Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 February 15

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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The result was Keep as nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Sting au Buzz Me... 23:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] School diva

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

seems to have original research issues. probably better at MetaWiki. whole heap of these on a "Roles in Schools" template so test case to see what community thinks? unencyclopedic and no sources per WP:RS. Sting au Buzz Me... 00:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Uncertain about this one but I think most or all of the articles in that template are perfectly OK. With respect to this one, it could probably be improved into a decent article , but it should not just be about fictional portrayals. Teacher's pet though almost entirely about fiction is a useful disam page, as there are multiple notable works with that title. Class clown was almost empty and deleted as an expired prod, Student athlete was a joke page, and should probably be re-created properly. The other student ones seem perfectly OK to me as articles, though they need sources. The school staff ones could all be sourced very easily from any textbook of school administration. DGG (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I added citations to this article in order to demonstrate notability. I created the template, and along the way added the Template:Citations missing to almost every article. However, I used that template rather than Template:Notability because these are clearly notable topics. Commonly the topic of popular cultural references, there is also a growing body of literature surrounding student roles in schools. I really don't want to do all of the work inherent in demonstrating that, but if these articles were put up for AfD I would work against them. • Freechild'sup? 04:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Nomination withdrawn per work by Freechild. Well done. Close as keep. Sting au Buzz Me... 05:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete by User:Alexf, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peel Promenade Construction Railway

Peel Promenade Construction Railway (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

It seems pretty worthless right now and non-notable. The article says pretty much nothing and it doesn't really seem like it can be much expanded upon. Tombomp (talk) 11:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. I'd suggest merging to an article about the Promenade itself, except that we don't even have such an article. Choess (talk) 03:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete A1, very short article with no context to speak of, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per TPH. Sting au Buzz Me... 00:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 06:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] After.Life

After.Life (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Per the notability guidelines for future films, After.Life does not yet warrant existence because there are no reliable sources to show that it has begun production. According to Reuters, it was supposed to have begun filming in 2007. In addition, for those who wonder about the poster, it is merely a teaser poster released in February 2007 before production was intended to start, so this is not a sign that it will come out. I've done my best to look for verifiable coverage from reliable sources about the film being in production, but there are none. Even IMDb says the status of this film is "Unknown". No prejudice against recreation if sourcing can be found for the start of production. Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - The notability guidelines for future films stipulate that a stand-alone article for a film should not be created until a project enters production. This is because many factors such as budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with the project. Indeed, this project has already been delayed and there's nothing to say it won't be again. The article can be recreated when principal photography is confirmed to have begun. Steve ^{T • C} 14:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as no WP:RS per WP:NFF. Sting au Buzz Me... 00:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:NFF. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Steve. Evan ¤ Seeds 04:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Belinda Chang

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

Appears to be non-notable Chinese writer. Two proposed deletions, both removed, so trying AFD. Cannot find much to show verifiability. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep for example, here's reviews for her second [1] and third [2] books. cab (talk) 10:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 10:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I checked her Chinese name under Yahoo-Taiwan, Google, Live Search, Baidu and Sina Taiwan. Most of her results were only books related. However, there are enough results to keep the entry and it meets notability and verifiability guidelines. TheAsianGURU (talk) 00:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep -- notable in the round. -- Simon Cursitor (talk) 11:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per the comments above, appears to be a notable Asian writer. RFerreira (talk) 22:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 06:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Humza Hashmi

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

It fails WP:FICT, disputed prod. Cenarium (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:FIC. Non assertion of notability, and not enough information. Victao lopes (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. Minor character says it all really. Fails WP:FICT. Sting au Buzz Me... 00:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to List of minor Naruto characters. No sign of being independently notable outside the series, so cover it in the seris subpage. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Appears to be an incredibility incidental character as even a Google search turns up nothing, much less anything that would indicate notability. In fact, I doubt this character actually exists in the series and this article is a hoax. --Farix (Talk) 22:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think you're right. The character does not appear in the reference given, the character lists at Naruto HQ. striking my vote above and changing to delete as hoax. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was: Deleted per snowbal clause. Creator's attempt to merge the article into Semantic Web has been firmly rejected. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 10:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The limit of the semantic web

The Limit of the Semantic Web. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Corvus cornix_talk 23:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Is this page still threatened with deletion? The deadline was the 12th, and there’s no comment on the subject here. IMO this should be improved, not deleted; it looks like a useful addition, and I’d like to read it again tomorrow. If the objection is “Original Research” wouldn’t it be better to ask for references, and tag it thus? --Identityandconsulting (talk) 23:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• It's currently at Articles for Deletion, so yes, it's still threatened with deletion. And please don't add a new header in this discussion, it messes up the rest of the queue. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Identityandconsulting (talk · contribs) created the article. Corvus cornix_talk 00:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Where does that user come up with Feb. 12 as the deadline? This article was written today. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment. This article is apparently a repost. An article with the variant title The limit of The Semantic Web was, in fact, deleted as an expired prod on February 12. Deor (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as obvious POV/OR and merge any worthwhile content into Semantic Web --Nick Dowling (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as unreferenced original research. Fails WP:NOR. Sting au Buzz Me... 00:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Unreferenced original research that is unclear at best.Beeblbrox (talk) 03:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Deletion proposal: Is this page still threatened with deletion? It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into Semantic Web (Skeptical reactions ). (Discuss)--Identityandconsulting (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Deletion proposal: Do we scare away contributors by hassling them and deleting their work?

The biggest problem with focusing on deletion is the huge amount of wasted hours - people working to improve Wikipedia by making content are thwarted by people working to improve Wikipedia by deleting content! If those that delete content instead worked to improve content on Wikipedia, we might get featured quality articles twice as often than we do now.

There are other alternatives to deletion that are more constructive, such as merging, adding onto stub artiles, finding sources, fixing wording, line-item deletion, or simple editing.

• Someone comes along--often someone with no knowledge of the subject--and presumes that the article can never be expanded and will never have verifiable sources, and so he PRODs it.
• The original editor removes the PROD tag and maybe makes a substantial edit, if he has time--but remember, the whole reason he only wrote a sentence or two in the first place is because he doesn't have more than a few minutes at a time to work on Wikipedia.
• The individual who added the PROD tag then lists it on AfD, for the same reason he PRODded it.
• Other editors recommend its deletion, on the grounds that it does not list any sources, makes no claims to notability, or is simply "too short to be worth keeping"

So give an article a chance. Unless it's a blatant speedy delete--such as nonsense, advertising, slander, or a copyvio--don't tag it speedy. And don't PROD or AfD it until the original editor has had a chance--a week should be enough time--to add substance to the article and list sources and do everything else people tend to use against such short articles. You may want to consider using the {{expand}} tag. --Identityandconsulting (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment AfD processes usually run for at least a week. --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Deletion proposal: Is this page still threatened with deletion? This article or section has merged into Semantic Web (Skeptical reactions ).--Identityandconsulting (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Identity, I wouldn't start merging, moving it, recreating it on your userpage or the other attempts to keep the text somewhere here. You are liable to get yourself blocked. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. The author, Identityandconsulting is blocked. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 15:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 06:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Ice Cream Flavours

List of Ice Cream Flavours (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I don't think that this list is encyclopaedic or necessary, I think that Ice cream covers the subject. Cenarium (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Although this list is (apparently) under construction, I can't ever see it being a manageable list. What was once the 31 flavors of Baskin-Robbins has grown to somewhere around 31 factorial by now; there's no way this would ever be complete! Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - I could add anything to ice cream and market it as a new flavor. --SyntaxError55 ^talk 23:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - per Ten Pound Hammer. --On the other side ^Contribs 02:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - you could make ice cream with almost any flavouring component. - fchd (talk) 14:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Silly and nearly impossible to complete. Beeblbrox (talk) 04:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 06:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Doorknob (game)

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

Non-notable, no sources. Seem to have been written by a random schoolkid in five minutes. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{it seems the winds have stopped...} 23:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. This wasn't just made up yesterday, as I remember reading about it in an Uncle John's Bathroom Reader a couple years ago (and they didn't just make it up either). However, I can't find any reliable third party sources on this, um, game. By the way, I find it funny how this deals with flatulence, and your sig says "The winds have stopped". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

  I love irony. :P _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{it seems the winds have stopped...} 23:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I remember playing this horrible game with my friends a long time ago, but this clearly fails on notability Beeblbrox (talk) 03:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 06:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Transmissibility (physics,mechanics)

Transmissibility (physics,mechanics) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Looks like a good faith addition, but articles already exist on the subject and the page needs cleanup and a better title. Tombomp (talk) 14:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

So, does it need to be deleted, or just cleanup and a better title. Could you clarify? --Itub (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Where does an article exist on this subject? Someguy1221 (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete or transwiki to wictionary. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete or transwiki per vegaswikian. Sting au Buzz Me... 01:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. I am aware that this is a very weak consensus, however by that notion I believe this wouldn't have survived a WP:PROD either and would have been deleted without any discussion anyway. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chief Magazine

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

While I cannot find any specific guidelines covering magazine notability, there is no evidence this magazine meets general notability guidelines. I find no evidence of 2nd party coverage (most of those results are about 'chief' positions after filtering out police and fire, which are more well-covered magazines). Out of the references cited in the article, two are PR blogs, one is a mention of a Chief Magazine staff member present at an event unrelated to the magazine and the 4th is about a staff member's book, which doesn't mention the article. This is not a CoI issue as I believe the creator has kept it neutral, I just don't see this meeting notability in any way Travellingcari (talk) 17:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete unless sources are provided. Logastellus (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 06:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] National Championship Wrestling,

National Championship Wrestling, (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested prod; removed by author without explanation. Non-notable wrestling group. Many ghits, but no notable secondary sources cover the topic. Fails WP:RS and WP:V. Article was written by User:NCWPromoter, which seems to indicate COI. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: NCWPromoter, the author of the article, wrote a fairly lengthy text that is beyond the scope of the main AfD page. It has been moved to the talk page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as nn. Ghits included heap of wiki mirrors and had to laugh at the "post your own press release" website. So much for WP:RS. Also agree article has WP:COI issues so fails WP:NPOV. Sting au Buzz Me... 01:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

KEEP this Listing User:taker147a I feel that there is more than enough professional wrestling history on this company to keep this professional wrestling listing. I have listed a couple of web sites showing some importance of this as a company in professional wrestling. There are more listings for proof and history than many other bad listings on Wiki's other listings in other areas of Sports, not a bad topic I say keep it, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nashsuns09 (talk • contribs) 10:07, February 19, 2008

— Nashsuns09 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

The result was Keep. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rising Son

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

This one is a bit harder. I searched for it on google, but I kept getting google to suggest spelling differences. (which then brough up karate movies) As it is now, it fails WP:MUSIC and the music label fails WP:CORP and WP:MUSIC. Delete Undeath (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep I switched off the spelling correction on Google and found an interview in Chocolate magazine, The Situation magazine, Rap News UK, and The Scunthorpe Telegraph newspaper. He appears to have been played on Australian national radio station Triple J, although that looks like a one off, not rotation. Weak keep as he appears to have received quite a lot of coverage for one guest recording with American rapper Nas. --Canley (talk) 08:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep There is nothing on this page yet but I was able to find information on this without much effort. If references are beefed up then I am in favor of inclusion.Georgiamonet (talk) 05:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I agree with Undeath. I think the article fails WP:Music and WP:Corp and very weak WP:Music —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canyouhearmenow (talk • contribs) 02:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was: Speedily deleted - creator's request on my talk page. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WWBN.com

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

No indication that this company has been recognized as notable by reliable independent sources. Author posted numerous spammy redirects to this title. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• The redirects I made are trademarks pertaining to this article WWBN that I thought should be redirected to this article, I do believe it should be moved to WWBN as it is the main trademark of World Wide Broadcast Network, Inc. morako (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• The page consists of little more than listing of the services provided by the website/company and cites no third-party references. Alexa rank almost 2.75 million. Delete due to insufficient notability and as a promotional. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 06:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Joy Enamavu

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

Non-notable journalist. Just because, the journalist has covered the first Gulf War (1990-1991) for a Malayalam language newspaper would not make him a notable person. Also, has published an obscure book Yasoodi. A Google search shows that the book is not sold by any publisher. It is also curious to see the contributions of the person who has created the article Joy Enamavu. Dr. A. Salih (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I'm not sure any of the sources are non-Wiki/mirrors. Only possible other option is non-English language sources if they're out there and reliable Travellingcari (talk) 07:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete unless reliable indep. sources showing notability are found. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was DELETE. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anne Brodie

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

I came across this article after noticing this edit and therefore suspected WP:AUTO. Still—that not being a definitive reason for deletion—I have made an attempt to find third-party sources, or anything that might indicate notability according to WP:BIO and my search has been unsuccessful. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• I've changed my vote. I now believe her daily film column on major Web portal MSN Sympatico gives her notability as a journalist beyond the confines of Toronto television. Also, with the sheer size of the southern Ontario market and her presence on Entertainment Tonight Canada, she is probably one of the country's most seen entertainment reporters -- if not the most? Add to that her longtime membership in the influential Toronto Film Critics Association. It all adds up to keep, for me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Shawn, I honestly can't find any evidence at all that she's a recognized entertainment reporter. Her article and her own website do not say that she was on Entertainment Tonight Canada, only that she did some work as a producer. WP's article on ET Canada makes no mention of her. The show's official site does not mention her. Do you have some other source? If she is as recognized as you suggest, surely some reporter or TV columnist would have at least mentioned her at some point—but when I search a database of Canadian newspapers and magazines, all that turns up is a single Toronto Star article in which she was one of 24 panelists commenting on films at the 2007 Toronto Film Festival. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's a hit from the ctv.ca site which shows that she is indeed the main CFTO enterainment journalist at TIFF.[3] CFTO is local, but it's big local. And I did post the Sympatico/MSN link above. Would a combination of her CFTO work and her film column on Sympatico/MSN satisfy WP:BIO? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it does. What are you referring to within WP:BIO? Television personality that has "a large fan base"? I am doubtful of that. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• I suppose, in the end, it's the first criteria for journalists, under Creative Professionals. "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors." Maybe this is just WP:OR on my part, but I've worked years as a film publicist and if you wanted eyeballs in the big southern Ontario market, you wanted to get it to Anne. That said, I grant you she's not academically respected as a film critic or scholar like a Geoff Pevere...Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete unless the significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject that I was unable to find are produced. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete in the absence of reliable third party sources. Reggie Perrin (talk) 06:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —86.149.53.196 (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 06:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Christina Gray

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

This is the first time I've ever nominated an article for deletion after it had already survived one AfD, but I'm a staunch inclusionist for politicians and even I can't fathom how this person is notable. In the previous discussion, there were four keep !votes. One included no rationale. One included the rationale that "she's the leader of a local party and current candidate for a national parliament," neither of which is accurate. As far as I can tell, the only thing approximating a claim to notability in this is that she's won a "woman of distinction" award from the YWCA. These are no rare awards, and aren't generally even written up in the local media (it doesn't seem to have been in this case). I'm trying to get rid of the various vanity candidate articles connected with the Alberta general election, 2008, and this certainly seems to be one. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO, people whose ONLY claim to notability is that they are/were candidates for public office but have never actually been elected or served are NOT normally notable. I see no actual other claims to notability here. --Jayron32.talk.

contribs 04:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:BIO, I was a contributor to this page and would like to point out that Christina has been elected before. As mentioned in the article she is the elected chair of the Edmonton Transit Systems Advisory Board. I also think that it is questionable that deletions of select candidates are being attempted in the midst of the provincial election campaign. --Jimador.talk.

• • To quote WP:BIO, "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability," You can't get more local than the Edmonton Transit Systems Advisory Board. Did you read the guideline before trying to use it to support your claim? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - the Edmonton Transit Systems Advisory Board is not an elected position. As for the suggestion that I'm trying to delete "select candidates", I prodded all of the candidates who appeared to make no assertion of notability beyond being a candidates. This involved prodding P.C., Liberal, NDP, and Wildrose Alliance candidates. By no means do I pretend that all of the calls with regards to what to prod and what not to was unambiguously correct, but I think you'll have trouble finding evidence that it was in bad faith. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO. She is an unelected politician. Her other positions such as heading up a riding association for her political party do not meet the standards for notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was KEEP. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Elizabeth Rockefeller Strong

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

Delete - Contested prod. Article was created on the basis of the invalid criteria listed at WP:BIO#Invalid criteria. Relationships do not confer notability. The subject did nothing that would qualify herself under WP:BIO, and, again, the article was created on the basis that she was the eldest daughter of John D. Rockefeller. Jd027^chat 21:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

some people are so notable that there is in fact interest in their children. She'll be covered substantially in all the books about John D, Sr, and about the family; multiple sections in Nevin's standard John D. Rockefeller : the heroic age of American enterprise As well she should be: He left her 25 million dollars in trust for her, probably making her one of the wealthiest women in the world at the time. [4]DGG (talk) 03:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - notable as a philanthropist in her own right. Bearian (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable member of notable family. Fails WP:N, as she is not the primary subject of any sources provided. Most rich kids are occasional philanthropists; so what? Not every member of this family is notable, but somebody seems to have decided to create a stub about every darned one of them. Notability, need I remind anyone, is not hereditable. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• keep per DGG and Bearian. It shouldn't be at all hard to find the sourcing in that material. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. It is agreed that enough significant coverage exists to pass WP:N. SorryGuy  Talk  06:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Benefit of the doubt Keep. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Robofoot ÉPM

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

looks like a standard university organization in the robotics field. as much as I love robotics and involved with WP:ROBO and WP:UNI, this article does not seem to fulfill WP:ORG or our article guidelines set in WP:UNI - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep I believe the article is notable since the project has received considerable media coverage in Québec compared to other university organizations. You can have a look at this page (in French) which lists newspaper articles and television interviews about the project. Although, I am not sure if theses sources can be considered "secondary sources". --Jcmaco (talk) 02:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: If you believe there are reliable sources you can use on the article, please include these in-line citations (in correct WP:CITE format) in the article. When sufficient notability is established, I'll gladly withdraw this AfD nomination. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 06:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. SorryGuy  Talk  06:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stanley "Doc" Cummings

Stanley "Doc" Cummings (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems notable only for his association with Dallas Stoudenmire. Only five non-wiki ghits using the nickname - impossible to tell how many without it. Katharineamy (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The one source I have found, Encyclopedia of Western gunfighters lists him as Samuel Cummings, not Stanley. Edward321 (talk) 01:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. "Very little is known of Stanley Cummings." So little in fact that there is no claim of notability, unless dating the sister of a town marshal counts. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Dallas Stoudenmire. BusterD (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete' - nn bio. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 06:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ali Eftekhari

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

Fails WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:V as there is no third-party sources to (1) assert notability, (2) maintain NPOV, (3) verify claims made in the article. nat.utoronto 19:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• I believe these claims are not the case. The article was nominated for neutrality for a long time, but no claim was made. I searched the net there are many pages about this person. In addition to more than 100 publications in leading journals, he has numerous honors offered by famous scientific communities. This number of honors for a person of this age guarantees his presence in wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.157.226.28 (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Delete I se no honors, except for the editorship of a minor 2-year old journal in his area devoted almost entirely to publishing special topic issues. With respect to his research, I see about 100 papers, but the most cited five have been cited only 31, 31, 26, 24, and 24 time respectively. There is only one article in a major general journal, PHYSICAL REVIEW LET, Volume: 48 Issue: 14 Pages: 953-956, in 1982--cited 26 times. He did not write the book claimed in the article, -- merely edited it: [5]. Considering his present affiliation, a one-man research institute trying to offer "virtual degrees" [6] I am frankly extremely dubious. DGG (talk) 04:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete. The CRN interview is a secondary source, but I'm not convinced of its reliability, and there's not much else here that would pass WP:BIO. WP:PROF is also a weak case, with no real academic position and poorly cited pubs. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by me as A7/G11. J Milburn (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Abe's Hot Dogs

Abe's Hot Dogs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not seem particularly notable, and is written by an employee. It also lacks sources, and Google brings up no hits. RedZion^X 19:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 06:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jay McConnell

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

Wikipedia is not a memorial and does not satisfy notability criteria. Xarr☎ 19:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Also a conflict of interest with the creator of the page User:TrisMcConnellXarr☎ 20:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Memorial page for non-notable person; sources don't cut it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Exterminate per above. RedZion^X 20:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, nonnotable, Wikipedia not a memorial site. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Nomination seems to stem from the unreasonable criteria that in order to be notable something must standout from its peers or be unique. Something can be plain, ordinary and even boring and still be notable. Many sources were listed in the AfD, and there was sufficient 'keep' participation to demonstrate that the article will undoubtedly be improved. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MyEclipse

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

Delete this is the second go-round for this Java tool set; it was kept last Sept. with a rewrite. Following what rewrite occurred it still lacks significant coverage in independent 3rd party reliable sources to demonstrate that it's notable. There are lots of Java packages out there and this one doesn't seem to rise out of the pack in any notable fashion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Consider merging with Genuitec. Pburka (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
• Some notable third-party references/coverage:

#1 rated Eclipse Plugin on EPIC
SDTimes
AjaxWorld Magazine
CRN
InfoWorld
eWeek
InfoQ
Evans Data Corp - top IDE listings
Java Developers' Journal
Application Development Trends
JAX Magazine Jense (talk) 03:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Those all look like press releases. Pburka (talk) 04:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• I would say most are not. It seems like product release coverage. Additionally, came across these:
  

Infoworld product review
ZDNet - Ed Burnett
RedMonk Analyst Firm - James Governor
Java Developers' Journal
SDTimes
Jense (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Weak delete. I'd have to agree that most of the coverage is just parroting a press release. What real coverage there is seems to consist of quips from bloggers. Yet I do think it has the potential to be notable, if only for its notoriety in that community. Ultimately, though, if there is a decent article to be had from what sources exist, I'd prefer to see that article first rather than keeping the article on life support hoping that someone will work on it. Leaving it on the List of Eclipse-based software would otherwise suffice. Ham Pastrami (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Do not delete. I fully disagree with request to delete. This is a great product with a thriving community offered at a considerable discount over the nearest competition. It is hard to go anywhere today without running into press coverage or a Blog about how someone discovered sanity while using it. Here is a partial list of what I could find when sorting through the over half a million Google listing on this name

http://agile.csc.ncsu.edu/SEMaterials/tutorials/seq_diagram_me/
http://www.oreillynet.com/onjava/blog/2005/09/myeclipse_tips.html
http://sureshkrishna.wordpress.com/2007/10/23/myeclipse-is-cool/
http://codethought.com/blog/?p=65
http://www.hrum.org/people/debedb/pro/articles/myeclipse-j2ee-blueprints.html
http://www.informit.com/guides/content.aspx?g=java&seqNum=291
Samwan2b (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Do not delete. I also disagree with request to delete. Wikipedia is full of Java IDE's and most are much less noteworthy than MyEclipse. Oh, and if you want to see one really written like an advertisement have a look at JDeveloper from Oracle [7]. Now that is an advertisement. :-) Anyway, MyEclipse is much more widely known and used than most products listed and not quite so popular as others. Seems perfectly fine to me upon review of these additional links and other similar product pages. --Javawonk (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Last two entries are by SPAs with no prior history; I believe they are sockpuppets. Ham Pastrami (talk) 13:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Actually, it's just the first time I've stumbled over something in Wikipedia that I both found inaccurate and also have the background and expertise to comment on somewhat authoritatively. Ham Pastrami, from your prior comment you seem to sincerely just want a good article on the topic if one can be had. I agree. Perhaps if you gave Jense a few pointers to similar articles you do deem appropriate he could work on this article to both enhance it and make it conform to those guidelines. For example, should it read like the JDeveloper article I referenced in my last post [8]? Perhaps it should be like this one on IBM's RAD product [9]? Do you have any constructive suggestions for improvement? --Javawonk (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you give us a little more detail about what is meant by having the "background and expertise" on this subject? Please note that the debate is about whether the product is notable, which doesn't really require expertise, it requires objective, published sources. In other words, if you are telling us that solid, third-party sources exist, just show us; if not, it ultimately doesn't matter that or how you are an expert. The reason I haven't provided sources of my own is because I can't find any that would be considered reliable and significant coverage, which is the point. Neither of the other Java IDE articles you mention are examples of ideal writing, but that is not the discussion we are having here -- you can nominate them for deletion as well if you feel that is the proper course to take, noting WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. As it stands, User:Jense has an edit history showing only edits to MyEclipse-related articles, along with two new users are the only people who are voting to keep. If anything, this is making me more inclined to delete. Ham Pastrami (talk) 09:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete, should have been tagged with {{db-spam}} and speedily deleted. Coredesat 06:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Youth challenge international canada

Youth challenge international canada (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article reads by an advertisement, and was written by a new editor who may have a conflict of interest. Perhaps the organization is notable and the tone just needs to be adjusted. If you think so, please say so! Shalom (Hello • Peace) 21:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - article is spammy, and there are no reliable sources to support notability. A google news search for them turns up nothing. -- Whpq (talk) 11:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep with {{advert}} tag. I think a government source would be reliable enough. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 19:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - The entry is part of a directory listing. It confirms they exist, but doesn't really establish that they are notable. -- Whpq (talk) 13:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I can see, they don't put upstart mom-and-pop organizations in that directory. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 02:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 06:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ISC CTU Prague

ISC CTU Prague (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article was just up for AfD during which it was speedied as a copyvio. The creators put it back today (without the blatant copyvio text but I speedied it under db-advert, which they contested. However their reasoning is "we are members of International Student Club in Prague. We would love to share information about rich history of our student club with hundreds of international student coming to study to Prague." Exactly the information that belongs on their website, it's not encyclopedic. There's nothing notable about this particular student club. Travellingcari (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No indication of any possible importance. This will be the best place for deleting it definitively. DGG (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence of notability found. Blatant advertising by a non-notable university club. • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete And I would be advising the creator of the article of WP rules - particularly that WP is NOT a site just to share info on - unless that info is NOTABLE! TaintedZebra (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 06:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jody de Ruiter

Jody de Ruiter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Subject does not meet WP:BIO. Disputed prod. Also clear conflict of interest. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. She appeared in notable movies, but never in a lead or even support role. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 19:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. She's not even listed in IMDb, which has lower requirements for inclusion. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - fails to meet notability as an actor. No significant roles. And the article itself describes her as a professional film extra. -- Whpq (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Martha Louise Morrow Foxx

Martha Louise Morrow Foxx (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable educator. No references. 7 webhits all go to Wikipedia or mirrors. No Google book hits. No Google scholar hits. Cross porpoises (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep Early 20th century educator of the blind--founder of The Mississippi Blind School for Negroes[10] in 1945, I don't know what can be expected to be found in Google. The school is real--it is in at least one directory [11]. This needs a look for specialized print sources. DGG (talk) 04:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep She's a known and respected educator, if not in the national leagues. The internet is notoriously unuser friendly to the disabled, and to the poor, no need for Wikipedia to subscribe to being an encyclopedia of exclusion--that's the point of band width over print. "No references?" There are plenty of books, news articles, and histories that tell some of her life, even if they are not available on google. "References" does not mean it's in cyber space. --69.225.10.208 (talk) 09:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. A well-known and significant educator. This AfD is discriminating on the basis of Internet notability, not actual notability, and there is a difference. • Freechild'sup? 15:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment on another note, following the links, I see she organized the Five Blind Boys of Mississippi. Fo some reason this was not explicit in the text of the original article,so I clarified it. Lomax apparently recorded them at her school. It would help to have some of the printed sources mentioned above included as references. DGG (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I added info and citations to the article and cleaned it. • Freechild'sup? 20:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Horne

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

I don't believe Mr. Horne meets WP:BIO, or has any realistic likelihood of doing so soon. He has run in two primaries for major offices, the House and Senate, but lost one and dropped out of the other primary early. Other than that, he gave a radio address... I don't really see much else towards notability here. WP:BIO says politicians who haven't held statewide office can be notable if they are "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". It would be a real stretch to say Horne is a "Major local political figure" - he's never even held a city council post. I am not just out to get Mr. Horne, I worked on this article while he was still in the senate race. Rividian (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Question - what form did this "draft Horne" movement take? Was it genuinely independent of him? If he was notable enough to attract an actual draft movement (as opposed to one of these self-promoting faux draft movements), that's a positive sign for notability, in my view. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure who was responsible for the "draft Horne" thing, but at least in Kentucky politics, we see several of these things every year for some reason. This one got no media coverage that I can find, so it doesn't seem very notable. --Rividian (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Horne is notable enough for an article as anyone who is chosen to deliver a national weekly radio address in response to the President's address has to be noteworthy. That Democrats considered him for this role means he is not obscure. Also notable is that he ran in two races for federal offices, the one for the Senate being very high profile, as the general election opponent is the Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Not all Wikipedia articles have to be ones that are expansive; some are indeed small subjects. Horne's accomplishments in the political realm may be minor, but they are also notable. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 04:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • But they're not notable as defined by WP:BIO... I thought that was pretty clear. There are 8 democrats running in the senate primary this year (7 now that Horne dropped out), other than Horne, the only one with an article is Lunsford, who I believe is notable even if he never ran in an election. Sure Horne is well-liked around Louisville Democrats in a quixotic kind of way, but he really hasn't accomplished anything that goes towards what Wikipedia defines as notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rividian (talk • contribs) 14:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Careful - while running for a major party's nomination doesn't make you automatically notable, it also doesn't automatically make you non-notable. It is possible to be notable solely on the basis of one such run (not that that's what's happening here), as long as this run garnered sufficient coverage in reliable sources. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Giving a nationally heard speech in response to the President's speech alone makes Horne notable. You cannot discount my vote because the subject doesn't strictly follow WP:BIO in your opinion. I'm also not a Democrat, so I'm not a blind follower of Mr. Horne. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry if you took this as something personal... I just hope you can understand my POV, even if you don't agree with it. Horne has never been elected to an office, or even won a primary... I don't see that as a very notable political career, and I'm just not convinced that giving a radio address once is enough notability for an article, especially considering the article shows no evidence the radio address was widely reported on by the media... it merely links to a transcript. However, if this radio address is enough for the community to say he is notable, so be it. --[[User talk:Rividian|Rividian]] (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I think the publicity he has received during his first campaign made him significantly notable. He also received a decent amount of publicity during his brief second campaign. He holds enough draw for people to want to know about him. As for him accomplishing significantly notable positions or actions, thats debatable and has potential to develop. -Jahnx (talk) 06:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• This is kind of borderline, but I find myself persauded by the keep (yes, that's a !vote) arguments above. The endorsement from Wesley Clark also counts for something, in my view; he's from out of state, so for somebody to garner his endorsement in a primary race suggest to me that the endorsee is no nobody. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - per User:Stevietheman. BusterD (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 06:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ryan Flynn

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

• Seems to be a non notable footballer with no appearances to his name.Paste (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep is part of Liverpool's first team squad. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 18:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:FOOTY/Notability as he has never played in a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete The fact that he is part of the Liverpool squad is irrelevant as (it seems) he's never played a professional game. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 20:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete not played professional game so fails WP:FOOTY criteria. Peanut4 (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete As a member of WP:LFC I hate to have to do this, but currently his article doesn't meet notability rules as defined above. John Hayes^talk 22:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Farewell - should he meet notability criteria in the future, great. Now? No. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Do not be fooled by the boilerplate on his talk page into believing that this article has the backing of the community at WP:FOOTY. Kevin McE (talk) 01:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. John Hayes^talk 01:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman (talk) 16:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete not played professional game so fails WP:FOOTY criteria. Heshs Umpire (talk) 13:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, has not yet played professionally. BanRay 20:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] General Knowledge Club of Royal College Colombo, Sri Lanka

General Knowledge Club of Royal College Colombo, Sri Lanka (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article has been been tagged for notability since September 2007. Since then, no edits to the article have been made to establish notability. Rockfang (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Student club at a single school. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 06:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LionEV

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

Article is written almost entirely by one user -- ElectricOne. Almost all of ElectricOne's contributions to Wikipedia have been to add in references to LionEV and to defend the company. LionEV is Kenneth W. Curry, of Virginia Beach, Virginia[12][13][14], a convicted scam artist.[15]

• Delete no sources provided to establish notability. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, nonnotable company. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, and also tagged as a possible hoax due to some highly unlikely claims (supplier to Ford and Hyndai???). Blueboy96 22:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the article's history, it's obvious that this guy has deliberately tried to disrupt the AfD process by either removing the tag from the article or redirecting the discussion. Yes, he used an IP for the redirect--but come on, "quack". Good faith can no longer be assumed. Blueboy96 02:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Alternative propulsion vehicle.--Mac (talk) 06:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Some clarification is needed here. First of all we don't claim to be suppliers to Ford or Hyundai, we clearly state on our website that we convert Vehicles provided to us by Ford and Hyundai under fleet arrangements. Our wiki entry lists the vehicles and manufacturers that we convert, and have converted to full electric and PHEV. As to the hoax issue, I am not sure where that came from. Our formal site at http://www.LionEV.com shows full images of our conversion process and images of the battery packs we produce. Page 6 of the DIY Ranger series shows several of our vehicles on dyno testing devices, and out for road tests. As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words, I imagine a video is worth even more. This appears to be a matter of drive by texting by one of our competitors supporters, primarily eeStor. I can't imagine why they would protest an entry on wiki, but they sure seem intent on bringing it down. Our site also contains links to school projects that we are funding involving alternative fuel vehicles. Any information you require from LionEV just drop us a note. We would love to put this to rest. ElectricOne (talk) 14:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 16:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shisha Boys

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

Not-notable  UzEE  03:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete not-notable at all as 'Shisha Cafe'. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Seems to fail WP:MOVIE. Icestorm815 • Talk 16:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 06:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alec Ross (Social Entrepreneur)

Alec Ross (Social Entrepreneur) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The article was created by and mainly edited by a representative of One Economy Corporation, which Alec Ross is the Executive Vice-President of. Alec Ross does not appear to be notable and the article is simply a listing of minor interviews, speeches, writings, and board memberships. BlueAzure (talk) 03:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: The article started as a puff piece for one of the execs at the company by an employee. Not notable per nom. Toddst1 (talk) 07:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Most of the sources are self published like the Green school, 1000 Friends, Micromentor. While I have no doubt they are true, they basically confirm his resume, not his notability. Very few third parties involved. Toddst1 (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• keep enough evidence provided, it doesn't matter WHY the article was started. Blueswan1967 (talk) 11:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Cannot see anything on the page that would suggest this person meets WP:BIO critera. --neonwhite user page talk 21:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 06:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cigar-related charity

Cigar-related charity (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable organizations. A confusing title for an article which tells us very little. The organizations might be notable on their own, but this article really isn't the place to tell us about them, and there's no suitable other name to make it more useful. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete. I moved the content of that article out of Cigar because of its irrelevance. Is the Gates Foundation mentioned in Software? I didn't know what else to do with it, and was hoping someone else would make something of the new article. Oh well. Frotz (talk) 06:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. A great variety of companies engage in some charitable work. If they set up a notable charity, it can have its own page; if not, it should be mentioned in connection with the company. This is a weird cross-referenced way to collect information. I think the individual foundations should be merged to the companies associated with them, but we don't need to keep this article around, that content can be taken from old drafts of Cigar. Mangojuice^talk 16:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bugler (tobacco)

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

Appears to be a non-notable product, has no sourced assertions of notability, prod was removed with no imporvements made. neonwhite user page talk 17:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Definite Keep -The brand has over 1,500 hits at Google News as shown here. [16] – If that is not notable – verifiable and credible let’s pull the plug to the servers today. Shoessss |  Chat  17:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the article does not show evidence of notability, your link only provided trivial mentions, please familiarise yourself with the guidelines, especially WP:N and WP:PRODUCT before commenting. A subject is required to have "Significant coverage" in second party reliable sources. Hits on a search engine is not how we determine notability. The guidelines say that products should be redirect to the company that manufactures them but that article is even worse than this one. [17] --neonwhite user page talk 21:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

First, as you mention, WP:Notability is a guideline not policy. In that, it is only a guideline it is open to interpretation. Second, trivial is WP:POV as this discussion proves. What you view as trivial, I view as significant. If it were 1,500 hit at Google under a general search I would say you would be able to make a point. However, this product generated over 1,500 hits at Google News under very specific search criteria. That is significant and establishes notability. Shoessss |  Chat  10:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read the guidelines on notability as i said. Hits on a search engine do not under any circumstances make a subject notable. They never have and never will. If, however, a search produces several relaible second party sources which contains Significant coverage independant of the subject then this proves notability, but so far there none have been produced. Trivial ay be subjective but nevertheless it is a very importnet part of the guideline. --neonwhite user page talk 01:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep Googling's messy in cases like this, as there are a ton of hits which are just sales sites. However, there appears to be coverage here, evidence of the company's involvement in publicised lawsuits and the brand has been used in an art exhibit. And there are, dotted here and there, other suggestions the brand is sufficiently well known to be part of the cultural wallpaper. The point I'm trying to make here is that this may involve more work than, say, sourcing information about a famous film star, but I'm inclined to say that notability can be established here. --Sturm 11:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm switching to a straightforward "keep" here, after finding a source which says that Bugler is "the most popular prison tobacco". It's an extra twist to the coverage which surely points towards some kind of cultural/social notability. --Sturm 17:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that is that it is not the subject of that article and doesnt get anywhere near significant coverage, articles have to provide something that could contribute to the article, if we removed all the unsourced info what would we be left with? --neonwhite user page talk 01:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to challenge particular statements in the article, then judicious use of the {{Fact}} template would be in order. --Sturm 01:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The entire article is clearly unsourced, most is original research. --neonwhite user page talk 03:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Definite Keep neonwhite is NUTS - Bugler is probably the #1 selling brand of loose-leaf (RYO) tobacco in America. They were listed as #2 but in my days they were #1 and I kind of doubt they even went to #2 behind TOP. How could you say the #1 or #2 brand of rolling tobacco is not notable???? I've felt this before and I must again say - do you work for TOP or a competitor of Bugler? Otherwise how could you say that the #1 (or #2) brand is NOT NOTABLE??? --Put that in your pipe and smoke it (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a personal POV only, please read WP:N to learn how wikipedia establishes notability. --neonwhite user page talk 01:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep notable prominent product.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Find some sources. --neonwhite user page talk 01:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Merge with conwood. The most relevant guideline here is WP:PRODUCT and it states Information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy. In that case, the discussion of the company's products and services should be broken out from the company article in summary style. If the article can be sourced then it needs to be done soon. --neonwhite user page talk 01:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - First --neonwhite user page talk, I take umbrage to your tone and criticism. I am familiar with WP: Notability guidelines, just look at my edit history, and yes, they are just guidelines, not policy. Secondly I will say that your are involved with Wikipedia:Wikilawyering here, which is distasteful at its best. Thirdly from your tone of response to me and the other editors that expressed an opinion on whether to keep or delete this article, I would take that you are making assumption of bad faith editing. It is extremely rare that I get involved, to this level, concerning an Afd, but you have managed to push all the right buttons. Now I’ll take a deep breath – step back and leave with a smile :-) - Shoessss |  Chat  01:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Your personal attacks and intimidation are not welcome here. I suggest you cease. Discuss the subject not the editors taking part. I have discussed this in nothing but a civil manner. The principle of notability is clear, subjects need to be verifiable in reliable second party sources. Your comments show a substantial lack of knowledge of WP:N guidelines which is why i suggested and continue to suggest you read it. Especially the Notability requires objective evidence section. Suggesting hits on a search engine is evidence of notability is incorrect because search engines find trivial mentions. Guidelines were created by editors and are considered the correct way to edit. You can't suggest they be ignored without a good reason. --neonwhite user page talk 03:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. The brand is notable almost to the point of ubiquity. -Sean Curtin (talk) 06:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Then there should be reliable second party sources to be found. --neonwhite user page talk 14:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. As per just about everyone above.BWH76 (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was DELETE, no reliable sources found for either article. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roy Strider Records

Roy Strider Records (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

No indication of notability for either this record label or one of its artists; the two articles seems to have been created to support each other, or more likely just for promotion. Neither of them meet the notability requirements. Jfire (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - agree with Jfire's assessment. - Special-T (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep for the Depoo article, if it is possible to verify that "they won a Noortebänd 2005" and that Noortebänd is indeed "the largest band competition in Estonia." Comment: I believe Roy Strider (the individual) is a colleague of Tõnu Trubetsky and/or Vennaskond. Those two subjects seem sufficiently notable, but there was a problem with conflict of interest a couple of years ago (see Talk:The Flowers of Romance (band)#The Estonian "comeback" band: Redux for a summary). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, no sources. Blast Ulna (talk) 06:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Coredesat 06:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sunny Golloway

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

I had proposed this article for speedy deletion (A7): the proposal was removed because «"head baseball coach at the University of Oklahoma" is an assertion of notability». Actually, it seems to me that this is just the description of a job: everybody is "somebody of somewhere", and almost any job can be qualified in a similar way. Goochelaar (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I don't quite understand your deletion rationale. Could you clarify? Anyway, this guy has a pretty solid presence at Google News [18], so I think we should keep the article, or at least merge/redirect to Oklahoma Sooners baseball. Zagalejo^^^ 19:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry if I have been unclear. My point is that, for what I can understand, being "head coach etc." is just the description of a job, and having a job is something most honest people do, not a reason of notability. If this person is notable, this should made clear also to somebody who, like me, knows nothing about baseball or the University of Oklahoma. Happy editing, Goochelaar (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, head coaches of major sports at major universities are notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I removed the speedy, and was challenged about it. I don't follow college sports, but seems rather obvious to me that such people are notable. There is always press coverage for the head coaches in the various sports at the major athletic universities. DGG (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, not living in the USA, I do not understand which kind of figures are deemed notable there. I'd be ready to stand corrected and withdraw my nomination, if I understood this. Just from reading the article, it looked to me something like, say, "the head waiter at Such-and-Such Restaurant". Is there some Sport in USA or Sport in USA University article to understand better the weight such a person has in USA society? Thanks, Goochelaar (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Darkspots (talk) 01:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC) disclaimer: I am not an administrator.

[edit] Danish Pedophile Association

Danish Pedophile Association (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an article about a tiny organisation. The organisation gets a tiny, one-sentence passing mention on page 6 of a Salon.com article. The organisation also gets a passing mention in an NJ.com article, which is mostly about Lindsay Ashford and about pedophilia in general. Then there's a "translation of an article by journalist Karen Seneca in the Danish newspaper Ekstra Bladet from Tuesday, 23 July 1996, page 13." The problem is that this claimed source is not verifiable, and that we have no way of telling who translated the article, how accurate the translation is and how much of it was actually about this organisation. Other than this minimal coverage, not much remains that might make this subject notable. Aecis^Brievenbus 17:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Aecis^Brievenbus 17:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Association is unfortunately very real and plenty notable, see [19], [20] and [21] from significant Danish news sources.--Peter Andersen (talk) 17:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Peter Andersen, lack of English-language sources is not a reason to delete. RFerreira (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, but improve references. Just because a source is not online does not make it unverifiable. The format should give the article title, publication, and date like any other citation. A few other sources are presented in odd ways. There are sources that can be added such as the BBC. There are Google Books and Google Scholar results, too. The official website also has a (lightly-trafficked!) new address. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhartung (talk • contribs) 21:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was withdraw nomination --Farix (Talk) 20:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Story Manga

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

Disputed prod. The article is clear original research based on a nologism. Farix (Talk) 17:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Is it a neologism? The Japanese wikipedia article seems to indicate (at least based on a machine translation) the term's been used since 1925. A better reader might be able to come up with more (and identify whether it is, indeed, original research). —Quasirandom (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Incidentally, the external link (written by a historian of manga) makes it clear that if Osama Tezuka didn't coin the term, he certainly popularized it after the War. That plus the search a la Dhartung show that it's neither neologism nor original research. Barely sourced, incomplete, and borderline incoherent in places, but notable and worth an article. Keep and mark as in need of expert attention from the relevant Wikiproject. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Desperately needs better sources, but it clearly is NOT original research but a summary of the provided source. The "neologism" is found and discussed in more than sufficient depth in Google Books and Google Scholar. I don't feel much responsible checking was done for this nomination. --Dhartung | Talk 22:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Some people mistakes AfD for clean-up. If this article is not good, wikify it. Deletion is very extreme. Zerokitsune (talk) 04:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Spebi 06:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Friend of Mine

A Friend of Mine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band; fails WP:MUSIC. Released only one EP, to no significant coverage. Cited sources are local, I can't verify the second one. Notability tags repeatedly removed by anons. Jfire (talk) 17:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete for failing WP:MUSIC in every way; no significant coverage, no chart hits, no major label albums, etc. etc. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC at this stage, although it can be recreated if the band achieves notability (2 albums, notable record label, etc.). For the record, the Beat reference appears to not exist. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 05:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 06:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:MUSIC. —Moondyne 01:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. -RiverHockey (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 23:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 06:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] OneStopPhoneShop

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, Hu12 (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as nn. fails WP:CORP as no WP:RS so also fails WP:V. Sting au Buzz Me... 01:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge then delete' Merge whatever material is useful into The Carphone Warehouse. Supposed (talk) 17:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete wholly non-notable. Fails WP:CORP. No useful information for merging. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 06:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Panavision New Filmmaker Award

Panavision New Filmmaker Award (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Called less pretentiously "New Filmmaker Program" by the company itself (http://www.panavision.com/students.php), this "grant program" consists of four 16mm and two 35mm cameras which have been set aside from the rental pool, to lend them to students for "short, non-profit" films. No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The article was apparently created as an attempt to prove the notability of Midnight Son (nominated for deletion below), where it is touted as an "accolade". High on a tree (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete rookie filmmakers get to rent a camera for free. Big whoop. Article tries to make this sound like an award of some kind. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - it's jut a grant program. -- Whpq (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 06:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Midnight Son

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

No evidence for notability according to Wikipedia:Notability (films). The article about the film's writer and director has been speedily deleted as CSD A7 (Bio). The Panavision New Filmmaker Award (nominated for deletion above) is really just a small grant program which consists of four 16mm and two 35mm cameras which are lent out to students for short, non-profit films (there must have been many hundreds of students who have benefited from this over the years, not surprising that there some among them who are famous today). High on a tree (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Student films are almost never notable, and nothing in the article suggests this is some sort of exception. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was close, please start a new AfD when the injunction has been lifted. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shane Casey

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

I was initially going to merge and redirect this to Minor characters in CSI:NY, however I don't know that there's enough here to support that. Shane Casey was a guest star on CSI: NY and while he had more of a role than the typical one episode guest star, I still don't think it meets WP:FICT and warrants inclusion here Travellingcari (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Travellingcari (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge? Did they stop doing Minor characters in <tv show> ? Corpx (talk) 10:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

* Comment: that was my own bad link, it should have been Minor characters in CSI: NY. I just think there's a fuzzy line of guest star v. minor character and while he had a "vendetta" that slightly extended his arc, he was still a guest star. While I know other stuff isn't a valid argument, it has some reasoning in that characters who had similar roles (Frankie Mala, DJ Pratt) don't exist, why does this one need to? I've been unable to find any sources that demonstrate real world context other than "{Actor) appears on CSI:NY as (character}" if that makes sense Travellingcari (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep there's a moratorium on merging, per the arb com. DGG (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Link? Not disagreeing, I'd just like to have it so I'm aware of this. Guess the whole CSI:NY project is going on hold then and I'd like to follow it until the moratorium ends or is otherwise settled. Does this affect those that were closed as merge earlier this morning? Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marisol_Delko and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Peter_Elliott (CSI:_Miami)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travellingcari (talk • contribs) 15:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment The "moratorium", as far as I can read, is exclusive to the editors in the Arbcom case itself, is a temporary injunction to stop the edit warring happening there, and is not directed to "all editors". The link is here. If it is to all editors in all discussions regarding fictional characters/episodes, where is that posted, DGG? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
      • The temporary injunction applies to all Wikipedia editors[22] while this arbitration case is open. --Pixelface (talk) 09:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I dont really know, nor do I know whether it even applies or should apply to consensus edits, such as here. The text at [23] reads simply "no editor" without further qualification. I said what I did in the hope of some enlightenment myself. I find ArbCom unpredictable. Either, having decided they must intervene, they will throw it right back at the rest of the community--in which case i would suggest MASEM's revisions of the relevant pages, or they will make some strange decision that will require some odd adjustments in order to live with. DGG (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I just found the talk page related to this. Seems nobody knows...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I am little in the dark too, but I would say it is best to simply put this on hold until clarification in the case comes about. SorryGuy  Talk  20:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: Closure of this AFD may be subject to restrictions imposed by ARBCOM, as described at: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2/Proposed_decision#Halt_to_activities. JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Of coasrse that is just a proposal, and thus doesn't apply yet. TJ Spyke 05:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Not true. The injunction was enacted on 02:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC), with the 4 required support votes, and no oppose votes. JERRY ^talk _contribs 07:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, MAYBE merge There are no sources for the article, so it fails WP:V. There is also no inidication of real world notability. TJ Spyke 05:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment About the Arbcom case I'm pretty sure they won't go out and ban us or anything if we have a unanimous consensus on what to do with an article, also it is ultimately admins that close the AfDs so if they can always just tell us in the closing if we should hold out on the final decision.--Sin Harvest (talk) 12:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: "they can always just tell us", that's what I was doing... I relisted this solely because I have been told that it can not be closed as delete at this time due to the injunction. Continued discussion is encouraged in the meantime, but it is unlikely to get closed with a delete or merge outcome anytime soon. JERRY ^talk _contribs 20:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was closed administratively as premature -- Y not be working? 16:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Steven Phillip Kazmierczak

Steven Phillip Kazmierczak (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Zero notability apart from the shootings. Since my redirecting to Northern Illinois University shooting was overturned as well as an earlier CSD nom, I'm now drawing the consequence and nominate this for deletion. User:Dorftrottel 16:05, February 15, 2008 16:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

...I asked people to discuss the matter first on the article's target page specifically to avoid the unpleasantness of an AfD when the same effect can be achieved with much less trouble by talking things out. --Kizor 16:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep Can't the same argument be made for Seung-Hui Cho? Gary King (talk) 16:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• See WP:WAX. User:Dorftrottel 16:14, February 15, 2008

I would argue that this article is only a few hours old and more information will be put forward soon enough, very quickly. Give it a few days time and if it doesn't grow past a stub size then delete it. --Gary King (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Why not go the other way and have one single article, and eventually split the article of iff it becomes necessary? User:Dorftrottel 16:18, February 15, 2008

• Ripping articles apart is harder than merging them together.--72.93.80.5 (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep - Everybody's talking about this guy. This issue is only hours old and notability/non notability have yet to be determined. This article will explode in the next 8 hours, if it hasn't already in the last 8 minutes. Moreover, consider the precedence of Seung-Hui Cho, Eric_Harris_and_Dylan_Kleboldet al. --72.93.80.5 (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• See WP:WAX. User:Dorftrottel 16:14, February 15, 2008

• Whatever, I don't mind an AFD vote. --72.93.80.5 (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Kizor's efforts to amicably discuss this are admirable, but not viable imo. User:Dorftrottel 16:14, February 15, 2008

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

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

The result was Keep. AFD is not a venue for solving POV problems or pushing one for that matter. This article may well contain POV, but this fact alone does not warrant the deletion of a comprehensive article, when editing it can solve that. Whether or not Isreal can join or will join the EU is not relevant to this discussion. What is relevant is whether the topic is notable, and verifiable to reliable sources. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Israel and the European Union

Israel and the European Union (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article is POV Bashing. There is no such activities of Israel accession to the EU going on within the EU. This is a conspiracy trying to promote some false beliefs. It is the same as saying US accession to the EU, I can provide equally the same information to support that claim such as talking about the strong trade relations. The fact is, Israel is NOT on European territory and thus has no legal basis for entry to the EU (unlike Turkey). The article shows pure propoganda material to deceive viewers in believing that a discussion is actually taking place when it is not. Waqas1987 (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep- I'd rather see Israel in the EU, rather than Turkey. Astrotrain (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Not a reason to keep. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• That is not at all relevant to this discussion. --L. Pistachio (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It is relevant based on the comments requesting deletion. Israel is often associated with European groupings such as UEFA and the Song Contest. Astrotrain (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

What I meant was that tour opinion on what countries should join the EU is not relevant to whether this article meets Wikipedia's inclusion standards. --L. Pistachio (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It is relevant, as I was responding to the original research of the nomination rather than offering an out of the blue opinion. How does he know what countries have a legal basis to join the EU? Astrotrain (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

To join the EU, you first must meet the "European" criteria. Turkey has a history in Europe and well as parts geographically located in Europe, Israel does not. Israel has no relationship to Europe whatsoever. UEFA and Eurovision song contest have got nothing to do with the EU. And further to my point, there is ABSOLUTELY NO TALK from with the EU members of a possible Israel in EU UNLIKE Turkey and even to some extent Morocco. This article is a simple POV bashing, propoganda rubbish that is derving conspiracies to fool readers. Delete this article, or remove any information related to a possible enlargement of EU to include Israel as this is utterly hideous.--Waqas1987 (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You may not think Israel could join the EU, but obviously other people do as stated in the article. Israel would be a more suitable member than Turkey. Astrotrain (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

My views is based on the facts that are already out there. Other memebers who wrote the article are derviing false conclusions. Produce me one citation of any hint from EU members of a possible Israel in EU? And secondly, I think Japan or even US are more suitable members to EU than both Turkey and Israel. Does that mean anything?--Waqas1987 (talk) 20:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Perhaps I'm missing something, but the topic of relations between Israel and EU seems unimpeachable and clearly sourced, e.g. look at first few footnotes. The nom's main concern is with the section "Possible future developments in EU-Israel relations" and I do see grounds for concern with editorializing and sourcing. Thus, there's a need for editing improvements, ad/or for tags, but deletion? HG | Talk 16:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Are you talking about the EU-Israel association agreement? I can produce you one with Lebanon @ [24]. Does that mean we can start a topic of a possible enlargement of EU to include Lebanon? --Waqas1987 (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Conditional Keep. The article should exist, but most of the material in the artcile's largest section, "Possible future developments in EU-Israel relations", is a crystal ball hypothesis of what might happen if Israel were to attempt to join the EU. Most of that section should be trimmed away. Majoreditor (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and clean up Buried among the wild speculation and OR is a viable article on the relations between Israel and the EU. Most of the text would have to be removed, though. --L. Pistachio (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Morocco has no legal basis for entry in the EU either, yet applied for membership. There's enough valid material here to keep it, even with some problems. matt91486 (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thats an entirely different matter altogether. The fact that Morocco applied, and albeit rejected, it has scope for an article. But remember, I am not against talking about Israels and EUs trade relations, but when the first paragraph reads: "The accession of Israel to the European Union refers to a possible future development in the European Union-Israel relations." It is very deceiving to say the least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waqas1987 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• It says a possible future development, not a possible future ascension. Ascension would be very very misleading, but future development is just ambiguous and poorly phrased, not malicious. matt91486 (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and clean up - requires a new lead though. Any statement about joining the EU needs reliable sources. Squash Racket (talk) 05:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and develop - EU–Israel relations is a serious topic and the editors have made a start. Hell is more likely to freeze over than Israel actually joining the EU, however. Excuse My Dust (talk) 10:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Several of you are expressing concerns about article POV and crystal ball issues. I'm going to start a discussion thread on the article's talk page on how we can address these concerns. Majoreditor (talk) 04:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, as per Majoreditor and Excuse My Dust--Allstar86 (talk) 05:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete per WP:MUSIC. Bearian (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barutana ljubavi

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

Per WP:MUSIC, unreleased albums are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources.} Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom; this is an unreleased album with no substantial coverage. Here's a hint -- if you can't come up with so much as a track listing, then there's better than a 99.44% chance that the album isn't notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge into Miladin Šobić. Bondegezou (talk) 12:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Icestorm815 • Talk 16:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Non-admin closure.

[edit] Transmural care

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

Transwikied dictionary definition. TexasAndroid (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep. I created this page as a stub ages back. Transmural care is an important concept in medicine. There is plenty to say here beyond the dictionary definition suitable for Wiktionary. The article needs expanding, not deleting. I'm sorry I've never spent the time putting more into it! Bondegezou (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep needs expansion but has potential. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep 27 references in PubMed; for example, [25] Chuck (talk) 05:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A.M. (band)

A.M. (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band. The three references given (referred to in the article as "features") are no more than trivial coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ——Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --L. Pistachio (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep there are three sources and one of which is the L.A. Times. If that is not a notable source, I don't know what is. --Destroy1998 (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, the LA Times reference is a blog, not the paper itself, and the reference just says "this band wasn't invited to the festival that I'm writing about, but they set up and played on the sidewalk anyway." As nominator said, this is trivial coverage of a nonnotable band. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Blog is not necessarily a dirty word. When "Web 2.0" was the new hawtness, major media rushed to call parts of their site blogs. It is still part of the LA Times. Perhaps you'd like to tell me which band in the piece about the entire festival receives more coverage, or perhaps you'd like to strike your characterization of it as unfair and misleading. - 86.44.6.14 (can't sign, tilde isn't working :D)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 19:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, the delete voters are being extremely (unfairly?) tough. The blog is certainly part of the LA Times, and the author is a deputy editor on a section of the print version. The mention of the band is actually two long, meaty paragraphs. The LA Record sources are initialed posts which, though brief, describe the band's aesthetic and overall sound in some detail, recommend a particular song, and describe the guitar solo therein... Sounds like a keep to me. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 13:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Regardless of whether or not the LA Times blog entry is notable or not and whether 2 paragraphs out of 9 is trivial or not, that's still not nearly enough coverage to be considered "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable". —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 10:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've explained clearly why I hold the opposite view. Perhaps we simply differ in our applications of it, but I invite you to read all of notability guideline 1 one more time, with particular attention to its guides indicating what may constitute triviality. We are as far from that here as we are from AM being on the cover of Rolling Stone. ;) -86.44.6.14 —Preceding comment added by 86.44.6.14 (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Two brief show reviews where this band was the opening band. To me, that is the epitome of trivial coverage. That a band exists, plays shows, and has a sound that can be described does not mean that mentioning it briefly—as a tangent to the main point of the article (reviewing the headlining band), no less—is non-trivial. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Not just a sound, an aesthetic too, and a recommended song, and a particular guitar solo? In conjunction with two relatively lengthly paragraphs about the band, with the lead singer being quoted, in a piece on the website of the LA Times? Notable to me. Your standards for notability are higher than mine, and i would gently suggest that they are higher than wp:music's (not that there is anything wrong with that). (Btw, they are not the opening band in one of the Record sources. It seems rather they share the bill; certainly they share the focus of the piece. Although a differing implication that may be drawn is that they are one of the opening bands, which is perhaps what you meant.) - that anon IP again

• Delete. Agree that references provided are nothing more than trivial coverage; i.e. per latimesblogs.latimes.com, A sloppy, scrappy little quartet from Garden Grove called AM, which had neither applied for nor been invited to play the festival, set up on the sidewalk two doors down from the Echo and began to play an impromptu set of good-times garage-rock... [26]; and per larecord.com, Also playing is A.M., young kids out of Orange County who commonly play guerrilla-street shows in parking lots with generators...[27]. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

dot dot dot indeed. What can you think selective quotations from the sources do to explain your view? Are you saying that a band who play that style of show cannot be in Wikipedia regardless of coverage? Interesting position. —86.44.6.14, 22 February 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.6.14 (talk) 13:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Redirect to Starship Troopers (film). If people wish to merge they can from the history but, as it stands, the small amount of detail in here is unsourced - Peripitus (Talk) 23:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] United Citizen Federation

United Citizen Federation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources have been added (since 2004) to establish the notability of this fictional organization. --Explodicle (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect and merge to Starship Troopers (film). Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Redirecting sounds fine to me, but what exactly is there to merge? This doesn't seem to have anything of worth that the article for the movie doesn't have. --Explodicle (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect and Merge I agree with Kim Dent-Brown. There isn't much notability for this and the article is best to be merged. Spencer^T♦C 15:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect and Merge Per above.- JustPhil 22:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect and Merge This article is too small and insubstantial to stand on its own, it should be merged with the Starship Troopers (film) article; because it will add more detail to the film overall, then other users will take notice and add appropriate sources to the section. Walksonwalls (talk) 10:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete Small consensus, but enough. Not in Wiktionary yet, could be added there, but not as this definiton, which doesn't match any other established definitoins in other dictionaries, online or otherwise. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Servery

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

Pure dictionary definition, and probably not accurate enough to send to Wiktionary either. Was created by a single use editor on 16 Oct 2007, and not edited since. Emeraude (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Nothing here worth keeping. — Scientizzle 17:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] James Smith (footballer born September 1985)

James Smith (footballer born September 1985) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Has yet to play in a full-time league, as per WP:Bio#athlete that makes him non-notable Jimbo^[online] 13:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Passes WP:FOOTY/Notability, the criteria agreed upon by WP:FOOTY members, as he plays for a fully-professional club in a national league.[28] пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Question I don't know much about English football, but isn't his club, Ebbsfleet United F.C., a professional club? It was recently purchased/will be purchased for £700,000, which implies that it receives revenue and pays its players, which could meet the standard of WP:BIO. Darkspots (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is a fully professional club. See my link above as evidence. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The club maybe professional, but the player still needs some information in the article to even have an article. The way it stands I would delete this profile hands down. Govvy (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep asserts notability according to WP:FOOTY/Notability guidelines. English peasant 14:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:FOOTY/Notability. But gotta say "ouch!" on the article title. Can't we find a better name? Aardvarkvarkvark (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Suggestions welcome, but there is another player called James Smith who was born in October 1985! At least they were born in different months... пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Meets the football notability requirements. matt91486 (talk) 16:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Seems to be good enough now, still might need an ikkle more. Govvy (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as per WP:FOOTY/Notability Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 16:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per the above. I wish we could have a better parethetical title for this article though. RFerreira (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Although I do agree the titles are a bit messy!  glennb28  t/c  21:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• keep per the above WP:FOOTY/Notability Mrengland (talk) 10:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• keep per above. No different to many of the other articles on footballers ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 11:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was KEEP, no consensus to delete. One marginal (but relevant) reference added to article part way through deletion discussion. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Genius Inside

Genius Inside (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

While this says it was a finalist in the IBM Lotus Award, it does not say anywhere else on how it is notable. I see nothing that they made that was outstandingly significant. Soxred93 | talk count bot 02:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, only sources seem to be press releases. -- Renesis (talk) 06:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT#NOTABLE.-Ravichandar 10:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
• Updated page content to reference notable 2008 IBM Lotus Mid Market Award. -- Mhankiny (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chetblong^{T C} 12:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Asserts notability by having won a notable award. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

  Comment, isn't asserting notability different from satisfying notability requirements? This is enough to keep it from CSD, but no reason to pass AFD, since it doesn't fit the general notability requirements found at WP:N. -- Renesis (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

  Comment, notability is rendered through being recognized by respected third party as offering outstanding technology and customer benefits. This posting seems in line with like solutions in this space. -- Mhankiny —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.131.169 (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete; no independent coverage or wide public notability. Please note that the "notable award" isn't, really; it's not like the Booker Prize or something, it's just an IBM marketing thing. --MCB (talk) 05:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 06:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pop-policy

Pop-policy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

no evidence this is a widely used term, delete per WP:SOAP --Snigbrook ^(talk) 12:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete This term also fails WP:NEO. Bláthnaid 13:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete This is both a soapbox and a NN neologism. --L. Pistachio (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Obvious delete. — Scientizzle 17:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, webcontent with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chain Gang Soldier

Chain Gang Soldier (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable and unreferenced.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep The following text was moved here from the article page. It's not clear who wrote it:

Wikipedia.org has considered deleting this article, we are asking them not to do this due to the fact that this forum is very special to us and needs to be recognized.

• Delete An online search turns up Myspace and the like. With under a thousand members, I wouldn't expect to find much anyhow. Matchups (talk) 11:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable at all. Wexcan  Talk  12:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete definitely not notable. --L. Pistachio (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as either A7/nn-web or A7/nn-org, take your pick. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Per the discussion, obviously, but I'ld like to add that it gets a full (two-part) interview in Publisher's Weekly[29][30]. A minimal Google search before nomination may sometimes help. Fram (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RASL

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

Delete up-coming self-published comic book. nn. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep The next project from the creator of the immensely successful, and notable, Bone. I see no reason why this should not be notable too. It really isn't just a self-published comic from just anyone; Jeff Smith is a big name in comics. Kelvingreen (talk) 22:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Easy Keep. Jeff Smith is easily notable for Bone, and has worked on various other notable projects for the bigger comic shops too. That being said, this is a bad article (the only text under "Story" repeats the same sentence twice). Someone with more info ought to get this into shape... Duncan1800 (talk) 08:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 11:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep?I added some more info with an active reference if that helps! I'm pretty new to all this, but I know RASL's first issue will only be coming out this month, so I'm sure if you give it some time, people will fill in more info as the series goes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blameless42 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, per Kelvingreen. Wexcan  Talk  12:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shōsuke Tanihara

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

No evidence of notability has been presented in the year this article has been up. If someone were to present credible evidence, I'd withdraw the nomination. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 10:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Withdraw nomination, per Truth or Doubt. Someone should put some of this in the article, though. Request Speedy close. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. IMDB lists over 20 credits. Starred in Fudoh: The New Generation. Pburka (talk) 13:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

  20 credits, without any indication of notability of the role, is not adequate. I can't speak as to whether Fudoh: The New Generation is sufficiently notable that the star inherits notability. In fact, I'm not sure that article belongs on Wikipedia, as it only contains a one sentence lead, plot summary, and cast list. The latter two violate WP:NOT. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

  As to how notable Fudoh is: Time Magazine listed it as one of their ten best movies of the year 1997. Which is certainly enough to justify an article on it, but maybe not enough for notability to be inherited by its lead. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Google Search on Japanese name 谷原 章介 yields 286,000 results vs the romanized version of under 6,000. Anime News Network profile [31], Has appeared in Godzilla vs. Megaguirus [32]. In american media he has appeared in USA today "First of all, the iPod design is cute," said movie star Shosuke Tanihara, who listens to Prince and Janet Jackson with his iPod while cooking pasta at home or driving his Mercedes. "[33], Movie review of Fudoh: The New Generation in seattle times [34], Variety Magazine review of Vexille ,in which Shōsuke Tanihara plays a major character [35] AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

  We should have a referenced article specifically about him, if he is to be listed. The USA today article suggests that someone thinks he's notable, or he wouldn't be interviewed. On the other hand, some of those articles quote the "man on the shttp://wwwz.fujitv.co.jp/kyoukasho/index.htmltreet". I lean toward Vexille being notable, even though the current article reads like a Movie Tome entry, but the star of a notable movie is not necessarily notable. As for google, I don't know Japanese, but a number of otherwise experienced Wikipedians forget to require the words to be in order. I'd accept an article in a major magazine, even if in Japanese, as an indication of notability. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

  Comment. 122 Google news hits for his Japanese name. Someone who can read Japanese would be needed to determine which of these are actually articles primarily about him, but the number of hits is suggestive that he may be notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Filmography and ample ghits suggest notability. There is no time limit placed on the development of articles, and lack of content is not in itself reason enough to delete. PC78 (talk) 23:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

  Lack of claims of notability in the article is a speedy deletion criterion, and I believe the article qualifies. I'd be happier if evidence were added, but the alternative really is deletion. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

  You don't think a 15-item filmography is a sufficient claim of notability to avoid speedy deletion? —David Eppstein (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

  It wouldn't be under WP:PORN. We don't have a numeric estimate in WP:FILM (or whatever it's called now). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

  WP:PORN does not describe criteria for speedy deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

  If you think this article is eligable for speedy deletion, they by all means tag it as a speedy and see how far it gets you. Your link to WP:PORN is highly irrelevant to this discussion. PC78 (talk) 10:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

  Comment It appears that this actor has also appeared on Japanese National television as a guest on the celebrity edition of Who Wants to Be a Millionare. More so, he was the host of a television show on Nippon Television called Truth or doubt. Official Nippon Television link[36] It is mostly in Japanese but you can clearly see his name romanized in the flash intro. In the past year he also appeared on Watashitachi no Kyoukasho, you can find the Japanese website here [37]. What more do you want? Unfortunately, I couldn't find a notarized letter from his mother asserting his notability ;-) AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

  I think what he wants is, not guest appearances, but press: print articles or TV appearances that are about him rather than that merely feature him. Which there seem to be plenty of; several of the articles from Google news appear (from the horrible translation provided by Google translate) to be about his personal life. But we need them in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment I didn't miss the point.(In reference to your edit summary). Arthur Rubin asserts he is not a notable individual. I'm providing additional supporting information for notability. In some cases he may appear as a guest, but I'd note clearly hosting a television show should not be constituted as a 'guest appearance.' I understand that he is looking for print articles as well, and we've already establish that an editor with Japanese language skills is needed to properly source an article. However, we should not rely explicitly on that to assert notability when there are other verifiable sources which can be provided to support notability as well. Thanks AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: Information and sources found above are enough to demonstrate notability. Be nice if they could be integrated into the article, but that's not required for an AfD. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of street medic organizations

List of street medic organizations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

So this one's probably going to get me in trouble with the street medics, but I really don't think this list should stay on WP in its current state. It doesn't have any reliable sources, almost all sources are the groups' own websites, advocacy sites, and user-generated sites like Indymedia. I think a lot of the info has never been published in reliable sources. Plus a lot of the content is empty headers. I do think that any info with reliable sources could get merged back into street medic, though, and the content of this article could be put on a street medic wiki. delldot on a public computer talk 09:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. No problems here. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as I think the article can be built upon. Important subject. More to be said later when I am back in internet connection rkmlai (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - looks like a directory (with a major US slant) to me. Also, having investigated the section relevent to me (Canada), it only references a student run medic unit (QPIRG), which intrestingly (but not notably) has the same address as a 'Anarchism Study Group' both are linked to the Univ. of Concordia. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete; (1) Wikipedia is not a directory, and (2) lack of independent/reliable sources for the content. --MCB (talk) 05:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Whale tail

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

Article is largely a nonnotable neologism with few sources. It is also defined twice, which is symptomatic of a poor real world consensus about the term and thus makes it a protologism. Article was created after American Dialect Society made this their "most creative word" of 2005 (please note this is not "Word of the Year"). It thus survived a deletion debate 10 days after that news broke, but no reliable sources have been created about the word since that time. Article has also served as a dumping ground for voyeuristic and invasive images of marginal utility, as seen here. Most other images in Category:Whale tail on Commons have since been deleted for privacy and personality rights violations. Article has served as an advertisement for some guy's website for most of it's useful life and, after I cleaned up all of this, the article was reduced to three sentences. I then attempted a merger, which was disputed on the talk page, but not before this tag showed up. Article should be deleted to discourage any further violation of privacy rights, as well as for being fundamentally unencyclopedic, nonnotable and neologistic. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 08:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep the phrase is well-used and clearly notable. The article is sourced pretty well, considering its length. Note that the nominator had previously merged this article (along with Cleavage (breasts), Toe cleavage and Cleavage (buttocks)) to a new article without discussion. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 09:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• The article has three sources, one to a slang dictionary (not a source), one to the American Dialect Society and one to an inadequate source about Porsches that mentions whale tail spoilers. Somebody keeps trying to insert "whale tail.com," but this is not a source, since its claims cannot be verified and it is does not undergo editorial review. Essentially this article serves as an advertisement for that website. If these are the best sources that can be found on the subject, I doubt this article would ever be anything other than an or essay. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary ^Khukri 10:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment There's more to the article than a mere dictionary definition.-- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 10:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep Seems to be just more than a dicdef, what with the "most creative' reference. I do agree that a picture is in order, however... Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I would also suggest a merge to thong (clothing) per Edison, seems logical too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Smerge to Thong (clothing). A nickname for the appearance of part of a type of underwear when it is not adequate concealed? Seems far too reductionistic. Edison (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I would support a merge to thong. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep on the basis of the e American Dialect Society quote.DGG (talk) 05:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Too much focus upon the terminology rather than the topic so fails WP:DICDEF. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge with Thong (clothing)--NAHID 11:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep. The concept meets the notability guideline nicely. It has implications that encompass jeans, thongs and lexicology, as well as pop stars. If word has enough cultural and implications, it deserves tender loving attention, not deletion. Look at truthiness, which has gone on to become a featured article with care and attention. And, oh, BTW, I have improved the article to some extent. But, it could use a lot more help. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• It's not notable and most of the information you added either a) doesn't mention the term "whale tail" at all or b) cites an example of "whale tail" but doesn't elaborate on the term. Again, this is symptomatic of a protologism. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

When the term is discussed, the argument becomes - "Wikipedia is not a dictionary." When the impact of the term is discussed, the argument takes on the shape of - "they do not elaborate the term." Why create a legal dilemma when it can be plainly seen that this article deals with a fairly elaborate concept and has pretty good potentials? Besides, take a look at your original deletion reasons - (1) it could act as a magnet for voyeuristic images; (2) it served as an advertisement for some guys website; (3) it is just a "word of the year"; (4) when I cleaned it up, it was reduced to three sentences. It is worth mentioning that any article that has anything to do with matters sexual draws a lot of inappropriate images, so does any famous entertainer who has a fairly large fan bases (mostly copyvio stuff). Take notice that the "some guys website" was cited by the NY Times, establishing its notability. A simple "word of the year" meets the notability criterion better than those obscure schools and minor peers the Wikipedia is so full of. Finally, Mere cleaning up without any attempt at research and expansion can deprecate anything, but can not become an reason for merging or deleting an article. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Well that doesn't address the primary notability concerns, which are that there are not enough reliable sources for this article to stand on its own. Trying to argue that other stuff exists doesn't solve the notability problem inherent in this article. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per Aditya. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Ample reliable and verifiable sources have been provided to demonstrate notability. term's selection by the American Dialect Society as its "most creative word of the year" winner was covered extensively in the media. The WP:NEO claim is completely and utterly irrelevant, only surpassed in its inexcusability for deletion by supposed "privacy rights" issues. Alansohn (talk) 06:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'm sorry you feel that way, but the history of the article pretty clearly illustrates a tendency for editors to insert demeaning and degrading pictures of women in compromising positions to "illustrate" the concept. This is wrong and we should discourage any future personality rights violations through a merger into a more concrete article like "thong." Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• How will we prevent inappropriate pictures from being added to whatever article might be an appropriate merger target? The best way to deal with the issue is increased vigilance, not deletion. Alansohn (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Consolidate the articles. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I don't see the nom's assertions about lacking reliable sources as accurate. The progression of the article, the dumping ground, the slippery slope of voyeurism and invasion are not valid reasons for deletion. We cannot control who is going to masturbate to which article at any given time. the_undertow ^talk 00:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete This is a dictionary definition with some rather worthless commentary and is not in the slightest bit suitable for an encyclopedia. At the very best it could be redirected to Thong (clothing). 78.86.18.55 (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you care to explain why should a recognition by a century-old expert organization be considered ignorable? Also, why would commentaries published by some of the most notable newspapers in the world be considered worthless? And, please, explain why a cross-discipline article (i.e. fashion, linguistics and sexuality) should be directed to a fashion article? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 18:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The article contains no discussion on linguistics at all. None. A recognition that provokes a brief ha-ha mention in some media isn't particularly notable really, and is *nothing* to do with linguistics. There is barely any mention of sexuality outside of a sentence that could equally well be applied to the thong article. There is no way to make this article very much more than a WP:DICDEF and a neologism at that. Not every word that exists that has been mentioned somewhere in the press automatically becomes notable. Try taking the definition part of this to Wiktionary, and scrubbing the rest or merging itinto the other article. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No linguistics? Interesting. Then, what do you make of the study of dialects? And, by the way, quite a few of the Dialect Society's nomination from that very year that nominated Whale Tail has fairly fine articles on the Wikiepdia (including podcast, truthiness and muffin top). One of these has climbed all the way up to become a Featured Article. If your're implying the study of dialects unencyclopedic, think again (BTW, it's interesting to find that you already had questions about the highly notable expert group that nominated the word). Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 21:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Muffin top isn't an article. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 09:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The only reason it isn't an article any more, Cumulus Clouds, is because YOU went round merging various random articles the other day! Thanks for pointing out Muffin top - I'd missed reverting that one. I shall go and do so now (unless, of course, you achieved consensus before merging, in which case I'll leave it alone!)-- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 09:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The information in this article was identical to the information in Central obesity. You undid a redirect and replicated the material without explanation, so the page was protected to prevent this. You then went back to Central obesity, cropped the material out and created an unnecessary fork because you wanted a discussion when none was needed. I really don't appreciate you going through my history and undoing all my edits simply because you don't like them. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel that's what I've done. What I had intended to do was ensure that a proper consensus was achieved before articles that had already survived the AfD process were merged.-- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 09:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no study of dialects that I can see in the artice. There is a nomination from an organisation that studies dialects. Not the same thing at all. The reason I tagged the article on the society was that it made no real claim to notability at the time and was completely unreferenced. Fortunately, someone has improved it. I haven't looked at the muffin top article yet, so I couldn't make a judgement on it. The other two examples you cite have been heavily discussed both as words and as phenomena. The lack of any real encyclopedic content in this article, and the apparent lack of potential for any more, leaves the article with little worth or purpose. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

(reduced indent) Well, if the word was a linguistic phenomenon and was recognized as such by experts than it is a subject studied under that discipline. The lack of potential looks like a personal view. Did you do any research on the subject to come to that conclusion? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 22:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's difficult when somebody asks one to prove a negative. The article provides no real linguistic discussion of its subject. Surely providing some further evidence of this would be the way forward? Or at least more than a sentence or two of useful content over and above a definition? By the way, it appears that only roughly 15% of the google hits for "whale tail" (in quotes) have anything to do with this neologism. Many more are to do with the tails of whales. This is merely a remark. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to "prove a negative" until you make it an argument to advocate deletion of an article. And, well, I didn't understand your "this not about linguistics" argument at all. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 23:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as per Aditya. --Merovingian (T, C) 12:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Update I have tried to develop the article, and hopefully have been able to achieve some improvement at least. It should satisfy the criterion of existence as an article (at the very least, there should not be any question about its potential to grow further). But, it still requires a heavy copy-edit (not my strength area at all). A hand there would be highly appreciated. Thank you all. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 11:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Seeing at it has 2 meanings with history to them and sources for them. MBisanz ^talk 01:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• keep Many different sources and has been discussed by actual linguists so the general problem of neologisms does not exist. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. SorryGuy  Talk  06:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ClickStart

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

OK, there are four press references but I still think this is an advert for a non-notable product. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, weakly, not necessarily with prejudice; or stubbify. This is a tech product, but a consumer product. The problem with the current article is that the sources given do not support many of the assertions in the article, which instead contains self-laudatory description (an inventive learning tool that introduce(s) essential skills for school and basic computer literacy); the rest of the article is devoted to a feature list and supporting product list. The New York Times and USA Today stories do provide some independent third party coverage, though, so a neutral article on the subject would appear to meet the product notability guidelines. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep an obvious keep, given that it is featured in NYT, WSJ, and other national media articles. If the article needs POV improvement, improve it. DGG (talk) 01:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG; AfD is not clean-up. Benjiboi 15:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 06:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cinababi

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

Rambling and nonsensical glorified dicdef with a side helping of POV screed. A google search for "cinababi" turns up 66 results including Wikipedia. Delete as unencyclopedic NN borderline dicdef. tgies (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete blatant nonsense and WP:SOAPBOXing. Title is an ethnic slur normally written as two words. cab (talk) 08:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 08:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete absolutely. Cinababi is a slur of calling a Chinese a pig. It's an original research of a blatantly POV article. Dekisugi (talk) 10:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - OR opinion pieces with bad sources. Had this page watchlisted, but somehow missed the start of the AfD. I was going to give this section on the reference desk another day or two before I nominated this article and LALAS myself. --Onorem♠Dil 16:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 06:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bhakti Vikasa Swami

Bhakti Vikasa Swami (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable individual. Wikipedia is not for advertisements for particular gurus or swamis, it is a resource for notable individuals. Article has no independent third party sources. Does not meet the standards of Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Ism schism (talk) 08:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 08:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 08:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Individual is a non notable guru or swami. Article does not specify notabilty at all and reads like an advertisement for this particular person. There are no independent third party reliable sources at all, and no claims of notability are given. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 08:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete As per nom. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Individual is well known within Gaudiya Vaishnavism, and on an international basis within Vaishnava Hinduism. Significant as an early member of ISKCON, as a western convert to Hinduism, and as a Gaudiya Vaishnava teacher and guru. Gouranga(UK) (talk) 11:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Additional comment - Bhakti Vikas Swami has also written a number of books (see here). Although this link is commercial, it should be possible to find details of these publications in order to establish notability. Gouranga(UK) (talk) 13:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The number of books an individual writes does not establish notability. Many preachers write books. Ism schism (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I have not been able to find any independent reliable online sources on this individual. Matchups (talk) 11:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails to satisfy Wikipedia standards for notability of people. Edison (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above comments. --L. Pistachio (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was transwiki and delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Advance Wars: Days of Ruin COs

List of Advance Wars: Days of Ruin COs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is an in-universe listing of characters in the Advance Wars: Days of Ruin video game detailing, among other items, the history and fighting characteristics of each character. Putting aside the apparent lack of secondary sources (and thus general notability, this article very clearly violates the policy stating that Wikipedia is not a guide. jonny-mt 08:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Quick addendum - I neglected to mention that a merging of articles has apparently been proposed since December 2007, yet no consensus has been reached. --jonny-mt 08:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Transwiki and delete per Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/List of Advance Wars COs. This article has the same intent as the first article, and should be treated no differently.  Comandante  Talk  22:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Just like the other list, this one is very unnecessary. The topic can easily be covered within plot related sections of the main article. TTN (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:NOR and WP:N. --MrStalker ^(talk) 08:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 23:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep - Peripitus (Talk) 23:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bhaktivedanta Narayana

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

Non notable individual. Article does not make any claim to notablity at all. Wikipedia is not for advertisements for particular gurus, it is a resource for notable individuals. Article has no independent third party sources. Does not meet the standards of Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Ism schism (talk) 07:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 07:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 07:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Individual is a non notable guru. Article does not specify notabilty at all and reads like an advertisement for this particular person. There are no independent third party reliable sources at all, and no claims of notability are given. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 07:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Narayana Swami is a very well known figure within Gaudiya Vaishnavism. The article requires improvement, but anyone familiar with this area knows that he is a notable guru. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 11:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's standards do not include, "anyone familiar with this area knows that he is a notable guru." If you are familiar please point to reliable sources for references and state how this individual is notable. In its present state the article reads like a "guru advertisement". Ism schism (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Fails to satisfy Wikipedia standards for notability of people. Besides lacking notability, the article fails to maintain a neutral point of view without massive editing to remove the puffery , spam, and advertising quality, but that comment is not the basis for my deletion argument. Edison (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• KeepMy recent notability references and extensive edits should warrant retention. Honorifics removed to comply with the policy. POV statements removed. Notable.[38] Wikidas (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Article is written from subject's personal webpage. The main reference is a VNN article which is simply a link to Bhaktivedanta Narayana's personal website at [39]. This VNN article is the exact same article from the subject's personal website. This is not a Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Also, the other references only mention the subject in passing. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep If he was " Editor-in-Chief of its Hindi publications and the monthly magazine 'Sri Bhagavat Patrika' ". then he would probably be notable. As for POV and excessive puffery, I've seen a lot worse in such articles. the way to deal with these where the distinctions are unfamiliar is to look for something objective and specific. DGG (talk) 01:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment You have to admit that, as you stated, "if he was," seems to be the problem here. Where are the references to back up these claims? POV is not the main issue, it is notability of people, Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. I do not see any evidence in the article to confer notability. This article is not written to show notability, nor have its sources provided third party independent references to prove otherwise. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 06:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Very Notable On October 31, 2003 in the Vraja village of Uchagaon (Lalita-sakhi's village), Vrajacarya Pith and the World Religious Parliament in Delhi jointly awarded Parama-pujyapada Srila Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja the title "Yuga Acarya".The person has received significant recognized awards or honors.)(Syama (talk) 04:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Which is extremely regrettable, because I really like it a lot! I don't want to delete it... can you all just change your mind, please? Nevermind. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Junior officer's protection association

Junior officer's protection association (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

The author claims that this is an "huge organization with thousands of members". But the number of Google hits suggests not. The clue may be at the bottom of this page which refers to it as a "joke Association". Even if the author was to be honest and describe it as a running joke, then I still doubt whether it would be notable. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Reeks of things made up in the mess one day, and may even have been an attempt to use Wikipedia as a host in starting a community by this name, if it isn't outright propaganda. --Dhartung | Talk 08:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Unsourced and looks like propaganda. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 09:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - not something made up by the author - it's military slang for junior officers looking out for each other, like "Spec4 mafia" in the army. We used it when I was a junior officer. But nonetheless not worthy of an article, maybe a blurb on some page about military jargon. It's not an organization, confederation, or anything like that; just a running joke in the military, like West Point Protection Agency/Association.--Nobunaga24 (talk) 09:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• keep - Well I can assure you this is not made up, nor is it propaganda. There is no website because the organization has no central governance. Each command, ship, squadron, etc has a JOPA, which exists as a bond between the junior officers. The org exists in varying degrees. One command's members may be heavily active in it, using it as a network within the command to receive training and support members at another command may never do anything with it at all. For example, on my ship we had a JOPA email list which we all used actively to contact one another, we had JOPA lunches, JOPA bbq's, JOPA training held by senior members, the list goes on. The fact that there is no website does not disprove it's existence. Try a google search for "JOPA patch" and you will find companies that produce squadron/ship/unit patches who also produce a patch for the Junior Officer's Protection Association. Companies that work for profit would not produce a patch for an organization that does not exist. Tha article exists as an informative page to state the fact that 1) it exists, and 2) what it is, as there are many misconceptions of what it is (as evidenced by the comments thusfar written). -FFG37Navigator 206.112.75.239 (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment If so widespread, then surely someone has written about it in a reliable source somewhere? --Dhartung | Talk 21:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• keep - I also know for a fact that JOPA does exist. Although there is no "national" JOPA, the traditions are still carried out by the junior officers at individual commands. The level and types of activity of the JOPA depends on the command. At my squadron, JOPA was mostly about training, the occaisional outing, and meetings which helped keep the junior officers in the loop on new command policies and procedures. It is extremely valuable to junior officers new to the military or arriving at a new command. - Dipper Spook

198.201.23.10 (talk) 17:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Thanks for the info, Nobunaga24. Just a running joke, unverifiable. --L. Pistachio (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete If it exists, why is it not better-documented? --Wikiacc (°) 22:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete possibly an article giving the use of this inside-joke term can be written, if indeed there are some real sources, but this is not going to be helpful towards it.DGG (talk) 02:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Such an article would probably best go on a title of simply JOPA (joke). Almost every permutation of officer's/officers', protection/protective, association/agency produces a few Google hits. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Not sourced, written with non-NPOV toward senior officers, and does not better the encyclopedia. --Zharmad (talk) 04:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to narcolepsy. Coredesat 06:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Always sleeping (narcolepsy)

Always sleeping (narcolepsy) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I think this goes under WP:NEO. But I am unsure. Thats why I brought it here.  UzEE  06:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete As per nom. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy redirect to narcolepsy. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Concur with speedy redirect. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, no redirect. One either looks for "Always sleeping" (perhaps) or "Narcolepsy", but not this. Fram (talk) 10:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Smerge Could also redirect "always sleeping" to Narcolepsy. This appears to be a well-intentioned contribution from a new Wikipedian. If you search for a term,such as "always sleeping," Wikipedia invites you to create an article. It has a couple of references which do not appear to be in the article Narcolepsy which should be included there. Add the refs (Scientific American), lose the text. Edison (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect. Gimmetrow 21:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Syro Malankara Catholic

Syro Malankara Catholic (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

There are no references to uphold the claims. Therefore, this is not notable.  UzEE  06:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to Syro-Malankara Catholic Church as duplicate. Next time, nominator should search before bringing an article to AfD, especially since the article was only 8 minutes old. AfD is not for new page patrolling. • Gene93k (talk) 10:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Agree that redirect is the best option. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Syro-Malankara Catholic Church as duplicate. Yes, it's an actual Roman Catholic Particular Church which encompasses about a half million worshipers. Unless an article is blatant spam, nonsense or vandalism, an article should not be brought up for deletion within eight minutes of its creation. As WP:OSTRICH states, "A little research on a topic you are unfamiliar with will take just as much time as putting an article up for deletion." --Oakshade (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Silvaticus 3015

Silvaticus 3015 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Explicitly fails future film notability guidelines. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Maquoketa Gold

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

No evidence of any notability for this festival and trivial ghits. Travellingcari (talk) 06:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - unsourced former advertising. BusterD (talk) 14:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence that this exists, the external link is essentially dead, and seems to be advertising. Spencer^T♦C 16:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete -Unable to find verifiable sources and notability not estalished. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 19:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 06:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Old School Death Metal

Old School Death Metal (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced, original research, no useful content that isn't in the history section of the death metal article, just a lot of personal opinion in the list of notable bands and essential albums. Stormie (talk) 06:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as unverifiable and original research. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per both above. Travellingcari (talk) 06:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. "Old School Death Metal isn't known as a sub-genre of death metal", or known as anything. Delete as OR. Elrith (talk) 13:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom, entirely OR. Funeral 16:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, fails the everything test. RFerreira (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect and explain the differences in Death Metal. -RiverHockey (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • the differences are: death metal is a well-referenced article about a musical genre, and Old School Death Metal is someone's POV/OR essay. --Stormie (talk) 03:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Bearian (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bikstok Røgsystem

:Bikstok Røgsystem (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD) Also included is an article on an album by the band:

Over stok og sten (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Apparently non-notable band. No external sources seem to verify notability. Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. KurtRaschke (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, meets Wikipedia:Notability (music). Having made the Danish charts and having a record make gold are both sufficient criteria according to the guideline. The external sources are out there, only mostly in Danish. Hemmingsen 16:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Withdraw nomination of both articles Per recent citations to the articles provided by Hemmingsen. Good catch. No need to delete, article clearly shows how band is notable. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as per Hemmingsen.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 23:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 06:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Galvorn (band)

Galvorn (band) (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC. No notable sources and no label. The source in the discussion, from havenmetal, is defunct. Delete Undeath (talk) 23:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 17:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Hmm, I see that the band's entries at Encyclopeda Metallum, at MetalReactor and at Spanish Wikipedia also do not offer any third-party reliable sources and I have not found any. Delete. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - no references to demonstrate notability. Sbowers3 (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC. Funeral 17:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, non notable as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 23:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Merging is not an issue for WP:AFD, this should instead be referred to WP:EDIT. The nominators rationale is also whacky... the fact that a subject is covered across several other articles is not a criteria for deletion, and does not backup the claim that the subject is not notable. As well, when the nominator has to resort to paranoia and blatant incivility including unwarranted sockpuppet request threats, her/his arguments are diminished. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] King Harold (Shrek)

King Harold (Shrek) (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of the plots of Shrek 2 and 3, which already covers this stuff in appropriate detail. This is therefore duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 17:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. JuJube (talk) 22:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep this article is no different than the other characters. What is the use of attacking this article? Give it up! DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• This isn't a war, its a discussion about notability and references. Many articles have done this, like Master Chief (Halo), Jack Sparrow, and many others. I contend there are no references to how this character was created and such, that is the question, not how much someone hates the character. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

  "Non-notable character from a really bad movie." --nom's AFD entry for Merlin (Shrek). 216.37.86.10 (talk) 14:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You've also been asked to stop copy-pasting your AFD rationales and that AFD IS NOT CLEANUP, yet you've ignored this every single time. 216.37.86.10 (talk) 14:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Your hilarious; first of all, Shrek 3 is a really bad movie, but that is completely irrelevent to this AFD. And second, I do not copy paste my AFD rationales, that's why I don't do more of them. And third, you are wasting our time and have no argument rooted in policy for keeping this poor article, so go find something productive to do. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Oh and by the way, 216.37.86.10, are you User:Blueanode? Cause I thought he had been blocked....perhaps I should go check on this, after all, it would be just like his usual cowardly ways of attacking people behind anonymous IP's with insults and no rational argument. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess you do make enemies fast, leading to paranoia like this. Please don't waste their time with frivolous requests. To be honest, I thought Blueanode was you after he "saw the light" and then went on a deletionist rampage with your exact same posting style. Obviously I was mistaken, but at least I did not waste their time with a checkuser request, because it was unsubstantiated. Much like your claim. If you want me blocked for saying that AFD is not cleanup, you should have the other 20 people (admins included) that have said this out of your sight as well. 216.37.86.10 (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Would a downsize, merge, and redirect to List of fairy tale characters in Shrek be an option? -- saberwyn 06:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge. Ignoring the lack of civility on both sides so far, I agree with Saberwyn; King Harold is essentially the Frog Prince, a classic fairytale character, as he appears in Shrek. He lacks any independent notability to support an article on his own but would fit nicely in that list article. --Ig8887 (talk) 09:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Astrotrain (talk) 13:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Please be aware that AfD is not a vote. Your position is meaningless without an accompanying argument. --L. Pistachio (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete or merge The Shrek character does not have independent notability, and the article is written entirely in-universe. --L. Pistachio (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - major supporting character in two hit movies. Could use more reliable sources, and less original research, though. Bearian (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

But currently, there are no reliable sources at all, so there is no evidence of notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 06:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Northern Cancer Research Foundation- Northwest Region

Northern Cancer Research Foundation- Northwest Region (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

Orphaned redirect; not likely to ever be used vıdıoman 21:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• delete per nom. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 23:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete. Why is this still being discussed? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 06:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Musical

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

• Delete - An album by Nina Sky which has no release date, no officially confirmed tracks and more importantly no sources. Surfer-boy94 (talk) 01:46, 01 February 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL; no verifiable info yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 06:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete As per TenpoundHammer. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

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