under absolute secrecy on April 3rd, 1912, a week before he sailed on RMS Titanic due to his family's descent from royalty." is definitely not a story I could see in the film. Is it in some book about the movie? Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely keep - list is too big to merge back and many of the characters are notable. Please don't ruin somebody's hard work ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 17:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That hard work would be mine :( Superior1 07:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: I pretty much wrote this entire article, and I say take out the main three characters, give them their own articles, and change the title to List of minor characters in Titanic (1997) like someone else said. Superior1 07:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, CommentPlease hide or remove contents which not have reliable sources from the page, and keep the page itself. Roded86400 15:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Somewhat keep Rename to Characters of Titanic and cut the hell out of it. Massive amounts of plot summary to cut, and needs a bunch of real world information. -- Ned Scott 01:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This name is more specific. There's more than one Titanic film. Superior1 01:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment—why does an extremely notable film need more space to describe its plot? By that logic, Wikipedia—an encyclopedia—would be taking the stance that popularity must stem from lengthy and/or deep plots. (This is one of many reasons why notability is not inherited.) The key is to find real world content to supplement the plot summary—this is how we fairly show that a subtopic needs a subarticle. Any skilled business or technical writer can summarize a plot in a few paragraphs. Now, since this is an extremely notable movie, that means there may be more availability for substantial real-world content on the characters, which is required to show notability. Thus, I'll !vote keep but rename to Characters of Titanic (1997), and delete in a few weeks if no proof or inclusion of real-world content is given. This is how these problems should be handled. AfD injects panic in people; we're better off ascending the chain of options politely and using redirects strategically; their usefulness goes beyond redirecting to locations, because redirects preserve the edit history and (usually) the talkpage. — Deckiller 05:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Page Has Moved to Characters of Titanic (1997). Roded86400 00:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC) want to Taipei

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. the wub "?!" 14:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chi Town Productions Presents: The Lost Tapes

Chi Town Productions Presents: The Lost Tapes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable mixtapes that have no non-trivial coverage from reliable, third party sources. This fails WP:N because there is no "significant coverage" from sources that "address the subject directly in detail". Sources simply having a track listing is far from significant. Unlike notable album articles, these can never have charts, sales, awards, themes, or critical reviews. Spellcast 20:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Since there's "too many" to consider at once, I'll PROD each one. I withdraw this nomination. I have no doubt these are not notable though. Spellcast 09:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Mick Boogie - Kanye Essentials: First Semester (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Get Well Soon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Akademiks: Jeanius Level Musik (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Akademiks: Jeanius Level Musik 2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• The High School Graduate Mixtape (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Best of Kanye West (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Tapemasters, Inc. & Kanye West: We Major in This (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• The Late Mixtape (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Summer School (The Late Registration Prequel) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• The College Dropout: Mixtape Version (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• The College Dropout: Mixtape Version 2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• The College Dropout: Mixtape Version 3 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• DJ LRM & Kanye West: Ego (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• DJ Kochece Presents Kanye West & Pharrell: Skateboards & Blazers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• DJ LRM: Instrumental World (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• DJ Rukiz: Early Enrollment (Kanye Blends) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• DJ A-Trak & Kanye West: Welcome 2 Kanye's Soul Mix Show (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Lushlife Presents: West Sounds (Kanye Meets The Beach Boys) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Gold Digging: As Sampled By Kanye West (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Class of '06: World's Best Dressed Label Under G.O.O.D Music (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Kanye West Presents: Promise (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• DJ Dub: Style & Grace (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• DJ Dub: Style & Grace 2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• DJ LRM & Stackhouse: Alter Ego (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Spellcast 20:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Close as to large a bundle of nominations to appropriately discuss. FrozenPurpleCube 20:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I assure you that none of these tapes are the subject of non-trivial coverage. At the risk of over-generalising, I examined each tape in Kanye West discography#Mixtapes for notability. I left out I'm Good & Clinton Sparks & Kanye West: Touch the Sky because they are recognised by mainstream publications and even have critical reviews[14][15]. But the ones above can never expand from their current state. Unlike notable albums, you have background info, production, sales, impact, and reviews from music critics. These have none. Spellcast 20:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't know you from a block of wood, and I'm not going to rely on your ability to research a subject when I don't know you. I do, however, know that even editors I am familiar with can miss sources and coverage on a subject, I know I have had trouble myself at times. Therefore, I suggest closing and trying smaller bundles. Or maybe try PROD and then AFD on the remaining articles.. FrozenPurpleCube 21:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

If necessary, I'll nominate each individually (or perhaps 5 at a time). But I have no doubt these won't survive on a case by case basis. See also a mass AfD of Snoop Dogg related tapes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Welcome to tha chuuch mixtape vol.1. Spellcast 21:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd just go with PROD myself, then see what was contested. Might not be anything at the end. And as for the discussion at the time, I don't know that it was wrong, however, I'm concerned about the numbers. There could be something that slips past everyone. FrozenPurpleCube 22:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Close As per FrozenPurpleCube and either nominate seperatly or PROD. Too many to be considered together. Davewild 08:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Close while I've been guilty of proposing such AFDs in the past to save time, can now see it's inappropriate to bundle such a wide number of articles together. --Oscarthecat 10:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Forgiveness: The Second Chapter

Forgiveness: The Second Chapter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Very short stub on non-notable sequel game. First chapter of game doesn't have a page, neither does the gaming company. Possible speedy for no context. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 19:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete- unreferenced and non-notable. Possible speedy, but since this page is already created, let's let it last a few more days. --Boricuaeddie 21:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with the sentiment that it's nearly an A7, but the closing admin should feel confident in the consensus to delete. Almost nothing in google; sales appear to be a very small Christian video game niche. Cool Hand Luke 00:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Such that

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

Articles about stylized constructions in mathematical discourse are in general hard to source and of marginal encyclopedic interest; in this case there's arguably no specialized meaning anyway, as the construction can be interpreted correctly in ordinary English. Trovatore 19:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete. No specialised meaning, obvious from context, WP:NOT a dictionary. --Taejo|대조 20:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Leibniz 21:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to set-builder notation or delete per discussion on WT:WPM. —David Eppstein 23:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and do not redirect No room for expansion beyond a simple English dictionary definition. Any other content that's there now is already in set-builder notation. I don't like the redirect idea because the phrase is also used outside of the context of set builder notation, both in math and in common English usage. nadav (talk) 23:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. We are not a dictionary, and I don't think there is much to say about "such that" beyond its meaning. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Trovatore and Jitse. A redirect to set-builder notation would have the disadvantage that 'such that' is not explained or defined in that article. EdJohnston 01:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 06:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT. "Such that" is about as encyclopedic as "it is." Do not redirect (its use in "set building" is not particularly unique or meaningful). --Cheeser1 06:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I don't see the connection to set-building. The meaning of "such that" seems closer to Hilbert's choice operator in the Epsilon calculus. See [16] as a source for the "such that" connection. Leibniz 16:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The connection is to so-called "set-builder" notation, in that a set is defined as "the elements x such that x blah blah blah." But "such that" in this context isn't particularly technical or unique - it's just using two English words to mean what they mean. --Cheeser1 15:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

And in this particular case, the previous version that we were commenting on at WT:WPM was totally about the little symbol in set-builder notation which is pronounced 'such that'. --Sopoforic 17:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

True, but when considering changing an article into a redirect, the current/former content of the article is irrelevant. The only consideration is whether it makes sense to redirect the title in question to the article being proposed. Redirecting such that to set-builder notation is not completely terrible, but on balance I prefer for it to be a redlink, as there's not much sense in linking it (and it's a fairly implausible search term). --Trovatore 17:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I agree that content is irrelevant when deciding where to redirect to. I was just explaining where the idea of 'perhaps we should redirect to set-builder notation' came from, since it isn't obvious from the current version of the article. --Sopoforic 20:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. There actually is a peculiar way of using this phrase within mathematical jargon, as sometimes first seen when you're in 12th grade learning epsilon-delta definitions, but it's not worth an article. Michael Hardy 17:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, I suppose, but do not redirect to set-builder notation. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or redirect. The article provides useful information about this important mathematical expression and it's usage. I got to the article in the first place, for instance, to learn what symbols are used to represent such that, and learned that both : and | do the trick. I know my vote is – clearly – overshadowed, but it helped me and I really can't see the harm in keeping it. However, seeing as the information is readily available at the Set-builder notation article, a redirect would work even better. » K i G O E | talk 22:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I think we have a table of mathematical symbols or some such. I suppose I could live with a redirect there, if the main purpose is to help people find the symbol (though note that this is the symbol for "such that" in only one context; the phrase is used in other mathematical and non-mathematical contexts). The other thing I don't like about it is that it might encourage people to wikilink the phrase, which I think would be pretty silly. --Trovatore 03:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I blocked Carl's original PROD, but given the subsequent discussion and given the revised content of the article I have come to agree that a redirect to set-builder notation (yes, an unfortunate sophomoric phrase) is ill-advised. Indeed, the content now makes it clear that only the symbol(s), not the phrase, deserved explanation; for, the obvious interpretation as plain English is adequate without mathematical elaboration. In retrospect, I suppose we could have sorted this out during the PROD waiting interval and avoided an AfD; mea culpa (Latin for "my bad"). --KSmrq^T 11:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete as requested by author. the wub "?!" 14:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EasyProjectPlan

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

This article fails to assert notability and lacks any secondary sources to demonstrate notability. The company may or may not be notable but this AfD concerns the product itself. The article appears to describe a software adaption to a well-known and notable product. By itself it appears non-notable. JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 19:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• In addition please see Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_August_23#EasyProjectPlan, where I have noted the lack of reliable secondary sources verifying the various claims put forth. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 23:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Please delete my article. --AngellpPezzullo 14:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Please find reliable sources or this article and probably the other one as well will get deleted. I've tried to explain this to you in the deletion review, also please note ALL CAPS AND BOLD is not a compelling argument. Either follow the requirement of verification or let the page be deleted. Secondly there is no way I'm going to download a program from a website of a company I've never heard of without seeing the source code, not happening. I should not have to try the product out, you should be able to find secondary sources and add them to the page. (and the other one as well). This site is an encyclopaedia, not a review site on how I "think" a program is. Again all thats being asked of you is to provide some secondary reliable sources. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 04:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I should also note that I was unable to load the source provided (its been "loading" for the last 7 minutes). Are there any other sources? How about a review? This is the responsibility of the person adding the content, to at least put forth an assertion of notability and source that assertion. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 04:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

A second note: I have been unable to load the souce after changing my useragent 4 times! —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 04:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Angell, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because other unsourced, non-notable articles exist on Wikipedia is not a reason to keep similar article on other software. If that article is also non-notable, then somebody will eventually get around to putting up for deletion. Throwing a fit and making demands are not going to save this article - showing sources that show that it is notable will. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete A7, no assertion of notability. Leuko 03:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete. It is not eligible for speedy deletion under A7, and it's not blatant advertising. However, it has no reliable sources, and based on that, it does not demonstrate its notability. —C.Fred (talk) 03:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete does not assert its notability. --Oscarthecat 10:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::Talk 14:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MarioGamer

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

Fancruft. Pleasehelp 19:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I can't tell if this counts as a fictional character or as web content, but this subject does fail Wikipedia's notability guidelines for lacking reliable sources. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of any real world notability Corpx 04:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hu12 21:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Karacter

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

Completing unfinished nom made by User:MarkinBoston. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 20:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'm doing something wrong in the nomination process, dammit. MarkinBoston 20:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Does not satisy Music notability in any way I can see. MarkinBoston 20:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above.--Hooperbloob 00:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. No assertion of notability. ♫ Cricket02 12:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hu12 21:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lisa BENOUDIZ

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

Autobiography / spam by non-notable artist. -- RHaworth 19:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 04:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of sources giving coverage Corpx —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 04:41, August 27, 2007 (UTC).
• Delete per nom. Freshacconci 10:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 101 greatest songs of rap music ever

101 greatest songs of rap music ever (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Listcruft and unsourced. This is basically a hitlist made by MTV. Wikipedia is not for hitlists. If someone wants to see MTV's list, I'm sure they can find it on the MTV webpage. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 19:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete You are kinder than I. A list that is prefaced by the words "judged by me" is marked by honesty, but worth even less than one compiled by MTV. Mandsford 19:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete this meets the speedy delete criterea. You should have done that--Pheonix15 21:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - "Judged by me"...how honest. WP:OR --Hirohisat ^Kiwi 21:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeaceNT 00:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gamer

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

WP:IS_NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary Jeff 19:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine 20:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Phew - it's a good job this article isn't dictionary definition then. Marasmusine 20:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Seconding Marasmusine's argument, and also noting that the term gamer is widely used in reliable sources, see for example here. This article is just as valid as for example professional golfer, and could easily be expanded to good status. User:Krator (t c) 21:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete entirely original research and synthesis. While this term may be notable, I think its better off to start from scratch, with references. Corpx 04:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - This article is not a dictionary. There are few references to support the article which can be further improved. Article is also not an original research since term such as Cyberathlete has several references on its own page. Cocoma 05:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Cocoma and Krator and inasmuch as, pace Corpx, where an article exists about a subject that merits an article (as this subject, I think, does, since it may properly be more than a dictionary definition and since the topic is an appropriate, notable one), we ought not to delete that article unless there is nothing therein that may serve as encyclopedic/be salvagable; there is, IMHO, a bit in the current article that is quite fine in its current form and that may be included in an article that is not marred by any OR—an article's being kept at AfD, to be sure, though, should not (necessarily) be understood as counseling against the subsequent removal or improvement of (even some non-trivial) portion of it. Joe 06:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep May need cleanup but is certainly a notable term used in reliable sources. Davewild 08:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and fix up. Artw 17:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• keep. It's in bad shape and has some ORish stuff in it, but this is how many Wikipedia articles start. Subject is clearly notable and there are plenty of reliable sources on which to base a good article. The CVG people probably ought to have an improvement drive on this article... — brighterorange (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per all the keep votes above me, although I agree with Corpx that its in dire need of some sourcing and perhaps a rewrite. spazure (contribs) (review) 08:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Laurence Panadero

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

No notability is established (or even asserted) by the article. New England ^{Review Me!}/Go Red Sox! 18:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: This page gives some information on her. 96T 21:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I fixed the gender in the article and added a link to her website. Her resumé does list some installations that could be used to establish notability. A few more links: [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]. But I'm not yet seeing enough to convince me she meets our notability standards. —David Eppstein 22:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, when I searched for her on google before AFDing this, most links I found were simply hawking her products. New England ^{Review Me!}/Go Red Sox! 22:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete, nothing found in a search of Google Books, Scholar, or News Archive. High number of WP:GHITS kinda maybe suggest possibility of being sourceable with some digging, but no clear notability. --Dhartung | Talk 22:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 22:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Some exhibition refs on the website seem to suggest major shows, but I'm dubious. All very vague & no independent sources seem to exist. Johnbod 22:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Johnbod. Also, many of the shows on the resume are art fairs, which have substantial fringes where the notable and non-notable rub shoulders.--Ethicoaestheticist 23:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, Johnbod and Ethicoaestheticist. Freshacconci 20:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. - Modernist 21:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sadr City Massacre

Sadr City Massacre (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A google search finds no sources for such an event (excluding the World Socialist Website) New England ^{Review Me!}/Go Red Sox! 18:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirect The sad thing is that searching for this title on Google returns so many possible different acts, however searching by date on Wikinews throws up this article Sadr City suicide bomber uses fruit truck to kill 66 on market dayone of its sources has since become defunct but these two are still up at Forbes and San Fransisco Chronicle. Using the details from these two sources one can find the following on the BBC, and on Google, the top result is 1 July 2006 Sadr City bombing.

So the best thing to do is to redirect to this article.KTo288 20:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)KTo288 20:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)KTo288 20:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Nothing to merge. Then redirect to 1 July 2006 Sadr City bombing as "massacre" is a plausible (if awkward) search term. --Dhartung | Talk 22:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Thanks Dhartung for the reminder about other readers, altough from the date we can be sure 1 July 2006 Sadr City bombing is what is intended in this article, there is also 23 November 2006 Sadr City bombings, other events before that might be construed as "massacres" and unfortunately there may be future similar events, we can't be sure which a reader is looking for. I suggest we create a disambiguation page populated by the above mentioned Sadr City bombing articles, to which can be added to later, and make the redirect to this new disambiguation page. (I would suggest making this page the disambiguation but "massacre" is rather to loaded a word). KTo288 09:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment the disambiguation page Sadr City terrorist attacks has been created,for if the redirect option is taken.KTo288 11:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect When I created this article, there were no others ones talking about Sadr City massacres. And I think that massacre as the ideal term. There are articles calling Palestinian suicide bombings are massacres so why don't we call Al-Qaida terror bombings the same thing? Robin Hood 1212 19:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• DAB Clearly there is a need for readers to be able to find the correct article(s). Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 21:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 04:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jazz Alley

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

No indication that this club is more notable than any other like it New England ^{Review Me!}/Go Red Sox! 18:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• And no independent sources either. Delete — Nyttend 21:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 04:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jay fidanza

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

The subject does not appear notable (nor any source is given to support his notability), apart for having worked for several years, as many of us do. Goochelaar 17:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete Does not assert any notability. Doing it for 37 years is not notable by itself. Pharmboy 18:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above.--Hooperbloob 00:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ganguro

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

Notability and Verification. I can only find links that are either Wikipedia or totally laden with ads, which make it impossible to verify. Can't find WP:RS links. Has been tagged since Dec. 2006 and no one has found sources., including me. Pharmboy 17:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This Ganguro stuff is a huge cultural movement amongst teenagers and young adults in Japan, just like Hiphop is in other parts of the world. While it is truethat more sources are needed, googling for "ganguro" brings up a good number of usable pages. There are also articles to be found in the archives of nytimes.com. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 20:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem was googling found zero sources that met WP:RS, and I have been looking for a while. That is the problem. It might be notable, but I can't find any PROOF that meets policy. Just because it is cool or "obviously notable" doesn't cut it. Pharmboy 22:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Looked into it a little closer. You are right, results found on google are no good, and the 4 results the times gave me (which kind of gave me a false impression) are worthless as well. I guess the subject will become more popular out of asia / related communities somewhen in the future and an article can then be created with all the sourced needed, so i'll go with a weak delete. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 01:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This may be one of those things that needs to be written in the japanese version, then ported to english wikipedia. I believe the trend existed, and hoped someone would perhaps find some reliable sources to justify keeping the article, but excepting you I am just seeing people arguing KEEP for emotional reasons with nothing to back it up. Its a bitch to find foreign language sources that meet WP:RS. It isn't that I want it deleted, but feel it MUST be since no one has been able to find those sources for a long time. Pharmboy 00:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Needs tidying up, but is notable enough to keep. DAJF 21:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Notable cultural phenomenon, try Google Books, which isn't exactly a new invention by now. cab 00:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Or better yet, try the books already cited in the "References" section". cab 00:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep Notable cultural phenomenon in Japan, and - to a far lesser extent - in some other Pacific Rim regions. Grutness...wha? 00:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. There are reliable sources noted in the article, they just aren't online. Dekimasuよ! 09:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Fg2 10:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Above: This Ganguro stuff is a huge cultural movement amongst teenagers and young adults in Japan -- a "huge cultural movement"? Pull the other one! Oh no, wait, that particular "keep" vote quickly evaporated. Yes, it was real enough, and lasted several years, and it was newsworthy; and even now has a tiny number of freakish hold-outs. The article's pretty poor and it will never make FA, but somebody more energetic than me can and eventually will improve it. Better an article on thousands of girls than most of the hundreds (thousands?) of articles on individual (yet near-interchangeable) girls. Keep. -- Hoary 10:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is one of the biggest and most noticeable Japanese cultural trends in the last decade. Oh how a picture would say a thousand words... Bendono 12:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Google is your friend. -- Hoary 02:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I do not need a picture. I've lived in Shibuya since 2000 at the peak of the ganguro phase. I was referring to the need for a picture for the article. Bendono 04:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Hoary and cab. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This was and still is a missive fashion trend in Japan, it is well documented espcially around the year 2000. Deleting it would be a big mistake.Hontogaichiban 02:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Wow. Where in Japan is it still a massive fashion trend? -- Hoary 02:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Hardly massive anymore, but still popular enough to see almost daily in Shibuya even now. Bendono 04:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
      • What can I say . . . Your dejikame is your friend! -- Hoary 04:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Ah, I think I was confusing ganguro (still common, in rather subdued form) with yamanba (more picturesque, but now virtually extinct). -- Hoary 07:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Definitely notable, and a lack of attributions is not in itself grounds for deletion (although it's certainly grounds for improving the article!) -- Schneelocke 13:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I added a video of a tv show that details the culture of ganguro, in English. stan goldsmith 16:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete as non-notable. The sockpuppetry and attempts to fool us by signing someone else's username didn't help. - KrakatoaKatie 10:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sweetsong Nashville

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

Relatively unknown record label which only appears to have two artists on the books, one of whom is non-notable per WP:MUSIC and has been nominated for a CSD. All supposed links to citations for notability refer to the other represented artist but not to the label itself. So basically the label is non-notable. Article creator (as well as a possibly sock-puppet anonymous user} has repeatedly self-deleted 2 or 3 CSD notices and a recent prod. WebHamster 17:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Neutral Though hesitating between a neutral/weak delete decision, Moe Bandy looks to have been a notable artist with that label (although for nearly two years only), Also, the Bandy article would had to have additionnal sources which may help the cause of this article. --JForget 22:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Possible KEEP. I think that the article is possibly salvagable. A record label with at least one notable artist and another artist (whose notability has yet to be determined) having referenced, reliable independent sources, while not a household name, may be notable. Are there any referenced sources available? BaldDee 13:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• [COMMENT to WebHamster, I think it's a little odd that you nominated both articles for deletion, then pointed to each other's nominations as evidence of the non-notability of the subject of the nom. I'm not questioning your motives, but it gives me pause to wonder... Why not simply state, "I nominated both articles for deletion because they were both non-notable." or something similar. If another editor had nominated one of the articles, your statement would carry slightly more weight as an argument. As is, in nom Y you're saying "See nom X" and in nom X you're saying "See nom Y"] BaldDee 13:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Because that was the way I chose to word it, you would have chosen your way, vive le difference. WebHamster 14:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment for perspective BaldDee has been shown to be a sockpuppet of a user who has been stalking me and making numerous bad faith AFDs against my articles--WebHamster 21:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, two artists, one who fails WP:MUSIC and the other one who needs some reliable sources (there isn't none that I see) isn't enough for a record label to be kept here Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 14:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • COMMENT to Jaranda. I think a SPEEDY was unwarranted. There's enough asserted notability (one of their signed artists being notable) to warrant at least a discussion as to the label's notability and/or the opportunity for an editor to attempt to assert it. Let's try to get a consensus, not just one individuals opinion. BaldDee 14:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Also, it seems the new user account and anon was created solely to promote this label and the two artists: (Special:Contributions/ChelseaBurns and Special:Contributions/75.2.209.103) and evidenced by this purely promotional statement within the article: Sweetsong is expanding and looking for new artists to sign. I would suggest this user/creator refer to a few Wikipedia polices, i.e Wikipedia is not a soapbox for self-promotion, Conflict of Interest, and WP:MUSIC#Footnotes. ♫ Cricket02 03:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It is a record label with known artists. Miranda 03:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.2.209.103 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 3 September 2007

• Warning. The above comment by Miranda appears to have a forged signature. The IP added by Dancter as the true poster is actually the IP of the article's creator.--WebHamster 10:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infants (band)

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

Non-notable band. No references given. New England ^{Review Me!}/Go Red Sox! 17:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Has some hits on google, but doesn't seem notable enough to be covered on a encyclopedia. --Hirohisat ^Kiwi 17:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Not even close to meeting WP:MUSIC. WP seems to be turning into a mix of AllMusic and "Promoters Monthly" every day :( WebHamster 17:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Fails Notability guidelines for inclusion. ♫ Cricket02 08:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Threadless

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

Non-notable website/company. Fails both WP:WEB and WP:CORP. All 'references' are from the website itself. New England ^{Review Me!}/Go Red Sox! 17:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - A quick google search turns up coverage from Business 2.0 (cnn) [22], Morning Edition (NPR) [23], and a bunch of others. -Chunky Rice 21:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and improve the references, because they are out there - a quick Google News search turned up several. --Jamoche 21:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - While I would certainly agree that the article needs better citations than the ones it currently has, and therefore may currently fall afoul of WP:WEB, I strongly disagree that the article fails WP:CORP because it's a notable company that has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in secondary sources multiple times, which is the primary criterion listed on WP:CORP.

Threadless is not only a notable example of crowdsourcing and as such is mentioned in not only the Wikipedia article on the subject, but also in numerous articles as well as one podcast in BusinessWeek in that or similar contexts (1 2 3 4), as well being either the subject of, or mentioned by articles from the New York Times (1 2 3) , the Chicago Tribune (1 the original page is offline but it was reportedly on the front cover of the CT's magazine), as well as having their founders profiled as part of Chicago Business' "40 under 40" series (1). The company has also been featured aside arguably notable companies such as Muji and Yamaha (as explored in the first linked BusinessWeek article) by an article published in MIT's Sloan Management Review exploring the integration of customers into the design process as way to reduce the risks of new product development (1). --hopkapi 21:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Note that WP:WEB and WP:CORP are guidelines based on the existence of sources, not whether they are already in the article, so doing a Google first can indicate whether an article is a tagging or AFD situation. --Dhartung | Talk 22:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete. The references cited mention Threadless as an example. This is not sufficient for WP:CORP, which requires that the company be the subject of the source (this is why the Google Test is no good for demonstrating notability - Google does not distinguish between examples and subjects, yet we must in WP). A source that has crowdsourcing as its subject can be used to demonstrate the notability of crowdsourcing, not of every 25-employee private company mentioned in the the source. UnitedStatesian 19:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you're misinterpreting "subject" in WP:CORP. The coverage must be non-trivial, but by no means must the subject of the article be the only focus of the coverage. Second, both sources I cited, in fact, are about the company itself. So, either way, I think you're wrong on this one. -Chunky Rice 20:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Yes, a lot (not all) of the references are from the company web site, but I think that's acceptable for claims like 'new shirts are released on Mondays,' and notability is well established by other reliable sources. -- Vary | Talk 19:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, passes WP:WEB with the NPR and CNNMoney coverage. Italia^vivi 20:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reading University Students' Union

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

Unfortunatly, like many of the UK Students' Union pages, this article just doesn't assert notability at all. It reads like an advert, cites no sources whatsoever, and provides no external links to prove notability. I've previously nominated this for speedy, and then it went into Prod - that was a mistake on my part, it should have had a discussion. So here it is. _TheIslander 17:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I don't see any reason to suspect notability will be supported. MarkinBoston 17:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletions. —KTC 21:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with the university, as they aren't that notable for their proper article.--JForget 23:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of notability Corpx 04:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment No vote for now but see my comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Durham University Athletic Union about the need to get a clear guideline covering this. Timrollpickering 21:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep i think the main student organisation at any major universty has been consistently held to be notable, and we thus do have a de facto guideline. They always are a major factor in the life of the university.DGG (talk) 00:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Student governments may claim notability, but in my experience, they really have no real notability outside the SG itself Corpx 05:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The article seems to fail WP:ORG. While references have recently been provided, most of them originate from the Union's website, and the remaining ones don't provide proof of notability. --Bfigura ^(talk) 20:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 04:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scriptorium Fonts

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

no references supporting company notabilty provided or found NeilN 16:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC) Keep, article has improved significantly --NeilN 20:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• • • Thanks Neil. I'm doing my best. - Al --Thalkyudes 01:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per WP:A7. _TheIslander 17:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't see any reason why this was nominated for deletion much less Speedy Delete. I'd class the delete request as attempted vandalism. -- Lumpy

Comment - Care to explain your reasoning? --NeilN 18:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• • As noted in the article discussion, I don't see why this would have been flagged for deletion. Hell, it was flagged while I was still working on the second paragraph. I wouldn't go so far as to call it vandalism, but it's a pretty cut and dried case. This seems like a perfectly reasonable listing for a company with a substantial market presence in an industry where Wikipedia already has listings for a lot of other companies. What's the big deal? - Al --Thalkyudes 00:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    • As stated in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be attributable." --NeilN 00:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Only very rarely are articles written about fonts and even rarer are those written about a specific foundry or a specific font. Most of them are on the level of a one-line usenet post saying "X font is great." I did include links to the source for all info in the entry, which was drawn from the page on Scriptorium Fonts on MyFonts and from the company website. I've found some more material, but I'm not really sure what's worth adding. I'd like to get this sorted out, because I could improve other entries in this category pretty easily. For example, the entry for Emigre looks like they wrote it themselves, and they're one of the few foundries which really has been written about a lot so there's more material out there that's well substantiated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thalkyudes (talk • contribs) 01:09, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, I've added to the links a review, an article about Scriptorium from Whole Earth Magazine and a couple of other decent sources. I suppose this would have been easier if I'd started with a more controversial foundry. What more is needed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thalkyudes (talk • contribs) 01:27, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

I just reviewed WP-7 and this article does not qualify for speedy delete under those criteria, so could we at least get the speedy delete removed for now as we work on resolving the normal delete process? - Al --Thalkyudes 19:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Certainly not. I still feel that it qualifies for speedy under WP:CSD#A7. Irrespective of my opinion, my opinion is just as valid as any other editors here, it stays. Please take a look at AfD Wikietiquette, and familiarise yourself with how an AfD works. Also, bear in mind that though I expressed the opinion 'Speedy Delete', it still requires the majority to agree with me for it to happen. _TheIslander 20:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Not only does it not qualify for speedy - I have read the criteria for both speedy and regular deletion, you know - in its current form it clearly doesn't even qualify for delete on the basis of non-notability at all. Have you read the current version of the entry? I realize it's just your opinion, just like any other editor's opinion, but any editor can be wrong. Perhaps the test of a good editor is when he's willing to admit it. - Al --Thalkyudes 02:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Clearly documented with more neutral sources than anything else in this category. --Hanging Jack 15:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The references may not be cited inline but they are there. —David Eppstein 17:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 17:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • David. Thanks for forwarding me the info on doing proper reference tags. I assume that was you who sent them. I've now added properly linked references to the article. -Al --Thalkyudes 07:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep - I get a vote too, right? Of all the articles I've written this is the only one that's ever been flagged for deletion. I'm doing everything I can to make it a model listing, so bear with me - Al --Thalkyudes 05:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• BTW. I've made a lot of improvements to the article. I'd be interested in feedback on the current quality of it. - Al --Thalkyudes 06:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Independent sources are not optional. Eluchil404 04:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Singapore GNU Group

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

Organization lack of nobility. Activites are not notable and no verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found (e.g. The Straits Times) as of WP:CORP. All information so far are linked directly from Singapore GNU's website. Cocoma 16:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This is a promotional article with signs of WP:COI. The myriad links are all to the same homepage, but there are no external sources. Shalom ^Hello 16:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, the group is already acknowledged by the GNU Project while the Straits Times is irrelevant here as this is an international organization. I would nominate this page as a stub though.

http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-user-groups.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.44.29 (talk) 14:27, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

As stated under WP:CORP, Even though the parent organization may be notable, individual chapters of national and international organizations may not be notable enough to warrant a separate article. When referencing this to Singapore GNU, it is only started in year 2006 (longetivity) and has less than 10 members (size of membership). Hence, it is not notable for an article. Cocoma 15:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Against Deletion As one of the many members in GNU, I am surprised to see a proposed deletion. Do note that it is the board size that is less than 10, not the movement in Singapore. A quick check with Wikipedia reveals that most GNU or Linux groups are of this form. See the following as examples in Wikipedia: Silicon Valley Linux User Group, Peruvian Linux User Group, Linux Users' Group of Davis, Hellenic Linux User Group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freesooqing (talk • contribs) 23:19, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable per Cocoma. This organisation appears to be worthy, but small membership, and limited scope suggest notability to come. --Gavin Collins 11:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Non Deletion This group was gathered barely a year ago but I noticed they had carried out some unusual activities such as conducting a public protest (Any public protest in Singapore is illegal). As far as I can tell from my brief experience of living in Singapore, this group is one of the only two local organizations that endorses civil disobedience (the other being the Singapore Democratic Party). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.122.154 (talk) 12:34, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No assertion of notability. Fails WP:V and WP:RS. Could also be a WP:COI spam article. Vegaswikian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegaswikian (talk • contribs) 00:37, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
• Non Deletion Vote for notability. The GNU has published white papers for the government and is the foreshadow of what is to come: the Free Software Foundation Asia. What I dislike is the article's lack of an expert to simplify the various jargons used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.47.200 (talk) 13:39, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable group. Keb25 08:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] University of Sussex Students' Union

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

Unfortunatly, like many of the UK Students' Union pages, this article just doesn't assert notability at all. It reads like an advert, cites no sources whatsoever, and provides no external links to prove notability. _TheIslander 16:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletions. —KTC 18:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete because WP is not the website for the student union, which is severely lacking notability Corpx 04:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Lack of notibility. Not worthy of separate article as per WP:CORP. Cocoma 13:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment No vote for now but see my comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Durham University Athletic Union about the need to get a clear guideline covering this. Timrollpickering 21:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as before, i think the consistent practice has been to keep such articles at major schools.DGG (talk) 00:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heavy metal slang

Heavy metal slang (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unnecessary page, not a page for an encyclopedia, merely a page of heavy metal derogatory terms. Dan 16:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete A page like this needs references for every single term. There are no references at all. The topic might be unencyclopedic, but my main concern is lack of references. Shalom ^Hello 16:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This is screaming "original research" and I am not sure what this would be doing in an encyclopedia anyway. More of an Urban Dictionary thing. As is, it is just a list of terms and definitions, ie: OR laden heavy metal glossary. Pharmboy 17:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete There is no way establishing what expression is the most notable, and which would belong to the article. Also, WP:NOT#INFO Grinder0-0 17:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Since it probably could be sourced if the author tried. Mandsford 19:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete completely original research and I dont think we should be a guide to these terms Corpx 04:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete. The overwhelming majority of the list smacks of original research, but there's the odd term (Beauty and the Beast vocals being the first one on the list which I can see) which has wide currency in descriptions of heavy metal music and may just be sourceable somewhere out there. In its current state, however, this isn't a good candidate to be kept. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all the way up to 11 All unreferenced original research. Lugnuts 07:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 16:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Where to begin? No cerdible sources, original research, listcruft. Realkyhick —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realkyhick (talk • contribs) 16:53, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. These lists of slangs have been on my list for a while, so thank you Danorama for saving me the keystrokes. Burntsauce 21:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and it's original research. --SunStar Net ^talk 21:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, just clean it up a little. I shall Mezmerize you! My edits shall Mezmerize you!! My articles shall Mezmerize you!!! 23:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Keep Keep Keep Keep! Me and my friends use metal slang all the time, we saw this page and saw how right it was. The only source slang comes from is teenagers like myself. Morspecs911 12:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • This is not a vote. Please read WP:USEFUL, filed under arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Thanks! Burntsauce 18:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• While I disagree with the nomination that all the terms are derogatory, delete as listcruft. — Moe ε 19:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - patented processes and items should have sources, and this one has no third-party verifiable sources to substantiate the claims made here. KrakatoaKatie 11:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Exponential assembly

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

I was reluctant to PROD this, as it is a "patented process", and may require context provided by an expert. I'm not sure under which notability guideline this falls. Weak delete, pending opinions of scientific minds. Xoloz 16:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment If it's actually patented, then there's no excuse for not having a source. Mandsford 19:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - It looks like notability is being established via synthesis. Notice that the only source for the subject of the article comes from the company that allegedly holds the patent. Everything else is about exponential growth (which is notable on its own.) Thus, they are trying to use the notability of exp growth to slip the article's subject through. I may even nominate via speedy delete as this could be some sneaky advertisement. Yet, it is better to be careful and see what others have to say.Brusegadi 20:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete (no salt, no redirect) as an editor somewhat well-read in the area (though no to the point of expertise). To the best of my knowledge, "exponential assembly" is not recognized as a notable term of art by any textbook or credible academic source. The Drexler statement is accurate, but doesn't support the inclusion of this article since Drexler used different terminology to describe similar concepts. Weak delete as a protologism which is not widely used by the nanotech community. — xDanielx ^T/_C 21:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but disambiguate. Notability and verifiability as a term is established by peer reviewed scientific journals[24] BUT it appears the term "exponential assembly" also is also used in other scientific contexts (nuclear fuels and biology amongst others). The article could be expanded to cover the range of uses of the term (including this one) beyond a mere dictionary definition.Dbromage [Talk] 23:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with your observation on the different uses of the term, but I couldn't find any unaffiliated academic articles which treat it as a term of art the way Zyvex does. The first, second, and fourth are authored by Zyvex affiliates, while the third, fifth, and sixth use "exponential assembly" generally for other purposes and not as a term of art. I haven't investigated past that - if you found something I didn't please let me know. — xDanielx ^T/_C 00:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. —Dbromage [Talk] 23:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeaceNT 00:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prime time cartoon

Prime time cartoon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article was prodded as OR, which it is in large part, as its unifying theme is weak. However, it does have some sourcing, and there may be useful information in here to merge somewhere... though I don't know where. I definitely think more eyes will be helpful here. Anyway, delete as inappropriate article topic. Xoloz 16:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Article is weak, but concept is at least valid enough that it can be covered in some form. Let's consider [25] for example. Or [26]. Perhaps you'd like a New York Times article? [27] is right there. Maybe [28] for a world-wide perspective. I'd say this is a topic which can make for a decent article, if not in the state it should be. I suppose you could do something like soap opera but that's really just a question of style. FrozenPurpleCube 16:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Serious POV issues, and the entire article is full of OR, bias and 1000 other problems, including the title. The CONCEPT of an article about prime time cartoons, however, I think is a valid idea as long as it is based on facts and not opinions about the shows. The article here needs an insane amount of work, but that is a reason to fix it, not delete it. Pharmboy 17:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Needs some cleanup, but actually a good concept about the changing form of animation meant to be watched in Prime Time, from "The Flintstones" to "Family Guy". Authors understand the idea of sourcing, which is a nice surprise in a cartoon article. Mandsford 19:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and replace with a category. This is a list of cartoons that were aired during prime time hours. All important content is already in the individuals and I fail to see why we need a summary of this Corpx 04:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Because other people believe this subject is important enough to write about. It's really not inherently a list (though as lists go, it's hardly any more objectionable than any other list of television shows like that of game shows, or soap operas, or broadcast by ABC. There's a clear criteria. Be on in primetime and be a cartoon. Frankly, I think there should be such a list, because a category can't include dates, air times or networks. Well, not all in one page anyway. FrozenPurpleCube 16:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, but get out the chainsaw and prune it. As Pharmboy and others touched upon, the concept of prime-time animation is probably worthy of an article, and I'm sure it can be sourced. It's really little more than an indiscriminate list right now, though. I see potential. --UsaSatsui 15:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Artw 17:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 04:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Glenfir

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

Private school with no claim of notability in article. "Controversy" is not sourced, and gsearch does not confirm allegations. Possible attack page by student. Contested prod. Fabrictramp 15:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Added AFD template. Please follow the steps at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion when nominating articles. --Dhartung | Talk 15:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply I used TW to do the AfD, and sometimes it doesn't get the template in the article. In the few minutess it took me to go find the template and paste it in, you beat me to it. :) --Fabrictramp 16:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply All-righty then! I am indeed faster than a twinkle. --Dhartung | Talk 22:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no coverage of this school found in Google News Archive. Fails WP:N. Article has correctable WP:BLP problems regardless. --Dhartung | Talk 15:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of notability Corpx 04:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fails WP:MUSIC. KrakatoaKatie 11:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] California Stories Uncovered

California Stories Uncovered (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The subject of the article does not meet the criteria for notability per WP:MUSIC. Group has not even released an EP. Nv8200p talk 15:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Maybe keep I don't know how to read a last.fm profile, but there seems to be evidence of music produced by this group. They have also performed on a tour. Shalom ^Hello 16:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete based on the "Band's History" section, not a chance of notability. MarkinBoston 17:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. No studio album, even no EP has been released. Fails criteria of WP:MUSIC. Visor 22:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. It seems an EP has been released and I added a link to what seems like an independent review. [29] I removed LastFM as not an independent reliable source because anyone can submit music to the site. I still don't think one EP and one review constitutes notability per WP:Music. ♫ Cricket02 08:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep - there are some positive reviews in local Polish newspapers in Tczew and in Pelplin about the group, but they got only one EP (about 22 minutes of instrumental music) on sale, and that's it. No lyrics, no titles of the songs, what kind of artists they are who have nothing to pass on except for name of the group, borrowed anyway from some California enterprise? But give them some credit; Tczew is a small town with lots of sheriff deputies. greg park avenue 21:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete as non-notable.

[edit] Rick Crawford

Article is about a politican who's run twice for the United States House of Representatives, but lost both times. Official website is down, and other notability is not asserted. Delete. D-Day 15:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• KEEP. He may only be a footnote in history, but if he was on the ballot and references in reliable independent sources can be shown (presumably would have received press coverage as a result), the article can be edited to reflect his stature in the annals of American political history. --BaldDee 16:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and Delete Merge what relevant info there is onto either Phil Gingrey or a related political page. While he passes noteability, there is an insufficient amount to say about him to warrant an entire article at the present time and it will likely never expand beyond a one paragraph stub. If at some point his noteability increases then the page could be recreated. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 16:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Is everyone who has ever lost a Congressional election notable? I don't think so. Many Vice-Presidents barely make it. MarkinBoston 17:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, candidacy for Congress falls short of WP:BIO and there isn't much else here. If he gets into the Georgia House he can have an article. --Dhartung | Talk 22:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Argument in favor of my KEEP opinion. I never stated that merely as a candidate for office he was wiki-worthy (meaning "notable"). IMO, if he was on the ballot and references in reliable independent sources can be shown, the he meets the criteria set forth in WP:BIO. Dhartung is correct in stating that candidacy alone is insufficient to establish notability. Editors should be given the opportunity to reference sources. As a candidate, it is possible, even likely that there was some sort of featured article in a major newspaper, news website, or other independent relaible source. If those sources are indeed relaible, then he meets the criteria. BaldDee 11:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. At the very least rename it to Rick Crawford (politician) so that the more notable race car driver with the same name can have this article title --rogerd 11:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Anyone can run for office, but being a major party's nominee for the national legislature is sufficient for notability. JamesMLane t c 11:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. There have been many people who've run for Congress on a major party ticket and lost. Should we include every major political party also-ran on here? --D-Day 11:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It wouldn't be a high priority, and I don't think we need a Wikiproject to make sure they're all covered, but when an editor actually creates an article about such a person, it should remain (or at least shouldn't be deleted on grounds of notability). JamesMLane t c 12:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

A good example of this was Eric Dickerson (politician), that was once an article, and is now just a redirect to Indiana's 7th congressional district election, 2006. --rogerd 12:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that's the best way to go. I really don't think just running for Congress itself is notable. Anybody can, including a sewer drain digger. Would we really need an article about him on Wikipedia if he didn't win? Absolutely not. --D-Day 21:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: I see no fulfillment of notability standards: he's not held a high enough office, and the article does not provide sources to demonstrate his notability otherwise. Nyttend 12:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:BLP1E. KrakatoaKatie 10:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Azia Kim

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

Insufficiently notable. (She's basically fallen off the radar.)[30] Delete. --Nlu (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep All criteria for notability met or meetable. Lack of current news coverage is not a valid reason to delete. Wl219 15:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BLP1E. Too minor an incident to merit a mention in main Stanford article. (Lots of colleges have various hangers-on, not that many have actual fraud issues, but only recently has "campus security" meant that any incident is treated as major.) --Dhartung | Talk 16:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete- Wikipedia is not news, do we have any lasting coverage, or even any significant mentions in national/international press? J Milburn 16:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete perfect example of WP:BLP1E. She was noted in the media, but she is not notable by Wikipedia standards. MarkinBoston 17:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS - I fail to see any historic notability for this prank Corpx 04:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I don't see any permanent interest in this case, although it is amusing as a bit of news. --Agamemnon2 18:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BLP1E and the essay WP:NOTNEWS. Edison 21:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Agree with Wl219 - lack of current news coverage is not a valid reason to delete. Contrary to J Milburn's claim above, she was mentioned in both the LA Times and CNN, which I think clearly qualify as major national papers (see http://www.nbc11.com/news/13416030/detail.html). And if WP:BLP1E is a concern, the article should be converted from Azia Kim to something along the lines of Azia Kim Imposter Incident at Stanford University in keeping with WP:BLP1E guidelines, rather than be deleted outright. Konekoniku 17:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, with no prejudice against redirecting to an article on the event. The event is clearly notable and should have an article. At first glance, this seems the most appropriate place for such an article. Sarcasticidealist 22:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 me, A7- no assertion of notability whatsoever. J Milburn 16:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Queen Bees

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

Non-notable band. Page doesn't even assert notability. New England ^{Review Me!}/Go Red Sox! 15:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I can't find any evidence of their existence. MarkinBoston 15:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is obviously some notability here, but the article desperately needs expansion to fulfil this. ELIMINATORJR 18:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hairmyres Hospital

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

Non-notable hospital. It claims George Orwell wrote 1984 while there, but the hospital opened in 2001. New England ^{Review Me!}/Go Red Sox! 15:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Hairmyres Hospital was built Post WW2 (or thereabouts) but was a cluster of scattered buildings (some still existing) but was replaced in 2001 with the new build. A better page for Hairmyres Hospital on Wikipedia would be best. 3mgrantEK 14:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • TB sanatorium opened in 1919 with 250 beds on site of 1904 "reformatory for inebriates"; by 1941 there were 1,090 bed in E.M.S. hospital.(source in my earlier post, below) Orwell's publisher in US arranged a supply of Streptomycin, making him the first patient to receive it in Scotland. Having made your draft page (see Talk), you should put it on the main page. Finavon 18:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment No position on notability, but it's a doubly false claim, as Orwell famously composed Nineteen Eighty-Four from a primitive cottage on Jura, Scotland. --Dhartung | Talk 16:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I removed that claim from the article. I knew it was false since 1984 was written in 1948. New England ^{Review Me!}/Go Red Sox! 16:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Article should not be removed, but expanded by local people who have more information about the hospital. The page for Monklands Hospital is a good template to follow for starters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.75.55 (talk) 20:51, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of notability and WP is not a directory of hospitals Corpx 04:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 18:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable hospital. ♠PMC♠ 00:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment the article is misleading in that it refers only to the current hospital. Orwell was indeed treated for pneumonia (insofar as it could be called treatment in 1947) at Hairmyres as a quick google books search will show. There are a fair number of google books hits, but apart from the (trivial) link to Orwell, most seem to be passing mentions or directory-type material. There's no end of news reporting, most - but not all - of which is the usual trivial stuff (died at Hairmyres, treated at Hairmyres...). There can be no doubt that the article could be substantially improved and enlarged. Whether it could ever amount to more than a directory entry is another matter. Angus McLellan (Talk) 07:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: a significant local hospital (sanatorium, EMS then DGH) see [31] and subsequent link. I think there is sufficient documentation that Orwell did write while there and that he was an early patient treated with Streptomycin. Much work required to make a useful article! Finavon 22:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per comments above. --MacRusgail 15:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Finavon. --Mais oui! 15:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)