Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 February 18

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

The result was

[edit] Earliest documented people

Deleted. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 15:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Earliest documented people (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete. I appreciate the good intentions behind this article, however there are IMO serious doubts that this could ever be a valid entry free of original research and arbitrary inclusion criteria. Who decides, whether (a) the person is historical and (b) they are the earliest-known? Does the inscription have to be contemporaneous with the person, or are semi-legendary lists (that might be mythologised actual rulers) such as in Sumerian ones able to be included? Sure, there are references in the article but I don't think these actually make the explicit claim intended by this article. Perhaps demonstrating the inherent problems, the article itself is self-contradictory- it claims that the entries are "the earliest people that are definitively known to have existed", but then immediately follows with "Many of the dates and/or people here are disputed". If they are held to have definitively existed, then there should be no dispute. At least two to three of those listed have notes in their own articles pointing to some historicity dispute, and the chronology of the whole period is hardly settled. The articles for the first two in the list both make the claim, based on this article, that 'if they had existed they would have been the earliest documented person'- but which, then, is it? The article on Scorpion I describes an inscription which mentions yet another contemporary protodynastic ruler, casting further doubt on the effectiveness of the attempted list. If some degree of disputed dates/historicity is allowed, then how would you determine what that latitude is, other than by an arbitrary and OR decision on the part of some editor..? The article misleads as it stands, and don't see how it can validly live up to what it attempts to do. cjllw ʘ TALK 00:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. I don't agree with the nom's reasoning; even if a candidate for inclusion on the list is disputed, all that is needed is a reputable source and a discussion in the article of controversy. That in itself doesn't mean the article should be deleted. However, as of now it doesn't seem any sources do exist to provide the information this article seeks to provide: namely who are the "earliest documented people." As such, any attempt to synthesize existing articles would seem to break WP:OR. JFlav (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete concur with JFlav that the sources to document the claims that these people are indeed the "earliest documented people" (as opposed to merely being "documented people" from early times) are missing. JJL (talk) 22:59, 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. Chetblong^{T C} 04:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gene Matlock

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

Non-notable academic. Is only known as fringe historian with theories that don't seem to have any references from reliable sources. No significant coverage of the subject or his theories by reliable sources unaffiliated with the subject. Optigan13 (talk) 23:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom. WP:FRINGE writ large. Also, is it just me, or is there a mighty suspicious 1st-person "I" in there? Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 23:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

  Comment That "I" is actually just odd because it is from a lengthy quote without much to set it off in the paragraph it appears in. I've set if off using a quote template, which still looks odd to me. As for the fringe theory part, I tend to agree, since none of the hits in my searches came back with anything reliable. The only reliable one is from the same Skeptical Enquirer article. Searches for Google-Web, and Google-Scholar -Optigan13 (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Fringe and per extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary proof. Nothing in notability either. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 07:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete weird fringe, suspect publishers. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC).
• Delete. Not notable at all in real life, and his flakiness seems to have attracted only a little attention from other flakes. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable retired high-school teacher with some strange ideas about history. All the books appear to be self-published, the "magazine" article seems to be a blog; the one reliable source that mentions him does so in passing in an article on fringe historians who make outrageous claims without evidence. I'm not sure a single article qualifies him as a notable fringe historian, and so he remains simply a fringe historian without peer-reviewed publications. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 18:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• delete per RJC and nom. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:12, 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 -Djsasso (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gruenrekorder

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

I've been waiting for quite a while for this article to provide some claims of notability, but it hasn't done so. There are no reliable sources as to its notability, despite a request for some for a while now, so it's time to get some feedback here. Corvus cornix_talk 23:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom. It's basically lain fallow since the day the creator made it, so I'm 99% certain it's just another lame "stub, link and abandon" promotional tool. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 23:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —86.149.53.196 (talk) 10:24, 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 Delete. Chetblong^{T C} 05:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dave Belser

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

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC. Gary King (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Concur with nom. No albums, no album credits, no record label = no notability. And it doesn't matter who his brother is. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 23:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. May be WP:OR -- the only sources given are an unpublished interview and the subject's own website. Pburka (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Clearly a studio musician, and very few studio musicians meet WP:MUSIC. SingCal 20:11, 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 speedy delete per A7 criteria. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 05:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infiscale

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

Non-notable per WP:ORG. Gary King (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete, as non-notable and promotional. Yet another example of the "stub, link and abandon" underhanded promotional strategy. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 23:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. This article is nothing but advertising with no good intent. Person(s) with the same user name as the creator of this article have comment spammed multiple websites regarding supercomputers and Linux in general. There is no doubt this is what has happened here. Rilak (talk) 07:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• SPEEDY DELETE, obvious spam. Shouldn't have even made it to the AfD.--Sallicio 04:40, 26 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. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nancy scibilia

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

Non-notable per WP:BIO. Gary King (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Concur with nom, delete -- Utterly non-notable per both WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 23:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete She's an agent. OK. NN. Bearian (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• delete I've cleaned up the article and categorized it but I can't find anything else indicating notability and the article itself doen't make any claim of notability. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:11, 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. Discussion below indicates that the subject passes the notability requirements for bands. However, the relevant information should be added to the article in a timely fashion to prevent a second AfD nomination. Non-admin close. --jonny-mt 06:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reaper (band)

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

Non-notable musical group per WP:MUSIC Gary King (talk) 23:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This project is from the same musician who created NamNamBulu and Frozen Plasma, both of which have established Wiki articles. If anything, it's been the most successful thing he's done. The project's last release topped the DAC (German Alternative Chart), indicating it is a significant player in it's genre. They also supported both Combichrist and Suicide Commando on tour - both of these act are major draws in their own right. Jonnyeol (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep - It seems this band's second album is fairly popular (at least in-scene anyway); AMG has a profile of it and Amazon, Buy.com and Barnes & Noble all sell it. Not too good on ghits, but all things considered I'm willing to accept this as meeting WP:MUSIC if Jonnyeol agrees to prove it through the page. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 00:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I have added a link to prove the recent placing of the bands EP at the Top of the Deutsche_Alternative_Charts (the DAC site itself doesn't give the option to look at old charts, but there's plenty of evidence out there that the band made it to the top). Topping the DAC should fulfill WP:MUSIC. Jonnyeol (talk) 08:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as per Jonnyeol.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 13:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• COMMENT TO Jonnyeol: Show the notability link within the article. As the article stands it is violation of WP:N, WP:BAND, and lacks any references or third party citations. Take what you have written here and transfer it to the article (with references, of course) before it gets deleted. We all have to understand that the author of an article bears burden of proof for notability and references, not the reader. Cheers!--Sallicio 04:55, 26 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. There appears to be agreement on notability following discussion. Issue of renaming/moving not addressed in this closing. Shirahadasha (talk) 06:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nancy Rosalie Milio, Ph.D.

Nancy Rosalie Milio, Ph.D. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable per WP:BIO. Has done nothing remarkable. Gary King (talk) 23:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Fails WP:BIO. Nothing in there to assert notability. --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 02:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable scholar. See Google Scholar and 9226 Kercheval; the storefront that did not burn and Nutrition policy for food-rich countries : a strategic analysis. --Eastmain (talk) 02:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 02:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - most profs write papers and even books. Doesn't seem notable. Is there any evidence that her works were notable? Sbowers3 (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete definitely non notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC).
• Keep and move to correct title (Nancy Milio). Regarded as a pioneer and leader in her field, satisfying at least criteria 1,2,4 and 5 of WP:PROF. [1] [2] [3] [4] Phil Bridger (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • If she is "regarded as a pioneer and leader in her field" then would you please add references to the article to verify that fact? Right now there aren't any references to verify anything. I looked through your links. The oxfordjournals cite looks good but I did not easily find millio's name in any of the google book cites. E.g. in your first cite, Milio is not an editor, nor a contributor. Can you identify just where and how she is connected to those books? More important would be to do that in the article than on this AFD page. Sbowers3 (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Reply. Look at those links again. They are not to books where she is editor or contributor - they are books which write about her as the originator of ideas which have been taken up by the World Health Organisation. I don't know how you found it hard to find her name - I linked directly to relevant pages and Google helpfully highlights her name in yellow for you. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Keep. I removed a sentence stolen from this source, but with or without it I see no claim of notability in the present article. But her work is reasonably well cited on Google scholar, and this review seems to satisfy the primary requirement of WP:BIO that there be secondary sources about the subject. The article should be expanded to include this and similar information about her. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep - significant mentions in multiple reliable independent sources demonstrate notability within field. This one [5] describes one of her books as "seminal" and seems to confirm that she is important within her field. Wikidemo (talk) 02:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• keep I think there is enough evidence about her public role for notability.DGG (talk) 06:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and move per Phil Bridger et al. Bearian (talk) 20:49, 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. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I Want Pussy

I Want Pussy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable song that fails WP:MUSIC. The article consists mainly of original research and whatever real information there is can easily be merged. Most GHits are either references to this article or simple track listings. So, delete per WP:MUSIC and WP:OR. EconomicsGuy (talk) 08:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. If this track was released as a single it might be a different story. (jarbarf) (talk) 08:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   jj137 (talk) 22:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:OR. JFlav (talk) 02:55, 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 by User:Anthony Appleyard under WP:CSD#A7 (non-admin closure). EJF (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marys dog

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

No notability for this musical group, per WP:MUSIC Gary King (talk) 22:49, 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 Speedy delete by User:KF (non-admin closure). EJF (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Severed crotch

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

Non-notable musical group, per WP:MUSIC Gary King (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deleted. <KF> 22:45, 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.--Kubigula (talk) 04:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] S3 Graphics Chrome 4

S3 Graphics Chrome 4 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

A chipset? Anyways, seems like it doesn't need its own article. Not notable enough. Gary King (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Then you had better remove all the intel and NVIDIA links as they are also not notable enough. I agree it needs a lot more detail - and should be written from more of an engineering view ie: What is this device, why is it different and how does it work The Last Heretic (talk) 23:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Currently article seems to fall under Wikipedia:CSD#A1, as article has currently no context, just technical specifications that appear to be copied and pasted. Article doesn't cite any refernces, or even name how the S3 Graphics Chrome 4 relates to the specifications given. -Optigan13 (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. No coherent content. AndyJones (talk) 13:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - as noted above, it provides no context, and is just an untintelligble spec dump. Also fails to assert any notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:37, 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.--Kubigula (talk) 04:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My Epsilon

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

Not a notable band, per WP:MUSIC Gary King (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - from what can be seen in the article, there has been no album, no touring. And there are no reliable sources either. -- Whpq (talk) 17:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Axl (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 13:40, 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. Chetblong^{T C} 04:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Pacheco

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

Contested prod. Fails WP:BIO#Athletes as he has never played in a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I see no reason for an exception for this player. John Hayes^talk 23:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman (talk) 00:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete also per nom. Eddie6705 (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Struway2 (talk) 09:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. BanRay 11:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails WP:ATHLETE. The article is also in violation of WP:CRYSTAL. robwingfield ^«T•C» 09:34, 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.--Kubigula (talk) 04:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Youth and Music Development Trust

Youth and Music Development Trust (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable per WP:ORG. There is no information available on what the Trust has done, etc. Gary King (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: per WP:ORG, this is a huge verifiability problem. --Hetar 22:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - unable to find any reliable sources. Their website is currently suspended. -- Whpq (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Google gives nothing that would demonstrate notability of the group, mostly just mirrors of this article —αlεx•mullεr 10:16, 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. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 05:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BioHazard

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

Non-notable robot. Fails WP:N, WP:V for having no reliable independent third-party sources, and WP:NOR for appearing to be entirely original research, WP:NPOV for being written like a magazine article, with statements like "It was the most successful robot in the heavyweight division of BattleBots" and other sentences being used for dramatic effect. Chardish (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Evidently notable. The rest is cleanup which is not a matter for AFD. Colonel Warden (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Did actually win two (or so. Memory's a little foggy since show was canceled) heavyweight championships on a N show (don't know how it helps with notability, but several toys of the robot were produced by Jakks Pacific early in this decade). Does need heavy cleanup, but that's no reason to bring this to AFD. Doc Strange (talk) 07:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Please note that if we're trying to establish notability, we need to determine if there's independent notability, i.e. notability independent of the parent TV show. The only way that a not-independently-notable topic deserves its own article is if there is enough verifiable information on the topic to warrant it. Chardish (talk) 08:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Grinding the TV show axe is currently forbidden by ArbCom. In any case, the robot is frequently cited as a champion in a sport which transcends the particular show/format. C.f. Robot Wars Colonel Warden (talk) 11:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Huh? What's this ArbCom ruling and how did I violate it? - Chardish (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom is mostly referring to a few new proposed notability guidelines like WP:EPISODE, and others that will define what Wikipedia considers notable for television characters. You can read about it here Doc Strange (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh. I see this article as being about a non-notable robot that happened to be featured on a short-lived television series and not about a "television character." - Chardish (talk) 16:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

BattleBots was not short lived (5 seasons on a major cable television network) also, the robot was a champion on the show (4 times) more times than any other robot. That gives it some notability, and just because the show is over does not mean that the robot is no longer notable. Notability never expires. Doc Strange (talk)19:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. If article survives Afd, "For other uses, see Biohazard (disambiguation)" should be added to article. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment isn't this the typography of Resident Evil in Japan? 132.205.44.5 (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the game Resident Evil is known as Biohazard in Japan. But it has no bearing in this article or its AFD nom. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep (provisionally), needs references and third-party citations. The author must provide this. It is not the responsibility of the reader. --Sallicio 05:22, 26 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 Hassocks. Deletion supported, but content has already been merged.--Kubigula (talk) 04:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hassocks Golf Club

Hassocks Golf Club (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable per WP:ORG. A typical golf course, with nothing notable about it. Gary King (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• this seems to indicate some notability, but I don't have the book, and I don't know if the coverage amounts to "extensive" or that the few lines from the search result is all there is. I've been looking for other good sources, but haven't found any yet. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't find any decent sources beyond the book found by Martijn. The blurb on that book says that it covers 2500 golf courses in 600 pages, so it seems that this is probably just a directory entry rather than significant coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above and WP:CORP. No non-trivial coverage. Bearian (talk) 20:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• As the author on reflection I probably agree with you all. Delete and I'll merge the info into Hassocks. Paste (talk) 17:29, 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. Non-notable, WP:BLP1E. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bassam Khalaf

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

Not notable, per WP:BIO. Only recognition is a single incident. Gary King (talk) 22:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BLP1E. Find sources: Bassam Khalaf — news, books, scholar; most of the GNews hits are from 15-17 July, 2005 (the Daily Times and AccessMyLibrary show the wrong dates on the results page). The only later hits are trivial mentions from a few months later, like [6][7][8]. Searching in Arabic doesn't seem to give anything better [9], just the same level/type of coverage seen in the English press [10]. cab (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator and per the research by cab. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:28, 25 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 02:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] R. A. L. Fell

R. A. L. Fell (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per WP:BIO. The award that this person apparently won does not seem to exist, or is not very notable. Gary King (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

comment - It's a Cantabrigian thing. I believe nowadays it's called the Prince Consort and Thirlwall Prize for Historical Research: http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2007-08/special/06/86.html etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Gotcha. Is that enough to assert notability...? Gary King (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • reply - I dunno: it's an annual prize, apparently. A Cantabrigian and/or a British historian (I'm neither, being U.S. at a public university) would know better than I what the prestige is, if any. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The award is immaterial; if Wikipedians don't like the information, it can be removed. The important thing is the paper, which to date is the most important item written on the Flaminia (in English, at any rate); the eminent co-author tips you off to it. His book is still considered of value as well. Certainly more noteworthy than all those Pokemon cards. Bill (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Didn't quite realize this is a vote. Keep, of course. The Thirlwall Prize — ample information available via Google — is an annual prize awarded to a recent Cambridge grad for original research. The winners of the Thirlwall have occasionally gone on to significant success in their field. It's still being awarded. Bill (talk) 11:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep based on the award and Bill's info on the Flamina paper. Edward321 (talk) 01:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Could do with some cleaning up, but otherwise seems OK. Johnfos (talk) 04:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep this odd article. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC).
• Keep. Regardless of the award, appears to qualify as notable by at least one of the academic notability criteria ("has published a significant and well-known academic work"). EALacey (talk) 22:57, 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. References provided in the discussion satisfy WP:BIO. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gill Pyrah

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

Does not meet notability per WP:BIO. Gary King (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• weak Delete or redirect if possible. Nearly notable... but not Victuallers (talk) 10:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. She has presented Midweek, Top Gear and Gardeners' Question Time which are all high-profile national broadcasts. In particular Gardeners' Question Time is one of BBC Radio's flagship programmes which has been broadcast weekly for 60 years - the BBC wouldn't let nobodies present it. Also The Guardian condiders her to be a household name. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree entirely with Phil Bridger. It needs someone to fill the article out. But notable enough certainly. Jagdfeld (talk) 22:16, 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 keep per notability standards. —Moondyne 15:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ruwin Peiris

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

I don't think that the athlete's achievements are notable enough, per WP:BIO. Gary King (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. The article states that he "has made over 6000 runs in Sri Lankan domestic cricket with 10 hundreds. " --Eastmain (talk) 02:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 02:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 02:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep If I understand the info on cricket correctly, the subject has played at the highest level of the sport and thus is notable. Edward321 (talk) 02:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per notability standards at WP:CRIN. —Moondyne 02:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Not just a first-class cricketer, which is notable in itself, but a particularly experienced and notable one. Candidate for speedy keep. Johnlp (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:BIO, section on Athletes. Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep Article clearly demonstrates notability, per WP:BIO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew nixon (talk • contribs) 11:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy keep per Stephen Turner. Multiple reliable sources are available asserting his notability - most notably this. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:00, 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. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Manaism

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

I'm not sure if this is real. Looks dubious. Alksub (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete for having no reliable sources, appearing to have been made up one day. When google hit #1 is a stub article on Wikipedia, it's a good bet that the topic lacks notability, too. - Chardish (talk) 22:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. If this is a hoax then it's a pretty elaborate one. The hoaxers must have gone to the trouble to publish 154 books and 31 scholarly articles over the last 90 years. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per the sources cited by Phil Bridger. The The American Journal of Psychology article alone is quite convincing.--Kubigula (talk) 04:36, 25 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 Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Motorola A830

Motorola A830 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article was PROD-tagged, however I am listing at AfD to gain consensus. I have no real position on whether this article should be kept, but as the first 3G cellphone by Motorola it may be notable. This Google News archive search has 182 results. EJF (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - there are way too many models of mobile phones to have a page for each individual model. I could see an exception being made for very notable models, but this isn't it. - Chardish (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Adequate notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 03:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Practically all of the items in the linked search are either articles derived from company press releases, or commercial announcements regarding the sale of the phone. -- Mikeblas (talk) 04:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The weasel words practically all make your comment worthless as only two sources are required to establish notability. If we look at just one of the hits I provided, we see that this phone won a award for being exceptionally ugly and was reported as such by the BBC no less. This is good evidence of notability and is also not promotional. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep per notable ugliness (which I've added to the article). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, run-of-the mill product. Too few substantial secondary sources to craft an article that's not itself a review or an advert. -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: the "ugliness reference" not withstanding, everything else prior to that seems to violate WP:OR. At BEST, it should be merged into something else.--Sallicio 05:50, 26 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 13:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Boyd

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

This person has not been involved in enough pornographic materials, per WP:BIO. Gary King (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Hmmmm. You could say the same thing about Mahatma Gandhi, Winston Churchill, Joan of Arc...  :-) AndyJones (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: I suspect the nom meant "per WP:PORNBIO" :) And would you really want to see Gandhi in porn? <shudder>. Anyway, delete per revised nom. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: (per the unreferenced Original Research), subject fails notability of pornographic actors.--Sallicio 05:57, 26 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 Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] M. S. Ramarao

M. S. Ramarao (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable Indian musician, per WP:MUSIC Gary King (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Also speleed as "Rama Rao". Seems to have a street named after him somewhere? [11] cab (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. IP user 122.164.184.104 posted this on the talk page. It belongs here:

I disagree with the deletion request. MS Rama rao is quite popular in Andhra Pradesh. His telugu translations of "Hanuman Chalisa" and "Sundara Kanda" are popular. He programs were often featured in Hyderabad Dooradarshan (TV) . I believe there is a street in Chikkadpalli,Secundrabad named after him

I think that counts as a keep. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Streets don't get named after non-notable people.[12] Phil Bridger (talk) 11:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete being well liked and respected or even important are not factors in determining notability. Even boring, unhelpful, and utterly disliked people can be notable. All that is required is to meet the requirements of N, V, and RS, and have enough encyclopedic content to create an NPOV article. This article lacks all that. We have never accepted as criteria for notability the naming of a public place or structure after a person. Most people who have a street named after them will also meet the criteria I mentioned. But if they don't, then they aren't notable. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, per the single reference holds WP criteria for notability. Although, when writing about foreign notable figures (that most on the English Wiki have never heard of) we should probably be more diligent in providing proof of notability. A single reference of a (relatively) unknown foreign notable figure is asking for an AfD nom.--Sallicio 06:05, 26 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 02:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mahmoud Khatami

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

I don't think this seems very notable? per WP:BIO. The whole thing seems to be one big advertisement for this person's works. Gary King (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep. The article says he is best known for ontetic philosophy, but when I search for "ontetic" in Google scholar I see only one article, his. So I find that part completely unconvincing. But if he's publishing in a language other than English it may be harder to uncover the impact of his work, and "Fellow of Iran’s Academy of the Arts" may be enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 23:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I have tagged the article as needing attention from an expert in philosophy. Membership in a national academy such as Iranian Academy of the Arts demonstrates notability. The number of regular members in the academy is limited to 30, so it's quite an exclusive group. I would like to see more biographical articles about past and present members of academies such as the Royal Society. --Eastmain (talk) 02:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep On the basis of his publications; He's listed as a "Fellow" of the Academy--the WP article on it does not indicate what the meaning of that status may be, as it doesn't mention that classification of member at all. I cannot get the their web site to work .[13] I suspect it does mean full member, but i cannot verify.07:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 07:10, 20 February 2008
• Keep; He is a prominent professor at University of Tehran. --Mohsens (talk) 16:19, 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 02:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alfred de Bougy

Alfred de Bougy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This poet's poetic works are not significant per WP:BIO. Gary King (talk) 21:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Do realize that a 19th century French poet may not have a huge presence on the internet. I'm inclined to err on the side of keep, but I'd love it if a specialist in French lit could chime in. Zagalejo^^^ 23:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep While it is difficult to find English sources for this vastly pre-internet person, the French works mentioned on the page indicate this man's works were still being published over a centruy after his death, which seems to indicate notability. Edward321 (talk) 02:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - it can be expanded with some info from other languages, but the fact that his work is still in publication means he's probably notable. matt91486 (talk) 06:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Pretty obviously notable per the number of books which write about him. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:34, 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.--Kubigula (talk) 04:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Irish Pubs of Tucson

Irish Pubs of Tucson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic directory list of non-notable businesses. Contested prod. Fabrictramp (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT#DIR. --Dhartung | Talk 09:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - the article is essentially a directory -- Whpq (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - unless there is something provably notable about this group of businesses. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 22:33, 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. Chetblong^{T C} 04:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hermann Park/Rice University Station

Hermann Park/Rice University Station (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable per WP:NPT. Unless we are going to have an article for every station in this metro line? Gary King (talk) 21:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• That seems to be the intent; someone's got "succession boxes" so that you can vicariously take a trip "on the Red Line" through Houston. Sorry, stops on a train or a bus line are not inherently notable. Delete This is redundant to [14], and should be merged back into that. Mandsford (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. We DO have an article for every station on this metro line. I believe that there is a consensus that subway stations are notable (Category:London Underground stations, List of New York City Subway stations). Why should this be treated differently? Pburka (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. As Pburka points out, all subway stations and railway stations are notable. --Eastmain (talk) 21:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Ah, alright, I wasn't aware there was already a consensus made on that. Gary King (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Not redundant with list. Independently noteworthy. Fg2 (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Independently notable as a standalone article. Alansohn (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - all subway stations and railway stations are notable. I would also like to point out that the Quoted WP:NPT was created on Feb 3rd 2008, with contributions from the Nom. No Discussion or consensus has been reached on this new document as far as I can see. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 22:43, 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 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Jackson (broadcaster)

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

Non notable radio personality. Mr Senseless (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Cursory searches don't show that this subject passes WP:BIO. Sancho 21:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete This is what they call the sin of pride. If you're a radio station manager, write an article about the station itself, instead of posting your biography. That is, unless the slogan is "LIFE 100.3, managed by Scott Jackson!" Mandsford (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. This article contained several phrases (now removed) that were taken from [15]. Even though the rest of it isn't word-for-word, I still think this is a copyright violation since the paragraph-by-paragraph structure has been taken without permission. (I'm assuming that there has been enough creative content used without permission to constitute a copyright violation.) Sancho 21:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - Copyvio Mr Senseless (talk) 23:38, 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 keep. John254 02:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WBCH-FM

WBCH-FM (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not really notable, is it? Per WP:MEDIA Gary King (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Generally, radio stations licensed by the FCC are considered inherently notable, primarily to address that type of "small town radio stations don't count" argument. Mandsford (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Ah, okay, makes sense. Gary King (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Mandsford--Rtphokie (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Mandsford. JPG-GR (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per broad consensus on WP:Inherent notability of FCC-licensed radio and television stations. Alansohn (talk) 01:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Mandsford and Alansohn. Truthanado (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment don't you mean the WP:NME essay, not WP:MEDIA? Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:02, 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 per WP:HEY, but move and clean up. Bearian (talk) 00:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dr Michael Frogley

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

Has done nothing notable. Per WP:BIO. Gary King (talk) 21:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. No assertion of notability. Pburka (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Come back when you win an award. Mandsford (talk) 21:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep. His research was deemed newsworthy by The Telegraph: [16]. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable so far. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC).
• Weak keep 20 major papers in his subject, most in in the best journals. Mostc ited one , "Buffered tree population changes in a quaternary refugium: Evolutionary implications" in Science (magazine) v: 297 (5589) 2044-2047 (2002), cited 69 times, which is very good for this very narrow specialty. I think it qualifies as a leader in his field. DGG (talk) 06:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Times Cited: 69

• Keep per David Eppstein and DGG, though this evidence of notability should be incorporated into article. Seems to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (academics). I particularly note the suggestion of innovation in the Telegraph article, where it is indicated that he and his colleagues have unveiled "a new approach". --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I've added David Eppstein's find. If the article is retained, it will, of course, need to be moved to Michael Frogley. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:52, 25 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 TexasAndroid. Non-admin closure. Icestorm815 • Talk 05:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Wrong Object

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

No professional charting, no professional coverage per WP:MUSIC. Gary King (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as a copyvio of their web page. So tagged. -- Whpq (talk) 17:52, 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. Fram (talk) 14:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Swathi

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

I'm on the fence on this one, but I don't think it would be considered notable. Per WP:BIO. Gary King (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Does not establish notability. Has been in article space for more than a year, and remained as an unsourced stub of couple of lines. Too little context. - KNM ^Talk 01:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• keep. Google news has fairly frequent passing mention in the film pages of The Hindu (didn't copy the link - but anyone can check easily enough), and there's the odd dedicated mention, such as this. She's been a supporting actress in several notable films, and leading lady in one notable film and in a series of flops that were supposed to make her a "star" but didn't. I reckon that's enough to make her worth keeping. --Paularblaster (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as the article itself says "she did not make it big". No reliable sources with non-trivial mentions. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, quickly. Besides the fact there is no attempt at referencing notability, the author eludes that the subject is non-notable. Suggest the attached non-notable films be deleted as well. --Sallicio 06:10, 26 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Herb Pearson

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

Non-notable; no information found when doing a search. Per WP:BIO. Gary King (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Conditional keep if a reference can be found. Pburka (talk) 21:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Jpeeling has added references. Pburka (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete if one can't. This may have been intended as a memorial, and Wikipedia is not a memorial. Mandsford (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep References have been added, and since he played his sport at the professional level he is notable. Edward321 (talk) 03:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. --Jpeeling (talk) 10:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Conditional Keep - needs to state in the article that he is a first-class cricketer. Andrew nixon (talk) 11:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:BIO (section on Athletes) but article needs to make notability clear. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Played in 30 first-class matches, the highest representative level of competition before Test cricket. —Moondyne 10:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note. I have now stated explicitly in the article that he played first-class cricket. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:51, 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. Gary King (talk) 05:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pál Balkay

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

No real information can be found on this person; the person's artwork is the primary result when searching. Per WP:BIO. Gary King (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm gobsmacked by this afd nomination. Since when was google the yoda on knowledge?. I bet there are even many books on him in Hungarian, let alone tens of paintings in various major galleries. He has worked on many of the major cathedrals and churches in various towns in Hungary. oh but I forgot, wikipedia should remain systematically biased and base the construction of the encyclopedia on the United States. Why not target an article on the list of Pokemon or various childish lists rather than an article which is encyclopedic? A very strange selection for a deletion I must admit. There are several images of his paintings in the commons but he was aslo a noted sculptor and engraver. Its a stub yes and there doesn't appear to be much web info on him but even as it is I think it is worth it. I;m certain it could be expanded if somebody could find a book or something about Hungarian art. This page lists Pal Balkay under Pablo Picasso in an A-Z list of the top painters. Unfortunately that site they haven't got any reproductions of his paintings, but I seriously doubt he would be listed after Picasso if he was some amateur. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep per Blofeld of SPECTRE. EJF (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 21:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - The subject's work is clearly notable, as per the nominator's own statement. Given the notability of that work, and the fact that the article, even in its current state, does have biographical content, indicates that the subject and artwork combination of content is notable enough for an article based on the existing available evidence. It is of course very likely that further evidence is available, as per the above, but the notability of the artist/art combination, which is what the content deals with, is clearly notable enough for at least a single article. John Carter (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Important enough to be in reference works about artists. I don't get the comment about "the person's artwork is the primary result when searching". Mandsford (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Represented in the Hungarian national gallery, as can be seen from a search on that site. By the way, Google is much more successful searching for him using the Hungarian name order Balkay Pál than the name order used here: [17]. Also, a few hits in Google books. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep he seems to be notable (and Blofeld said it perfectly).   jj137 (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strongest keep - per above. I can't believe.. Shahid • ^Talk2me 04:41, 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 Delete -Djsasso (talk) 23:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Xeno Project

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

Not a notable gaming mod. Per WP:FICTION Gary King (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable, unsourced, pet project. - Chardish (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - the only web results I could find were essentially download links. No reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I've originally added it to the List of Half-Life mods simply because it was mentioned in the article about the game it is based on, Half-Life. At a later time it was discussed that the mods in this list should have their own article, so I created one for The Xeno Project, too. However I forgot to link these articles back to the Half-Life article which I've done now. I have also added more reviews, do at least some of these count as reliable sources? --Pizzahut2 (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Added references. --Pizzahut2 (talk) 11:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Added real-world impact as well so it doesn't fall under WP:FICTION. --Pizzahut2 (talk) 21:07, 25 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 until band can be clearly demonstrated to meet the criteria at WP:MUSIC. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wait For Green

Wait For Green (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Local band; may be up-and-coming, but doesn't seem to have made it to the level of WP:MUSIC yet. Jfire (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - they've only attracted local interest. They do appear to be going places but currently do not meet any of the criteria for inclusion per WP:MUSIC. -- Whpq (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 13:42, 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 snowball delete. Acalamari 23:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Kubiak

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

Non-notable per WP:BIO. Gary King (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete A7 --L. Pistachio (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as possible hoax/vandalism, not quite a speedy tho. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Most likely a hoax --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 21:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete It's too cute to be on Wikipedia. Go carve this into the side of a tree. Mandsford (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - hoax. Macy's123 (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete looks like a hoax to me.   jj137 (talk) 23:04, 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 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rashidul Bari

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

Non notable author. Fails WP:N. Much of the content of this article is constantly being added by the subject via anon IPs from his college and various socks. Author returns only 220+ (non-wiki, non-blogspot) google results. In his native Bangladesh, the author is not notable other than fleeting mentions in a few places. Note that, many of the ghits are not even about this author but about different persons. Also, some of the google results (even after filtering out blogspots) are self-published by the subject. --Ragib (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Apparently non notable author.--NAHID 19:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete immidiatelybecause he claims that he is a biographer of Nobel Prize winner Muhammad Yunus, but he is not. Yunus came to York College to Inaugurate York College Grameen Scholarship—on Monday, February 11 at 7pm. Bari was not invited. Please delete him. R.Ahmed, YC, CUNY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.61.20.129 (talk) 03:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: This source seems to confirm that he is the biographer of that book. This one (which includes a photo of the book cover) does also. However, there's no evidence that I can find that this book is notable. I only get 6 ghits on it, so I can't find anything helpful there. I found 77 distinct google hits on the author, but only one other came up from an apparently reliable source: it's a book review he wrote. Lacking further reliable sources to verify otherwise, he just doesn't seem to meet bio at this time. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:06, 25 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. Chetblong^{T C} 05:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Realm Fighter

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

Excessive summary of game plot and mechanics for a game that hasn't even been released. No real world context, no third party sources, edit history indicates it was created and heavily edited by interest-conflicted parties; this is basically nothing but spam. Delete. Jfire (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

And note that the article was previously deleted in 2005 for much the same reasons -- this game is vaporware. Jfire (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Nom says it all; this is an excessively detailed article on a game that isn't in any way notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong, speedy delete - no notability, recreated version of a deleted article, no sources, no out-of-universe content, no context, no verifiability, Wikipedia is not a video game guide, self-promotional spam written mostly by SPAs, do I really need to go on? - Chardish (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. This article seems to have been created as a promotion for a never-released game and was subsequently abandoned by its authors. JFlav (talk) 03:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as above, no evidence of notability Travellingcari (talk) 21:22, 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.--Kubigula (talk) 04:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barbara Vanden Bussche

Barbara Vanden Bussche (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Cadidate for Miss Earth 2008 who hasn't thus far received any significant media attention. 32 distinct Google hits for a "Miss" are peanuts[18]. One trivial mention in Google News (Dutch langauge)[19],one trivial short mention in Google News (English search)[20] only two images[21]. For the moment, she is just not notable yet... Fram (talk) 08:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SorryGuy  Talk  20:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - She is the winner of a national (actually tri-national: Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg) beauty contest. That is sufficient notability even with limited ghits. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral. I'm not sure how notable the Miss Earth pageant is, but here's the Miss Benelux site, with more photos. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep She is the first winner of Miss Benelux. The title by itself is notable since it is participated by 41 contestants from tri-national competitions: Belgium, Netherlands, and Luxembourg. The distinction of being the first Miss Benelux is remarkable enough.--Johnsoul (talk) 13:18, 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. Even the nominator says "appears to be notable?" Phil Bridgers links need to be incorporated into the article, so I'm marking this cleanup. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Meadmore

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

Appears to be notable after reading the article, but when doing a search, couldn't find any content that associates the musician with any professional media organizations. Gary King (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Nominated for top award and hit the charts. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Phil Bridger. Meets WP:MUSIC, as has evidently been nominated for a major music award. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:24, 25 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.--Kubigula (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] James McConvill

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

Subject was only notable for a single incident, and reference to this has been deleted in line with WP:BLP JQ (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not sure yet whether or not the subject is notable. However the current revision doesn't even has assert notability and is thus eligible for speedy deletion. I encourage editors to look at the history of this article. It was once much longer. Pburka (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Thank you for alerting us to the fact that this was once a longer article. I looked at the June 11 version, and I don't see anything special about this guy. Mandsford (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I see no sign even in the longer article that he can pass WP:PROF, and (from the longer article) a failed campaign to become head of a school is even less worthy of an article than a failed campaign for higher political office. Director of a think tank could conceivably be notable, if the think tank itself is, but with four ghits (one of them a Wikipedia clone) I don't think this one is. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. The expanded article now looks like it could plausibly pass WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• 'weak keep' Keep--see below if the material that was eliminated shows additional sourcing. To facilitate discussion I have restored it. DGG (talk) 06:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I re-added the material after it had been deleted, but discussion over at the BLP noticeboard convinced me that WP:BLP#Articles_about_people_notable_only_for_one_event applies here. The event is covered in Drew Fraser -a brief mention of McConvill's role might be appropriate there.JQ (talk) 08:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Changed to a definite keep--he has written at least six academic books on law, by international and Australian legal publishers, including one by Cambridge University Press This information was also deleted from the article in an earlier revision, and I have re-added it. there are also at least fifty legal articles in international and Australian journals. The earlier version did not list them properly--just gave a link to Google Scholar. I found them without the least difficult in OCLC, a free resource. He's a notable scholar, who in addition to that has reached public attention for one politicized event--so the result of the editing has been to first remove mention of the scholarship, and then remove mention of the event -- and after that, the article looks deletable. DGG (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Turns out some additional material was omitted; the fact that he received a PhD in addition to his law degree, the name of the law firm he worked for, the existence of his association with a major research center, his editorship of a major journal besides the one involved in the controversy, and a full list of the over fifty publications in legal journals. I'm still checking. The full history of the article is quite illuminating--the very first version was simultaneously a puff piece, with supplemental material to turn it into an attack on him. DGG (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per DGG. Pburka (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment While it's not exactly an AfD problem, I'd suggest a look at the history. If we have an article on McConvill, it's hard to avoid mention of the Drew Fraser article, and there's been a consistent attempt to scrub this info from the article. My view, despite the PhD and the textbook with CUP is that his former career as an academic would not amount to notability without the Fraser business. So I take the view compared to the options of (i) a puff piece and (ii) a long-runnin g edit war/BLP dispute, deletion is the appropriate course. JQ (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• keep is a major academic who would deserve an article even without the Fraser matter. I furthermore see no reason not to include the Fraser blow-up; while obviously per WP:UNDUE it should not focus on that matter it is notable and should be included. When matters get international attention it is hard to justify deleting them using BLP penumbra logic. See User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP for related issues. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:17, 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. Canley (talk) 01:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Leonard Dembo

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

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC Gary King (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. —Bláthnaid 20:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. His music is widely distributed by the notable Gallo Record Company. Pburka (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I've done some cleanup/rewriting since this nomination (removing POV, removing editorialized comments, removing copyright violating quotes, adding sources and formatting). One source I added indicates that Leonard Dembo recorded the most popular song in Zimbabwe since 1980. – jaksmata 22:01, 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 Keep nom-withdrawn. Chetblong^{T C} 05:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Chaplin

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

Autobiography. Subject does not appear to meet the criterion for notability of WP:BIO: best known work is the book claimed as the world's smallest, which does not seem to have garnered significant critical attention. Jfire (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Merge to Teeny Ted from Turnip Town. The book seems to have had a bit of coverage regarding its size, but the author isn't notable for anything else it seems. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge or delete. The best independent coverage I could find was this CBC radio piece, but it's really more about the book than the person. Can't find reliable sources showing notability for his other book or fine art work. FWIW, I've added a link to the Reuters news story about the book to the book article. --Fabrictramp (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge per above. Publisher of a book that's easily misplaced. I hear he's coming out with a large print edition of Teeny Ted, which will be as big as the head of a pin. Mandsford (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 22:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge as above, he seems to have no independent notability. Travellingcari (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Member of the Royal Canadian Academy of Arts passes WP:BIO for creative professionals: "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors". Phil Bridger (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keeep. Keep per Phil Bridger. Here are the criteria for election to the Academy: [22]. Perhaps the tiny book should be merged to the artist's article.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Agree that the Academy criteria and additional references found by Ethicoaestheticist are enough to establish notability. Nomination withdrawn. Jfire (talk) 16:24, 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. Fram (talk) 14:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer39

Peer39 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

non notable company Excariver (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Regarding notability, this company has had articles about it in Dow Jones Marketwatch, Crain Communications Inc. (Crain's New York), Globes and Jerusalem Post in print. These articles reference the notability of the company in the industry. In addition to these major news outlets, the company has been covered online extensively in industry media. To reflect this, I have edited the entry to include other verifiable external sources.Emilgray (talk) 08:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Gavin Collins (talk) 12:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, seems to have generated some limited news coverage in the field, which indicates notability of a sort. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC).
• Delete as this reads like an advertorial, and sources cited do not provide any evidence of notability: for instance, there is no evidence that this company has actually sold anything as yet.--Gavin Collins (talk) 17:10, 17 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 20:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep the Crains story is sufficient sourcing for notability.DGG (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete - what notability it has seems to be that it raised some money from notable companies. That is about all that is verifiable from the references. Is that sufficient to call it notable? Sbowers3 (talk) 23:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Raising money from notable companies doesn't make it notable, but independent reliable sources reporting that it did so does make it notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Raising money from major venture capitalists does make a company notable, if we want an encyclopedic coverage of venture finance, startup, and technology. The fact that major publications write about it, and everyone reads it and wants to know about it, seems to bear that out. That is what notability is, something being worth knowing as evidenced by significant coverage in reliable sources. I might agree that a single A round from a top or second tier VC doesn't guarantee notability, but with a second round and over $10 million raised from top tier firms, a company is more or less guaranteed to be notable. Wikidemo (talk) 01:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• delete just doesn't do it for me, words like minor papers, raises money for notable companies, advertorial, scream WP:NOTAD, look it just isnt WP:N. maybe in the future.Boomgaylove (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Note - preceding "delete" comment made by a user now indefinitely banned for disruptive editing.Wikidemo (talk) 14:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. The keepers in this case are right. The fact is this company was covered in the most respected news sources online and in print, and is referenced and cross-referenced thoroughly. Furthermore, I am full agreement with Wikidemo: when top-tier venture finance firms invest over $10 million in numerous rounds of funding, that's proof that the company is notable. For Wikipedia is to be a relevant compendium including notable startups and new technologies, it must retain entries like this.Tedklonsky (talk) 12:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep: passes WP:ORG, multiple third-party references.--Sallicio 06:19, 26 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 merge, although I don't see much useful content, so I'll default to redirect. If anyone finds more useful info, please add it at the destination page. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 22:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arlington Aircraft Company

Arlington Aircraft Company (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable company per WP:ORG Gary King (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Merge with Sisu 1A, the glider that was the company's sole product. Some reconciliation may be needed; the Sisu 1A says it was the "most competitive American sailplane" ever made, and this article says that only ten were ever made. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:MergeVote this with the glider or vice versa. --Sallicio 06:28, 26 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 remembering this isn't a vote counting exercise and weighing the votes accordingly, this article doesn't measure up to notability guidelines. It's quite possible one day the subject will meet standards for inclusion in an encylcopedia but at this point it just isn't there. Delete and if her notability takes off after Survivor, the article can be restored. Sarah 09:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alexis Jones

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

It looks like a vanity page and was started by Lexijones1 (talk · contribs). Either way, Jones fails WP:BIO and doesn't seem to have done anything of note other than Survivor and precedent shows that that usually isn't enough. A lot of the stuff on this page is rather trivial, starting a fansite, being a contestant on the Price is Right, and starting a small NN company really don't help her pass WP:N. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Disempower, aside from the TV stint, just another motivational speaker. --Dhartung | Talk 09:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Survivor: Micronesia -- Whpq (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Do not delete. This page does not fail the WP:BIO, rather it exceeds it. In fact, the assertion that it fails is a mere declaration that makes no effort to explain its reasoning. The original author cites to himself as precedent, which is clever but unavailing. The criterion for whether an article is publishable is that the person is "notable"; that is, that "she has been the subject of published, secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". One of the examples specifically described is television personalities. The subject of this article has countless devotees from previous far-reaching and popular broadcasts and she will continue to acquire more as her following grows and as the current season gains popularity. There is well-documented sources dedicated to her ambition to empower young women that is not conveyed by the rather cynical description of her as "just another motivational speaker." This is a cutting-edge quality to a young, popular TV star on which many Wikipedia reader rely. For that reason, I hope that we can agree that this young woman deserves the credit she is due. I vote she stays." -- Clamorformore (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)— Clamorformore (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • If there are "well-documented sources", how come they aren't in the article? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete unsourced vanity piece Mayalld (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete for now. If she wins or is a runner-up then it can be recreated Survivorfan101 (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete If it turns out she's actually notable we can make the page again. As it says on the page, "details are unknown". -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 04:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

DO NOT DELETE - She was voted one of the top three college newscasters in the country when she hosted Trojan Vision's most popular show for an unheard of three years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uscrob (talk • contribs) 05:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC) — Uscrob (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete. Nothing that demonstrates she has achieved notability yet. —C.Fred (talk) 05:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

DO NOT DELETE because an entire dorm of students at USC was so dedicated to Alexis' sportcast that they petitioned to make her the honorary mascot for USC's 2006 football home opener. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikfranklehrer (talk • contribs) 06:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC) — Nikfranklehrer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Do not delete.She has done many things before Survivor, including writing a book, sportscasting, and most importantly working on empowerment of young girls all over the country. DO NOT DELETE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nataliyam (talk • contribs) 06:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC) — Nataliyam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Do NOT Delete because Alexis has been a large part of internet sports broadcasting, college broadcasting, and otherwise. She has had a following since before survivor, and also has many notable attributes that can be expanded upon on this wiki page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KM2studios (talk • contribs) 06:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC) — KM2studios (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

DO NOT DELETE because Alexis is the best host Trojan Vision has ever seen and is probly the most popular 20 something to come out of USC in the last decade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharvimj (talk • contribs) 06:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC) — Sharvimj (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete: fails WP:BIO, OBVIOUS (and almost laughable) sockpuppet help. Somebody should run a check user, block the puppeteer and ban the socks.--Sallicio 06:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

DO NOT DELETE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smeag91 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC) — Smeag91 (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. John254 02:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Frans Suell

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

non-notable per WP:BIO Gary King (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. —Bláthnaid 20:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Stubby, but claimed achievements are notable. JQ (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously. Founded the Malmö harbour. They made a statue of him for Pete's sake! What's with all of these nominations of historical figures? Pburka (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep Yes, his achievements are notable, but the article doesn't cite any references. --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 21:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment User:Dhartung is right. Google Books does have plenty of sources. --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 00:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, tag for sources, plenty of them in Google Books (mostly Swedish, naturally). --Dhartung | Talk 21:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The reference which shows notability is right there in the picture in the article. Non-notable people don't get statues. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:25, 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. Fram (talk) 14:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Birdwatcher

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

non-notable musician per WP:BIO Gary King (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete Member of a marginally notable band JQ (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:BIO, WP:OR.--Sallicio 07:10, 26 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. Non-admin closure per WP:SK. Serpent's Choice (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jesse Bushyhead

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

non-notable religious leader per WP:BIO Gary King (talk) 20:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Meets the basic criteria of WP:BIO, as he has been talked about in multiple reliable sources, eg [23] (halfway down the page) [24] and [25]. His grave is includedin the National Register of Historic Places, which also gives him notability. Bláthnaid 20:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Office of Chief Justice of a nation is a notable positionJQ (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep meets the general notability criteria, 2 sources already referenced in article, Bláthnaid found an additional two. Note that notability comes as from being one of the leaders of the Cherokees during the Trail of Tears not from being a "religious leader". (Full disclosure, I created the intial version of this article) Dsmdgold (talk) 20:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, key figure during important historical events. Why would his grave be on the National Register if he weren't important? Nominators should be more cognizant of such indicators even in the absence of sources. --Dhartung | Talk 21:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep In this case, the nominator should have done some more research before writing this person off as a non-notable religious leader. Among the Cherokee Indians, he was rather prominent. Mandsford (talk) 22:11, 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 keep. John254 02:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Parkwood Stable

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

This is a non-notable horse racing stable per WP:NPT. Gary King (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Windfields Farm. Pburka (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep in light of Handicapper's recent edits. Pburka (talk) 15:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• I removed the tags as this is not an article to ever be deleted but was missing the "stub" tag and did not have the Wikipedia:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing tag on its Talk page so that it could have been referred there. Just for the record, Parkwood Stable has nothing to do with Windfields Farm. Handicapper (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. No valid deletion reason presented by nom - what on earth has WP:NPT got to do with this? And anyway it's pretty obviously notable by any criterion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - has a notable history of producing winners. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 23:20, 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, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] James F. Phillips

James F. Phillips (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a non-notable environmental activist per WP:BIO. Gary King (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Google News has newspaper articles that establish notability: [26] [27] [28]. Bláthnaid 20:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per above. a lengthy NYT obit is a good indication of notability. Zagalejo^^^ 23:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability obviously demonstrated. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:48, 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. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Don Repella

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

This is a non-notable photographic artist per WP:BIO. Gary King (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Article doesn't establish any of the WP:BIO criteria - if a reference can be provided to show that the international showing of his work has involved actual galleries instead of just billboards, that would allow him to qualify, however I can't find anything online, and his website is proving equally, if not, more difficult. Oh, wait, here's his bio, finally.... hm, nope, nothing notable there either. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete A single blog entry[29] doesn't cut it as a multiple, independent, reliable secondary source material. A lot more will need to be added to meet WP:BIO. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:04, 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 keep per discussion below. Non-admin close. --jonny-mt 03:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tales of the Moonlight Cutter

Tales of the Moonlight Cutter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a non-notable graphic novel per WP:FICTION. Gary King (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: This is a work of fiction with objective existence, not a fictional work -- as such WP:FICT does not apply. The closest notablity guideline that applies is WP:BK, and even that claims may not apply to graphic novels. Please be more careful in your deletion rationales in the future. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: As to the article itself, this looks to be a borderline case. I am finding notice of the series outside of booksellers, but of apparently semi-reliable sources: that is, comics reviews sites, rather than pure blogs. Some of these may be considered fully reliable in the comics community, and as such, this needs to be evaluated by an expert in the field. I withhold deciding either way for now. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep this article talks about it, but you have to go to the library. [30] [31] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: In addition to the above mentions, it's also discussed here, and has recently been optioned for a feature film. While neither of those alone are sufficient for WP:BK, when both are taken together with the fact that WP:BK isn't targeted at graphic novels (as Quasirandom notes), I think it is definitely definitely notable enough to merit retention. jSarek (talk) 00:45, 26 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.--Kubigula (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Beefcake (band)

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

Not a notable musical group per WP:MUSIC Gary King (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:MUSIC --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 00:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable unless sources provided. -RiverHockey (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 13:44, 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 02:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas Thirlby

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

Not notable enough per WP:BIO. This article has been around for years and has not grown much. Gary King (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep—the only bishop of Westminster Abbey. Seems like he's at least somewhat notable. He was one of eleven confessor-bishops imprisoned by the Queen.[32] There seem to be plenty of references about him.—RJH (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. All bishops are notable. Pburka (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. He's in the ODNB. This is a ridiculous nomination, and the WP:EFFORT argument pretty much seals it. --Dhartung | Talk 21:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per listing in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Isn't the fact that a reliable source has noted him ipso facto evidence of notability? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as ridiculous nomination. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:51, 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. --MCB (talk) 08:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blitwise Productions

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

Anon nomination from talk page: This page sounds more like marketing than encyclopedia. It is a worthy entry, but should be rewritten with more facts and less editorializing. 89.1.107.148 (talk · contribs). To which I add: skirts A7 with a single uncited claim; otherwise, I'd say the dreaded letters NN (not notable) apply ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 19:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. A search on Google for "Blitwise Productions" produces an unusually high number of ghits for what I usually find nominated at AfD, and does include a few interviews and reviews of their games, however most of the links are there solely to download the games. Having played Pocket Tanks previously, I can also say that they're nothing too exceptional, so they're not getting any notability points off of that. The article is written rather spamishly, as pointed out by the anon above, and while that can be cleaned up, I'm not sure it's possible to find enough references to justify inclusion. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This search string removes most of the irrelevant links, but I'm still not finding too much of use: "Blitwise Productions -download -site:blitwise.com" (sorry, making that one a link doesn't work.) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete sigh, this gets old. Fails WP:OR, has no references, etc, etc, etc. Give it some refs and take out the OR, then it meets WP:N.--Sallicio 18:29, 26 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. Carioca (talk) 01:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Manus (insult)

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

Dictdef with no claim of meeting WP:Notability. Gsearch isn't turning up this usage except in wikipedia and urban dictionary; no sources in article to show notability. Contested prod. Fabrictramp (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Even if a source were found that used this word in this manner, it would still be just a slang dictionary definition. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 19:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete It's a WP:NEO. We're not a dictionary, particularly for made-up words. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not for neologisms made up one day - Chardish (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:NOT, WP:NEO. Completely non-notable and fails WP:V. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:08, 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. Fram (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 123 Pleasant Street

123 Pleasant Street (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page was recreated after being deleted, and the CSD tag was removed by administrator. Just as non-notable as it was the last time it was deleted. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 19:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The notability wasn't the question in the second nomination (which was far to quick to relist, IMO), it was the sources. This article is nothing like the original one that was deleted previously. There are no sources, just that it exists and a list of bands that played there. DarkAudit (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• comment If the bands listed did in fact play there, there should certainly be sources. Has anyone looked and failed to find them? DGG (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:LOCAL, nothing significant found in Google News Archive -- just event listings and the odd mention in an article. --Dhartung | Talk 22:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, unless somebody has better luck than I did finding reliable sourcing to verify the notability of this place. I only found trivial coverage. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:28, 25 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 Merge into King_Arthur#Arthur's_weapons. Non-admin close on a clear consensus. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 23:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rhongomiant

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

Badly written stub that could be incorporated into King Arthur? Susan Gleason (talk) 19:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Good question. Can anyone find a source for this thing? As in, which Arthurian soruce-text this is from? —Quasirandom (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Yeah, the submitter's other contributions appear to be fictional/vandalistic. Susan Gleason (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Oy, no wonder I didn't recognize this -- it's from the deep Celtic strata of Arthuriana. One of the Welsh triads mentions his three weapons: "Rhongomiant his spear, Caledfwlch a sword, and Carnwennan his dagger." Looks like it was also mentioned in the Mabinogion, but didn't make it into the French retellings (where the Big Guy got a different sword as well). So, not a vandalous hoax. But is it notable? I'm dubious, but if anyone can find arguments/evidence otherwise, I'll listen. —Quasirandom (talk) 09:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:MergeVote as it stands, it fails WP:OR. However, I feel that the subject itself is notable (however not on its own). Merge with King Arthur or something related.--Sallicio 18:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Well, no, it's not original research -- it's unverified, which is not at all the same thing. Text that's unverified may be original research, or it may be a direct copy of someone else's research, or a encyclopedia summary that the editor simply didn't source. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Understandable point, however, if there are no references, the only thing a resonable and prudent person can surmise is that it is OR and unverified. The burden of proof of notability, references, third-party, etc. etc. etc. falls on the author, not the reader. Without this standard, WP looses credibility.--Sallicio 19:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• That said, I agree it should be merged to King Arthur or similarly suitable article, and that the action should be done by editors familiar with the articles in question rather than willinilly. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:15, 26 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. An article may be created when reliable sources exist to support it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hilary Duff's 6th Album

Hilary Duff's 6th Album (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

100% pure unsourced speculation per WP:CRYSTAL Tabercil (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Bláthnaid 20:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. No sources presented in article. --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 21:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Albums should never have articles until a title and tracklisting have been released by the artist or their label. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - lack of media coverage. Addhoc (talk) 17:28, 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 Multiple results. Just Like You Imagined is Keep. The others are really No consensus, though it appears that a merge and redirect would be appropriate. You don't need an AfD consensus for that though. Please note, an AFD is not necessarily the most appropriate venue for deciding whether to redirect an article. That is a talkpage issue (as noted in the nominator's statement). Things brought to AfD should only be brought here if it is reasonable to believe that the community needs to keep or delete something by consensus, not whether the community needs to reorganize. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 10 Miles High

10 Miles High (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nominating for deletion per a discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative music (see here) concerning articles for non-single songs/tracks with limited notablity. Deletion (as opposed to a redirect to an album page) seems preferable in this particular case since the song appears on multiple Nine Inch Nails releases. I'm also nominating for similar reasons the following articles (the last of which I'm iffy about, but figured it was worth nominating along with the others):

• The New Flesh
• At the Heart of It All
• Just Like You Imagined

Drewcifer (talk) 19:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect Delete the first three and redirect "Just Like You Imagined" to The Fragile. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 04:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I think each of these articles should be nominated separately. All the AFD links for these articles leads to "10 Miles High." The merits each article should be addressed individually. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• And a Keep for Just Like You Imagined. While the song was not a single, has achieved a level notability as a result of it's extensive use in and for the advertising of 300. Further spurring an Internet meme in which the the song was used in various parody's. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The nomination page suggested nominating similar articles by lumping them all into the same AfD. Drewcifer (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I missed that. Notwithstanding, my previous keep stands. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• If content gets merged, redirect to preserve edit history. Just Like You Imagined has source-able for The Fragile. There is nothing to merge from 10 Miles High (merely a summary) and At the Heart of It All (info was already at 26 Mixes for Cash). –Pomte 19:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep. I believe these should be listed and discussed separately, since they may well warrant differential handling. I'll note that Just Like You Imagined is well sourced enough to suggest stand-alone notability, particularly given its prominent connection to a film. Since they're together, I'd like to point out that WP:MUSIC indicates that "Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song." Note the similarity to this AfD, which I closed today. The fact that these songs may have appeared in more than one location is not reason to delete them, although it may be reason to include a separate section at the discography for multi-appearing tracks. They remain valid search terms, and hence it seems better to handle them in line with the consensus established in the guideline. It might be best to merge/redirect those that warrant it into the first product on which they appeared. At the Heart of It All could be merged as proposed into the album article Further Down the Spiral (and retained for GFDL reasons accordingly); The New Flesh could be merged with Into the Void (Nine Inch Nails song). No one has proposed merging 10 Miles High into We're in This Together, but that might be the best home for it. WikiProject album recommends including information (up to a paragraph on each) on each song in album/ep articles, and there's no reason for this information to be lost because finding a home for it is a little more messy than usual. Although as a participant now in this AfD, I am not obviously going to be in a position to close this AfD, I will gladly help with merging accordingly if the AfD closed in that fashion. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:08, 25 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. Fram (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Purple for Peace International

Purple for Peace International (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

A multinational student advocacy organization created in late 2007. Makes some expansive claims but provides no evidence to back them up. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:CORP, WP:RS, and WP:V. Google search turns up some 227k results, the only one related is its Wikipedia article. Mr Senseless (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete if their claims are right they will certainly be notable some time later, and there will such an abundance of news media coverage that nobody would dare nominate it for deletion... hell we'll all be members. But they really are not there quite yet, so delete as an utterly non-notable very new organization. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:57, 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 - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -Djsasso (talk) 23:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Untitled 8th Studio Album (Green Day Album)

Untitled 8th Studio Album (Green Day Album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Crystal ball article on future album. Album may very well be notable once it comes out, but best to wait until it at least has a title. At best, should be merged into Green Day article. Contested prod. Fabrictramp (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and the fact that speculative crap like this gets deleted on a daily basis. - Chardish (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge or weak Keep. Why both re-creating it later. whatever.♠Д narchistPig♠ (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I think it sounds like an advertisement, and there is almost no information on the album/whatever itself. _contribsSTYROFOAM☭1994^TALK 02:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball. 'Green Day are going to release an album at some unspecified point in the future' is hardly sufficient content for a Wikipedia article. If and when there's enough content to actually fill a stub, then we can have this page.Cynical (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep with appropriate sources. There's an article about U2's upcoming album that's even further away; I don't see why this album doesn't deserve an article. It might need to have better sources, but can be an interesting read in the near future. — Alex Khristov 09:16, 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 Merge to Royal Conservatory of Music (Canada) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RCM Examinations

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

Delete: Blatant advertising; lacks criticism section Johnny Au (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. The Royal Conservatory of Music's examinations are notable. RCM examinations are the standard for measuring music performance and teaching skills in Canada. --Eastmain (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge after trimming to Royal Conservatory of Music (Canada) -- Whpq (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Changed my mind: Merge: I think that some of the material can be incorporated into the main article, since it would be more interesting to read. Johnny Au (talk) 05:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:MergeVote (at best) into parent article. Massive original research, no attempt at references.--Sallicio 18:55, 26 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. Chetblong^{T C} 05:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Piss Metal

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

Unreferenced, non-notable neologistic music genre Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable and appears to be a hoax - unable to find any evidence that the bands mentioned in the article exist. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 20:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete, article is a hoax, probably qualifies for Speedy Delete. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete a big fat hoax Doc Strange (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 13:45, 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 speedily deleted (G1: Patent nonsense, meaningless, or incomprehensible) by Anthony Appleyard (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) at 22:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC). cab (talk) 00:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aw Here it Goes

Aw Here it Goes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Uh... (speechless). These kind of articles to not belong in an encyclopedia, saying that Wikipeida is not a blog. And WP:SOAP. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 18:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete Doesn't assert notability, no references, virtually no encyclopedic material and frankly, the article is a big mess. --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 21:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Very Strong Delete, apparently WP:SPAM, the text makes it seem like it's a copyvio, not even an article, and it's complete nonsense besides. Meets at least five, probably up to seven of the reasons to delete. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, duh Providing a reason would be insulting the intelligence of the closing admin, and possibly anyone else who looks at this AfD. - Chardish (talk) 22:36, 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 speedy delete; author requested deletion and consensus here was heading the same way.--Kubigula (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Giora Ram

Dr. Giora Ram (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod, suspected non-notable individual. Only 20 ghits for this individual when searching for "Giora Ram" with scientist. Also as the only editor of the article is Gioram (talk · contribs) it is a violation of WP:COI. Roleplayer (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:COI. A self-written bio. Doc Strange (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• User:Gioram blanked the page, I would normally have put a db-author tag on it, but since it's listed for AfD, I just reverted the blanking. Corvus cornix_talk 23:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC).
• Speedy Delete. No notability asserted, and nothing in Google Books, Scholar, News archive or web to indicate any possible notability. For any notable person in this field there would be loads of stuff on the web. I'm putting a {db-author} tag on the article - there's nothing in policy that says speedy deletion can't trump AfD, and this one is pretty clear-cut. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:04, 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 nom-withdrawn. Chetblong^{T C} 05:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nehemiah Corporation of America

Nehemiah Corporation of America (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Deletion nomination This group appears to do really noble work. I appreciate the work they do, however the group appears to lack any notability as defined by WP:N. There are NO independent references that establish that this group has been noted by any source aside from itself and this wikipedia article (The 5 external links are ALL to websites maintained by the group itself). If no independant, reliable sources can be shown to exist, the article should be deleted. Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep Google produces heaps of media references (for example [33], [34]) and the scale of operations indicated ($1 billion plus) implies inherent notability JQ (talk) 23:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Withdraw nomination Good call. The article could use to mention those facts so that this situation does not arise again. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:13, 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. Chetblong^{T C} 05:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Book 5

Book 5 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod of a borderline speedy candidate. Article provides unverifiable speculation about an unnamed book to be released at some unknown future date. Delete as per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Allen3 ^talk 18:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Unsourced speculation in a non-encyclopedic tone. Regards, High on a tree (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Indeed, very close to SD. Pundit|utter 18:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete completely unencyclopedic, and unsourced. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 18:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as prod nominator. Speculative, and written like a fan site. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 21:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete If we don't even have a title, I really don't see how this could possibly exist in an article. Could almost be speedied under A1, yes. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:10, 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 keep. John254 01:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hey Mercedes

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

If the band is notable, the article certainly doesn't show it. Unless notability shown, delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I am also proposing the following related pages for deletion for the same reason:

• Bob Nanna (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Damon Atkinson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Everynight Fire Works (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Loses Control (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

And, through Nanna, the following articles -- although I admit that this may become unwieldy, and I'd be willing to divide these if it is felt that it's better to divide this:

• Braid (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Chris Broach (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Frame and Canvas (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• The Firebird Band (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• The City on Film (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• L'Spaerow (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• SacHead (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Louis T. Hunter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Seven Inch (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Keep all Braid can be shown to be a notable band, if only by this non-trivial biography on allmusic.com. While I know, understand, and support the idea that a band is not automatically notable simply because they have an entry at allmusic.com, this entry has an extensive review and overview of the band, not simply a discography. Also, the Braid article shows interviews and reviews by reliable publications, which is the hallmark of Notability. If for that reason alone, this entire entry should be kept. If a smaller subset of these article does NOT meet guidelines, that smaller subset should be renominated. However, Braid is plainly notable. Even the main entry on this AFD, Hey Mercedes, has some non-trivial coverage, such as here and here and here. A google search [35] turns up even more that you can peruse on your own. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD should only be merged into one entry if the subjects are connected, not merely because there are similar reasons for the AfDs. It is entirely possible that notability will be demonstrated for some of these bands but not for others. Regards, High on a tree (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep All and cleanup per Jayron32's research and the fact that Braid are notable. They have have had albums reviewed by Pitchfork Media (one is [36] which meets critea 1 of WP:MUSIC, released albums on Polyvinyl Record Co., a notable indie record label (who have released albums by the notable likes of of Montreal, meets 5), and just because a member of a band that you consider NN is a member of Braid, Braid is therefore NN. That's not how WP:MUSIC works. Did you even RESEARCH to see if any of these bands were notable? I do agree that citations and what-have-you should be added to the articles to show notability Doc Strange (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep all and cleanup per same as above. In addition, Atkinson is certainly notable since he was the temporary drummer for Saves the Day.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep All Braid is notable for so many reasons that I am insulted by the fact that deleting all of this is even up for debate. First off if you type Braid into google their biography comes up on the second page. On Lastfm Braid has 32,108 listeners. Their discography and release of a vhs/dvd of their last show and the fact that people cared enough to make these pages should show that Braid and all bands and people related are important --FirebirdWineDisaster (talk) 00:31, 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. Additionally, no evidence to support nominator's claim that article was ever deleted or listed at DRV. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Didn't We Almost Have It All?

Didn't We Almost Have It All? (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View Afd) Procedural nomination. Article was an overturned speedy from DRV. It is unclear if the article passes WP:PROF. No sources at the moment. AdamDeanHall (talk) 14:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete episode shows no independent notability from the show itself. It is essentially an in-universe plot summary coupled with a short list of actors that appeared in it. No evidence that this specific episode is unique or notable in any way. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Confused Is it just me or does the nomination not match the article? We have a television episode, the cited policy is for notability of academics, and the unless I'm missing it I don't see this article on the DRV page?--Cube lurker (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I'm not sure this was the intended article. If this is the article that was intended for nomination, please note that it cannot be closed with a delete, merge, or redirect consensus until further notice is received from ArbCom. However, if this was not the intended article, we can safely close it as a horribly malformed nomination. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• It's bizarre. This was never speedied and never on DRV, and WP:PROF is definitely all wrong, but the edit summary for the creation of this discussion page says to see Grey's_Anatomy_episodes_(Season_3)#Didn.27t_We_Almost_Have_It_All.3F, which is certainly duplicate content. --Dhartung | Talk 09:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep but hack the plot section to death (aka cleanup) This article would meet the standards set by other articles of the same type if the plot section were about ¼ as long as it is now. Cut that down, toss in some references (which can't be difficult to find for something like this), and it'll be fine. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, this is an episode of television series notable enough to have an article, (although I have no idea what the nominator is talking about. The first 3 sentences of the nom appear to be nonsense.) --Pixelface (talk) 02:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 02:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Unlike many TV episodes, the season finale of Grey's Anatomy generated--surprize!--some actual press coverage here. Blast Ulna (talk) 06:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Doesn't need a separate article. Merge into Grey's Anatomy episodes (Season 3). Bearcat (talk) 00:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup - Per Blast Ulna's sources and the many (I'm sure) other sources that are out there for this episode. It was a fairly big deal within the show's history as well as the entire real-life "faggot" controversy surrounding Washington's departure from the series. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 03:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• keep per Blast Ulna. C'mon people, is a season finale and has lots of independent press talking about the episode and reactions to it. Ulna has only only given a fraction of that coverage. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep due to coverage in multiple reliable third-party sources. Season finales of recognizable shows are notable. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:40, 25 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 (non-admin closure), nom withdrawn. BusterD (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Glina massacre

Glina_massacre (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

Short article, written in a somewhat POV style, that duplicates information at Glina, Croatia. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 08:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep. I've completely rewritten the article from scratch. The original version was certainly a mess, written by an editor whom I've warned for many POV edits to other articles, but there's no doubt that the subject is significant and documented by multiple reliable sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Thanks to ChrisO for the rewrite - I'm happy to retract my afd nomination. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep - Needs some love that only the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history can offer. BusterD (talk) 18:39, 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 for lack of verifiability. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Live/Wire

Live/Wire (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article was originally the article for an alleged band called The Livewire, as the text of the article still indicates. I proposed this article for speedy deletion, because a google search on the band's name, and on the names of the alleged band members, brought up no evidence other than this article itself that the band in question ever existed, or that the records the article claims they released were ever released. In response to my suggestion for speedy deletion, someone else did a google search and determined that the article should be moved from Livewire to Live/Wire, on the grounds that there is a band by that name. Yes, there is a band by that name, but they are an AC/DC tribute band, and not the "Nu-Grunge" band the fictional history of which is outlined in this article. In short this article is a fictional history of a fictional band, which has now been moved to match the name of a real band, who, as a tribute band, would not merit an article of their own. This article should either be deleted, or entirely re-written to reflect the history of the real AC/DC tribute band Live/Wire, and if someone does the latter, the article should then be deleted on the grounds that the AC/DC tribute band Live/Wire, no matter how hard-working or professional they may be, are not notable enough to deserve an article. Mesnenor (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I search a number of terms within the article, including "Timmy O'Hearth" and "Half-Single to Boxgrove" (which is claimed to be a hit single) and '"Tainted Records" England'. I can't find a single hit. Article contains zero references. Reads like a vanity page, lack of any google hits almost suggests a WP:HOAX. If notability of the AC/DC tribute band can be proven, this article should still be deleted to clear out the history. -Verdatum (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Appears to be a hoax, but even if not, it is unreferenced, and my attempt to find any sources in Google News archives and in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles led to nothing. Delete. (By the way, the AC/DC tribute act has had articles about it deleted in the past because of insufficient demonstration of notability, but that's a side issue.) --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:44, 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 keep. John254 01:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Officious intermeddler

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

Article offers nothing beyond a definition. Has been transwikied to Wiktionary and thus this article should be deleted. Asing89 (talk) 05:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. This stub begins at the beginning, defining a legal term. It is sourced to the Restatement (Second) of Contracts, which suggests that it is indeed susceptible of expansion, and there is no deadline. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, seems to be a fairly basic concept in contract law. Needs expansion. --Dhartung | Talk 22:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - it's a perfectly good legal stub. Bearian (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. A dictionary definition wouldn't offer any information about the state of the law, or doctors' transaction costs. The article should however clarify which legal jurisdiction(s) it is talking about. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:39, 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. Chetblong^{T C} 05:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oxford University Engineering Society

Oxford University Engineering Society (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No claim of notability for this campus society. Speedy declined, citing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. OK, it is Oxford, but I still don't think it's notable. Jfire (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete possibly some such societies can be notable at universities like Oxford, but there is nothing here at all to show it. Nor is there anything much on the web site to write an adequate article from.DGG (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. As an Oxford graduate, I entirely agree with DGG. There are lots of Oxford Societies that are notable, but this is not one of them from the evidence before us. If it is notable, someone can start again. --Bduke (talk) 10:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Reads like an advertisement not an article. I would expect an article to demonstrate notability e.g. by showing how former members used the society for key steps in their career. More likely with dramatic, musical and literary societies than one such as this.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete not a particularly old society, not a first of..., not one who have had a string of notables chair/preside. Sorry can't think of a reason to keep this.--Alf ^melmac 14:38, 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 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ramlow Infoshop

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

According to the article, the subject was a short-lived little-known infoshop in a small American city. After an unpromising search for sources, I am nominating this because I suspect it fails WP:N скоморохъ 12:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This article has been listed as an Anarchism Task Force article for deletion. скоморохъ 20:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, sadly, but doesn't APPEAR notable. Murderbike (talk) 20:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete even the author eludes that it is non-notable ("short-lived...little-known"). Fails notability and WP:ORG. Also has no attempt at referencing or third-party verification. Easily Speedy-Deletable.--Sallicio 19:48, 26 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. Carioca (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Seuke

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

Fails Wikipedia:BIO#Athletes as has never played in a professional team or in a fully-professional league. EJF (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Now this is an article which really needs to be deleted, clearly not a professional footballer. John Hayes^talk 00:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Struway2 (talk) 09:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. BanRay 11:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails WP:ATHLETE. robwingfield ^«T•C» 09:33, 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 -Djsasso (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fisnik Papuqi

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

A Notable footballer? He did not played in Albanian 1st divison nor Albanian internationals, and yet no source for Kosovar internationals. And Kosovar liga is a professional liga? i think not. Matthew_hk tc 17:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, there is not enough here to establish notability. Punkmorten (talk) 22:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I've checked the club's official website and it seems he is yet to make an appearance there BanRay 11:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails WP:ATHLETE. robwingfield ^«T•C» 09:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Alexf⁴² 13:45, 25 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. WP:SNOW, per consensus below, WP:NEO, and borderline nonsense. Malinaccier (talk) 01:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Poo brown