Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 November 22

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strabane Square

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

Non-notable strip mall in Pennsylvania. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.   jj137 (Talk) 02:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Anarchia (talk) 10:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. WP:NN shopping complex, without WP:RS or an assertion of WP:N. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:08, 27 November 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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 18:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trinity Point

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

Non-notable power center in Pittsburgh, strip malls are usually proven to be non-notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. Anarchia (talk) 10:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. WP:NN shopping complex, without WP:RS or an assertion of WP:N. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:08, 27 November 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. Davewild (talk) 08:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Music torture

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

This is original research. Or at least the title is original research (according to Google it should be redirected to Achy Breaky Heart, which seems reasonable); the sole source doesn't use this term. The event is well enough covered elsewhere. Guy (Help!) 23:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Should anyone want to source-and-expand this (I don't have time) Jon Ronson's The Men Who Stare at Goats includes a chapter on the subject. — iridescent

Keep - I am certain that there are sources to be found, this is a stub, it can be expanded. There were also reports of music torture from Guatanamo Bay for example. The term can also be found to describe other situations as well. Sfacets 23:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete What little can be said about this phenomenom seems containable in articles such as Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse, say. Possibly, a note could be written in the main article on torture. But it's far from clear that "music torture" is in any way the default term for such (resists comment about Phil Collins). --The Brown Bottle 23:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep The concept of using unlikeable music for its psychological effect is noteworthy, although I'm not sure that it's ever been described under any particular name. It's not new. In 1989, heavy metal music was played outside of the headquarters of General Noriega in Panama [1], and there have been businesses that played "elevator music", easy listening or even classical to drive away loiterers [2]. I would imagine that somebody has taken note of that in the world of psychology, and perhaps given it a name. I've seen it referred to as "acoustical weapons technology" [3] but I'm not sure that's a common term. Ideas? Mandsford (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Technically, I would say that sonic weaponry is a technology, just as (say) a cattle prod is technology. It isn't the same thing as an interrogation technique. --Dhartung | Talk 07:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom & nonsense. -RiverHockey (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep. This and other psychological techniques are becoming preferred by governments who prefer to leave no marks on their prisoners (unfortunately, that includes the U.S.). There are numerous sources including this award-winning Nation article and several books which devote significant sections to the topic. There does not seem to be a standard term of art; if anything torture music is found as often. It overlaps closely with torture using loud noises such as machinery and irregular air horn blasts, so could be treated alongside. This is not a joke, it is a serious human rights abuse, and we should not treat it as one. It is just as "valid" a technique -- that is, found in the field -- as waterboarding. --Dhartung | Talk 03:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete.I nominated once before.Sambure (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • If you nominated it once before, how come this isn't reflected in the article name? How come there is no record of a previous {{afd}} in the talk page? Ah. Checking the history, you nominated it for speedy deletion.
  • Can we count on you explaining why you don't regard the existing BBC link a reliable source? Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The subject is unfortunately very notable, with many discussions in news sources worldwide. Its a straightforward descriptive term for it, and if someone has an alternative title, it can be discussed on the talk page. DGG (talk) 04:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment isn't this related to how the US blasted music to get Manuel Noriega out of his asylum, or what they did in A Clockwork Orange ? 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and rescue per DGG. Well-known device. Good sources can be found easily. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 00:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep', BBC News report is one reliable source, and I guess there are others.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, with possible rename, a more generic title would also allow for the audiotapes of rabbits being slaughtered played at the Waco siege, in addition to its already-necessary expansion to include Noriega. I swear I came across a Gitmo reference to using th eMeow-Meow-Meow cat food commercial ditty as well :) Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 22:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Geo Swan (talk) 16:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • As DGG has noted, the correct venue for alternate names is the article's talk page.
  • I am afraid this nomination is an example of a phenomenon I find very frustrating in the deletion fora. The nomination states: "The event is well enough covered elsewhere." To my way of thinking this wording strongly suggests the nomination arises from a underlying philosophical judgment I have not subscribed to.
  • There are competing camps of underlying design philosophy here on the wikipedia. However, the wikipedia has no fora where the strengths and weaknesses of those underlying design philosophies can be explored in a collegial, civil manner.
  • I specifically except our nominator. I think we interacted a year or two ago and I think I found him then to be a fair, civil helpful person, who was quite generous with his time. But, in my experience, many regular patrolers of the deletion fora aren't civil, aren't willing to engage in meaningful civil dialogue, or offer meaningful civil explanations when they leave their "votes". Rather, they use the deletion fora as a means to shave the wikipedia into their preferred form, by shaving off articles that don't fit with their philosophy.
  • Concerning whether "music torture" is "well enough covered elsewhere" -- this is a design philosophy issue. To someone who favors merging smaller articles that cover only one single topic into a fewer number of larger, omnibus articles, that try to cover multiple related topics, it may seem obvious that this topic belongs in an omnibus article. But it isn't obvious to me. Deleting smaller articles, than can stand on their own, makes it harder for independently minded readers to navigate their own path through the multidimension universe of human knowledge.
  • It seems to me that the main place where this phenomenon should be discussed is here. Those other discussions, elsewhere, should mention as many details as necessary, and then say, {{see|music torture}} -- or whatever name we decide on for this article.
  • Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:25, 27 November 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. Various tags will be applied to encourage cleanup... — Scientizzle 17:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mutual Fund Directors Forum

Mutual Fund Directors Forum (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

non-notable organisation, already speedily deleted, but recreated. Mayalld (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree -- non-notable, spammy, already speedily deleted. --Dawn bard (talk) 03:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, possible speedy as nn-club. I would go and speedy it myself but the author has been threatening me with DRVs on my talk page, so better to get it hashed out here. Per nom and Dawn. Stifle (talk) 08:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, was this recreated again? I think I tagged this twice. Rudget.talk 15:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Come on guys, let's get real here. This isn't a "club" or "spam". It's a body which advises the SEC, and has loads of sources quoted for its notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a well recognized (in the mutual fund industry) non-profit organization that publishes best practices for independent directors. The SEC caused the organization to be formed. Mr. Bridger is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.208.43.71 (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The Mutual Fund Directors Forum is not a private club. It is a legitimate non-profit organization.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.208.43.71 (talk • contribs)

• Comment. As the author of the entry, I submit that those above voting for deletion simply may not be familiar with the U.S. securities industry, the regulation of the U.S. mutual fund industry, or even the SEC. Given this unfamiliarity, it's understandable that they may not have the proper frame of reference to make a knowledgeable determination of the notability of the Mutual Fund Directors Forum and the need for a Wikipedia entry about it. It is understandable that many of the new content patrollers are exercising a healthy skepticism because they are accustomed to dealing with spammers and other folks simply trying to slip past them advertisements and other inappropriate material no one would ever have a true desire to look up. But this is a legitimate nonprofit organization formed at the behest of the SEC; and one that is treated as an expert resource by the mutual fund industry, the press, and the SEC itself. The organization is notable on its face, and its notability is backed up in the article by citations to reliable and verifiable primary sources. Some may judge the article's tone somewhat tendentious, but any such bias, however minor, may be moderated if the article is left available to more and different editors.DJDeedle (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. This clumsy conflict-of-interest article seems to have just enough sourcing to be notable, it should probably be kept and seriously cleaned up by a neutral party. Zedla (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Agree with Phil Bridger. The Forum is not a club and is certainly not spam. It's a valuable resource for the mutual fund industry and the financial press. — CLS1977 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep. Forum is a well-known organization within the mutual fund and broader securities industries, and provides fund directors with valuable support in their key role of protecting fund shareholders and negotiating the prices shareholders pay for their funds. — smithdb4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep. This is clearly a case of an article that needs work, but on a worthy topic. There seem to be plenty of reliable sources on the topic, even if the current article may not be a good example of WP:NPOV, and isn't wikified. Mangojuice^talk 19:11, 29 November 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ipod Touch Mods

Ipod Touch Mods (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Possibly unneeded split, sensationalist, NPOV ViperSnake151 23:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Why delete it? It helps people jailbreak their iPods without having to go to 100 different websites!

- Masky (Talk | contribs) 01:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Masky gives absolutely no valid keep reason. JuJube (talk) 03:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as wikipedia is an encylopedia, not a collection of how-to-guides. Mods can be mentioned in the iPod Touch article, but it really doesn't need a separate article at this point. - Koweja (talk) 06:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge It should be left as a small blurb upon the main article. There are countless guides on the internet already on how to get this working. - XX55XX (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge It is something worthy of mention, but it does not need to be an article on its own. Merge it with the main iPod touch article, and maybe on iPhone article as well. Bentoman (talk) 04:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not to be used as a one-stop shop - as some people are trying to make it into. If you really want to get technical about such things, maybe a book should be written on the subject and placed in Wikibooks. It is identical to, for example, adding information on how to modify a 1968 Dodge Dart. Groink (talk) 07:43, 25 November 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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 18:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Paskal

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

Cricketer who does not meet WP:CRICKET guidelines for notability, having not played a first-class cricket or List A cricket match to date. Mattinbgn\^talk 22:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Craig Simmons (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - withdrawn by nominator. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Tom Cooper (cricketer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Note that these articles were created to remove redlinks on this template {{NSW Blues Cricket Team}}. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletions. —Mattinbgn\^talk 23:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Sorry, but my impression is that some Wikipedians regard our rule on notability as pretty lax anyway, and if we don't enforce it they'd have a better case. Let's hope NSW Blues gives them a debut some time soon, then they can be revived. Johnlp (talk) 23:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Fair enough if they havn't played First Class cricket. I only created their page so the NSW Blues template would link to every player.

However don't delete Craig Simmons - He's played plenty of first class cricket (I'll update when i have some time)

Thanks Danausi (talk) 23:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I withdraw the nomination of Craig Simmons as he has played first class cricket - see here. I need to research more thoroughly before listing. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I have added two substantial references on him. He is mentioned many more times in News Limited newspaper. Assize (talk) 03:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per notability guidelines at WP:BIO (section on Athletes). Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: insufficiently notable at this time. —Moondyne 04:44, 27 November 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, redirect to Michael Layton, 2nd Baron Layton, and protect. Spellcast (talk) 01:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Layton

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

This is unsourced, almost certainly made up. Note the name of the first author is the page name. Someone tried to speedy, a few editors have tried to redirect. Time to sort out. I suggest in the end we may ned to WP:SALT based on the edit history. Obina (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Michael Layton, 2nd Baron Layton on the grounds that the latter aticle has sources, notability, and civil contributors. If necessary, semiprotect the page and block User:Michael Layton. Wikipedia can do without this sort of behaviour. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 22:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect sounds reasonable. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect is definitively the way to go here.Manxruler (talk) 03:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect and protect per SheffieldSteel. This nonsense has to go and that plan seems like a good way to keep it from coming back. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete (to remove edit history), then Redirect and protect per SheffieldSteel. This is the sort of unsourced nonsense that gives wikipedia a bad name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:14, 25 November 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maxim Skoropadsky

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

Delete - no reliable sources establish that this child is in any way notable per WP:BIO. Otto4711 (talk) 21:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable pretender to a throne that never existed (it was an elected position) 132.205.99.122 (talk) 22:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete 4th generation descendant of the monarch of an abolished monarchy and born in the year 2000? I fail to see even the assertion of notability. I can't think of many notable 7 year olds. And while pretenders to actual thrones are notable, how many generations does one inherit it? I imagine most of us have a royal or two somewhere in the distant past. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 02:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - He's 7 years old! But the biographical detail about him belongs in Skoropadskie. --Orlady (talk) 00:07, 24 November 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. east.718 at 10:42, November 28, 2007

[edit] Stephanie Rosenthal

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

Non-notable athlete. Has never competed internationally[4], has never medaled nationally. totally non-notable. Kolindigo (talk) 21:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• weak delete --- an article about her, but 4 years back, a flawed assertion of notability in the article, and an implication that the subject will be less famous over the next few years, not more, as she's on leave from the sport. Can always be recreated when she actually achieves clearcut notability. --- tqbf 22:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep. I disagree that she is totally non-notable. I think in the past we've used competing in senior national championships as a sufficient indicator of notability, as competing at the "highest level" in the sport. It certainly does seem that Stephanie's 15 minutes of fame are up, though. Dr.frog (talk) 14:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - Given that one must go through qualifying tournaments to reach the United States Figure Skating Championships, she would qualify as competing at the "highest level" in the sport, although I can see an agrument that this doesn't quite meet "highest level" if one takes the cut-off as international competition. -- Whpq (talk) 19:08, 27 November 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 per snow & non-surprised coloured... Actually saw (did not compete!) the 2005 San Francisco "race"! SkierRMH (talk) 07:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Idiotarod

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

Wikipedia is not something made up at school. Prod was removed by IP and was that IPs only edit. No sources independent of subject. DPCU (talk) 21:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Just about wound up the 'delete' button on this one, then I did a Google News Archive search. CBS News coverage from New York - two years running; TheStreet.com coverage; a mention in the Washington Post; San Diego Union Tribune coverage... those are on the first two pages of the search, which turned up 136 mentions, and there are more behind pay walls. Keep - ten-year history, events in plenty of large cities, and lots of coverage. Colour me surprised. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per the fox; plenty of reliable sources, page simply needs some TLC. Color the otter surprised too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• keep per all the other surprisees Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Jumping on the shopping cart? hehe --Djsasso (talk) 23:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per everyone. This was also featured in an episode of CSI: NY. JuJube (talk) 03:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Loads of reliable sources. I'm a bit surprised that the nominator didn't find these during his research before prodding and AfDing. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:27, 23 November 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. Spellcast (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Celtic F.C. Songs

Celtic F.C. Songs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic, tagged for improvement for a long time, unreferenced. I believe the topic is inherently unencyclopedic and this article certainly seems to be unimprovably so. John (talk) 21:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per above. Compare and contrast: Arsenal F.C. Songs, Manchester United F.C. Songs, Liverpool F.C. Songs, Celtic F.C. Songs. Unencyclopedic. smb (talk) 21:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Celtic F.C. It would probably make a lovely addition there. Though I suspect all those redlinks are telling me I'm going against precedent. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - unsourced, POV, nn. TerriersFan (talk) 03:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. TerriersFan (talk) 03:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge to Celtic F.C., an important part of their football matches/culture is the team songs. -RiverHockey (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - the problem is that the article fails WP:V which is policy. We shouldn't be keeping or merging material that cannot be verified. TerriersFan (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nothing but original research. Football fans have a purpose, and that is to support their chosen teams. That's more or less all that is notable about a fan or group of fans. Whether they can sing and what they then choose to sing is not notable. On the other hand, for example, what a professional singer or group chooses to sing is notable, for obvious reasons - that is their purpose in life, and the thing which makes them notable. So what I am implying is that the article is written as if Celtic F.C. fans are a professional singing group - which they aren't. The originator of the article has chosen to write about an off-centre viewpoint connected to a notable subject, but his or her "take" on things certainly isn't notable in itself. Ref ^(chew)(do) 01:32, 24 November 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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 18:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eastern High School Hockey League

Eastern High School Hockey League (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Per WP:Notability (people) a player is notable if they played professionally or at the highest level of amateur competition. And it doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). There are numerous precidents for highschool leagues to be deleted. Djsasso (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Central Pennsylvania Ice Hockey League (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletions. —Djsasso (talk) 20:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:N - Not a nobable hockey league -Pparazorback (talk) 21:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment is AAA EHSHL the same level as Canadian Junior-A or Quebec Junior-AAA? Or is it the level of Canadian Major Junior (elite or AAAA)? 132.205.99.122 (talk) 21:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply - AAAA,AAA,AA,A are indications of the school's population. These are not related to hierachical ranking of junior teams. Flibirigit (talk) 22:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per lack of notability. Flibirigit (talk) 22:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete While there are 40 Google news archive hits for Eastern, and 22 for centralthey are evidence of local notability at best. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per what's been said. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:14, 23 November 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 18:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jon Peniel

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

An unreferenced biography of an author with two books, both apparently self-published (though described as "published", the author's website indicates that publication of the four other books has been postponed indefinitely). The claim is also made that Peniel has worked with The Beatles, John Lennon, Elton John, the Moody Blues and Neil Young, however "there is no proof of this available to the public since no one knows Peniel's true identity." Fails WP:BIO. The product of a single purpose account. Victoriagirl (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• delete --- "Network Pub Inc" only hits for this one book. <#650,000 sales rank. SPA promo article author. Guby. --- tqbf 22:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nothing at Google news archives. 30 Google web hits. Aamzon has 7 books for sale. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

To expand upon my overly laconic rationale, I found nothing suggesting the subject meets WP:BIO from verifiable sources. SUch information may exist, and I will revisit my opinion if new information is presented. The lack of any mention in Google News Archives does not give me a sense of confidence that there will be. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 07:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as it violates every element of WP:5P and WP:BLP. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 00:22, 26 November 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 03:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ivan Eyre

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

Procedural nomination. This had been nominated for speedy deletion. The speedy delete tag was removed by the wife of the original author of the article. freshacconcispeaktome 20:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —freshacconcispeaktome 20:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep For an artist born in 1935 to get 62 Google Hits suggests sufficient notability to meet WP:BIO. Among them:
  • His art is still being sold.
  • he has an entry on The Canadian Encyclopedia.
  • "His work has achieved national prominence and has toured internationally," according to The Encyclopedia of Saskatchewan .

**Art History Archive lists him as one of "Canada's Greatest artists." Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• The first three links are valid, but the last link is more than a bit suspect, and has been connected to two deleted articles. I wouldn't give it too much credibility. The list of "Canada's greatest artists" includes the owner of that website! freshacconcispeaktome 21:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the note. striking Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 23:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As per Dlohcierekim. --Crusio (talk) 00:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep For the moment. In addition to Dlohcierekim's observations, the artist is amply represented in the National Gallery of Canada, which suggests notability. However, the article needs solid references to remain, and currently has none, so much of it thus far reads like original research. Perhaps the Canadian Encyclopedia will provide proper citations. It will profit from a re-writing--too frequent use of 'frequent'. JNW (talk) 03:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per JNW. Article needs plenty of work. Johnbod (talk) 05:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the artist has an entry in the Canadian encyclopedia, and his work in the the NG of Canada. Either of them is absolutely sufficient for notability. the presence of works in the permanent collection of major museums is a fully sufficient criterion for notability of an artist by itself (however, it was not present in the article when it was speedied). DGG (talk) 08:23, 23 November 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 copyvio. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yangon International Educare Centre

Yangon International Educare Centre (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable school, reads as an advertisement, only major contributor has WP:COI issue, and has stated that the article was created to give the school a Wikipedia presence. Mayalld (talk) 20:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as a multi-source copyvio from [5] and [6] (look for the first sentence of each section). MER-C 12:03, 23 November 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. DS (talk) 20:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nitronic Fission

Complete and utter hoax. "Time Travel Sustainable Structures" my ass backside... A^RendedWinter 20:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Hoax, was about to tag it for AfD. There are actually two nominations for this page; do we need two? Pishogue (talk) 20:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• comment Don't need two, but I don't know how to fix it. We both wrote them at the same time it seems. A^RendedWinter 20:24, 22 November 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 Deleted by User:W.marsh.. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sad Clown Bad Dub 4

Sad Clown Bad Dub 4 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Mr.whiskers (talk) 20:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete nn. JJL (talk) 02:25, 23 November 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 18:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chad Hastings

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

Non-notable, no independent sources. Paxsimius (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, as resume-ish. AnteaterZot (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I was afraid I was making it sound too resume-ish. I am writing on stuff I know of Chad from the previous radio show. I am happy to edit it to make it sound less like a resume. Please let me know if this would be acceptable. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiel (talk • contribs) 21:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC) I went in and deleted some of the more personal items. I now just have info about The Chad Hastings Show and also info about his work with KVET. Hopefully, this will make it look less like a resume. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiel (talk • contribs) 14:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 20:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - lack of notability. Snigbrook (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO at present. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Resume-ish writing can be fixed. I see no assertion of meeting WP:BIO. 9 Google News hits suggest local notability, but not meeting WP:BIO. 32 Google Web hits, mostly blogs, suggest some local notability, but not meeting WP:BIO. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

In other words, I did not find anything supporting a claim of notability amongst the google hits. There are blog entries, but blogs are not verifiable sources. I saw no verifiable, reliable sources. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 07:47, 24 November 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 and move to Lynn Hoffman (author). Spellcast (talk) 14:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lynn Hoffman, Author

Lynn Hoffman, Author (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable author, article is advertisement like in tone, and likely autobiographical. CitiCat ^♫ 23:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Doesn't seem notable to me. Captain panda 13:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment In the event this article is retained, I suggest moving the article to Lynn Hoffman (author). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 20:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Wimpy little weak keep, though the article needs fixed. He's got two novels out, one of them as a Harper audiobook and the other through a smaller but apparently well thought of press, as well as a book on wine through Prentice Hall. The article needs to be completely revamped, though, so the question is whether it's worth keeping and retooling or deleting and letting someone else do a better starting job. (Oh, and move it as suggested above.) Tony Fox (arf!) 21:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not enough to pass Wikipedia:Notability (people) though. CitiCat ^♫ 22:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

That's why the wimpy weak keep there. Three books from notable presses nudges up against notability to me. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep since the author is likely at least somewhat notable with some reliable sources avaialble for reference. (The text claims a Booklist review, for example.) What this article really needs is a re-write and a strong dose of wikification. But that's a problem to be fixed, not a reason for deletion. - Dravecky (talk) 17:01, 23 November 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) 14:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Donkey Kong Island

Donkey Kong Island (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The article is a stubby, in-universe and composed of random bits of information from the setting section of various Donkey Kong video games and television shows. It isn't notable, so it has no references, and is entirely duplicative of other articles contents. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete According to the article itself this 'island' changed shape at least once, and the naming's inconsistent - hardly a glowing reference about this fictional location's importance to the series! No out-of-universe information, very unlikely there will be any. Someone another (talk) 07:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with the point made above. Tavix (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. and Someone another. JohnCD (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 20:07, 23 November 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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 18:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Mother locations

List of Mother locations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This "list" has all of one location from the game Mother, on top of its lack of notability which precludes any referencing, so its just an in-universe look at a minor location in the world of Mother, and doesn't need its own article. -- Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Is there no end to this kind of non notable cruft on wikipedia. Decoratrix (talk) 23:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. JohnCD (talk) 22:54, 22 November 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) 14:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wyvern (Warcraft)

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

The article is just a plot repetition in an in-universe way of random details, and has no notability of its own as demonstrated by its total lack of referencing. It is totally duplicative of information from the plot/characters sections of the various Warcraft articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Judgesurreal777 (talk • contribs)

• Delete No out-of-universe perspective, no real-world notability. Pagrashtak 15:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pagrashtak 15:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete ... It's a Wyvern which resembles a flying Manticore, it plays an extremely minor part as one half of a unit type in one game and is a transport option in WoW. A more robust version of that sentence split between the articles would pretty much cover all that's needed (it's probably already there). The characters themselves show no obvious sign of notability, there's no out-of-universe details or sources. Exactly the kind of excessive detail which just isn't needed.Someone another (talk) 15:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. and Someone another. (I'd vote for a separate WIKI for World of Warcraft into which everything but one main article could be hived off. Suggested title: World of WoWcruft.) JohnCD (talk) 22:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Although I'm not in favor of deleting all subpages of this type for fictional universes, I don't see the Wyvern being significant enough within the Warcraft universe to merit it's own page. Cogswobbletalk 23:28, 22 November 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) 14:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daemon (Warcraft)

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

The article is just a plot repetition in an in-universe way of random details, and has no notability of its own as demonstrated by its total lack of referencing. It is totally duplicative of information from the plot/characters sections of the various Warcraft articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Judgesurreal777 (talk • contribs)

• Delete not notable enough for a separate article. Pagrashtak 16:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pagrashtak 16:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. and Pagrashtak. JohnCD (talk) 22:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete One of umpteen enemy types, no out-of-universe info.Someone another (talk) 11:53, 24 November 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. Fram 15:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stics

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

Delete contested prod, this is a nn institute; 5 ghits including 1 from Wikipedia and 2 from the institute itself. Carlossuarez46 15:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, doesn't show notability. Seems like a small, private business-education company trying to make a name for itself. johnpseudo 19:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment if deleted, this should redirect to stick as a plausible misspelling of a plural form. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 21:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This article lacks any notable references, was written by a single new user over a 12 hour period over 12 days ago. There has been no attempt to improve the article since it was first written. A lack of interest and a lack of notability calls for a deletion. Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:32, 30 November 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Victoria Gomelsky

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

Notability not clear from article, lack of independent sources. Google results include some articles she's written for newspapers, but nothing else about her. Snigbrook 14:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:BIO; Personal web page indicates nothing worth noting - no awards from major entities, only niche-market Jewelry awards. Google turns up things she's written, but I see nothing that indicates there has been things written about her. WLU 15:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Do I need to re-post? I stand by my earlier assertion, delete. WLU (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No sources provided, and unable to find third party sources. Her writing, and jewelry journalism awards, don't seem to have resulted in any independent coverage. Maralia (talk) 01:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete not notable, or interesting without more info. I know "interesting" isn't part of WP policy, but maybe it should be. Wishing Ms Gomelsky well, and happy holidays to all. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:48, 23 November 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 as it will happen and is notable. Bearian 17:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Next Danish parliamentary election

Next Danish parliamentary election (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I recreated the page because it used to be the title of the Danish parliamentary election, 2007 article before the election was called and nobody thus knew when it would take place. After the election for 2007 was called, I then moved it to have the title of the 2007 article. Now the 2007 election is over, I thought it was standard on Wikipedia to have the "next election" article. As has been brought up on the article's talk page, however, this seems not to be the case, and this article will definitely not have any substance until the election is being called, or at least until heavy speculations arise that it is about to be called. This could be as much as four years from now, so until then, I recommend deleting this article, and then we recreate it once it is likely to contain anything interesting (opinion polls for an election four years out in the horizon are hardly encyclopedic). Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 12:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Articles like this should be named so as to be relevent forever i.e. instead of names like Next Danish parliamentary election which expire once the election takes place, use a title that includes the dates that it should take place. If the dates are not known as is the case here, the article is probably WP:CRYSTAL. In other words: don't create it under any name. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 14:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I disagree with your reasoning -- "next ... election" *IS* a valid title, for instance if the election will be held in either late 2007 or early 2008, or if there is encyclopedic material available for an election with a variable date (as there is for the next United Kingdom general election or the next Palestinian general election). Regardless, in this specific case I've got no strong opinion -- might as well delete it. —Nightstallion 00:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 20:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• After thinking on it for a while, I'd say we should keep it. The election will happen, and there is notable material which we can put into that article. —Nightstallion 16:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It is a notable planned event which will with high certainty take place. There is some bits of information which can be added to the article as they become available, starting with the last possible date. The only thing missing is the exact final title, which I don't see as a problem. Thue | talk 21:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• 'Delete as future-casting. Pastordavid (talk) 18:15, 28 November 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.--Kubigula (talk) 04:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mountainview Christian Reformed Church

Mountainview Christian Reformed Church (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Totally nonnotable church, with no claim other than being the largest church in the area and the largest CRC congregation in Canada. I'd speedy delete this myself, but these seem like tiny claims of notability. Nyttend 05:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. —Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete unless this is rapidly expanded and shows notability. I say this with regret, as I suspect that the WP community is too ready to delete churches, some of which may be locally notable. It needs a statement about its size, and some internet accessible citation, even if this is only the church's own website. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 20:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep as it claims to be the largest church in its denomination. Needs better cites. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 00:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Just being the largest church in the denomination isn't enough; that can change easily. In my denomination, the largest church recently became smaller by sponsoring a new church to which many of its members went, and thus another church is larger now. Plus, we could consider the Reformed Presbytery in North America, with only six churches and apparently only three elders: would its largest congregation still be notable, even though it is likely very small? Nyttend (talk) 13:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Lacks reliable sources. Also what is the article about? The building, the largest in town, or the chuch as it practices religion? Seems like it is mixing both and neither appears notable. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:33, 26 November 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. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of enemies in Doom 3

List of enemies in Doom 3 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is a list made up of game guide material that does not assert notablity by having real world information from reliable sources. TTN (talk) 19:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• There is a, albeit stalled, redirect discussion on the talk page. That venue should have been explored first. I still stand by my assessment there, that the article should be redirected and merged, but with List of enemies in Doom, not Doom itself Apparently that article is up for deletion as well. If that is deleted, then delete this one, as there is nothing to redirect to. If not, then redirect it. I (talk) 19:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no real-world content. Eusebeus (talk) 22:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Unless notability can be proven by finding out of universe referencing. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 08:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Transwikied to StrategyWiki:Doom 3/Enemies. -- Prod-You (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as it's now in its proper place. Not enough notability for it to stay here. - Koweja (talk) 18:15, 24 November 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Webunicate

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

Unremarkable neologism, possibly a made-up one too. Couldn't find any definition for this term (not even a blog, I'm amazed!).

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason

Webunication (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Webunicating (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Webunicated (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

ARendedWinter 19:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Even if this isn't a hoax, Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. Spellcast (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• From the talk page Hello - thank you for your comments, I am in the process of filling out the webunicate/tion/ted/ing pages to include the extra content and links that will fill out these areas... I've only just posted these less than five minutes ago. If you could just give me more time to fill it all out, it will all make sense. I'm a little confused here - we are a real organization with a new definition and presence behind us. We are just getting going here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Katealicious (talk • contribs)

• Delete It is just a definition for a word that looks made up. Tavix (talk) 21:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as spam. The only thing that turns up on a search is confirmation that a UK company called "Webunicate.com Ltd" exists. There's no chance of establishing notability, or of writing a neutral article even if notability were to somehow be established. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 22:22, 22 November 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 pressure of consensus. SkierRMH (talk) 07:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My pressure

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

Seems to be a made up sport. Can't find a single reference linking "my pressure" to any form of game. A^RendedWinter 19:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.   jj137 (Talk) 19:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unverified article. Marlith ^T/C 19:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - unsourced, unverifiable, WP:NFT. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - unverifiable. Maralia (talk) 01:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unsourced article, possibly made up. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 03:19, 23 November 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. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Solace in the Shadows

Solace in the Shadows (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band, most likely fan page/self promotion. About as notable as 20,000 or so other bands one can find on metal-archives.com. We cannot merit all of them an entry. -RiverHockey (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.   jj137 (Talk) 19:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable -- Whpq (talk) 19:12, 27 November 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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 18:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vuotare

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

Non-notable one man band, most likely fan page/self promotion. About as notable as 20,000 or so other bands one can find on metal-archives.com. We cannot merit all of them an entry. -RiverHockey (talk) 19:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.   jj137 (Talk) 19:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BAND. Does not meet any of the 12 or so criteria for notability. If this band meets notability guidelines but doesn't reflect it because the article is poorly written, please explain. I couldn't find evidence elsewhere off-wikipedia. Archtransit (talk) 21:44, 24 November 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. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Holocausto Canibal

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

Non-notable band, most likely fan page/self promotion. About as notable as 20,000 or so other bands one can find on metal-archives.com. We cannot merit all of them an entry. -RiverHockey (talk) 19:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.   jj137 (Talk) 19:29, 22 November 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. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Light This City

Light This City (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band. About as notable as 20,000 or so other bands one can find on metal-archives.com. We cannot merit all of them an entry. Wikipedia is not myspace. -RiverHockey (talk) 19:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.   jj137 (Talk) 19:29, 22 November 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, no consensus to overturn the prior deletion decision; they fail WP:BAND - the only sources provided are Youtube and other self-promotional, which even if believed and 100% correct still demonstrate no meeting of the criteria at WP:BAND, e.g., only 1 album issued on a label. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] See You Next Tuesday (band)

Was agreed for deletion but was recreated. Still fails notability. -RiverHockey (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

See You Next Tuesday (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fixing malformed, nomination, I abstain. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep at this point. They've signed with a relatively notable indie label in Ferret Records and have an album out that's being reviewed at various places, including onemetal.com, about.com, Metal Temple.com, etc. They're touring internationally, from the looks of this, and Exclaim! covered one of their concerts in NYC here. I think they could use some more reliable sources about the band, but they're definitely just above the bar. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Regarding the "written like an ad" comments below - that's a rewrite issue, not a delete issue. If this is deemed notable, I can certainly take a shot at rewriting it to deal with that. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• delete --- still written like an advert, still in first person, only a marginal shift in fundamental notability (they got signed to an indie label, but no media coverage). Watch out, there's a "lollipop hip-hop with slick production" album with the same name covered in the Voice. --- tqbf 22:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - written like an ad.   jj137 (Talk) 16:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep; there's a modicum of notability here, and the article can be revised so that it doesn't read so much like an advert.Alcarillo (talk) 17:36, 27 November 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. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hope Collapse

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

Non-notable band. About as notable as 20,000 or so other bands you can find on metal-archives.com We cannot merit all of them an entry. Possibly fan page or self-promotion, wikipedia is not myspace. -RiverHockey (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.   jj137 (Talk) 19:30, 22 November 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. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guttural Secrete

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

Non-notable band. About as notable as 20,000 or so other bands you can find on metal-archives.com We cannot merit all of them an entry. Possibly fan page or self-promotion as well. -RiverHockey (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.   jj137 (Talk) 19:30, 22 November 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. Fram 15:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Faceless

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

Non-notable band. About as notable as 20,000 or so other bands you can find on metal-archives.com We cannot merit all of them an entry. -RiverHockey (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.   jj137 (Talk) 19:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Notable within the underground community. Evidence of commercial success. There are far less known bands who have pages on here. Deletion based on biased towards genre as a whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.97.104 (talk) 18:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Do not make false accusations, I am familiar with the genre (grew up as a big metal fan (yes I admit it)) so I know what merits a notable band. As for the far less notable bands, please tag them for deletion as well. -RiverHockey (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with above. There is evidence of commercial success, as one can purchase their debut album at Best Buy stores across America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.244.99 (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

You said "About as notable as 20,000 or so other bands you can find on metal-archives.com", biased towards a genre. Claiming to have been a big fan when growing up doesn't make you an authority now. And no, i will not tag any other bands, that totally contradicts the ethics of the scene i am part of. And so what if they're 'non notable' in your opinion? That's not grounds for deleting the article is it? If that was the way all underground bands on here were treated there wouldn't be any pages on here documenting some amazing bands. It's narrow minded music nazis like you that make websites like this crap. You go and listen to 20,00 other bands in the genre. Then perhaps your opinions will be valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.69.93 (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I am still quite knowledgeable about the current scene (or lack of it) and I am not biased, but aware of what constitutes a notable metal band. Please respect NPOV and refrain from insults or you will be banned. I don't care how "amazing" a said group is, this is an encyclopedia and only noteworthy articles shall be added. Otherwise wikipedia will lose even more respect as a research tool. -RiverHockey (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete not notable Peter Fleet (talk) 03:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - No reliable sources present nor other indication that it meets WP:BAND. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:59, 30 November 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. There seems to be consensus that a merge is a good idea; I'll leave the implementation up to whoever is most interested. Mangojuice^talk 21:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ward Weaver III

Ward Weaver III (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

BLP violation. Article is only a coatrack for his criminal trial and conviction. The only sources cited are About.com, one book, and a an article calling the book cited unreliable. Does not satisfy WP:V in the least, but as it stands, the article is a blatant WP:BLP1E violation. - Kesh (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.   jj137 (Talk) 19:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: This is not a BLP1E or a COATRACK violation, blatant or otherwise. Ward Weaver was the subject of many months of extensive coverage in numerous local, regional, and possibly national media outlets, not for a single event but for a complex string of events. The sourcing definitely needs some work, and I will work on that. The Tribune article does not call the entire validity of the book into question, rather covers disagreement about some of the details. -Pete (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I just added nine citations to the article's talk page, to be worked into the article as inline citations. Publishers include CNN, FOX News, Associated Press. Years of coverage span 2001–2007. Notable aspects include Weaver's attempts to fake insanity plea, FBI's failure to identify Weaver as a suspect, Tribune's role in identifying him, pattern of behavior in Weaver's family, show about Weaver and the crimes on Oxygen network, Weaver's repeated firing of attorneys and attempts to defend himself, cost of the investigation and trial to taxpayers, tie-in with history of death penalty in Oregon, lawsuit filed against Oregon City Police, etc. Happy Thanksgiving all, I'm off to dinner! -Pete (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
    • In other words, they're all about the crime and his actions during the trial, not a biography of the man: the definition of a BLP1E violation. If you want to create a separate article about the crime, feel free. But if this article claims to be about the man, when it's really about the crime itself. That's a straight-up violation. -- Kesh (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
      • The article begins with Weaver's birth in 1963, and covers events in 1967, 1981, 1982, 1993, 1995, 1996, an 1997 before getting to the beginning of Weaver's criminal activity involving Gaddis and Pond. Following the crime, the article discusses his approach to talking with the press, his trial and sentencing, and an event occuring in prison. The article is about the man, not the crime. -Pete (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletions. —Katr67 (talk) 23:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but reframe as comprehensive article about the case. I find these arguments about the true nature of an article about a criminal something of an angels on the head of a pin sidetrack. I also find it a bit bizarre that we're arguing about an attack article when the individual in question is convicted and serving a life sentence. But I agree that the criminal and victims should generally be in one single article. Thus, merge with the already-combined Miranda Gaddis and Ashley Pond article. In the absense of a sitewide guideline on the notability of criminals and/or victims of crime, this is probably the best we can do. Instead of pushing someone to "create a separate article", why not be constructive and attempt to fix this one? --Dhartung | Talk 04:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep obviously merge with the article about the victims. The question is merely what title to use, and at the moment we have no consistent practice. In this instance, there is no one preferred way in the references. The interest seems to be as much in his remarkably brazen conduct after the crime as in the crime itself, so using his name for the article title seems reasonable. Articles about people are necessarily about the things they did. the fact of being born is almost never interesting per se, nor is the education and personal life of almost anyone, unless they should have done something for which their education and personal life is worth knowing about. If the reason people are interested in them is because they are heads of government, that's a reason; if the reason people are interested is because they are notorious criminals, that's a reason--but in either case the article is normally about them. BLP was not intended to prevent articles about convicted (& confessed) murderers. Dhartung has it exactly right. I do not understand the reasoning of the nom.DGG (talk) 20:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: I did not formally !vote before. I believe the substantial issue behind BLP1E is notability; the situations where BLP1E is required are events where a person receives lots of minor press coverage due to their involvement in an event, thus appearing to establish notability, but is not really notable. To the degree that BLP1E appears to apply here, I believe that's a mere technicality. -Pete (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and merge per Dhartung et al. Notable enough for a single article, but not three. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 00:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and merge as per Dhartung et al. Notable enough for a single article, but not three. If it were possible in this vote then I'd delete the othe two now Victuallers (talk) 14:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I have merged all content from the Pond/Gaddis article into the Weaver article. (I did not move the categories over, such as 2002 deaths, as I believe they would only serve to confuse.) At the conclusion of this AfD, it should be possible to simply delete redirect Miranda Gaddis and Ashley Pond without losing anything of significance. -Pete (talk) 00:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and merge: Most murderers (and their victims) are non-notable; Ward Weaver is an exception due to the extensive coverage of the case. That said, the article should probably be about the case, and pages on the victims (and on Ward) should redirect there. --EngineerScotty (talk) 17:27, 29 November 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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 18:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brain Drill

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

Proposing the deletion of this page and its offshoot The Parasites EP. Band has only released one demo, Wikipedia is not myspace, there are ~20,000 bands as notable as "Brain Drill" on metal-archives.com, they can't all claim notability, etc. -RiverHockey (talk) 18:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 18:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.   jj137 (Talk) 01:57, 23 November 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 03:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Works (The Corrs album)

The Works (The Corrs album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete album article that's not much more than a track listing, see WP:MUSIC, no indication that this compilation album is notable, that it charted or otherwise meets the expected criteria. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Notable band, passes WP:MUSIC. STORMTRACKER 94 18:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable, per WP:MUSIC, other albums by band have pages. Doc Strange (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per WP:OUTCOMES. If a band passes WP:MUSIC, general consensus is that their albums are all sufficiently notable as well. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - notable.   jj137 (Talk) 01:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per 10 lb. H. tomasz. 02:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I created this article because the band was notable. σмgнgσмg 05:05, 25 November 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tracy Neve

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

Nominated for AfD in 2005.[7] The page has not changed substantially since then, and remains a stub after removing all the unsourced material to comply with wP:BLP. Occasionally a target for vandals. I think all this suggests the subject is not notable enough for a WP article. Mikeblas (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Nix per nom.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 18:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete asap. --Paularblaster (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.   jj137 (Talk) 16:13, 24 November 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Total Force Freestyle Karate

Total Force Freestyle Karate (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Notability sub style non-evidence of multiple schools unsourced. see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nippon Shorin Ryu Kenpo Nate1481( ^t/_c) 17:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete- A just formed fighting style by one guy? Needs time to catch on which it may not do. How many students are learning this as an exclusive style? Not buying it. Promotional.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not promotional. It is merely information I requested from it's founder, and I put it on here. I know it is new, but every martial art was new at one time. I am learning it, and there are about 35 or so students of his that are learning it. I gave links to associations that recognize him and his art.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.218.80 (talk • contribs)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletions. -- Nate1481( ^t/_c) 17:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Sorry, but we need independent sources to establish notability here. Neither of the linked sites actually mentions Total Force Freestyle, and I was not able to turn up a single reference via Google search. When it gets some significant industry and/or press coverage, then an article may be appropriate. Maralia (talk) 02:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nn. JJL (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

If you look at ICMAUA.com, and go to members a-k, you will see it is listed there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billycook3 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Sounds like the founder might be notable, but the school is too recently created to be without further assertions of notability. Bradford44 (talk) 01:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable.   jj137 (Talk) 16:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

what will it hurt you to leave it here. It doesn't hurt you at all —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billycook3 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 25 November 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 merge and delete. Spellcast (talk) 14:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mangalore/Nearby places

Mangalore/Nearby places (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Sub-page of an article in mainspace. This needs to be deleted and relevant info (if any) should be moved back to the main article -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 17:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and merge-per nom.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 18:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and merge per Iconoclast. STORMTRACKER 94 18:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and merge per both of the above.   jj137 (Talk) 01:58, 23 November 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 18:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sony Ericsson K600i

Sony Ericsson K600i (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable commercial product. Wikipedia is not a Sony catalog. {{prod}} removed by User:Harmil with the comment "A quick search shows up many reviews like http://www.infosyncworld.com/reviews/n/6136.html ... I think a marge to a broader article would be fine". Problem is, only reviews are available and they're not substantial sources. Mikeblas 15:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete nn product. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 04:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- per above.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete no ads. Marlith ^T/C 19:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable.   jj137 (Talk) 16:15, 24 November 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 18:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guy Rawlings

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

Delete nn local tv sports reporter, no significant coverage in independent RSes establishing notability, WP:BIO Carlossuarez46 06:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No apparent notability. Alberon 09:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not quite notable enough. • Lawrence Cohen 18:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.   jj137 (Talk) 01:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Google reveals 812 results for "Guy Rawlings," but I don't think that he is notable enough to justify an article. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 03:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No sign of any substantial coverage anywhere, let alone in independent reliable sources, so clearly fails WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:56, 25 November 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] High SEAS March

High SEAS March (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete a musical piece without sources or claim of notability, fails WP:MUSIC Carlossuarez46 06:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. It's hard for a local school band's commissioned music to meet WP:MUSIC. There isn't anything unusual here to hint at notability. I can find no sources that demonstrate otherwise. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable, doesn't meet our standards. • Lawrence Cohen 18:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.   jj137 (Talk) 01:58, 23 November 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Claude Chassagne

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

Delete nn chef, fails WP:BIO - he has some notable relatives, been in the business for 20 years and manages (owns?) a restaurant -redlink - but that's way short of the significant coverage in WP:RSes that is required. Carlossuarez46 06:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete- non-notable.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 18:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. As mentioned, doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO needs. • Lawrence Cohen 18:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.   jj137 (Talk) 01:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A "Zagat" rating of 21 is not really exceptional. --Crusio (talk) 19:19, 26 November 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. Davewild (talk) 11:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Raíces Del Reggaeton

Raíces Del Reggaeton (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete unsourced and no indication that this compilation album is notable, charted or generated any RSes covering it, per WP:MUSIC. Carlossuarez46 06:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.   jj137 (Talk) 01:59, 23 November 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. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doughski

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

Given lack of references and the lack of hits for any of the claims (EG [8][9][10]), seems to be either a hoax or wishful thinking, not something that meets WP:MUSIC. Google is not infallible, but certainly "Several Christian and Feminist organizations have criticized Doughski..." would show up if true. Ravenna1961 05:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Non notable, and no reliable sources (3rd party). - Rjd0060 05:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - not notable.   jj137 (Talk) 16:15, 24 November 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 all. No sourced information to merge. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Castaway (song)

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

Unnotable song from the Disney film In Search of the Castaways. Clarityfiend 02:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Enjoy It! (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Let's Climb (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Merci Beaucoups (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Merge all into In Search of the Castaways if they are important to the film. Otherwise, just delete them. - Rjd0060 04:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.   jj137 (Talk) 02:00, 23 November 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; I see no point in relisting this again— it clearly fails WP:BIO as it is and nobody appears interested in stepping up to fix it. — Coren ^(talk) 23:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greg Brown (DJ/Radio Jock)

Greg Brown (DJ/Radio Jock) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Tagged for notability and references since Apr 2007. A DJ at a radio station. No sources. Fails WP:N. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Non notable (although if somebody feels the need, it can be added to WZZN). - Rjd0060 05:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 17:41, 22 November 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. Someone has already merged the content, so redirect is appropriate to preserve the GFDL.--Kubigula (talk) 04:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Ryan Howard's major league records

List of Ryan Howard's major league records (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Shouldn't be its own page; merge content with Ryan Howard. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 17:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merge/Delete...a list of 5...it can easily stay on Ryan Howard's page. --Smashville^BONK! 20:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge doesn't belong in it's own article This is a Secret ^account 21:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions. -- Caknuck (talk) 23:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge - into the Ryan Howard article. It shouldn't get its own article.   jj137 (Talk) 16:16, 24 November 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:SNOW.  Avec nat...Wikipédia Prends Des Forces.  22:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hussain Ali Nasser

Hussain Ali Nasser (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article would appear to be a complete hoax perpetrated by LindsayKensington (talk · contribs). Google has no indication of anyone by the name of Hussain Ali Nasser, nor does it find much of anything for his nickname, Ali Bob. The band "Chustaani Murghi" he was apparently part of doesn't exist. All of the articles for record labels he was allegedly signed to were created by the same user. None of the references in the article actually refer to the subject. Essentially, this is total bollocks. Delete with prejudice. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC) Tony Fox (arf!) 17:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, articles' references don't check out. Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

PAKISTAN IS A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY. THIS YOUNG MAN IS A PAKISTANI ARTIST. THEY HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE OF SYSTEMATIC ORGANISATION OVER THERE AND MOST OF THEIR NOTABLE ARTISTS CANNOT THEREFORE BE TRACED ON GOOGLE, IT DOESN'T MEAN THEY'RE NOT NOTABLE HOWEVER!

IMRAN KHAN, THE COUNTRY'S MOST FAMOUS CRICKETER-TURNED-POLITICIAN USES HOTMAIL AS HIS PERSONAL EMAIL ADDRESS AND DOESN'T EVEN HAVE HIS OWN DOMAIN NAME REGISTERED.

PRESIDENT GENERAL PERVEZ MUSHARRAF'S WIFE HEATS UP HIS CURRY IN A CLAY POT, RATHER THAN A MICROWAVE OVEN WHEN HE GETS HOME TIRED FROM WORK.

BENAZIR BHUTTO GOES TO THE LOCAL 'FRIDAY BAZAAR' TO BUY HER BRAS AND PANTIES, RATHER THAN ORDERING THEM OFF THE INTERNET WITH A MASTERCARD LIKE HILLARY CLINTON WOULD DO.

AND YOU'RE EXPECTING AN ARTIST FROM SUCH A BACKWARD NATION TO BE ON GOOGLE.COM WITH ACTIVE LINKS TESTIFYING HIS NOTABILITY EVERYWHERE? YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE NUTS. IT IS RATHER RACIST OF YOU IN FACT TO ENFORCE SUCH AN EXPECTATION OFF SOMEONE YOU KNOW IS INCAPABLE OF LIVING UP TO YOUR DEMANDS.

THOSE RECORD COMPANIES ARE FOR REAL, THEY EXIST, THEY ARE FAMOUS IN THE REGION, BUT THEY DON'T ALL HAVE TO HAVE THEIR OWN WEBSITES.

PLEASE CONSIDER LEAVING THIS ARTICLE ON HERE, ITS DELETION MAY OFFEND A LOT OF PAKISTANI, INDIAN AND ARAB FANS THIS ARTIST/SINGER HAS AROUND THE WORLD AND IT MAY CREATE AN UNNECESSARY UPROAR. WITH SO MUCH WRONG GOING ON IN THE WORLD, THE LAST THING WE ALL WISH TO SEE IS FURTHER CHAOS! AND WIKIPEDIA SURELY WOULD NOT WANT TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR IT, SO GUYS, FOR THE SAKE OF PEACE PLEASE KEEP THIS ARTICLE ON YOUR SITE, THIS GUY IS A BLOODY GREAT SINGER.

YOU SHOULD EVEN LISTEN TO HIS MUSIC YOURSELVES, YOU'LL FALL IN LOVE WITH HIM.

LindsayKensington (talk)Lindsay

• • Maybe you could provide links that actually refer to the artist, instead of referring to other people, as the current references do? Tony Fox (arf!) 21:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, and the 'caps lock' key is to the left of the 'a' - please stop shouting. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete None, and I mean not one, of the references provide evidence that the gentleman even exists. Assuming good faith the burden still is on the contributor to properly source this, otherwise he hasn't been shown to be notable. I'll happily revise my vote upon such a showing. Xymmax (talk) 21:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, to the above statement by lindsay, the article says he is based in australia, not pakistan, i'm sure there would be online sources about him. Besides, who says people from Pakistan can't have enough sources to get articles, what do you call these Category:Pakistani people?
• Also i have a breakdown here of the links in so-called references section.

"EntertainOz - ALi BoB signed to Arif Tabalchy's Management" - actually a link to an article about someone called Steven Jaymes, no mention of this guy

Tikkay Pe Tikka on YouTube.Com - link to unavailable video

Martian Music: ALi BoB - error page

http://online.mq.edu.au/pub/MUS209/welcome.htm Macquarie University Music Program - Conducted by ALi BoB] - no mention of him

Education Western Australia Workshops - Conducted by ALi BoB - site doesn't work

ALi BoB & Darren Hayes on ABC News- page about strictly come dancing (?).

Plus there is this image, which is clearly faked [Image:Alibobdaz.jpg]] Not much else to say really--Jac16888 (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - I have no faith in an editor that uses CAPS to shout her/his message. Also no sources to prove existence/notability. If this is a hoax, the user perpetrating it should be blocked. Sfacets 21:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. If the content is as unverifiable as LindsayKensington claims, then we can't well have it on Wikipedia, now can we. Someguy1221 (logged out) 21:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.232.120 (talk)
• Delete - not verifiable. AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and SALT Editor only seems to be contributing hoaxes and chaos (this attack pic of Michael Jackson for instance which I've speedied), and the Photoshopping on that page is laughably bad. The all caps attack on Pakistani figures and assertions we are racist also play into this as a complex hoax. Also suggesting salting because I have a feeling this could be re-posted later on. Nate · (chatter) 22:35, 22 November 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. Davewild (talk) 09:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Captain Deudermont

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

Unreferenced article about a non-notable fictional character. Too few substantial secondary sources exist to support an article about this character. {{prod}} was seconded by User:Gavin.collins, then removed by User:Trainunion with the commnet "is plenty notable", so listing at AfD. Mikeblas 23:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 00:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 01:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as this stub does not cite any primary sources, has no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate real-world notability, and fails WP:NOT#PLOT. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:06, 27 November 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 merge and redirect to Item (Game). Spellcast (talk) 14:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Set (video game)

Unnotable item from a video game (NOT A VIDEO GAME ITSELF), has a brief in universe description of its role in one of the Warcraft video games, and has no notability or referencing. It is probably already given its one to two sentences in the video game article that it came from. Judgesurreal777 22:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable enough for a separate article, consists of game guide information. Pagrashtak 21:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 17:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Item (Game). A redirect with preserved history and listing at WP:VG/C would be most effective. This is a relevant discussion in relation to the article it should be merged into. User:Krator (t c) 22:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This isn't terribly notable even within the game universe. Definitely not notable enough for a separate article. Cogswobbletalk 23:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Item (Game) per Krator. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable.   jj137 (Talk) 02:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Item (Game)—which, incidentally, should be renamed to Item (game) at the very least, or even better to Item (game terminology). Maralia (talk) 02:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per Krator and Maralia, a separate article isn't necessary but item sets have become more commonplace (they're quite noticeable in Diablo II). There will probably be some mention of them in a review about a specific game in terms of referencing.Someone another (talk) 14:49, 23 November 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Akavar

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

Unlike other diet pill entries, such as Relacore, Leptoprin, Cortislim and Trimspa - all of whom have received media coverage (abeit negative) for Federal Trade Commission rulings, this article does not establish notability other than being a brand of diet pill. The information used to assert notability is unsourced, or is simply marketing that was used by the manufacturer itself about its own product. Much of the information currently in the article is original research, and what information is sourced is attributed to the companies own (self-published) press release - not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. Of note, the user who created and primarily contributed to the article has not made any other Wikipedia edits other than to promote this brand. Quartet 20:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. - spam, no reliable source, possible COI. JohnCD 20:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom - no reliables sources, not notable and no information found other than advertising for the brand.--Yankees76 (talk) 18:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not significant enough third party reliable sources independent of the subject to warrant (or create) an encyclopedia entry (WP:NN). Spam. --Komrade Kiev (talk) 04:14, 26 November 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 concensus; the sport appears genuine, but the article could use some work. AfD, however, is not the place to discuss cleanup. — Coren ^(talk) 23:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goshin Jujitsu

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

No sources, no claim of notability, reads like an advert Nate1481( ^t/_c) 15:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletions. -- Nate1481( ^t/_c) 15:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No assertion of notability. Bradford44 17:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- Simply here to promote his 'new' fighting style. Nice format and a lot of work, he should edit some articles..---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 17:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• seems legit to me. too many arrogant people on here who want to discredit others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.218.80 (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Two articles contributed to by 66.191.218.80 have been put up for AfD by me and they have strongly opposed the nomination. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 11:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems legit to me, too, but until reliable secondary sources support its "legitness", rather than the generic impression of an editor, my vote remains delete. Bradford44 (talk) 01:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as the art itself is notable and merits a page, but delete all the content as it's just an ad for one school. Needs to be wholly reworked. JJL (talk) 02:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I know nothing about the sport, but it appears to be real. It needs to be cut down, more cites found, and the cruft removed. Bearian 17:41, 30 November 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.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Solabeat Alliance

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

A delightful promotional piece about a band which, if we are to believe the lead, is going to re-form for a one off show at Salisbury Art Centre. Most of the claims to notability are either notability-by-association or redlinks. Guy (Help!) 20:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Hm. I think they're kind of edging up against WP:MUSIC, once you get through the promotional bits in there. They appear to have released one album and an EP on Moon Ska Records according to this BBC report - but something's funny, as our article says the company shut down before that. The various articles on not-quite-firmly-reliable sources I turned up in Google suggested they did tour the UK somewhat, but whether it was at notable venues, I can't track down. There's a contactmusic.com review of one of their dates here. Beyond that, I can't find a lot about them. Weak Delete unless somebody else can track down more sources. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont 12:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 17:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. It has had 3 weeks to have references added. Without those, notability is not established. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:36, 26 November 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goon of fortune

Goon of fortune (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The article cites only two sources one of which is a broken link as far as I can tell and the other is to drinkinggamerules.com. The subject does not appear notable and despite surviving a previous AfD, it does not seem to satisfy inclusion criteria. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 06:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete The drinking games site is not a reliable source. No other reliable or verifiable sources back up the claims in this article. It is a drinking game but not verifiable one. spryde | talk 11:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Its verifiable, just go google it and see the pages of results!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.94.180 (talk) 11:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 17:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Of the references, one link is broken, the other timed out. Yes, Google finds some mentions, but is it notable? JohnCD (talk) 17:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete First reference is a 'submit your own drinking games' site; second reference is a broken link from a site that has no hits for the term. Google hits are blogs, message boards, and myspace videos - nothing approaching reliable source. Maralia (talk) 02:40, 23 November 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trademark search

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

Original version was a blatant cut-and-paste copyvio of [11]. Author claims to have improved it enough that it wasn't a copyvio--but the current violation violates WP:NOT. Specifically, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Blueboy96 17:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT#GUIDE Mayalld (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This is clearly a 'how to' guide, and the content appears to be already covered in Trademark#Trademark search. Maralia (talk) 02:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT and WP:SPAM; it's still a WP:COPY. Please redirect to Trademark. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 00:30, 26 November 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. --Oxymoron⁸³ 09:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stimulus (band)

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

No assertion of notability, fails WP:MUSIC, google search for band and album produces 59 hits, no independent coverage, all CDs have been self-produced; 12 years of history and no hits, singles or label = non-notable. WLU (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable band, comes pretty close to an A7 speedy. Blueboy96 17:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• • I've no objection to it being speedied, my review of WP:SD apparently missed that one or I'd have speedied it instead. WLU (talk) 17:31, 22 November 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. Tyrenius (talk) 05:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marianne Benko

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

If this person is notable enough for Wikipedia, it does not become clear from the article. Aecis^Brievenbus 17:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletions, the list of Netherlands-related deletions and the list of arts-related deletions. Aecis^Brievenbus 17:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. freshacconcispeaktome 17:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. 4 edit, 1 subject creator. I see she "exposes all over Europe" - I must keep an eye out. Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Does not pass notability muster. • Lawrence Cohen 18:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.   jj137 (Talk) 19:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Notability not established. JNW (talk) 03:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete 53 Google hits in Hungarian, of which 2 refer to an exhibition of her works. That shows she's nowhere near notable, at least for now. KissL 10:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. What search did you do? This search gives 121 unique hits, mostly in Dutch. She has lived and worked in the Netherlands since 1984, so you wouldn't expect much about her in Hungarian. I don't read Dutch very well, but these links do seem to indicate that her work has been widely exhibited. Maybe a Dutch speaker could check out those links. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• All seem to be small galleries and web directories etc. The fact a small work in acrylic on paper is priced at €295 doesn't suggest deleters are wrong. Johnbod (talk) 12:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• My search was this - making use of the fact that Hungarian has the eastern name order. It is indeed possible that she is notable in the Netherlands; if someone provides a proof, I am willing to change my recommendation. KissL 18:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• I've gone through the first four or five pages of Google hits, and I could only find minor, non-notable galleries, no notable museums and no non-passing coverage in reliable sources. Aecis^Brievenbus 20:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Modernist (talk) 14:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. A fine artist, but she, like many living artists, is just not notable. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 00:33, 26 November 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 as per WP:SNOW. Capitalistroadster (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charlottetown Rural High School

Charlottetown Rural High School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable school. We don't care what musicals they have done. Wikipedia isn't a collection of garbage. Delete J (talk) 16:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep verifiable and NPOV schools. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - notable as the largest school in the province. A major aspect of the community, it has notable alumnus/faculty, properly sourced. The page needs expanding but plenty of sources available to do this. TerriersFan (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - The largest public school in that province. Could be rewritten and wikified.Plasma east (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It's been debated a thousand times, but secondary schools are almost always notable. Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• speedy keep per WP:SNOWBALL, largest school in PEI, notable alums, just needs cleanup. Chris (talk) 17:37, 22 November 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 - jc37 07:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Now That's What I Call Music! albums

List of Now That's What I Call Music! albums (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Nominating this list, all the album "articles" on the list a and the 200 or so album "articles" Special:What links here/List of Now... about albums in the non-notable series for deletion. This list and these albums do not meet Wikipedia:Notability (music). Per the guideline "All articles on albums or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines" Jeepday (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all Yes all. They can never expand to have things like a wide range of reviews, production, themes, background info etc. None of the albums can ever reach GA status because all it can ever be is a track list. Spellcast (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all Notability is far from met. --LeyteWolfer (talk) 16:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete the nominated article and only because the main article Now That's What I Call Music has the navigation aids already. I'm sorry, but if you think that you've nominated other stuff by adding a link to represent the 200 articles you don't like ("Special:What links here/List of Now..."), you're kidding yourself. What a laugh. Mandsford (talk) 16:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment WP:MUSIC and WP:N are only guidelines. But there may be a case here - the album series is notable (the original nominator's allegation that this is a "non-notable series" clearly hasn't read the parent article), but this is making me think about whether the individual albums are in and of themselves. WP:MUSIC doesn't seem to satisfactorily cover compilation albums (there's obviously no way to "merge it into the article for the original artist") - and attempting to have the articles deleted in this (frankly lazy) manner is not a way to address that. Kinitawowi (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep A master list like this is fine, and deleting 200+ articles in one go is a bit extreme. I'd suggest breaking it down by different countries so that notability can be more easily assessed. I highly doubt the individual albums are notable, but there are too many here to tell. Also, when nominating multiple articles, you need to place each article in the AfD and place an AfD tag on every article. --Phirazo (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

There was once around 200 mixtapes in Category:Mixtape albums, now there's 30. The albums in the above article are no different. All they'll ever be is a track list with no info to develop into a comprehensive article. Spellcast (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right, but deleting 200 articles (without tagging them) in one go isn't the way to do this. I think this AfD should have been split among the countries. --Phirazo (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep one of the most notable and arguably the highest selling compelation CD series in both the US and UK. Any compelation series that has TWO HUNDRED albums is awful notable Doc Strange (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Now That's What I Call Music has been such a successful series in the UK that it has prompted the creation of a separate compilation albums chart because until then it dominated the regular album chart. Notable by all means. The Seventh Taylor (talk) 21:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Just because a compilation chart exists, it doesn't mean each album is notable. Look at any article in Category:GA-Class Album articles. None of the Now That's What I Call Music! compilations can expand from a track list because there's no significant coverage. I doubt the 200+ pages can be deleted in this AfD, so they'll probably be taken in groups. Also, there was a similar AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WOW Hits. Spellcast (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• KEEP - a very good site with an overview of a worldwide series. How many other cd-series exists in so many countries and with so much success? (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - master list of a long-running and influential series with international distribution. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep all Non-notable series?! From the parent article Now That's What I Call Music!: "The sheer longevity and ubiquity of the Now! series in the UK has led to its becoming something of a cultural icon." A reliable source if that statement is doubted: "The collections of pop, urban, and generally teen-oriented singles were the most successful in the history of the recording industry. The consortium of labels sharing the releases of the various NOW albums claimed sales of more than 37 million units in the United States and 53 million worldwide by 2003. Several of the units debuted at Number 1 in Billboard's album chart." For the UK Now #2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 reaching UK No. 1 see this book. "The brand's so famous it's entered the language" "the most successful branded compilation ever launched in the music business" "For the first time in Billboard magazine history, a multi-artist album that isn't a soundtrack made its debut at the top of the pop charts this week, "Now That's What I Call Music! 4."" "NOW THAT'S WHAT I CALL MUSIC! VOLUME 16 Debuts at #1 in the Billboard Top 200 Album Chart" Oodles of independent coverage, some examples of reviews I found in 2 minutes on Google News: [12], [13], [14], [15] [16] , [17], [18] [19]. That is just for the UK and the US releases. The UK Now regularly tops the charts in Ireland, and I have no doubt that releases in other countries also do the same. The 1980s Now albums are valued by collectors. Most of the songs on the tracklists are notable and bluelinked, so these album articles are a great way to explore the popular songs of a certain year. These albums are in no way comparable to mixtapes. No possibility of an article reaching GA status is not a reason for deletion. Bláthnaid 13:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Since each of the albums can only be a perma-stub, they should probably be mentioned in this article with their chart positions, if any. The singles that make up the albums are obviously notable, but it doesn't mean the albums are. Anyway, this AfD is only about the list. So I favour keeping this list but definitely not the albums! Spellcast (talk) 15:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The nominator said the series was non-notable and nominated all of the album articles, so I made my case for all of the albums being notable and verifiable. An album that reached #1 in the charts is notable on its own merits. In the UK the vast majority, if not all, of the albums charted. The sources can be used to add encyclopaedic information about sales figures, how long the albums were in the charts, reviews, etc. What's wrong with a well-presented, useful, short and sweet stub? Bláthnaid 19:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The only thing worth mentioning is the chart positions and sales. And they can simply be mentioned in this list instead of its own article. Also, they don't have any reviews. It's much better to merge the most relevant info into one article instead of having 200 perma-stubs. Spellcast (talk) 08:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Reviews: [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]. "Every NOW volume has been certified platinum or better by the RIAA" [27]. I'll add some information to some of the articles, but unfortunately a lot of the articles are behind paywalls and I can't access them. Bláthnaid 21:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok so there's reviews for a small handful of them. But I just can't support permanent stubs. It's so much better to merge the most relevant info (in this case, the sales and charts) into this list. Spellcast (talk) 02:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Nominated Article and Keep Individual Album Articles - In the terms of the nominated article it is quite unecessary because we have already have a template for this on the main page for NWTICM and each individual album page. As to the individual album pages each album is notable under WP:Music (major record label release, most have reviews, contains notable music, et cetera) and therefore an article with a track listing for each one is in order - this is an encyclopedia after all, people might want to know what's on each one. A1octopus (talk) 23:39, 29 November 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 merge with Grande Loja Regular de Portugal.--Kubigula (talk) 05:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Entre Colunas

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

This is an article on a Portuguese-language Masonic magazine. I prodded it because there was no indication or assertion of notability. User:Carlos Botelho, who created the article and has his own article on WP (Carlos Botelho) listing him as the PR director for said Grand Lodge, removed the prod, changed nothing that would assert notability, and then made threats on the article talk page. All this aside, there are thousands of Masonic jurisdictions, and most of them have some sort of magazine. This does not make the magazines themselves notable. MSJapan (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, as far as i have noticed i am so envolved as you are with some kind of different masonic interest, which violates the conflict of interest policy. Moreover, of course some words must no be taken too much seriously, and the stop sending magazines its just to say that theres a notable Grand Lodge who cares about England, isnt it. Any way you can delete another article regarding GLRP as you have done before with our grand-master and be proud of it. Congratulations....you win. This is the true spirit of some wikipedia. Fraternaly Carlos Botelho (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with Grande Loja Regular de Portugal (with peacock terms removed) and redirect. I can't see enough evidence to establish independent notability of the magazine, but the content of this article is relevant to the article on the grand lodge. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:33, 23 November 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 - seems to be the general consensus. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Davor Nikolic

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

Possibly non-notable, but certainly not a speedy deletion. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Claims of notability in article are borderline at best; gsearch isn't showing much in the way of notability. Delete if notability can't be shown.--Fabrictramp (talk) 01:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. How can the president of a national student council not be notable? Reliable sources for this are in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Well, how important is the organization? From the look of things, probably not too much. CitiCat ^♫ 15:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Still looks pretty important to me. President of an officially recognised advisory body to a national minister of science education and sports. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Conditional keep If the claims in the article are true, it's clear that he needs to be kept... but sources have to be tied to the claims. Right now, it is unsourced and reads like a fluff piece written by a HS student to make themselves look great. I know there are references at the end, but references do not equate to sources.Balloonman (talk) 08:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Why preface your statement with "if the claims in the article are true"? The claims are verified in the article by reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment- reads like a fluff piece to me, as well. He's a footnote not an article.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep if all of the assertions are true. Verify tag? Bearian'sBooties (talk) 00:34, 26 November 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). Qst 20:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Herman Maisel

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

Notability not established or sourced per WP:BIO. Appears to be a memorial page. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, notability established with mainstream news source now. Nationally-recognized businessman. johnpseudo 19:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 15:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: I could find another mainstream news source which asserts notability. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 17:01, 22 November 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. Spellcast (talk) 15:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of enemies in Doom

List of enemies in Doom (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is a list made up of game guide material that does not assert notablity by having real world information from reliable sources. TTN (talk) 14:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Agree with nom. This is non-encyclopedic gameplay content that should be transwikied to the Doom wikia. No out-of-universe content. Eusebeus (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Sad that someone spent so much time on copying the most uninteresting parts of the game guides into an article. With no illustrations, it's kind of like a narrative description of the paintings in the Louvre. If you play DOOM, you don't need this description. If you want to know something worthwhile, iddqd and idkfa. Mandsford (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. JohnCD (talk) 18:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as most lists of enemies are not encyclopedic. Marlith ^T/C 19:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Well, I'd like it to be cut down a bit, but this list is mildly acceptable for me. Are there other list of x characters in doom articles? I can't find them if there are. If there are, we should just merge all of them into one, with it much cut down. But my comment isn't a very strong support of keep. I (talk) 19:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Unless notability can be establish by out of universe referencing. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Clearly violates WP:N. Could never be turned into an encyclopaedic article. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 22:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 08:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Some of the most iconic characters in video games. We have a character development section at Making_of_Doom#Graphics, which could be merged into the enemy list and expanded. You can easily pull some reception sections from reviews such as Eurogamer, who state that "there's something incredibly stylish about the character design". It might be worthwhile merging this with List of enemies in Doom 3, which could easily be bolstered with The Making of Doom 3 (ISBN 0072230525). I cannot fathom how Dmitrii Blinov from Featured Article Candidate Characters in Castlevania: Sorrow series is considered more notable than the cyberdemon.- hahnchen 22:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Cyberdemon used to be its own article, until it was turned into a redirect to this page. I would recommend undoing the redirect if this article is deleted. Ben Standeven (talk) 04:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki to one of the gaming wikis. - Koweja (talk) 18:14, 24 November 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nando's index

Nando's index (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The information in the article is unverifiable. No references have been provided despite "cite" tags being in place for six weeks. Even if verified, it is of dubious noteworthiness EdwardLockhart (talk) 14:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for now. Very little info available from the web. This webpage does mention about it, but it looks like it is a newly created index. Its notability and usage must be known and verified before an article can be created for it. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 16:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete the article says "The index was produced by the Alex Baker from the London School of Economics." Googling "Alex Baker" + "London School of Economics" generates a bunch of hits for "DJ Alex Baker" a student at LSE myspace page, active at PuLSEfm, the LSE Student Union radio station website with hits on his name. Googling "Nando's Index" + "Alex Baker" generates zero Ghits, Googlging "Alex Baker" site:lse.ac.uk generates zero Ghits. Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as it appears to be made up in school one day. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 00:28, 26 November 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. Spellcast (talk) 14:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tamil pachadi

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

There is no dish called as Tamil pachadi. The ghits numbering 100 are all mirrors of wikipedia. Nomed as per WP:HOAX -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 14:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 14:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless new sources can be found. The exising sources list many pachadi variations (OMG OMG strawberry raita!), but there's no mention of Tamil pachadi. It's believable - but without a source, it's not verifiable. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 16:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect to pachadi. I wouldn't say that this is a hoax. From the way the article is written and its links it seems that the creator is just using Tamil pachadi as a synonym for pachadi. This doesn't add anything significant to the pachadi article so it can go. If Tamil pachadi is a term that someone might search for then it can be made a redirect. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and fix. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The references are about Pachadi, not anything called "Tamil Pachadi". Not a hoax, but the article is about just a variant of Pachadi from Tamil Nadu. There are no sources that indicate that there is anything called "Tamil Pachidi". The variants should go to the article on Pachadi utcursch | talk 12:47, 28 November 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 close. This nomination is clearly premature, parties are encouraged to edit the article and see if it can be made encyclopaedic, with due consideration to things Wikipedia is not. Guy (Help!) 15:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diplomatic missions of Romania

Diplomatic missions of Romania (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Completely useless, unnecessary and uncategorised pile of original research. It can't possibly get any better. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 14:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: Not at all. See the other 100 articles ({{Europe_in_topic|Diplomatic missions of}}).--Sambure (talk) 14:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Off-topic discussion moved here.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral: hold for now since the article was tagged 2 mins ater the creation, by thich the creator had made an edit =>the creator might have been thinking of expanding itNergaal (talk) 14:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and expand with reliable sources. There are a lot of other diplomatic mission for other countries. And rewrite into textual article instead of listing like the current one, unless this is a list article. Dekisugi (talk) 14:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - it's one of the articles in a companion series to country articles, like "History of..." or "Politics of...". Zocky | picture popups 14:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for now, but it needs reliable sources.--Michig (talk) 14:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and expand, per Dekisugi Tonywalton  | Talk 15:15, 22 November 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 Rearrange Ginbō was moved to Gionbō to preserve history, then deleted. Ginbou was deleted as redirect to deleted page. Gionbo/Gionbou were created as redirects as alternate spellings. SkierRMH (talk) 05:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ginbō

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

WP:NN (or a hoax). The prior discussion in WP:JA is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Does anyone know? Nightshadow28 (talk) 13:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —DAJF (talk) 14:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NN. If it isn't a hoax (where is this famous Ginboen garden in Kyoto??), then it must be a very obscure delicacy not to register on Google or elsewhere. --DAJF (talk) 14:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep and Move to Gionbō per new information provided by Oda Mari if it satisfies notability criteria. --DAJF (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone adds a reliable source Fg2 (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC) Changing my vote to keep Fg2 22:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Ghits; [28]. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Admittedly I only looked at the first 100 (out of 800+) hits for "Ginbo + Japan", but none appeared to refer to Japanese sweets. Lots of references to koi carp, and "ginbo" in languages other than Japanese, but no mention of "ginbō" Japanese sweets. If you could single out even one reliable reference, I would be interested. --DAJF (talk) 01:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. I added conditions "Japanese sweets" to gcheck. It seems that most of hits are copies of the Wikipedia.[29][30] --Nightshadow28 (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, but needs to move. Please see the latest post. Oda Mari (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Excellent. I scrutinize the information. Just a moment day, please. :) --Nightshadow28 (talk) 14:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and move Move to Gionbō/Gionbo/Gionbou and then delete Ginbou and Ginbō. The article title is a typo and not worth to keep. 祇園坊 seems like also popularly known as a type of seedless persimmon and the yokan as well as a type of gyuhi wagashi of Kyoto specialty.--Jjok 16:01, 30 November 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 (withdrawn). WODUP 05:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Farid Babayev

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

Does not meet WP:BIO. Though a top member of a Russian opposition party, [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Farid+Babayev%22&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rl0 z=1B3GGGL_enUS240US240 only 29 Google hits]. Even he source for the article says he was not expected to win a seat in the Duma because of his party's low standing in the polls. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy keep Arrg. Sorry for wasting everyone's time. Don't agree with the consensus, but that probably just means I'm wrong. speedy keep. Nom withdrawn in the face of overwhelming keeps. Next time I'll consult with someone more knowledgeable before bringing a Russian pol here. Thanks y'all for showing me the error of my ways. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

What Google are you looking at? On Google News he is the main subject of stories by IHT [31] and Washington Post [32]. For this Google search [33] it turns up 172 entries. Most certainly a keep. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Weird. I get like 10 Unique googles on the web following link referenced by Fuzheado. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep In Russia, sources find you! [34] cab (talk) 07:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Numbers of ghits don't matter - if there are a couple of good quality ones, which has been well demonstrated, that's enough to make him notable. And, as cab demonstrates, doing a search in the Latin alphabet for a Russian isn't going to give a true reflection of how much there is about him on the Internet. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep obviously, a top member of a Russian opposition party is notable. the sources are quite sufficient. WP is not based upon google. DGG (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• COmment Agree that Google is not the only thing. I was under the impression he was notable only for being shot. If that's not the case, will probably change to keep. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • To comment further, number of google hits does not translate to notability. The ones I saw seem to attest to a lack of notability. See the difs already cited. <5% of the vote is notable? Head of a not notable party is notable? What part did he head and is it notable? Has he held an elected office?? Is it one regarded as automatically meeting notbility requirements? Are Russian language web hits Verifiable sources?? Will make a more thorough review of the information availble before this closes. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 07:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry, y'all. I just don't see it. If someone can show me verifiable, reliable sources that show he was more than a regional leader of a minor party, I would be glad to withdraw. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 08:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 09:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• comment I was asked to have another look., but it confirms my feeling that it should be kept, and I expanded the article somewhat, based on the information from Reuters, certainly a reliable source. Though in a minority party, he is apparently the head of their list. The leader of a party expected to win even 5% of the vote is significant, though an ordinary losing candidate would not be. If he is not in the main article for the party, he should be. DGG (talk) 10:23, 24 November 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 as notable, well-sourced article, per WP:HEY. Bearian 17:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] System requirements (Spacecraft system)

System requirements (Spacecraft system) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable sub branch of System requirements. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• This article just started after some discussion at the system requirements article. Can we start an article like this and try to improve it. That spacecraft is a not-notable branch is a very questionable argument. - Mdd (talk) 14:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• The problem at the system requirements is that that article is primairy about software systems engineering requirements and we want to have a more general systems engineering requirements article, where we can fit the text of the System requirements (Spacecraft system). I do agree something has to be done here. - Mdd (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• The situation seems a bit more complicated. Lot's of websites about systems requirements are about computer systems or software systems. But if you look for "System requirements" & "space systems" you still find a 45.000 Google rate. This should be enough to create a notable article. But this will take some time. - Mdd (talk) 20:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Now we improved this article, and it still needs a lot of work. But the article is wikified and the notability is established. So I hope you could let us continue developing this article. - Mdd (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment as nominator, seems to indicate sufficient notability. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:10, 28 November 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; most of the keep arguments center around in-universe importance, not real-world notability. — Coren ^(talk) 19:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peacekeeper (Farscape)

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

Long plot summary that fails WP:NOT#PLOT because of its heavy in universe perspective. Article has no primary sources to verifiy its content, or reliable secondary sources to demonstrate real-world notability outside of the Farscape canon. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction & Fantasy-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 (talk) 03:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Week keep for now but prefer Merge into Races in Farscape (the other races should be merged there also). This is one of the three races in Farscape that has a major relevance for the story, and it deserves some mention somewhere. This move would give interested editors time to establish notability, and if they really cannot come up with anything, this can still be deleted. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no independent references to show real-world notability. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Week keap or Merge to Races in Farscape (or other appropriate article), per sgeureka. Mairi (talk) 20:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • There may not be an appropriate article since "Races in Farscape" doesn't have reliable secondary sources. Jay32183 (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• KEEP - major organization around which the series and the movie The Peacekeeper Wars revolve. --Tomtom9041 (talk) 00:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Importance to the plot is not what matters. There needs to be secondary sources providing real world context. Jay32183 (talk) 07:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Unless there is a strong demonstration of notability, delete. Judgesurreal777 21:29, 30 November 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. east.718 at 10:39, November 28, 2007

[edit] Bitterne Park Baptist Church

Bitterne Park Baptist Church (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

procedural nomination Article was nominated for PROD-deletion after a trip to AFD. PROD nominator states: Since last AFD no progress has been made - consensus there was generally "Keep if improved". User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I was the user who reprodded this article. In the previous AFD, it was a general consensus to keep if improved and referenced, User:Waggers being the person who was assumed to tackle it (not that Im getting personal). This is a simple notability problem. The church has no claim of notability and no reliable references, because they haven't been added by anyone and I personally reckon it would be tough to find some. --Montchav (talk) 16:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no notability asserted.   jj137 (Talk) 02:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep too little time between nominalizations. Elmao (talk) 08:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not notable per WP:NOTE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexfusco5 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• With regret delete - This article as it stands serves merely to host a link to the church's website. That is a variety of linkspam. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:27, 25 November 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 Deleted per G12 - copyright violation of [35] SkierRMH (talk) 07:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sgas uk

The organisation exists and is operational as from 2005. check the following link http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/registeredcharities/showcharity.asp?regno=1111821&submit=Run+Search also the organisation is not about any faith group as discussed. It is all about the science of self-discovery. The organisation home page is http://www.sgasuk.co.uk also the Master of the organisation is Swami Paramananda. His information is available on wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swami_Paramananda Hopes this clarifies everything

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

Unsourced article about some kind of faith group, the notability of which is unclear, largely as a consequence of the nebulous and obfuscating terms in which the article is couched. Google produces few hits, which may or may not be indicative of notability. CIreland (talk) 12:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, no attribution of notability to independent sources. Could theoretically be merged with Swami Paramananda, but probably not needed as a redirect. --Dhartung | Talk 12:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. No attempt made to show that the organisation even exists let alone that it is notable. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. The contents of the article are copied verbatim from the homepage of the organisation. I could not find secondary sources to assert notability either -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 17:07, 22 November 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. Spellcast (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Famous personalities of Allahabad

Famous personalities of Allahabad (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The term "famous" is subjective and is a POV and hence this article is nomed for delete. There is already a Category:People from Allahabad which contains essentially the same info. This article is not needed -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 12:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 12:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Move to List of people from Allahabad and tag for sources. List contains info explaining the importance of each entry, which categories cannot do. --Dhartung | Talk 12:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - A list of people from Allahabad would not solve the problem. It will always remain incomplete and subject to POV. On the other hand, instead of a list of famous people, you could replace that with something like the list of citizens of Ahmedabad awarded with national civilian honours that I made while working on Ahmedabad. Such a list has a well defined membership criteria and also a potential to become an informative list. - Aksi_great (talk) 08:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The Category:People from Allahabad is what we need here. utcursch | talk 11:22, 24 November 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 Withdrawn by nominator. Qst 20:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Six Feet Under deaths

I am withdrawing this nomination to redo as a solo nomination instead of a multi-article one. (non-admin closure) Collectonian (talk) 05:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

List of Six Feet Under deaths (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unsourced, unnotable fancruft that is basically the same as the List of Six Feet Under episodes article, with some original research tacked on at the end that analyzes the show's death counts and provides some uncited statistics. Collectonian (talk) 11:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• keep all There's not as much OR as implied, it is extremely noteworthy, as death effects everyone - even in a fictional sense. Although the EastEnders and Brookside should have a lot more detail as they're just lazy lists with no detail of circumstances leading to the death like the Oz one, and the Sopranos one, which someone deleted because it was "Too boring" (I disagree) I say we keep them because it is a well divulged subject among many cultures. MJN SEIFER (talk) 14:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

keep all All are important as they are generally discussed even today. Especialy the Oz one because I deeply owe that article. Will give more sometime tomorrow so please don't decide until then MJN SEIFER (talk) 22:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

By that rationale, any show that has any kind of death should have an article that lists them all. Actual notable deaths should either be covered in the episode list (which is already done for Six Feet Under since, as someone else noted, that's the point of the show) or in the character sections. None of them have any WP:Reliable Sources, no third party discussion of the deaths, etc. Being "noteworthy" doesn't make something notable. And the Sopranos list was not deleted because it was "boring" but because consensus agreed that it "is not notable, it is not verifiable, and it is indiscriminate in terms of plot detail and statistics" and it also failed WP:FICT. The same reasons apply to these. Collectonian (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete These articles are pointless and not needed. (Buts that my opinion) RuneWiki⁷⁷⁷ 14:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

coment How are they pointless? MJN SEIFER (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Death is the central theme of Six Feet Under and so this list is especially significant for the coverage of this notable show. It has been presented as a sub-article for reasons of style and convenience. Deletion is not a helpful way of improving this. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Col. Warden. Death is a central theme to SFU, Kenny, and to a lesser extent to Oz. The others need cleaning up, but that's not a reason to nominate them for AFD. Lugnuts (talk) 18:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

There is already a Kenny's deaths articles. What rationale is there for having a list of something already covered in prose? Collectonian (talk) 19:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Per the above, and that was sort of the point of the television show. • Lawrence Cohen 18:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom, pointless and crufty lists. It could be argued that Kenny's deaths might be notable only if it could be sourced. These would be very hard to source, if not impossible, so kill all these lists. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —Collectonian (talk) 19:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep since death is the central theme of the show. Also the list of Kenny's deaths is the only other notable list in the six proposed AFDs. The other four are deletable Doc Strange (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep some the 6" under list and the Kenny list, as they are central elements to their shows. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 21:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Kenny and Six feet under lists per above argument, delete the rest. RMHED (talk) 22:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep all as death is a major plot element of notability for Six Feet Under (what the show's title implies) and Oz (controversial because of its violence). Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep alll without prejudice to renominating the other ones separately for adequate individual discussions--notability seems to be sufficiently shown for this one. DGG (talk) 21:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I think that not all article deserve to exist. Some info may find a new home, but I'm not familiar with all of these shows to find a reasonable merge target (if one even exists). If these articles are renominated separately, I'd be more comfortable to !vote. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems to be an issue with the votes, so I'm going to relist the rest separately. Collectonian (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should withdraw this nom and start out completely new (considering that enough people commented on the Kenny death article)? – sgeureka ^t•c 23:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

A good idea, but I'm not quite sure how to do it. The instructions say you can, but not how. Collectonian (talk) 23:50, 23 November 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ashkonan

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

Unclear whether this place actually exists. Maybe has a different spelling Montchav (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless someone can find any sources to show it's existence, I am unable to do so. Davewild (talk) 22:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per Davewild.   jj137 (Talk) 02:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete If it exists it is notable. However, a fairly thorough search did not find it. --Stormbay (talk) 21:42, 24 November 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. Keep argument appears to be the most valid. CitiCat ^♫ 03:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Astrid Award

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

Previously prodded and de-prodded a couple of times. Notability issues Montchav (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. although most of the ghits are from organizations announcing their own receipt of the award, but it is apparently important to major non-commercial bodies as well [36]; additionally, 3rd party news sources seem to find it significant enough to report: [37], [38]; DGG (talk) 01:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete There is not enough here for an article. The award may become notable and then it could have an article. --Stormbay (talk) 21:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment The absence of dialogue on this article may speak to a lack of notability. --Stormbay (talk) 03:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No sources have been shown that discuss the award itself, its history, its origins, its importance, et cetera. Without any, we must presume the award itself isn't notable. Mangojuice^talk 16:33, 30 November 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 merged, AfD is not for cleanup. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) (talk) 13:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of One Tree Hill cast members

List of One Tree Hill cast members (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I suggest this might be better of merged into One Tree Hill, but by itself it is worthless Montchav (talk) 23:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment You probably mean more specifically One Tree Hill (TV series). The list was created from a former category (Category:One Tree Hill cast members) as the result of a CFD. The main article is already getting rather long but my interest is not TV series so do with the list what you feel best. RedWolf (talk) 06:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment SHould probably be reworked into List of One Tree Hill characters. --Dhartung | Talk 12:35, 22 November 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 17:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orange Christian Academy

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