Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 February 20

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 00:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] World 4u

World 4u (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable manga Mr Senseless (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. I'm not seeing the slightest sign of import, impact, or notice -- but it's somewhat hard to tell, given that the artcile text looks like it was -- and I mean this literally -- machine-translated from the Japanese. --Calton | Talk 00:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete. One-shot manga. 39 hits in Google (keywords: World 4u and author's name). And this article needs urgent re-write. Zerokitsune (talk) 03:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No source. Unencyclopedic article. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete So far all I can find as a source is this.[1] However, one-shot manga are generally not notable unless they are created by a well known author/artist. I don't think that Tatsuma Ejiri (江尻立真), whose only other credit is P2! -let's Play Pingpong!-, falls into that category. Also, the "summary" section is unreadable gibberish. --Farix (Talk) 13:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Farix (Talk) 13:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Does not seem to be a notable pair of short stories. No prejudice against recreating the article if it turns into a notable serial. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep but revise or merge to Tatsuma Ejiri; this is a series of short stories, appearing irregularly; chapters of it appeared before and after P2. Not yet collected in a tankobon, however; until then it might be better on the author's page. Doceirias (talk) 09:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete- No sources, no notability. Rigby27 Talk 14:08, 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 Merge and Redirect - Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 19:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Millersburg Elementary School

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

Non-notable elementary school. Mr Senseless (talk) 23:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Millersburg, Indiana, its town. The school district doesn't have an article. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - it's possible sources could be found for this, since it claims to have previously been a senior high school as well; an interesting situation. matt91486 (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect, ideally to the district (if someone can create an article for it) or to the town or redlink, otherwise. CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to Elkhart County, Indiana#Fairfield Community Schools until enough significant NPOV, Verifiable info is available to branch out. DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to Elkhart County, Indiana#Fairfield Community Schools per Schools in Fairfield Community School District -Daddy.twins (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge per above. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:29, 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 --slakr^\ talk / 10:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Josh & Garrett

Josh & Garrett (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Yet to release an album, no assertion of notability 9Nak (talk) 23:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable. Seal Clubber (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. The article can be recreated if they become notable in the future. Bláthnaid 19:51, 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 speedily deleted by Kurt Shaped Box as pure vandalism. Bencherlite^Talk 00:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Luminous. (band)

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

Multiply recreated article under various spellings; the claims to have won two Grammy Awards are not borne out by the official site [2] and the other claims seem equally specious. Let's have this hoax gone once and for all. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:47, 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 Merge. The merger has been accomplished and the page redirected. Nonadmin close. Xymmax (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Paris Elementary School

New Paris Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable elementary school. No predijuce to redirecting to the district article if one exists. Mr Senseless (talk) 23:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to New Paris, Indiana, its town. The school district doesn't have an article. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge into the article New Paris, Indiana by creating a portion of that article for education.--Sbkbg (talk) 01:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to Elkhart County, Indiana#Fairfield Community Schools until enough significant NPOV, Verifiable info is available to branch out. DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to Elkhart County, Indiana#Fairfield Community Schools per Schools in Fairfield Community School District -Daddy.twins (talk) 18:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge per above. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:29, 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 Merge / redirect Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hyoscine-pentothal

Hyoscine-pentothal (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I nominated this article for deletion back in November, and it still establishes not a shred of notability, and has no real references. The use of this fictional drug is already covered in the seasons articles, and doesn't warrant its own article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete/Merge- This article does not warrant it's own article whatsoever, the information can be found on 24 Wikia, has little value in this encyclopaedia. Should be merged or deleted. Steve Crossin (talk) 03:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge or redirect or weak delete I can perfectly see how someone hearing the drug's name wants to lookg it up on wikipedia because it may be a real drug. However, the article makes no claim of notability (and probably can't) and consists of a description of effects (i.e. original research). The article should therefore not exist, but this drug may receive a short mention in either 24_(TV_series)#Counter_Terrorist_Unit or List of fictional medicines and drugs (the latter of which barely survived a recent AfD). – sgeureka ^t•c 08:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. It is useful to correct any wrong ideas about real pentothal and hyoscine that the viewing public may get from seeing the television show 24. I put incoming disambig hatlinks in pages Pentothal and Hyoscine. About two points raised in the previous AfD:
  • "a fake truth serum": In the fictional world of the 24 story it is real and is (all too) effective. In the real world it is a "fictional truth serum", and Wikipedia has many entries for fictional drugs: see Category:Fictional drugs.
  • "is entirely duplicative": in the episode descriptions the information about hyoscine-pentothal is scattered mixed with much other matter and would have to be ferreted for; it is not collected together. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You need to address the core issue, notability, which the article does not address. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Well, we don't need an article on some "fictional pain-inducing drug". Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia. This type of artiles should be deleted. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• (Hyoscine-pentothal occurs in the fictional world of 24 (TV series).) This article is not original research, it derives from what is said and shown in the "24" television series about it, and the "24" television series is the reference for it. It seems to be as notable as many fictional drugs described in Wikipedia. If it can't be kept, merge to 24 (TV series). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Right, and most of those articles have references other than the television show itself. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. RogueNinja_talk 00:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• OK, OK, redirect to 24 (TV series)#Hyoscine-pentothal and put "[[Category:Fictional drugs]]" in the redirect page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:23, 28 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} 00:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Luxury real estate brokerage

Luxury real estate brokerage (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Dicdef and OR. Can't see how this can ever be usefully expanded beyond a dicdef because of the regional variations, which is currently pure OR. Travellingcari (talk) 21:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete -- not complete nonsense, but close to it. Dicdef, WP:OR, no cites. Non-notable topic. See also WP:COATRACK. Bearian (talk) 01:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Darkspots (talk) 23:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Merely tossing an adjective in front of an existing title does NOT automatically make the new phrase notable, And given that the article creator was Luxuryrealtygroup (talk · contribs) -- which helpfully included a link to their own website -- I think I can see the purpose here. --Calton | Talk 01:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:SPAM and WP:COI, created by a user named Luxuryrealtygroup. Otherwise, it also is not notable and is filled with original research, but why even bother going into that? It's a clear COI violation. Doc Strange (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete The article is a spam. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete- per Doc Strange. Rigby27 Talk 14:14, 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} 19:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rotary Club Moscow International

Rotary Club Moscow International (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article was prodded before but the tag was removed. There is no assertion of notability, at least what would make it different from other thousands of clubs that don't have their own articles on WP. Could be mentioned in the article about music competition though. Tone 23:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• question In general I really dislike these articles for local branches of clubs, as i think they add nothing to the encyclopedia-- the main organisation invariably has a web site which can much better accommodate this sort of information. Looking at this article, because of the distinctive circumstance,this one might just be notable. Can someone find English or Russian sources? DGG (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:ORG. I'm open to a demonstration of notability for individual branches, but almost by mission, every Rotary Club in the world is doing something similar (and I've been a member of a Rotary-affiliated organization, and my father was a Rotarian for years). I simply don't think it's encyclopedic to treat the individual clubs with this level of detail. It's especially an invitation for NN redlinks. --Dhartung | Talk 08:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I had the list of members in mind--otherwise i wouldnt have thought twice. DGG (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a common tradition of Rotary clubs to have ambassadors as members, as far as I know. So this does not add to notability significantly. As for the mucical competition, the club is already mentioned in the article as its founder, it's enough. --Tone 17:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

And I had the President, Josef Marous, in mind. I'm not sure that "head of the Representation of ThyssenKrupp AG in Russia" is really notable. Depends on whether that translates into president of a national-level subsidiary. --Dhartung | Talk 19:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete -- I agree with Dhartung, we can't list every rotary club in the world. --SSman07 (talk) 21:43, 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 --slakr^\ talk / 10:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WFAL

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

Non-notable collage micropower radio station. The station most likely can be heard for a mile or so. Only real claim to notability is it can heard on the local cable system. There is also a COI as one of it's DJ's has been making a number of edits to the article. Ridernyc (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep I actually noticed it wasn't updated in a year so I added new info about college sports, and also a link for references. Also there is a world wide broadcast available online and Time Warner Cable is a regional cable system. The article it's a part of the category: College radio stations in the United States. I've been talking to User:Corvus cornix about fixing the citation errors and such. This article also meets the standards for Wikipedia:Notability (TV and radio stations)--Sbkbg (talk) 02:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (TV and radio stations) is a failed attempt at a guideline that basically never made it past a rough draft. Since this a student run commercial radio station it would fall underWikipedia:CORP#Primary_criterion which it very clearly fails. I don't see much difference between this and a student newspaper which in most cases is considered non-notable. Ridernyc (talk) 02:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Except there are specific categories for college radio stations. radio stations reach many more listeners then college newspapers. I feel I have provided the article with references and additional content and improved the article from what it was before.--Sbkbg (talk) 02:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. note: see Reference section of the article for independent secondary sources.--Sbkbg (talk) 02:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

First if we are going to quote guidelines let quote the entire paragraph and not pick the parts that suit us "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be attributable.". The newspaper article used as a reference is from the campus news site [3] far from independent, also one article is far from satisfying "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." Ridernyc (talk) 03:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to flag every college radio station, I'm done with this argument. obviously no one else agrees with you or there'd be other delete comments... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbkbg (talk • contribs) 03:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Fails WP:NOTE and WP:RS per Ridernyc. The references are dubious and not substantial enough to establish notability. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment I would like to point out that I have tried to find sources for this article and so far have come up with 0. Just directory type listings, blogs, and campus related events. Ridernyc (talk) 04:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment/Keep I have contributed a few things 1) link, 2) souces, 3)The station has numerous shows during the day and also carries BGSU and local high school sporting events. and; The station is primarily used for students wishing to persue jobs in the radio and communications industry to gain first hand knowlege and experience on operations of a radio station and shows. Def not COI!--Sbkbg (talk) 04:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment before User:Ridernyc got involved the main issues were no sources I solved that issue. strait from COI page-Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias. if you read the sentences in the above comment i posted see for yourself if there's bias or info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbkbg (talk • contribs) 04:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You have an amazing ability at picking apart pages and pages of information an choosing the one line that taken totally out of context will support you. To establish notability you need independent sources. I have explained this to you over and over and over again. Ridernyc (talk) 04:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've given independent souces. What you're saying is basically if this was a radio station in Detroit, a Detroit newspaper couldn't be a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbkbg (talk • contribs) 04:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow you really want to twist things. That's it I'm moving on I'll let others deal with you from now on. Ridernyc (talk) 04:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

thank you, you're basically the only one that has a problem with the article, move on, go bother someone else, better yet just get off wikipedia to be that critical of outside sources. and ruin an article with tons cleanup tags... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbkbg (talk • contribs) 04:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I'm sorry, but your sources are primary and affiliated directly with the radio show itself. So far I see myspace, the official site of the radiostation/show, one dead link and a campus news article. These hardly meet the criteria for reliable second and third party sources. If this is all you can find, then I'll point you in the direction of WP:SNOW. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, fails to satisfy the sourcing requirements of WP:N. Jfire (talk) 05:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Commentfrom WP:N smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations. --Sbkbg (talk) 07:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

  That quote is absolutely true, but what you're still failing to ascertain is that you must prove the organization is notable. This isn't a question of whether or not the company or organization is small or large, it's whether the small has been covered in reliable sources. It fails WP:CORP. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 08:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - Student-run media are encyclopedic topics, especially ones which distribute content not only on-campus, but off as well. Broadcasting via radio and Internet fulfills those criteria. If there's a COI issue, address the problem, but a DJ making edits doesn't mean those edits are automatically unhelpful. Users with potential conflicts of interest can contribute, being mindful of our policies and editing with discretion. Furthermore, campus newspapers are reliable sources for the vast majority of purposes - they are edited, fact-checked and have a publishing history. FCYTravis (talk) 10:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes a campus newspaper can be a RS source. no one questions that, the problem here is establishing notability which requires independent sources. Ridernyc (talk) 10:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: A non-notable campus radio station. As for broadcasting over the internet as a shoe-in for notability, well that's just plain daft. Anyone with SAM Broadcaster, a subscription to a Shoutcast server and an MP3 collection can run an Internet radio station. A lot do, 99% of which shouldn't come anywhere near having a WP article (my own included). --WebHamster 13:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence of notability. AndyJones (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment this is not an issue that needs to be up for deletions. Campus media is just as worthy as other media. The newspaper i used as a resource is independent of the radio station and reliable. Ridernyc has some problem with me and put this article up for deletion b/c of that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbkbg (talk • contribs) 14:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Wah-wah-wah! This isn't about bad faith, axes to grind or points to be made. Let the afd progress and the consensus will decide. It's now out of your hands and out of Ridernyc's. So far you're the only one with a proven POV and CoI so I suggest you don't damage your case any further with accusations like this. --WebHamster 14:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• commment I just don't won't the article destroyed, I've only done a little bit of work to an article that's been around for like 3 years. I contimue to find new references, I've posted more outside sources.--Sbkbg (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC) and I think COI and POV only refers to the article not a deletion debate.

Except none of them are reliable, bar maybe the school newspaper, but even that's a stretch. Regardless, it's still a primary source. For notability, wikipedia needs widespread coverage from secondary and third party sources. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Sources do not adequately establish notability. Doctorfluffy (talk) 16:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep College media sources can be considered independent and reiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.1.72.40 (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

NOTE the anon's only contribution is this article for deletion and is most likely a sockpuppet. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment I found this in the Wikipedia:Verifiability published in university presses- a college newspaper article would fall under that category.--Sbkbg (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It would fall under verifiable, but not significantly notable. The quote mine you took is referring to peer reviewed journals and books. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, as a non notable college radio station. It is clear attempts have been made to properly source the article, yet they yielded no reliable secondary sources. Very likely because there simple are none. Also, I find Sbkbg's arguments for keeping the article entirely unconvincing. I suggest he stops cherry picking sentences from policy as they are meaningless out of context.--Atlan (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Despite desparate attempts to stretch the concept of notability, non-trivial mention and reliable sources, this just doesn't make the grade Mayalld (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - there are no independent reliable sources to establish notability. The campus newspaper doesnt' establish notability for the campus radio station. -- Whpq (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Generally, the bare minimum inclusion criterion for a radio station in the United States is whether it's been licensed by the FCC or not — Part 15/micropower stations don't generally qualify. However, it would be perfectly acceptable and quite reasonable to note the station's existence in our article on Bowling Green State University. Merge. Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

merge sounds better than deletion, the radio station does follow FCC guidelines because of the boardcast on the Time Warner Cable channel.--Sbkbg (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge is a good idea actually - I think most of us here were caught up in the notability issue that we ended up missing the proverbial forest for the trees. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Although the sation is not licenced by the FCC it is affiliated with the Intercollegiate Broadcasting System here's a link[4] Also I think there was a bad piece of info on the page WFAL I don't believe the radio station is micro power, that would make it pirate and commercial radio stations aren't pirate. it could have been considered micrpower when it first started in a dorm before the university made it a real station, but that term wasn't formed until the 1990s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbkbg (talk • contribs) 07:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Merge Nothing demonstrating notability here. Heck, outside of primary sources it's just barely verifiable as existing. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. A newspaper is normally a reliable source (and this article cites two newspaper articles). The fact that the newspaper in question serves the same university does not detract from its status as an independent source of information. A student newspaper is generally a separate corporation from the university itself and regards its editorial independence as a fundamental aspect of its operations. All this may seem peripheral to the status of the radio station, but the fundamental criterion for notability ("A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.") seems to be met in this case, despite its status as a micropower station. --Eastmain (talk) 01:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not just a matter of whether or not there's one or two articles written in a campus newspaper. For the sake of argument, let's just assume it's independent and notable. 1.) It's primary 2.)It still fails WP:CORP and WP:NOTE as it's only marginal coverage. An editor needs to demonstrate quantity, quality, and prominence in secondary sources. Unfortunately, this just isn't the case by any stretch of the imagination. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

A student newspaper does not inherently fail WP:CORP or WP:NOTE, nor is it a primary source if the article isn't about the newspaper itself. Bearcat (talk) 20:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete The article is important to people living in Bowling Green, Ohio. However, it is not that notable. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment no need to merge as the topic is already covered in Bowling_Green_State_University#Student_life. Ridernyc (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

it's also covered in WBGU-FM. Also of note is that the information there contradicts information in The WFAL article. "it was started as a pirate radio station in a BGSU dorm in the 1970s" versus "According to legend, WFAL actually began as a pirate radio signal run by a student from his dorm room.". Which shows why reliable sourcing is needed for both articles and why the original research tag should not have been removed. As far as I can see none of the sources in the WFAL article cover it's origins as a pirate radio station. Ridernyc (talk) 04:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, new info I have found an outside source, although the sation is not licenced by the FCC it is affiliated with the Intercollegiate Broadcasting System here's a link[5]--Sbkbg (talk) 07:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - not licensed by FAA, many other issues note above. Troll factory; see WP:ANI. Bearian (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment/Keep News Corporation owns a variety of newspapers and magazines and also owns many radio and TV stations. if a newspaper did an article on the station it would be considered independent. I guess if you delete this article we'll have to delete half of wikipedia. just because to separate and independent media outlets are owned by the same company doesn't make them primary sources.--Sbkbg (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Delete and Merge College stations are notable, the licensed ones by the FCC, this one isn't. Any kid in his/her dorm room could come up with something like this and call it "The Voice of John Doe College". Merge it into the parent college article and elaborate there, but until they have a real licensed station it's not notable enough. Mr mark taylor (talk) 22:07, 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 keep. Punkmorten (talk) 09:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brideswell

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

The page is only one sentence, and while many locations are notable, I am not sure if this falls under that criteria. Please correct me if I am wrong. Polarbear97 (talk - contributions) 23:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep A search of Google Maps shows that this is indeed a real village, and thus notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - as a real village, it's notable. See WP:OUTCOMES. matt91486 (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, thank you for explaining. I do not think there is any need to further this discussion. Once again, thank you for taking the time to discuss this. :) Polarbear97 (talk - contributions) 03:24, 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 delete --slakr^\ talk / 10:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A. V. T. Shankardass

A. V. T. Shankardass (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails to establish sufficient notability; page was created as vanity, and involvement with major projects appears to be more tangential. No references show him to be covered by multiple independent reliable sources. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - a google search confirms he exists via a bunch of directory listings, but there are no reliable sources writing about him as the subject. Also note that there has been repeated addition of copyrighted material and the current version of the article includes text from http://www.vpuk.co.uk/Shankardass.htm which has not been released under the GFDL and a request to go through OTRS appears to have been ignored. -- Whpq (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:N and WP:BIO as it has no possible non-trival mentions in reliable sources. Borderline copyright violation. Bearian (talk) 21:42, 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 Redirect. — Scientizzle 16:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Mahabharata (film)

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

Explicitly fails future film notability guidelines. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to The Mahabharata (1989 film). Someone familiar with Wikipedia naming conventions might enter "The Mahabharata (film)" if seeking information about the Peter Brook film. When and if the Indian film is released, this article title can be changed from a redirect to a dab page. JamesMLane t c 07:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed and seconded. —Qit el-Remel (talk) 17:32, 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 - I added a {{expand}} tag to the article. Because it is a stub does not mean it should be deleted. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 19:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Upper Midwest Merkos - Lubavitch House

Upper Midwest Merkos - Lubavitch House (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This place of worship is simply not notable. --Eliyak T·C 22:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Eliyak T·C 22:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Eliyak: It is surprising that in the midst of the intense recent AFD discussions such as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adas Israel Congregation and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adath Jeshurun Congregation that you are now fanning the flames with requests for deletions of more synagogue articles. Can we request that the dust settle a little before throwing more fuel on the flames. It would be advisable to continue seeking consenus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Deletion of synagogue articles which you have chosen not to participate in but rather have just barreled on with these controversail AFDs. Please withdraw the nomination until such time as consensus is reached. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 06:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:ORG. Most individual religious
• REDIRECT to List of synagogues in Minnesota --MPerel 23:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - but a volunteer should put up the right sources and kindly expend the article, thanks--YY (talk) 12:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment no question that the article is currently nothing more than a phone book listing but there appears to be some coverage that's not limited to events held at the synagogue. Someone needs to check these before it can be determined it's entirely not notable. Travellingcari (talk) 15:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Can someone explain to me why an article that's a stub, that in its current state is unarguably not notable, has to be picked on to be deleted? Why can't an "expand this article" tag be left for several months, have it posted on the Judaism portal or something, and only then have it raised as an afd? Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 03:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed. IZAK (talk) 10:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment not speaking directly to this article since a) I didn't bring it here and b) I noted there might be sources but in general, I'm cleaning through a backlog from May 2007 right now of articles tagged for notability for almost one year and so many could/should have been PROD/AFD/Speedied that it's odd they've lasted so long. I personally believe an article should be worked on in a user's sandbox rather than posted before it's ready just for the sake of having a topic on [subject x]. There's no reason to create articles just because it's possible to do so, and I think it's better for Wiki as a whole to have quality, sourced articles on notable topics rather than 100s of stubs. I'm not speaking of synagogues specifically but rather lots of stubs whose topics are questionably notable. It's good to keep in mind WP:CORP Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found. is my perspective. Travellingcari (talk) 12:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and expand as Travellingcari pointed out that there are many news articles. Chocolatepizza (talk) 04:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep because there is no "statute of limitations" on stubs and until such time as an editor can devote time to the topic and come up with objective research about this congregation. Then we can take it up again at that time perhaps. IZAK (talk) 05:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note, that's not necessarily a valid keep reason. It can always be re-created when/if notable information is ready/avl. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 06:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and give a reasonable amount of time to expand. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 03:20, 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 Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 19:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Four Policemen

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

I have a few reasons for nominating this. First, it is a page on a quote by Roosevelt that obviously hasn't made in into mainstream WWII discussion (They call it the Big Three, not the Four Policemen). Second, the article is of poor quality - more than half of it is a quote, and nothing on this article really stands out as something that needs its own article. Also, due to the source of the 'Four Policemen' quote it does not look like there is going to be any more added to this article, other then what is here (In the year of this article's existence, there has only been six edits outside of the original, and looking it over it doesn't look like they did anything more than correct some spelling mistakes.). Thirdly, I have a nagging suspicion that this whole article was created just to prove a point in the arguement about the World War II infobox (About the inclusion of major combatants), that can be found here. Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep. As the creator, I must admit that I have no great attachment to the article. It can probably be a footnote in the Allies of WW2 article. All the same, your statement "I have a nagging suspicion that this whole article was created just to prove a point" verges on a breach of WP:AGF. Grant 23:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Strong keep - 1) The Four Powers declaration was an important U.S. foreign policy discussion, this quote sums up the initial reasoning quite well. 2) Stub or not there is material available to expand this, speculating about when and if a stub might or might not be expanded is no reason to delete information. 3) WP:AGF (to second Grant. Awotter (talk) 07:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and expand. I dunno if there was any point-scoring intended or not, but the concept is certainly notable, as a Google Books and Google Scholar search indicates. The idea is particularly important because it was at one point to have constituted an enforcement arm of the UN, something that other founding signatories found ... problematic. --Dhartung | Talk 08:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is notable enough to warrant it's own page. Note how the Big Three does not have it's own page. Grant's idea of putting it as a footnote in the Allies of World War II article seems like a good idea until it can be further expanded. As it is right now it doesn't warrant it's own page. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The Big Three was WWII. This was about postwar security. If it belongs anywhere, it's History of the United Nations#Preliminaries. --Dhartung | Talk 19:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, it was WW2 as well. The Chinese military contribution, by both KMT and Communist forces, was in the same ballpark as the USSR, US and UK. The suffering of the population arguably exceeded that of the USSR. Grant 07:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is slighting China here. The point is that the idea of "the Four Policemen" was part of the conception of the postwar security environment. This is how it is used in contemporary sources. --Dhartung | Talk 09:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

So is there a consensus to have this merged into something? If so, I think Allies of World War II is the best article for it. If there was ever a Big Three article, then it would probably be best in there. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 08:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. As Dhartung says: google books and google scholar indicate notability; none of the mentions are devoted entirely to discussing the concept, but it seems to be a concept that you can't get around when talking about Roosevelt's vision of post-war diplomacy. Book reviews on JSTOR, going back 40 years and more, indicate the same. Again, as Dhartung says, and as is indicated by such titles as Collective Security and American Foreign Policy: From the League of Nations to NATO, the main context is "postwar security environment", but also to some extent how his view of it shaped FDR's wartime diplomacy. --Paularblaster (talk) 21:46, 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 --slakr^\ talk / 10:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Red Rain (energy drink)

Red Rain (energy drink) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is unreferenced, I cannot find reliable references, article appears to be a WP:COATRACK for talking about solely the nutritional benefits of the drink. EJF (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - there are no reliable sources to establish notability of the product. As an alternative, merge to Cott -- Whpq (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete there are a few reviews of this drink on blogs, but none from reliable sources, so it fails WP:N. Bláthnaid 19:59, 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 speedy redirected per discussion. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 08:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chrysler Aspen Hybrid

Chrysler Aspen Hybrid (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

There's no valid reason for a separate article to have been created for this submodel already wholly covered in Chrysler Aspen. Neither article cites any source for the potential release of this model in 2009, and as this model hasn't yet been released, the "2009-present" production date in the infobox makes no sense and the article as a whole borders on speculation. We don't have separate articles for the Chevrolet Caprice and the Chevrolet Caprice Classic and the Chevrolet Caprice Classic LE; this is the same situation. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Chrysler Aspen#Hybrid. Seems to work well for Toyota Highlander Hybrid, for example. Chuck (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oops, nothing needs merging, as all the info in Chrysler Aspen Hybrid is already also in Chrysler Aspen. Chuck (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Edited to clarify that it should redirect to appropriate section. Chuck (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Chrysler Aspen#Hybrid. This is a trim level of another vehicle and not notable enough to need its own article. Roguegeek (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Chrysler Aspen#Hybrid. Not an unreasonable search term, but the paragraph is covered comfortably in the main article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flag Wars

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

Recently deleted under CSD A7, non notable online version of Capture the Flag, no sources except to the developer's websites. Mr Senseless (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete -- no assertion of notability, no outside references.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 21:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Majoreditor (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Chetblong^{T C} 00:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TrimWater

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

Previously speedy-deleted several times as spam. It's arguably no longer spam, but I don't see any indication that this product is notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete. I didn't see the earlier incarnations, but this is definitely still spam IMO. Speedy delete and protect it. Ros0709 (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per G11 - I think a healthy dose of salt may be in order as well. EJF (talk) 21:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, no assertion of notability, no outside references: pictures of celebrities holding the drink don't count.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 21:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Why not just edit the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sugarisbad (talk • contribs) 22:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Because there's no point in editing an article whose subject does not meet notability guidelines. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Not quite G11 this time, but still nothing notable at all; no third party sources to be seen. I also recommend salting this one. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per the above reasons and turn it into saltwater. Wildthing61476 (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Saltwater might be the best course of action if this continues. RFerreira (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete -- I'm less charitable and think it's WP:SPAM as well as being non-notable; the unreferenced claim of being "unique" is what tips it for me. And I wonder if Hayden Panettiere's lawyers have seen this photo and caption? Accounting4Taste:talk 23:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems like kind of a cryptic statement. What about the photo and caption do you think her lawyers would be interested in? --Onorem♠Dil 12:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

My apologies if I seemed cryptic. It doesn't seem likely to me that she has actually endorsed this product but the photograph and its caption gave me the impression that she has done so. I was sufficiently curious to check, since I know she has another national campaign running for a facial soap product, and I can't find any other indication that she has endorsed the product. As I understand it, the US legal system is very stern about such suggestions of endorsement on the part of a celebrity and she would have a cause of action should she choose to exercise it. I am not a lawyer in the US so these are merely my understandings from my reading, but I think the cause of action would be worth pursuing in Canada. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. That didn't occur to me as I hadn't interpreted the photo as implying an endorsement, but I can see where you're coming from now that you say it. --Onorem♠Dil 16:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete Per G11 loosely, but certainly non notable. Canyouhearmenow 23:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - No notability asserted. I'm not finding much as far as third party references go. --Onorem♠Dil 12:38, 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 Speedy delete by User:Philippe, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gamma Beta

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

Non notable local fraternity. Mr Senseless (talk) 21:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete after nominating for AfD, became apparent that this is a repost, new article does not address concerns in the original AfD. Mr Senseless (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per repost.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 22:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David William Lane Greer

David William Lane Greer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Questionable notability is the reason why I am nominating this, maybe it is the highest level for Canadians if they don't get to win that many medals as even the United Kigdom would, but this has been written by an user with COI issues, as for the highest level, 900 ghits would not justify notability as this is my pure reason. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Competed, and won a gold medal, at the Canada Winter Games. The Canadian National Chamionships medals are unverified in the article, but even without this he still passes WP:BIO for athletes. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • No. Punkmorten (talk) 09:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Phil Bridger.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 22:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Hello? Gold medals at a national level! That's more notable than some baseball player who qualifies for appearing once in an MLB game. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - national winter games championship confers notability in this case. matt91486 (talk) 01:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, national championships of a certain nation is not in itself notable because it is not the highest level of the sport. He has a biography which shows that he has not competed in the World Cup. In the 2006-07 Cross-Country Skiing World Cup, 172 skiers placed among the top 30, and hundreds more competed, so there are more than enough skiers who actually meets WP:BIO, contrary to Greer who does not. The skier in question is only 18 years old, and could thus achieve something in the future. Punkmorten (talk) 09:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep- Its a close one because he is an amateur athlete, but I do think the gold and silver medals in the national winter games championship is sufficient. Rigby27 Talk 20:47, 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 merge. Non-admin closure. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Julio Venegas

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

Delete and/or merge to De-Loused in the Comatorium. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BAND. It appears he was a friend of a notable musician, who died when they were in a garage band together. An tribute album, of sorts, was released. Do not see why he would warrant his own article as he died prior to the notablity of the musican was established. Endless Dan 20:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Merge as above: doesn't appear there's enough info to fill out the article beyond what's relevant there.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 22:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge as above.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 00:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge as above. Bondegezou (talk) 12:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to De-Loused in the Comatorium, which was basically recorded because of his death. GiantSnowman (talk) 17:42, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Perfectly Clear

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

bunch of copyvio stuff, only one decent source Caldorwards4 (talk) 02:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 23:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Article is a mix of copyvio and crystal ballery. Eric444 (talk) 06:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Little to no verifiable info about this article yet, besides the fact that "Stronger Woman" is doing great on country radio right now. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, merge any useful info on "Stronger Woman" to that article.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 22:07, 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 Speedy deleted by Slakr. Non-admin closure. Icestorm815 • Talk 05:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cloverdale Elementary School

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

I would say that it does not assert notability per WP:SCHOOL because it is an elementary school and not a secondary school, and the school is not notable for any particular achievements. Gary King (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete no claim of notability, unsourced. JJL (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Nominated for CSD A1: doesn't even identify the state.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 22:09, 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} 01:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SurveyEngine

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

There is no indication that this is a notable feature. It is used by a few notable companies and organisations (see Talk), but that does not make SurveyEngine notable, since notability is not inherited. Aecis^Brievenbus 20:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete and salt - doesn't appear to be sufficiently notable for inclusion, and has been speedy deleted 3 times. Addhoc (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and salt, ditto: essentially unreferenced article about a commercial website, no indicia of notability present. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and salt - unreferenced, and "various people have used it" is not an assertion of notability.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 22:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - Non Notable and unreferenced. Canyouhearmenow 23:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Read the journals - they refer to the software - not the company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfrancois (talk • contribs) 23:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - nn company, and no references. Tiptoety ^talk 23:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - No references, no Notability ClanCC _{(T / ^C)} 08:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Not sufficient verification to substantiate notability. Tyrenius (talk) 01:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Julian Z. Gilbert

Julian Z. Gilbert (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can find no reliable sources for the existence of this painter. The sources provided go to the main page of a website that isn't searchable, as far as I can tell, so even if the information is really there, I can't find it. There are only 11 Google hits for "Julian Z. Gilbert", most of them to ebay sellers attempting to sell his works, which, surprisingly, are not the "portraits" that the article says he's noted for. And this may just be my eyes, but the signatures on those works don't look like "Julian Gilbert" to me. There is only one non-Wikipedia hit for "Julian Zangwell Gilbert", and that's to a forum page. The article itself is a part of the Vitus Barbaro hoax. Corvus cornix_talk 19:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

SAVE Let me express a fair opionion of what should be done with this article. First off, the artist's work was clearly listed on ebay as "Julian Z. Gilbert", so there is no problem of those works being attributed to him. 2nd, the images themselves were added by Joel Gilbert, a relative, so there is no issue about copyrights. 3rd, to even have works published into lithographs means one is noted - just like an author being published - therfore by nature notable. 4th, there is no such thing as a Vitus hoax, the person has been proven to be real- so it was always a misunderstanding, rather than a hoax, with also further evidence showing that confussion was just be the work of hackers posting fake IP's. finally, the sourcing provides all information where poeple can get catalogues themselves and see the formal listing of the artist- a valid sourceMctrain (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• You keep claiming that the images were uploaded by Joel Gilbert, who you claim is a relative of this unverifiable artist, but you have yet to provide a single shred of evidence to support your contention. Corvus cornix_talk 22:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You have every ability to contact the Wikipeia account labeled as "Joel Gilbert" when the pictures were added- talk to that person before you make false assumptions.Mctrain (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, as Google search on the only site mentioned as a reference doesn't find him.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 22:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Also the "Addison Gallery of American Art" is in Andover, MA, not Chicago.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 22:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

SAVE google as the standard of noteriaty is not a valid basis for removal. Google searches only pull up names that have been added to internet articles or listings- hardly relevant. Therefore, googling as a means of inclusion of Wikipedia is a bogus position and not valid to any discussion of inclusion on Wikipedia.Mctrain (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd be more than happy to keep this article if it could be verified. As of now, there are no sources to verify that he ever existed. And I get quite a few hits for William Mosby, and sources for more, off-line. Corvus cornix_talk 22:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• He is fully listed in the source cited, which is fully verifiable by the designated year catalogue that is attainable for anyone.Mctrain (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. I don't think this is a hoax. A couple of online artist resumes mention studying under someone of the same name, and the dates seem right: [6], [7]. But, this just gives circumstantial evidence for the subject's existence, perhaps as a teacher at the American Academy of Arts in the 1960/70s. I can't find any sources as yet to support notability. I take the point about the limitation of online sources for artists of this period (see User:Tyrenius/Historical systemic bias for an essay on the subject), and am willing to change my !vote if any sources, online or otherwise, can be found.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Just because the person is real doen't meanthe article can't be a hoax. Edward321 (talk) 05:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• If a person is noting studing under someone, then that is valid notability- you don't list studing under someone of non-significance.Mctrain (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh, great, I can list all of my high school teachers and they can get their own articles, then! Corvus cornix_talk 23:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • A teacher is significant to their students. Which is how it should be; but some have a wider significance: [8]. Their notabilty, though, rests on more than a couple of passing references in resumes.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

When it comes to art resumes' listing who they studied under is a big dealMctrain (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Yet another "functionally unverifiable" [9] article. The alleged source is false. Seaching that site, there is no listing for a Julian Gilbert [10] [11] The one possible claim to notability, establishing the Addison Gallery, also seems to be false - there are Addison Galleries in Massachusetts and Florida, but none in Chicago and none founded by a Julian Gilbert. [12] Edward321 (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Edward321. And given that some of it seems outright false, delete as probable hoax. --Calton | Talk 01:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with Ethicoaestheticist that this fellow certainly existed. However, the article's creator explicitly stated that the source of his information was the artist's widow, and I can find no record of the only printed source that the article has ever cited. (I've searched for various combinations of Utrecht, "Portrait Artists", Chicago, and "Julian Gilbert" in WorldCat and—under the assumption that a research library in the Chicago area would be the most likely place to possess such a work—in the online catalogs of the Chicago Public Library, the Newberry Library, and the libraries of the University of Chicago, Northwestern University, and the Art Institute of Chicago.) Unless someone can turn up one or more reliable sources that can be used to verify the information in the article, I have to say delete. Deor (talk) 01:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete why don't you just get it over with and delete it already. You reject the actual source that the info came from, which is fully attainable from the website of the cited listing of The American Socieity of Portrait Artists. You already removed the pictures added by a family member. Addison Gallery was on Addison Street in Chicago, which it said in the source. Delete it, what's the point of going through this - as if there is going to be some final consensus of retaining the article after everything is all said and done. You are just prolonging the enevitable.Mctrain (talk) 02:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment You've !voted Keep twice, and Delete once. It's okay to leave your comments, but you really should strike 2 of your !votes. Edward321 (talk) 05:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No doubt all true, but no assertion of notability. Johnbod (talk) 01:28, 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 Speedy delete g1, obvious hoax, or WP:SNOW if you prefer. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cerulean's Syndrome

Cerulean's Syndrome (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Almost assuredly a hoax. The only Google hit was the contribs page of the author. Sadly, no speedy-delete criteria exists for this, so off we go to AfD. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete -- for the above reasons.--ukexpat (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete -- I believe G1 covers obvious hoaxes, but I might be wrong. At any rate, thanks to User:Realkyhick, we can get rid of this nonsense once and for all, because it doesn't meet WP:V if for no other reason. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete made-up content, most likely a hoax Doc Strange (talk) 22:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Hoaxes do not yet have a CSD criteria, so AfD was the way to go. Wildthing61476 (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Do not delete: this is a little known problem that GWSFPD is trying to publicize. Research being done at George Washington University, in conjunction with GWSFPD, is trying to learn more about this terrible disorder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GWSFPD (talk • contribs) 22:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Uh, yeah, right. No citations, no Google hits at all. We weren't born yesterday. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - obvious hoax. If it weren't, there'd be cited references.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 22:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete complete and absolute horseshit. Now hook me up with some of that crushed periwinkle. JuJube (talk) 22:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - a hoax or fringe theory. Cerulean is a shade of blue. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 03:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • More specifically, it's a Crayola crayon color. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Not even a good joke. —Qit el-Remel (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - But just because it isn't a speedy, that doesn't mean it must go to AFD. One could always PROD the article. -- Whpq (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• I used to do that, but it's been my experience that when I PROD an obvious hoax that isn't somehow eligible for speedy, the PROD gets contested in short order and I've just wasted everyone's time. So I've started going straight to AfD to get it over with. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Obvious hoax. Edward321 (talk) 06:00, 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 Keep (non-admin closure), clear case made for notability and verifibility of website. Darkspots (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Al-Hesbah

Al-Hesbah (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't seem like a notable enough website for WP, and plus the claim about it being such a notorious "jihadist" website seems a dubious contradiction when other sources say it is a tool of Saudi intelligence. I could be mistaken but considering the lack of good sources and the contradiction, I suggest delete. Khorshid (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep, this is like saying 9/11 should be deleted because it contradicts itself saying that the government may have had involvement, or it may've been a surprise. It's not an admitted tool of Saudi intelligence, but the charge has been made. Its notability is easily verified, as it was monitored by more than 35 media outlets who used it as a source, including CNN, the Kuwaiti state media, KNews and others. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 20:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per news coverage.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 22:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep- indeed notable, there is sufficient news coverage. Rigby27 Talk 14:22, 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 --slakr^\ talk / 10:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Isara

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

Mainly an advertisement for the article's subject, isara.org. I was part of this article's creation; however, as there are no reliable sources and the page reads more like an advertisement then anything, it fails WP:WEB. Also, the Isara page originally was a redirect to Ishara, [13] but was edited by User:Ginafish to be about Isara.org. [14] --SyntaxError55 ^talk 23:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SyntaxError55 ^talk 19:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete- Fails notability requirements per WP:WEB. Couldn't find any independent, reliable sources. Rigby27 Talk 14:28, 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, as the article has been sufficiently cleaned up and reliable sources have been demonstrated to exist —αlεx•mullεr 19:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sarah Teitel

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

This is blatant advertising to me: mass links, writing, bolding.(not anymore) It fails WP:MUSIC too, no coverage in reliable sources, only trivial mentions in media according to [15]. Cenarium (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup - it seems like there are enough non-trivial links out there, once you wade through the repeated info/MySpace stuff.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 22:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, fails WP:V, WP:BLP WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO. dissolve^talk 09:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - the article was very recently created, and has not had a chance for improvement. Certainly it needs a heavy dose of cleanup. But there is one featured article about her in the mess of links, and a CBC radio profile entry. I've tagged the article as unreferenced, and think that providing some time to find references would be appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 18:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment There are a couple of valuable links indeed, they say that she'll be prominent in the future. WP:N says "significant coverage in (preferably multiple) reliable sources that are independent of the subject", so it would be hardly satisfied. She may however be fully notable in the future which makes me vote weak keep be neutral after all. I'll try to clean this up tomorrow. Cenarium (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutral, maybe two or three months will help to figure things out about her notability.Cenarium (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I've cleaned up the article so it doesn't read as much like a press release puff piece. I've also added references and was able to track down the Toronto Star article alluded to in the text and incorporated it as a reference. On closer examination, the CBC radio profile is actually just a copy of her web site profile, but that is more than offset by being written about in the Toronto Star, which is a major daily newspaper covering the Greater Toronto Area, so still a weak keep (leaning to the keep) for me. -- Whpq (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

With only one reliable source as a poet[16] and one as musician[17], the references do not meet the requirements of multiple sources per WP:MUSIC as a musician or WP:BIO#Creative professionals as a writer to me. A couple self-released CDs available online with no record label or tours scheduled also gives me no indication of any "future prominence". dissolve^talk 01:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - there are multiple reliable soureces about the subject of this article. The fact that they are about different aspect of her work is irrelevant. The primary criteria from the General Notability Guideline doesn't split a person into different activities. The other criteria are specific guidelines to assist in determination of notability and are a supplement to WP:N rather than superceding it. -- Whpq (talk) 11:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The Toronto Star piece isn't even about the subect, it's written by the subject. Having a byline in a newspaper doesn't make one notable. The only other reference is a free community newspaper. Hardly "significant coverage" per WP:N.dissolve^talk 11:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, although that wasn't the argument you put forth that I was responding to. I'd still prefer to see the article given a chance to have additonal referencing so still a weak keep for me. -- Whpq (talk) 22:19, 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 speedily deleted at 23:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC) by Philippe (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights). Non-admin close. cab (talk) 01:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gelande Quaffing

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

Prod removed by IP. Non-notable game that someone made up one day. faithless (^speak) 18:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NFT. We need a new speedy criterion for drinking games. JohnCD (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per no assertion of notability and no references -- so tagged.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 22:41, 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 --slakr^\ talk / 10:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Growing Out (film)

Growing Out (film) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Disputed prod; Non-notable direct-to-video film with no reliable sources (IMDB is not a reliable source). Accounting4Taste:talk 18:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. No sign of any real-world notice or impact, which, since Wikipedia is not IMDB Lite, is the minimum necessary here. --Calton | Talk 01:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —86.149.53.196 (talk) 10:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NF, as there is no coverage in reliable sources. Bláthnaid 20:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per the others. The Dominator (talk) 04:51, 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, as reliable sources have been added during the AfD to demonstrate notability —αlεx•mullεr 20:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Top Gear (Kings Road)

Top Gear (Kings Road) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete this boutique fails WP:CORP. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete A small boutique that has no notability, fails WP:CORP. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Sox!} 18:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: This article has been begun by a new editor, West one girl (talk • contribs • logs). She should have decorated the article with a 'stub' notification, but obviously hasn't. As her contribution log shows, she's previously done good work on the similar article Granny Takes a Trip, and clearly has an interest in this area and expanding the article. Suggestion: someone put a 'stub' notification on the article, withdraw the AfD, let West one girl work on it over the next fortnight, and then revisit. I feel that this is a badly advised AfD - very close, unintentionally, to WP:BITE.--Major Bonkers (talk) 16:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Response if she wants to move it to user space to work on it, she's free to do so, as of now we are rating whether it's ready to be a WP encyclopedic article. My suggestion is that she userfy it and only put it out into main space when it's ready. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. The shop gets a mention by the V&A Museum - the world's most authoritative fashion museum. Clearly notable. I've put in the V&A as a source. Let the article grow in community space in the spirit of open and cooperative collaboration which is the founding principles of the project. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 10:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added in more refs and expanded it to demonstrate that this shop is widely considered notable. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 11:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep From my own Googling, there appears to be sufficient coverage of the shop, which was somewhat influential in its day, to merit an article. I'd wager that some time spent in the periodicals/newspaper archives of a decent library would turn up even more. --Sturm 11:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Sufficient independent sources. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:04, 28 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 --slakr^\ talk / 11:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barbara Weber-Scaff

Barbara Weber-Scaff (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete nn voice actress, no sources and minor roles, fails WP:BIO & WP:N, so nn we don't know where or when she was born, where she grew up, went to school, career, etc., the things one expects in a living person's biography. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Non notable voice actress, also is unsourced. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Sox!} 18:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Just not notable enough... and no source to back it. --Jw21/PenaltyKillah 18:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Has 926 google hits and simply needs citations. I will add those now. • Freechild'sup? 00:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete The citations I found and added to the article show nothing; delete as non-notable. • Freechild'sup? 02:04, 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. While it may be appropriately merged into the parent article, there is no consensus to delete. A merge discussion may take place as per Help:Merge in article talk space. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

[edit] Nuku Nuku Dash

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

• Delete nothing to indicate that this adaptation of a redlink work is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• It seems to now meet inclusion criteria. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment You didn't even make a basic attempt to determine notability. --Farix (Talk) 20:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Delete. This may have been an extension of All Purpose Cultural Cat Girl Nuku Nuku... --Jw21/PenaltyKillah 19:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect. Redirect to this article. And a note to Carlossuarez46, redlink was improperly created should link to All Purpose Cultural Cat Girl Nuku Nuku. A section can be created in the All Purpose Cultural Cat Girl Nuku Nuku article to further expand on the manga adaptations. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 19:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Additional Clarifying Comment In addition to re-direct, Merge content into All Purpose Cultural Cat Girl Nuku Nuku. Farix asked me to reevaluate my statements. The information he has added to the article is good, but I do not believe there should be a split here. For example, check Cutey Honey which had multiple series and OVA iterations. The article does not diverge except for Live Action movies. Either way, certainly do not delete. Content is good, it's a question of where it should go. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 14:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - the main All Purpose Cultural Cat Girl Nuku Nuku article already covers this series in depth; article is redundant. Doceirias (talk) 02:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to All Purpose Cultural Cat Girl Nuku Nuku: nothing wrong with leaving redirects from plausible search terms. —TangentCube, Dialogues 03:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I see a legitimate split from All Purpose Cultural Cat Girl Nuku Nuku where this article can go into greater detail about this particular OAV series then the main article can. --Farix (Talk) 03:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note The article has been heavily expanded since its original listing on AfD. Editor's are encourage to reevaluate the article in its current state and not the one line stub it was when the AfD began. --Farix (Talk) 03:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment That looks fine to keep, but I'm not convinced it needs to be a separate page. Was there a reason it could not be adequately covered in the original article? The only real reason to spin this off is that it was an alternate timeline, but as I recall, it was quite poorly received, and more of a footnote to the original series than anything else. I'd still prefer to see it merged... Doceirias (talk) 04:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Merge into All Purpose Cultural Cat Girl Nuku Nuku. Can't see any reason at this time to have the OVA separate from the main. The main is in bad shape as is, but certainly not too long to support its inclusion. Collectonian (talk) 04:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Merging the two is the equivalent of hammering a square peg into a round hole. The quality of both articles will suffer from the attempt. Also, the poor condition of the main article is indicative that the main article needs worked on and cleaned up, not that this article should be merged into it. It also doesn't prevent the main article for serving as an overview of the entire franchise, while seperate articles cover the OVAs and TV series. I've already attempted to dress up the lead as a step in that direction. --Farix (Talk) 14:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Not-delete. I'm not going to make a content judgement on this, not having seen/read anything from the series, but a straight deletion would be the wrong course of action. —TangentCube, Dialogues 05:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep (the article as cleaned up by Farix is a fine piece of editing) and open a discussion outside of AfD of whether to merge into the main All Purpose Cultural Cat Girl Nuku Nuku article -- or rather, a discussion of what article structure the franchise should have (all separate or merged together). —Quasirandom (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  Agreed, that discussion should take place on the All Purpose Cultural Cat Girl Nuku Nuku article talk page, and preferably when the sections dealing with the manga, 1st oav, and TV series are all brought up to the level Farix has managed with Nuku Nuku Dash. Keep Doceirias (talk) 02:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Actual deletion does not seem to be really on the table anymore. Merging might be, but that can be discussed outside of AfD. -- Ned Scott 04:04, 27 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, an obvious hoax. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Go Rhys Lightning (album)

Go Rhys Lightning (album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely unsourced, and Google yields no hits. RedZion^X 18:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - but there is a reference to it in the Craig David article. Deb (talk) 18:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —86.149.53.196 (talk) 10:36, 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 --slakr^\ talk / 11:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cosmic Cantina

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

Delete fails WP:N. Google new search gives no hint [18]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Strong Delete per WP:N. --Jw21/PenaltyKillah 19:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete --slakr^\ talk / 11:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Balloon Race

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

Delete no indication that this ride is notable Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Djsasso (talk) 22:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I don't even know if balloon race is the technical name for that type of ride anyway.Not notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhockey10 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 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} 01:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of vancouver breakdance crews

List of vancouver breakdance crews (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Cites no sources, and does not seem notable. RedZion^X 17:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete not notable, little content, could perhaps be an A7 speedy delete as no assertion of notability is established. EJF (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable, should be a speedy.--ukexpat (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable, no useful information in the article, no hard-and-fast way of determining eligibility for the list so would largely be original research. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Un-encyclopedic.--Pmedema (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Never asserts notability, no sources and entirely consisting of original research Doc Strange (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per everyone. Maxamegalon2000 06:14, 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flag of Gloucestershire

Flag of Gloucestershire (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

• Delete Fails WP:N. Google search gives 6 ghits [19]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep It actually gives a lot more hits if you take off the quotation marks [20]. I know you only did it to narrow it down, but you essentially narrowed it down too far as there are a lot of pages that mention in while stated something like "a design for a new flag of the county of gloucestershire". Noteworthy for a 1,000 year old county as well.--Borgarde^talk 18:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Although it is sort of a WP:CRYSTAL, there does seem to be sufficient coverage such as [21] from the BBC. Right now it is a bit of a current news article that will change but the name on the article will allow it to be updated once the "new" flag is determined.--Pmedema (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable at this time; fails WP:CRYSTAL badly. At this point, it's non-notable; just publicity for the High Sheriff and his contest. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep - the page will only be recreated in about a month's time when the flag is actually created, and the development of that flag just scrapes through on notability, imo. -- Roleplayer (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• WP:CRYSTAL says delete, WP:IAR says keep - I lean towards the latter on this occasion. EJF (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - The coverage indicates notability despite it being a future event. That said, is there an existing flag of Gloucestershire that information can be added on? matt91486 (talk) 01:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep - Even Flags of the World has little to say about Gloucestershire. Since there will be a flag in the near future, there is not much point deleting this article only to rewrite it next month. If the new flag were to come out in the not-so-immediate future, I would say delete - 52 Pickup ^(deal) 13:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Thank you everyone for lavishing so much attention on this item. I have always been impressed by the vast wealth of vexillological knowledge available on Wikipedia. My aim was to add to this pool. I assumed that people might appreciate knowing that there would very soon be a new flag for the ancient county. I am not seeking to advertise either the Sherrif nor his competition but as a competition organised by the High Sherrif is the manner by which the new flag will come into existence, it seemed rather pertinent to include this in the entry. I first heard about this impending flag on the Internet, on the website which I included as a reference. This refers to the competition so it seemed logical to mention this process in the text. Many flags are and have been chosen by competition - Australia, Papua New Guinea, Kosovo -is it acceptable to mention this in the respective texts describing each flag? I just checked and it seems it is, so why not for Gloucestershire too?

Maybe the issue is that this is a forthcoming flag? Well there was an entry for a forthcoming Kosovan flag in Wikipedia for a long time before the current one was chosen? Why? I imagined it was to let everyone know that there was soon to be a flag chosen for the impending state of Kosovo i.e spreading knowledge - and if memory serves that article mentioned, a flag design competition. This was held under the auspices of the United Nations backed Kosovan government, logically therefore Wikipedia could have been accused of advertising the Kosovan government and its competition. This would have been rather daft though - how could one describe the forthcoming flag without describing the body and process involved in its inception? I seem to recall that there was even a link to an Internet page where one could read all about the competition and even find out how to enter...this seems eerily familiar.

As with the Kosovoan flag, which had an empty space pending the final outcome, I added an empty image for the flag of Gloucestershire - my intention being to update the page with the chosen image, just as happened with Kosovo. Thus, those consulting Wikipedia would not only be aware of the forthcoming flag but will also get to see what the successful design will be.

If people feel strongly opposed to either Gloucestershire, the High Sherriff, or being kept informed of ongoing events - go ahead and delete. —Preceding Vexilo comment added by Vexilo (talk • contribs) 18:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• • comment - keeping informed of ongoing events is not the primary purpose here; that's more a role for WikiNews. Wikipedia is not on deadline. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC) (a vexillolophile)
    • comment - yes... but the fact that the choosing of a new flag is in it self notable and verifiable.--Pmedema (talk) 13:29, 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 Keep. Both sides make good arguments here, but in the end, this does have sources and as as much of a "meme" as some of the other faux-religions that have articles on Wikipedia. The Placebo Effect (talk) 13:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Church of Google

The Church of Google (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

• Delete we deleted this a while back and it has reincarnated or resurrected depending on one's belief set :-) Either way, it still isn't encyclopedic and ought to be salted this time. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Do not delete thisIf church of Google is deleted it will not be fair until all other articles on parody religions like Flying Spaghetti Monster and Landover Baptist Church are deleted. Church of Google is almost as old as Flying Spaghetti Monster —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotogen (talk • contribs) 07:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep/merge It seems to be notable (just): news hits. At worst, it should be a redirect to Parody religion which mentions it. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Sorry, it's a non-notable neologistic attempt at humor. Majoreditor (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete or merge/redirect Although it is very funny, I don't think that it is encyclopedic. Is there another area that it could be moved to in Wikipedia that would be more appropriate? perhaps the Parody religion that Colonel Warden mentions ...it is funny. --Pmedema (talk) 19:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete religioncruft. JuJube (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Look. We are serious. At least to a degree. The CoG is about making a point. There's an article for the Invisible Pink Unicorn, no? We may not have many "reliable" sources, but just so everyone is aware, we are doing a press release in April. We are not here to plagiarize Wikipedia. We are not a flash-in-the-pan joke, as our two-year existence shows. Yes, this article has been deleted in the past. Yes, I attempted a previous attempt. But this time, I put in a lot of work and sources, and I think the article should stay. Yes, we are a parody religion. But if the Invisible Pink Unicorn gets an article, why not us? We're not defaming anyone, I tried my hardest to write neutrally. Why isn't it encyclopedic? Because some people have the temerity to make the arguement that a search engine properly fits the definition of a god? Where is the neutrality now?"The universe is a figment of its own imagination" - Douglas Adams (talk) 23:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and add it in Unusual Articles of Wikipedia (see the section and think about is or isn't encyclopedic, or wikipedic). There are parody religions in Wikipedia (Invisible Pink Unicorn, Flying Spaghetti Monster). Therefore, keep it. Zerokitsune (talk) 03:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep not a religion exactly, of course, but a notable concept or joke or meme or parody. I dont think its a parody of religion, exactly, but rather of google-based culture.--a there are certainly sources. DGG (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep! I don't see any reason as to why this article should be deleted. This is a pretty well written article. Also if other religions and parody religions get their own wiki, why can't the CoG get their own? rzm61 (talk) 9:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep/merge If you would just bother to Google for it, you would see that it has >50000 hits for "church of google". Oh wait, did I just fall in a logic loop? ;-) Sergio Ballestrero (talk) 12:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable (70 800 000 hits Google). Europe22 (talk) 02:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Is there not the religion of the 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' on wikipedia? What makes church of Google any different? User:Allpwrflvexx —Preceding comment was added at 16:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, while I appreciate the appropriate wit of the nominator ("reincarnated or resurrected depending on one's belief set"), I nevertheless note that the article is well-organized and contains numerous references demonstrating notability. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Replace. Please note that Googleism is a religion that has been around for quite a while and has several sects already. However, The Church of Google sound a little bit like a self-promoted article and it seems like another sect of the googleism trying to persuade the public away from the true grounds of googleism (or trying to modify it/or trying to establish a pattern of belief). It can sound funny specially because most of the people would not take it seriously but encyclopedically speaking, Googleism deserves its own article while The Church of Google does not. Therefore, I believe that it would be more adequate to replace an article about the church of google with an article about googleism. -- Loukinho (talk) 08:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, this in an interesting "thought experiment" about reliion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newell Post (talk • contribs) 19:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, There are MANY other parody religions with Wikipedia articles. The CoFSM, Church of SubGenius just to name two. I smell some sort of double standard. The CoG has been around for about two years now and has generated quite a bit of publicity and news. It deserves a place within Wikipedia. Without question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.50.85 (talk) 06:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep but clean up and justify I would like to draw evidence to your policy of rejecting [22] as a reason to delete pages. Well how do we know that google is not 'god'? Ok sure it was programmed by a human but someone could just say the engine is a digital incarnation of a real diety? Just as easily the argument could be reversed. Either way WP:IGNORENCE is a reason to KEEP this article. If people find it offensive? well this isn't a small site, there is bound to be thousands of articles you'll find offensive. This church although laughable, does exist and therefore deserves a place along side the greats. Like the aforementioned Pink horse.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.201.201.55 (talk • contribs)
• Delete - non-notable, unlike the FSM (and Googlehits is the worst possible metric to use for discussing this one). WP:INTERESTING, WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS are not viable arguments for retention. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• keep for all the other problems with the article there are multiple reliable sources linked at the bottom of the article in the external links section. They just need to be used to actually source the article rather than be listed at the bottom. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete -- The topic may be notable, but the current page reads like a homepage of the religion, not an encyclopedia article. I would be willing to vote keep on an encyclopedia article on this topic. Matchups (talk) 12:41, 29 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. Jfire (talk) 06:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Powerset, Inc.

Powerset, Inc. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete nn company; the 2 articles do not provide significant coverage - more mentions that venture capitalists are funding competitors for Google and Xerox Parc is in that hunt too. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't intend to create this article. I thought I was editing a pre-existing article that had been deleted. If you poke around in the dustbins of Wikipedia edit history, there have been a couple of articles created about Powerset. They have been deleted because of notability and significance, but those versions were pretty amateurish and lacked references. Even more problematic is that some of them contained language that smacked of hype or marketing. I wanted to create a simple article with objective, verifiable information and references to back it up (a real encyclopedia entry, not a plug for the company). I'll add a few more references, but with three articles form the mainstream press (NY Times, Business Week, and the Washington Post), I think there's a pretty good argument for notability or significance. Stuartprobinson (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. At least some of the references are reliable sources. --Eastmain (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Clearly, obviously, notable. $12.5 million venture funding, a founder's fund company, starting a new search engine, partner of and located in Xerox Parc? What's not notable about the company? And if you need confirmation there's already a business week article devoted to the company and 1 of two companies profiled in a Washington Post article. If that's not enough, you can use google. Forbes, PC World and Marketwatch not good enough? Wikidemo (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as there is evidence of notability, per Wikidemo. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete, WP:SNOW. No point in dragging this out. Neıl ☎ 16:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Maxwell's Silver Hammer Cartoon

Maxwell's Silver Hammer Cartoon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Aside from the fact that this article is incredibly poorly written, it appears to be about a cartoon that is either entirely nonexistent or at least very, very non-notable. A quick Google search doesn't bring up anything relevant. While there do appear to be a few cartoons made to the song, they're all fan creations and I can't find any suggestion that the Beatles' ever made a cartoon for the song. The only functional external link is to a site selling memorabilia, which has no mention of any cartoon. Natalie (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. per nom. Ronnotel (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I think. My brain's hurting. --Dweller (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The fact that this has been there since October 2007 is a little disturbing. Even if we find some source that might, possibly, maybe establish some modicum of notability, this article is not salvageable. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence of notability. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete When Abbey Road was released, "Late Night Line Up" commissioned a number of short films as accompaniments to the broadcast of the album in its entirety. I remember watching it. However, since no information seems to be available at present, there is nothing to support this article. It's not a hoax, however. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Perhaps all these short films could be written about in a single article? Everyking (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That would be a good idea, if sources could be found. Trip to the library tomorrow, I think.--Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Bang bang (delete this silver hammer)... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Make sure that it is dead... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete and shoot it to Mars. Salih (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete — I think that it's actually some memorabilia that the Beatle's signed or something. Still not notable. --Haemo (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

  In fact, I think this (image) is exactly what the article is about. --Haemo (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

  Is it that hard to understand? As I read it, it's talking about a cartoon, acting as a kind of music video for the song, which aired on a television show at around the time the Abbey Road album was released. If this were something that aired today, hardly anyone would contest the notability of it (although they might want to merge it), so I am perplexed at the strength of the opposition to having this content. Everyking (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

  I'd bet the strength of opposition has less to do with the article and more to do with the fact that it was discussed on AN. Natalie (talk) 13:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Wow, that is a mess of an article. Wildthing61476 (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Wtf? Er, delete. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Wow, dude, like delete as my bwain is fwied. Bearian (talk) 14:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Volume overdose records

Volume overdose records (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete nothing indicating notability of this company per WP:CORP and it's only been around for a year; and given the viral nature of our WP:BAND criteria, if this is notable, all artists who have 2 releases through them are suddenly notable too! Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I don't think that just being a record label makes this company notable. I looked for sources and couldn't find anything. Not a single mention anywhere. As far as I can tell, there are no artists, bands, or albums affiliated with this company. --Cyrus Andiron 17:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as above.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 00:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The article doesn't claim notability and I can't find it on google. Wikidemo (talk) 01:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete --slakr^\ talk / 11:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sandie Swingsters

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

Apparently non-notable HS music group, despite having a 50th reunion. Per WP:CORP, Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found. Travellingcari (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - cool, but aside from the external link provided, there seems to be no coverage about them. Looking at the news article, it appears they were a highschool band. - Whpq (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David Sawyer

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

I see no evidence via the article and only some via Google (and no RS coverage) of his notability. There's a chance his book would pass, but it doesn't have an article to merge this to. I don't see evidence of notability outside the book, the current article is his resume. Travellingcari (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable - fails WP:BIO.BWH76 (talk) 17:13, 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} 01:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hebridean Wolfdog

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

Nominator forgot to create this page. Sbowers3 (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This breed has no register or club and looks as if only one person actually breeds them who is located in Scotland. This cannot be a real breed and it seems this article is being used to advertise the one breeder who is breeding these dogs. --Exhaustfumes (talk) 17:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - I have to agree and I'm embarrassed that I let it slip by me on New pages patrol. Can't find any reliable sources - practically zero ghits. Sbowers3 (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to wolf-dog hybrid. —Qit el-Remel (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete as unverified and clear self-promotion. The creating user is the owner of the website hebrideanwolfdogs.com (as noted on his userpage) VanTucky 02:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete The first litter from the breeder was born in December 2007, so “early 2000‘s” is wrong. In fact his CSV (the male) was sold to him on a strict No Breeding contract, which he has violated and therefore he risks the dog being taken off him. Also all dogs from this litter have been sold as CSV (Czechoslovakian Wolfdogs) and not Hebridean Wolfdogs - which is what breeder was using as a “kennel name”. It's definite self-promotion. --Neesk (talk) 10:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete His female is a Tamaskan and his male is a Czech Wolfdog. He has bred them together once and produced one litter, this does not constitute the creation of a new breed. This article is purely for self promotion. --Blufawn (talk) 10:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete This guy bought a Tamaskan from up in Scotland and purchased a Czechoslovakian Wolfdog and bred the two together. He has had one litter and is now calling them Hebridean Wolfdogs!!! This is NOT a breed and this article should be deleted as it is misinforming the public. This is very sad news for both the Tamaskan breeder who sold him the puppy and the Czech Wolfdog breeder both who sold the dogs with a contract. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.176.114 (talk) 11:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as an unusual form of WP:NFT.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete --slakr^\ talk / 11:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Braal (band)

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. Simple searches yield no notable information. Delete Undeath (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 00:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of third party sources and lack of suggested notability.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Chetblong^{T C} 01:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Freelancing on the Internet

Freelancing on the Internet (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is original research, a violation of WP:NOT#OR. Orange Mike | Talk 16:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, as WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Not one single citation and User:Watcher, who created the article, has not logged in since 2004. Rob (talk) 17:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, OR, WP is not a blog Travellingcari (talk) 17:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - agree that this constitutes original research. -- Roleplayer (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete definate WP:OR --Pmedema (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:OR. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete The topic as actually valid enough but this isn't the article we should have on this. EconomicsGuy (talk) 20:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. It's OR at the moment but it might be able to be improved if people find cites and generally make it compliant with WP:V and WP:NOR, in which case I would be inclined towards a keep. No vote here.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:18, 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 delete --slakr^\ talk / 11:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Cause of Suppression

The Cause of Suppression (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

As the article currently stands, it only links to two other self-referential primary sources affiliated with the Church of Scientology. I checked to see if I could find any mention of this work in secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources. I could find zero mention of this work in any archived news sources, after searching in 2 different databases. I could only find a brief mention in a "works cited" section in one book, I Thought I Was the Crazy One: 201 Ways to Identify and Deal with Toxic People, by Ruthie O. Grant. This is not enough to assert notability, and certainly not enough to have any semblance of an article with discussion in secondary sources. It should be deleted as non-notable, with no significant discussion or coverage in secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Update: I also looked in a Book Review index in InfoTrac, and could not find any mention of this book there either. Cirt (talk) 17:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, there was even some discussion raised as to whether this was a "book" at all, or just some "booklet" put out by the organization. Cirt (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. As stated above, this seems to be a non-notable work. If there is important information to be preserved, it can find a home in the Suppressive Person article. --GoodDamon 17:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. It appears to be just a chapter/sub-section of the Scientology Handbook distributed as a booklet. Not notable. AndroidCat (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete- It may also qualify for speedy deletion per speedy deletion criteria 11.(content is solely based on dissemination material(the booklet itself) from the organisation) -- Stan _talk 18:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with you that this article could be a candidate for {{db-spam}}, and if someone else wants to add that tag to this article that's fine by me. But I started an AfD instead of going that route because a WP:PROD had been placed and removed on this article previously. Cirt (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment I have made a promise not to edit or vote on deletion of any Project Scientology articles. However the people above make good points. There are about 200-300 other Scientology articles on WP that should also be deleted. There are only a few thousand active Scientologists in the world, plus a few thousand more people whose main interest in life is going on the Internet to criticize/make fun of them. So the amount of coverage WP gives the topic is way out of line for its real world importance. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete- It appears to be just another book that contains scientology doctirine and offers no explination on what its significance to...anything is outside of the church. on a side note, how many articles do we have that are just "books by Hubbard"? I can see adding his significant works like Dianetics or the OT doctirine but not books like this. Coffeepusher (talk) 23:11, 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 delete --slakr^\ talk / 11:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AP.9

AP.9 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Head Shotz (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Worldwide Mob Figa (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Military Mindstate (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

AP.9 & Scoob Nitty presents Mobstarz (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

AP.9 & Scoob Nitty - Codenames (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Jayda & Ap.9 - The Streets, Poetry and Pain (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Ap.9 & Fed-X - 17708 (MOB) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Body Shotz (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Kartel Kalifornia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

On Tha Block (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Andre Nickatina & Nick Peace Present: The Jacka, Ap.9 & Husalah - Mob Trial (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

AP.9 Presents: The Mob Shop (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

AP.9 Presents: The Life & Times of the Mob Figaz (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Mob Figaz (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable artist; fails WP:MUSIC. Recommend Delete along with associated albums. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 16:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I can't find any sources for Mob Figaz or AP.9, prolific as they may be. The albums don't appear to have been on notable labels. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:06, 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 --slakr^\ talk / 11:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hybrid rudiments

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

Completely unverifiable. Out of the three external links that actually deal with hybrid rudiments, one is no longer there, one is a geocities site, and the other is just a personal website from some engineering major from Minnesota. Also, many of the ones listed are complete neologisms (cheesy pancakes, threesomes, and Doctoral Theses, for example, all have people who have claimed to invented them. Even the ones that DO have descriptions are almost nothing but pure jargon. Evan Seeds (talk)(contrib.) 04:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Toast it!

Fine by me. I just created this article to get the hybrid stuff out of the "rudiments" article anyway. IMHO most of what is in there is total crap. BTW, while you are in the process of deleting worthless articles, check out on the ones on Moeller Method, Snare technique, and Open, closed, open. Brad Halls (talk) 03:13, 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, — Scientizzle 16:47, 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. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rydah J. Klyde

Rydah J. Klyde (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Tha Fly Gangsta (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

What's Really Thizzin? (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Mac Dre Presents: Thizz Nation Vol. 9, Starring Rydah J. Klyde (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

El Pueblo Children (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable artist on barely notable record label. Recommend Delete, along with associated albums. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 16:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. If the record label is notable (and it appears to be), the artist has released multiple albums on it, and therefore passes WP:MUSIC. --Eastmain (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I found three sources [23] [24] [25]. Do they help? I think that finding sources is a far superior argument for notability than claiming notability via the label. Blast Ulna (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep Multiple albums on an apparently notable album, a couple of valid sources from Blast Ulna, and... well, that's about it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 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 Speedy delete A7 by User:NawlinWiki, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ultimate Music Awards

Ultimate Music Awards (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable upcomming online awards show, completely unsourced. Violates WP:CRYSTAL and WP:WEB Mr Senseless (talk) 16:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable event; also fails WP:RS and WP:V. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete no WP:RS, fails WP:N. No hint in google news [26]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: Accidentially an identical nomination was made at the same time. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:47, 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 Speedy delete a7, a1, some kid who's working on a book to be self-published. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wind Angel

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

Delete No WP:RS, fails WP:BK. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:RS and WP:V. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:39, 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 speedy delete author requested deletion. Pegasus «C¦T» 14:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Automotive Network Testing

Automotive Network Testing (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod; removed by author. Article seems to be a personal essay that fails WP:RS and WP:V. It may also fail WP:N. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• I edited the page slighty, This page is a lot better then some wiki pages, it needs addtional content added, but hopefully other wiki users will do this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Andre maier (talk • contribs) 16:41, February 20, 2008

• True this page isnt too bad compared to others i have seen. There are a few problems with the layout which could be fixed, but is a very good topic which links well to other wikipedia pages. .—Preceding unsigned comment added by Automotive joe (talk • 20:00, February 20, 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 19:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: This addition was made with the unsigned template included in it. Seems like it was just a copy of the comment above it... possibly COI or something? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• I wasnt sure how to leave my name so i copied the above users end and change it to my name, sorry for any confusion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Automotive joe (talk • contribs) 20:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have added references which no longer make this article fail WP:RS and WP:V —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andre maier (talk • contribs) 16:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: The article still reads like a personal essay. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete unless rewritten from scratch, but not a personal essay--what it reads like is a combination of public relations press releases from the various manufacturers. Have the individual sectionst been checked fro copyvio? DGG (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: It looks like some parts were taken from Controller Area Network, Local Interconnect Network, Media Oriented Systems Transport and some other pages. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok delete this i was just trying to add some information for people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andre maier (talk • contribs) 13:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

To any admin, can you close this under CSD G7? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:33, 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 as the article doesn't fulfil WP:MUSIC. —αlεx•mullεr 20:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mama's Gravy

Mama's Gravy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band. Speedying the band member articles which constant mostly of two sentences. -WarthogDemon 03:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep – Based on the information found here [27]. They can make a claim to some notability Shoessss |  Chat  16:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Reasonable number of releases, but not on a recognized label (as far as I'm aware). Have received some coverage and appear to have provided music for the film Lineage,[28] and also for Blood Guts Bullets & Octane.[29]--Michig (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The result was Keep Happy Editing, Dusti^{talk to me} 18:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Not listed on allmusic, no releases on a notable label, local touring only ("played up and down the California coast" according to [30]), none of the few sources found by Shoessss appear to be substantial -- they fail WP:MUSIC. Jfire (talk) 16:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. However, if it was edited to include the film references that Michig mentions then it should pass, but since the last lot of major editing was done a year ago I doubt this will happen. So delete.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 00:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:MUSIC "if [performed music for a work of media that is notable] is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that page" Jfire (talk) 01:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Props to Shoessss & Michig for the research, but I don't believe that the material turned up is sufficient to satisfy WP:MUSIC. As Jfire points out, mentions in the main article are the usual method of handling that. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:24, 28 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 --slakr^\ talk / 11:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Naked in the House

Naked in the House (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete Google news has no hit[31] fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Response: I am confused why this page has been marked for deletion... because it doesn't appear in Google News? Notably, the Google News site for India. What criteria is that?! Am I misunderstanding something?

Having now reviewed portions of Wikipedia's deletion policy and what "does not belong", my personal opinion is that this page belongs in Wikipedia as it serves as a record of an ongoing public event that garners attention in the media, is organized and participated in by a number of highly respected photographers as well as amateurs, and the photographs taken for the event / competition are generally considered to be very tasteful and highly artistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrdavidson (talk • contribs) 16:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - and response to response above: and one thing for you to know is that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion of any events!. Dekisugi (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Response: I appreciate the point about promoting an event. My personal view on NITH is that it is a respected cultural event and exercise in art and photography that deserves to be documented. For what it's worth, that I am not involved in, do not compete in (it's by invitation only), nor do I benefit from the event. Sporting events are often added to Wikipedia, and I don't really see how reporting on past events is any different. Goodness knows that major sporting events are profit centers, the promotion of which I could see as being objectionable, whereas my understanding is any procedes from the NITH exhibition are (in part?) donated to charity. That's subject to verification -- again, I'm not involved. I'm just an admirer of the concept and the work of the photographers involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrdavidson (talk • contribs) 18:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Needs external links to prove notability, otherwise Delete Alberon (talk) 11:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom & Alberon. The external links in the article go to the various entrants in past events, which - while interesting - does nothing to show that the event has received reliable, independent coverage in news articles or other reliable sources. This is an article about the event, so we need information that shows that the event itself is notable. The fact that there were contestants is obvious, since it appears to be a contest of some sort, but that does not mean that the event is notable in itself. To put it another way, would the event be notable no matter who participated? The focus, then, needs to be on the event. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, appears thoroughly non-notable, like an advert; add it to WP:DAFT.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Response: I thought of this page as a work in progress... I would like to add more information to it... but in light of the above, I frankly have nothing to gain by arguing further. Go ahead and delete. I never imagined that creating a Wikipedia page would be so disheartening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrdavidson (talk • contribs) 03:30, 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 -Djsasso (talk) 05:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ridin' (Mýa song)

Ridin' (Mýa song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC with a dash of WP:CRYSTAL. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Liberation (Mýa album), the album this song is from. Bláthnaid 15:40, 16 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) 02:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL. The Redirect would be pointless because it's a non-searchable term. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: This is insane! We know that the album will someday be released and that this will be chosen at that time as the second single? No. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Mere pertinent information and delete per above. Mr Senseless (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The result was Delete Happy Editing, Dusti^{talk to me} 18:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Non admin closure is not available with a delete result. Relisting to garner further consensus as it is not unanimous.

• Delete I think this is a little too soon for a song on an unreleased and unannounced album. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Sox!} 16:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Per above. Reverend X (talk) 20:05, 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.--Kubigula (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Graeme Johnston

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

While the dictionary he edited might be notable (it's a red link but not sure if it was never created or deleted), I don't find any evidence that he is. A search is hard due to an apparently common name, but an attempt at refining didn't provide much. I know that authors pass if their book has been covered widely in outside sources, but I'm not sure the same applies to an editor. Also the edition doesn't appear to have received widespread coverage, and it's unclear whether he worked on any other. Travellingcari (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I started the article over a year ago. I didn't have any more on him than what I put into the article. If he were notable, you'd think the article might have grown. Let him go. Jɪmp 07:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jonny-mt 16:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete This is just a publisher of a dictionary that dosen't even have it's own article. Also hasn't grown in over a year. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Sox!} 16:17, 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. If someone actually wants to go through with the merge I'll provide the contents of the article. Wizardman 18:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Religion in A Song of Ice and Fire

Religion in A Song of Ice and Fire (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article deprodded in March 2007, AFD suggested instead. Article suffers from a lack of third party sources, and is a large original research synthesis. Although it appears there are many references, these are (almost) all drawn from the primary source. Although this can be argued to be an acceptable practice (I'd do it myself), in the absence of these "sources" there is nothing to demonstrate any notability of the article subject itself. The topic of religions in A Song of Ice and Fire is covered somewhat tangentially in the main article, and there would be little relevant content that could be merged that would add to the encyclopedic quality of the main article. NickPenguin_(contribs) 18:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jonny-mt 16:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Merge with A Song of Ice and Fire, could easily fit in as a new section and subsections. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Sox!} 16:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I note that merge was proposed for this article in July of 2007 and never carried through. I agree with Nick about stand-alone notability and OR. While I'd ordinarily be suggesting a merge, this material does seem to be adequately covered in the sub-article at Westeros#Faiths. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:18, 28 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 --slakr^\ talk / 11:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jan Wildt

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

There are a few news hits but they link to reviews he wrote, not anything about his published works. A book search is primarily false positives, with the possible exception of the horror compilation. An LOC search doesn't indicate promise. I see no evidence he passes WP:BIO for creative professionals. Travellingcari (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jonny-mt 16:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Does not seem to pass WP:BIO, and also no hits in the searches provided in the nomination. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Sox!} 16:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - even the article itself states that his publishings are "scant." Not a notable person. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 16:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete As the subject of this "biographical article", I support its deletion. It contains inaccuracies, and the work is more important than the person. Wikipediphiles, do your duty! Jan Wildt 15:25, 25 February 2008

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

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

The result was delete --slakr^\ talk / 11:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marcelo Mirkin

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

No evidence whatsoever that he meets WP:BAND Travellingcari (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. A hit on Uruguayan radio, as claimed, would be sufficient under WP:BAND, but I couldn't find any evidence that such a single existed. Bondegezou (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 16:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jonny-mt 16:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Google search provides almost no hits at all, does not seem as notable as claimed in article. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Sox!} 16:25, 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. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Heinz Rudolf

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

Does not seem to meet WP:BIO. Google for "Heinz Rudolf" -kunze does not yield sources. Lea (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Adding Cyclone or X-Troll to the search, gives some Ghits, but nothing substantial anough to write a Bio.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 16:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jonny-mt 16:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. No claim of notability, very few (if any?) independent sources. Does not meet WP:BIO.BWH76 (talk) 17:15, 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 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mymelody-Molly Jones

Mymelody-Molly Jones (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No sources, there are zero Google hits for Mymelody Molly Jones and only two for Peeraporn Thapviwat, neither of them a reliable source. I freely admit that the transliteration from Thai to Latin characters may make this difficult to search for, but if she's now living in the United States and is a well-known Elvis impersonator, I would expect to find some evidence of it in English. She isn't listed on imdb as an actor for the Point of No Return episode of "That's So Raven" - http://imdb.com/title/tt0720491/ "Thai Achiever" magazine, which is used for references, has no web presence. That's not necessarily a problem, except that if this magazine does exist, the references just to the name of a magazine do no good, they require issue numbers. Corvus cornix_talk 03:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jonny-mt 16:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Not sure what to make of this. It doesn't feel like a hoax, but there's virtually nothing on Google. Google translate won't work for this either. I'll try to look at it bit more tonight when I have more time. Xymmax (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice to recreation if verifiable sources can be located. To quote WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". I imagine it goes without saying that if verifiable sources are located now, I would prefer not to delete, but in case it doesn't.... :) It seems unlikely, given how long this article has been tagged. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, as I could find absolutely nothing while searching that would demonstrate the barest hint of existence of the subject, which is just bizarre. —αlεx•mullεr 20:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice, per Moonriddengirl. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:33, 28 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. Tikiwont (talk) 10:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Macroinequity

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

Contested prod. Concern was: "Neologism with no reliable independent sources; suggest deletion per WP:NEO / WP:NOT#OR." This term has no Google hits and no Google Scholar hits. The article has no reliable independent sources to substantiate its content or establish notable usage. --Muchness (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. JamesMLane t c 08:37, 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 merge to Canon EOS. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Canon EOS 300X

Canon EOS 300X (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable commercial product. Completely unreferenced, no clear claim to notability other than being a product of a notable company. Wikipedia is not a digital camera guide. Wikipedia is not a Canon catalog. Mikeblas (talk) 15:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Almost any product from a company such as Canon is likely to be the subject of multiple coverage. See a search at Google News for two such reviews, and check back issues of photography magazines at your local library. --Eastmain (talk) 17:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge Merge the more distinctive features to a tabular form in the Canon EOS article, as was done for Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W30 to Cyber-shot. Wikipedia is not a product catalog, and the existence of a pro-forma review of a new product based on the manufacturer's press release does not prove that the product needs to be represented forever in encyclopedia articles. Notability on Wikipedia is permanent, so any product from any decade by any well known company would be equally entitled to an article, and Wikipedia would be hard to distinguish from an old Sears Roebuck catalog . There are dozens of poorly referenced stub articles about various Canon EOS cameras. One list would be appropriate, useful, and helpful. The other Canon EOS cameras should be group-nominated for this merger in a supplementary AFD. Otherwise Wikipedia will be cluttered with these articles as well as, presumably articles for the red-link models in the Canon EOS article. Edison (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge per Edison and Sony precedent. WP is not a product catalog and very few cameras have any long-term notability. Travellingcari (talk) 18:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge or delete. Not a significant or notable achievement in photography. MBisanz ^talk 21:10, 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 merge to Canon EOS. Source article and destination talk pages tagged accordingly. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Canon EOS 30V

Canon EOS 30V (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable commercial product. Completely unreferenced, no clear claim to notability other than being a product of a notable company. Wikipedia is not a digital camera guide. Wikipedia is not a Canon catalog. Mikeblas (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Merge Merge the more distinctive features to a tabular form in the Canon EOS article, as was done for Sony Cyber-shot cameras to Cyber-shot. Wikipedia is not a product catalog, and the existence of a pro-forma review of a new product based on the manufacturer's press release does not prove that the product needs to be represented forever in encyclopedia articles. Notability on Wikipedia is permanent, so any product from any decade by any well known company would be equally entitled to an article, and Wikipedia would be hard to distinguish from an old Sears Roebuck catalog . There are several other poorly referenced stub articles about various Canon EOS cameras. One list would be appropriate, useful, and helpful. The other Canon EOS cameras should be group-nominated for this merger in a supplementary AFD. Otherwise Wikipedia will be cluttered with these articles as well as, presumably articles for the red-link models in the Canon EOS article. Edison (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge per Edison and Sony precedent. WP is not a product catalog and very few cameras have any long-term notability. Travellingcari (talk) 18:12, 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. There is no consensus to delete this article. While there may be reason to merge, there is not sufficient consensus for a merger to close this AfD with that result. Arguments to merge are arguments to keep, albeit in a different article. If that outcome is still desire subsequent revision and sourcing, merger can, of course, be proposed and carried out as per Help:Merge. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Canon EOS 300

Canon EOS 300 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable commercial product. Completely unreferenced, no clear claim to notability other than being a product of a notable company. Wikipedia is not a digital camera guide. Wikipedia is not a Canon catalog. Mikeblas (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Merge Merge the more distinctive features to a tabular form in the Canon EOS article, as was done for Sony Cyber-shot cameras to Cyber-shot. Wikipedia is not a product catalog, and the existence of a pro-forma review of a new product based on the manufacturer's press release does not prove that the product needs to be represented forever in encyclopedia articles. Notability on Wikipedia is permanent, so any product from any decade by any well known company would be equally entitled to an article, and Wikipedia would be hard to distinguish from an old Sears Roebuck catalog . There are several other poorly referenced stub articles about various Canon EOS cameras. One list would be appropriate, useful, and helpful. The other Canon EOS cameras should be group-nominated for this merger in a supplementary AFD. Otherwise Wikipedia will be cluttered with these articles as well as, presumably articles for the red-link models in the Canon EOS article. Edison (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge per Edison and Sony precedent. WP is not a product catalog and very few cameras have any long-term notability. Travellingcari (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Notable commercial product for which a lot of sources exist. Nomination is a boilerplate nomination showing no consideration of the merits of the specific article. This is probably more suited to merging than some; the consumer grade cameras are generally much less interesting, and quality sources that do more than list the specifications are harder to find. I would oppose strongly merging camera articles as a general case, especially for professional grade equipment. For an example of the treatment that is possible, see the featured article Canon T90. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment By all means, please add some of these numerous claimed sources to the article or at least point them out here. Pro forma reprints of press releases and manufacturer's websites do not count for much. Edison (talk) 19:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep—notable as it's the subject of multiple independent sources (including one book), as can be seen from the article. This was Canon's consumer-level SLR for a number of years, and was a best-selling camera at the time. Also, article is now referenced. Spacepotato (talk) 03:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Article text has now been 100% rewritten (only remaining is infobox and images) and is referenced. This is a quite substantially different article now than when nominated. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:30, 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} 01:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1019 cool

1019 cool (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete nn neologism per WP:NEO Mayalld (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete It is a WP:NEO and WP:MADEUP. --Pmedema (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Unreferenced nonsense. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete neologism that seems to have been madeup very recently and is only known by a very small group of people. Never asserts notability. Doc Strange (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Fits "This article or other page provides no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. It is patent nonsense (CSD G1)" to a T Not G1 material, but definately nonsense, unsourced, and without context. Mr Senseless (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The text isn't unsalvageably incoherent. That would something in the realm of "sdsdfsadfsfsgdftgadf". Icestorm815 • Talk 17:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No, you're right, I sometimes inadvertently strech the limits of G1 in cases that are uncontroversial, but G1 is very specific, and if the page doesn't meet those guidelines, there is no substitue for forming consensus. Mr Senseless (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Exterminate. Out of context rubbish. RedZion^X 17:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not for things you and your friends made up one day at school. Aramgar (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO, WP:MADEUP and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, fails the everything test. RFerreira (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• KEEP Yeah this page doesn't have no credible sources or much of a page at all but its slowly starting out...The word means a lot to us people that live in richmond and is a type new vocabulary we use...I thinks its notable to put on wikipedia to show people what it means...If this word be taken off...Then we should look at the other words wikipedia has on their site like bootylicious...that to me is a nonsense word more than 1019 cool.....

• Comment Wikipedia doesn't have a page about the word bootylicious. It has an article about a notable song with that title. If there were a notable song called 1019 cool we could have an article about that. As there isn't, we can't Mayalld (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Okay but why is there a page about a notable song yeah some people might think its a good song and it was notable but what about the some of us that dont...some people dont care if it was a notable song...so are you saying that this word has to be notable???? My point is if i dont think the song is notable enough i can put it up for deletion because if it is not notable then its no nonsense...and when it is put up for deletion then and i will let this page go in peace as well!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.172.168.169 (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I am saying exactly that. Notability is the criteria that we use to determine whether an article is allowed. Anything else would be a nonsense (are we to not have articles on "bad" things?). You could, of course, put an article about a song that you don't like up for deletion. However, notability isn't a matter of opinion. Wikipedia has guidelines which define notability, and the song qualifies. Any move to delete it would be doomed to failure. Mayalld (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete- Simple case of WP:NEO. Belongs on Urban Dictionary, not wikipedia. Rigby27 Talk 14:32, 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 --slakr^\ talk / 11:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ted Burnett

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

Delete nn alledged full-time writer who actually appears to be an unemployed blogger Mayalld (talk) 15:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. No reliable independent sources to establish that the subject meets WP:BIO. --Muchness (talk) 16:11, 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 (non-admin closure), A strong case has been made that this article meets the standard of Wikipedia:Notability (music). Darkspots (talk) 00:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trap Starz Clik

Trap Starz Clik (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Dubious claim of "national recognition and success" 9Nak (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Weak delete Only claim to notability would be the fact that they are signed to Universal Republic. They are listed at UR's website, but their artist page is almost blank. I'd be more inclined to keep if they had a charted song. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 15:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per TenPoundHammer. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 22:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Their single "Get It Big" has charted on Billboard.Peecee1978 (talk) 16:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Peecee1978; their single has indeed charted on not just one, but three Billboard charts (see here). I'll add the chart positions to the article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Their song could be mistaken for a parody of Lil Jon but they are immensely popular in the South and quickly crossing over nationwide. Charting on Billboard is not in itself notability but the odds are that their single's success will result in an even more successful debut album. If it doesn't delete post-haste. 68.229.184.37 (talk) 12:24, 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 close and relist semi-protected due to the ongoing disrutpion by a sock farm (CU). -Jéské ^{(v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing)} 16:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LTTE and Maoist Relations

ATTN I WOULD LIKE THIS ARTICLE TO BE JUDGED BY THE WIKI List of India-related deletion discussions

List of India-related deletion discussions --99.238.6.68 (talk) 11:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

LTTE and Maoist Relations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Strange essay, on highly controversial topic, making highly controversial statements. Given reference link is faulty, it is copypasting of newsarticles rather than direct references. Soman (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Soman is not allowing others to Contribute. User:Soman is disrupting important information that was requested by Politicians and others to create. All refferences with pages have been provided. User:Sonam seems to be incooperative by nominating important articles and related articles which must be made. User fails to understand Recent Activties and Joint Operations which have been taken place recently. --Indra10 (talk) 08:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Article must be known and included as part of LTTE joint terrorism it is reccomeded that the article is known because LTTE is providing training to Maoists and sponsoring them as well. Article also has refferences. It is the only article that shows the relations with other Militants its a reccomended article by Politicians --Thileepanmathivanan (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Soman Fails to Provide recent and upto date information . This page was created on Recent Activities that had taken place just a while ago. I am just contributing and am sure it will eventually expand.

Here, Gatherd Information from News and Other Sources

Refferences

• http://www.lankalibrary.com/pol/nepal.htm
• http://www.lankanewspapers.com/news/2005/12/4984.html
• http://www.rediff.com/news/2005/dec/15bihar.htm
• http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IEQ20080116215946&Page=Q&Title=ORISSA&Topic=0
• http://lankaguardian.blogspot.com/2008/01/orissa-maoists-linked-to-ltte.html
• http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2007/3433-34india_farm_crisis.html
• http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2005/12/mil-051216-irna01.htm
• http://indiatoday.digitaltoday.in/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4146&issueid=41
• http://nepal.usembassy.gov/sp_03-16-2006.html
• http://www.defence.lk/new.asp?fname=20070213_02

There are indefinite amount of resources too many and i garuntee 100% this article is going to expand.

User:Soman is just picking on articles i have created and nominating them for deletion and my articles are all information that are most upto date. I did nothing wrong i am just contributing like any other Wikipedian. --99.238.6.68 (talk) 11:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep -- Information seems to be popular on Google as well. --ThambeEeE (talk) 11:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Three other related AfDs and disruptions of the process are discussed at ANI. --Soman (talk) 12:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination Taprobanus (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete As per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete unless specific inline references can be provided for the specific statements and they can be put into historical context. Since the references go back to 2005 writing this as a currently valid description of things seems incorrect. DGG (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No WP:RS given. Watchdogb (talk) 03:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

*Keep Yes. enna ? watchdogb orey oru Tamil pulli . dai anna sollu unakkaga. soman vesay lossu penn ketta. This article is the truth bara pundaaeyyy --Tamilagam (talk) 11:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC) — Tamilagam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• • Comment, pundai is an insult in Tamil ([32]), which was previously posted on my talk page by of the confirmed socks. Quite safe to state that this is another sock. --Soman (talk) 11:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

*Keep article may be useful in future. --Raninder (talk) 04:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC) — Raninder (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - Useful for what ? this is a theory that can be fully intergrated within the main articles such as LTTE Taprobanus (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep - Ok Taprobanus add it then. Put it on LTTE page --Raninder (talk) 14:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Thileepanmathivanan has confirmed that users Indra10, ThambeEeE, Thileepanmathivanan and 99.238.6.68 are one and the same person. --Soman (talk) 06:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Raninder (talk · contribs) and Tamilagam (talk · contribs) have now been confirmed as socks, too. --Soman (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Note -- Article should also be put in Nepal Maoists article and CPI too --Raninder (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Here Gatherd some more References from the RajayaSabha Goverment Politic Line from their website and Sri Lankan Website that provides Ref to all articles posted

• http://rajyasabha.gov.in/resume/206/obituary.htm
• http://www.spur.asn.au/latest1.htm