Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 February 25

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

The result was kept. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 02:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Toni Graphia

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

Seems to be non-notable. Could be speedyable, but bringing here to be sure since there's a question. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Credentials add up to notability. Lots of news references to further prove notability at at Google News at http://news.google.com/archivesearch?hs=0sr&um=1&tab=wn&q=%22Toni+Graphia%22&ie=UTF-8 --Eastmain (talk) 04:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment as article creator. I started this article because they hate redlinks at WP:FAC. This person had incoming wikilinks, his IMDb profile was "impressive" enough, so here we are. I have no opinion what happens to this article. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Nomination widthdrawn (non-admin closure) Justin ^chat 18:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] James Roosevelt (1760-1847)

James Roosevelt (1760-1847) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable ancestor of Franklin D. Roosevelt. --Michael White^T·C 23:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep He seems to have been a councillor ("alderman") in the New York city council, according to the bio. presented here in The Old Merchants of New York City [1]. It is generally a rule that councillors of the greatest towns are considered notable.--Aldux (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep While being Alderman in, say, Waterbury, Connecticut, might not be considered notable enough for an article, Alderman of the Fourth Ward in Lower Manhattan was an important position, then and now. Mandsford (talk) 00:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Found a newer source, The Complete Book of US Presidents, calls him "an active Federalist, [who] served in the New York State Assembly." If I'm correct, per WP:BIO state assemblymen are automatically notable. As is written among the standards for notable politicians: members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature--Aldux (talk) 00:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep/nomination withdrawn. I will expand it based on these sources. --Michael White^T·C 05:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep (nomination withdrawn) non-admin closure. Whpq (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cornelius Roosevelt

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

Non-notable ancestor of Theodore and Eleanor Roosevelt. --Michael White^T·C 23:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The article doesn't demonstrate any notability. Cornelius Roosevelt was one of the founders of Chemical Bank which is now Chase. His ghost haunts your Chase card. Mandsford (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Ok, Theodore Roosevelt, Patriot and Statesman confirms what said of the Chemical Bank, saying Cornelius Roosevelt was one of the the founders of it". He's mentioned quite extensively in the National Cyclopaedia of American Biography, where he is called "one of the five richest men of New York". He appears to have been a successful glass merchant, and is said to have been "deeply interested in charitable enterprises and gave largely to their support", from The Life of Theodore Roosevelt, written by William Draper Lewis. Cornelius has also quite a bio. in The Merchants' National Bank of the City of New York. And with not mach effort, from what I've seen, other sources can be added, but these already seem to me that he was notable enough to pass WP:N.--Aldux (talk) 02:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Aldux. If this chap is good enough for the National Cyclopaedia of American Biography, he's good enough for Wikipedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep/Nomination withdrawn. Well, I guess it's a good thing these sources turned up through the AfD. I can expand it. It seems Theodore may also have inherited some money from him. --Michael White^T·C 05:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Remove. Not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.229.70 (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sick Time

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

Non-notable low-budget film. No external reviews on IMDB. I found only a single source of questionable reliability: [2]. Previously part of a mass AfD that was closed as no consensus. Jfire (talk) 01:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete no external reviews at IMDb, no evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 02:19, 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, Djsasso (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - unable to find any sources to establish notability. No indication of awards, or of even any significant critical reviews. -- Whpq (talk) 20:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Solar eclipse of April 8, 2005

Solar eclipse of April 8, 2005 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable solar eclipse. From what I have seen, only total solar eclipses have pages and this is the only non-total eclipse to have an article per List of solar eclipses. Tavix (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. It is one of only three hybrid eclipses listed here, and extensive Google hits, but the article needs to be improved to be kept. The other 2 hybrid eclipses didn't have articles, although they happened in the 1980's. -=Elfin=-³⁴¹ 02:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep A hybrid eclipse is total in some places, and every total eclipse is also only total in some places, so the nominator's rationale doesn't really hold water. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Contrary to the nominator's baseless opinion, hybrid solar eclipses are rarer than total solar eclipses. Alansohn (talk) 13:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I left a note at WikiProject Space regarding opportunity to discuss this AfD nom. Coffee4me (talk) 02:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - according to Solar eclipse#Types, hybrid eclipses are "rather rare", presumably rarer than total eclipses, and therefore more notable. —  Tivedshambo  _(t|c) 07:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep - at least the article should be extended; the entry in the List of solar eclipses about this hybrid eclipse is longer than the article. Should include at least the duration of the eclipse and the countries in which it was visible. Then it could be considered as a regular stub that can be kept. --Proofreader (talk) 11:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Tivedshambo. Suggest a speedy close due to the poorly formed rationale for the proposed deletion. RFerreira (talk) 19:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Tivedshambo & RFerriera. This is the only hybrid eclipse in the 21st century so far. (check List of solar eclipses). I've been lucky enough to see a total eclipse and it was certainly notable and I'm glad to just find out we have a nice article on it. Never heard of a hybrid eclipse before but if they're considerably rarer they're individually notable too. Every eclipse is different. Qwfp (talk) 20:33, 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 delete. Wizardman 04:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Young People Who Rock

Young People Who Rock (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Young People Who Rock is a series that runs on CNN's internet video channel and an accompanying blog. I don't see anything to indicate that it is notable. Except for a broken link, all of the references in the article are CNN's own website. The citation that the show is popular is a page that list what stories are currently the most popular on CNN's website and it currently does not list Young People Who Rock. I only found a few passing mentions in reliable sources and nothing that indicated notability. In an attempt to show that Young People Who Rock is notable the creator of the article added mentions of appearances on the series to article of everybody who appeared on the series and has a wikipedia article. BlueAzure (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect to Nicole Lapin, who herself seems to be pretty borderline. CNN.com is obviously highly notable, but its innumerable little features unusally aren't, at least not in terms of individual articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability. Redirecting to Nicole Lapin might be okay but what happens if the host of this little feature changes? It's not notable enough for its own article and the redirect isn't really a very natural redirect like it would be with a book to its author. -- Whpq (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - it was just featured on buzzfeed as a popular link/trend —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.236.240.190 (talk) 01:00, 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 delete. Wizardman 16:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hardcore (album)

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

Non-notable album in my opinion. No attribution to notability. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{aka john lennon} 23:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep - although this article is in need of a clean-up and expansion, it is an album released by a notable artist, and such articles are generally kept per the guidelines of WP:MUSIC -Fritzpoll (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, albums are generally, but not always notable. Band's page has no sources for its own notability, All Music Guide has no listing for this album. Blast Ulna (talk) 08:36, 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 No consensus (default keep). Very little of this discussion was actually valid. The article asserts notability, a user provides references to support these assertions, but the sources are in a foreign language. That's all we have here for the closing administrator to consider. So the deletion policy advises us to lean toward keep in questionable cases, therefore my decision accordingly. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Akos Gurzo

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

Somehow I would think that someone who has worked for a news agency since he was 16 would have more than 74 Google hits. I can't find any stories he's written either to verify the claims made in his article (two prestigious awards). Blueboy96 02:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• The article meets the formal and content requirements of the Wikipedia. Google gives several articles and links for his name too. It’s a well-known fact that the work at a news agency is anonym, names of the journalists do not appear in the media, only the name of the newswire. But there are still several articles and reference point for Akos Gurzo (Gurzó Ákos) on the web. Here are five of them: BBC Hungarian MFAHungarian PMOa daily Hungarian papearJournalist UnionWeb 2.0 17 February 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 03:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC) — Web 2.0 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Having workied in the commerical communication industry for 15 years in Europe and here in Hungary for for the last 5. I know for a fact the Mr. Gurzo's article is fact. His articles on Afghanistan as well as international political analysis on internatioanal events have added to the Hungary's concern about external affairs. Although young, he has been very active in the Hungarian media and in bringing relevant, unbias information to the public.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.96.63 (talk • contribs) — 81.182.96.63 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep Gary King (talk) 09:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Reasoning, please? This is not a vote. Blueboy96 18:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Blueboy! Please, explain your concerns again and underpin your viewpoint with facts and quotations from Wikipedia. It can easily happens that your standpoint based on impressions instead of clear facts because of the language and cultural differences. Please, help us to improve this article together and make the Wikipedia a better place together. I'm ready to cooperate with you and help you to create a perfect article. I do beleive in the power of communication between people from all around the world, because this simple action is the bottom line of the Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopedia. Web 2.0—Preceding comment was added at 22:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC) — Web 2.0 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Neutral Seems to be the first article of a new Wikipediauser. Some parts of the article do not belong to Wikipedia since they read like a letter of application :"travels a lot inside and outside of Hungary not only professionally but privately as well to meet new people and understand different perspectives". I would like to see references to the awards since they could make the difference. If the awards are important, than the awards themselves should have an article. Neozoon—Preceding comment was added at 23:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

When I wrote about the awards I used the following links and articles for the awards: Kazinczy-prize 1Kazinczy-prize 2Kazinczy-prize 3MTI-prize 1MTI-prize 2MTI-prize 2Web 2.0—Preceding comment was added at 07:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC) — Web 2.0 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. —86.149.53.196 (talk) 10:19, 23 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 23:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC) 

• Delete This gentleman seems to be a good candidate for a Magyar Wikipedia, but until and unless English language references are added he should have no place on an English Wikipedia, WP:Verifiability. Mstuczynski (talk) 01:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That is a gross misrepresentation common misconception. A lack of English language sources does not preclude articles from being on the English Wikipedia. Hungarian sources would do just fine. matt91486 (talk) 03:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)user modified own comment @ 23:40, 26 February 2008

I think "gross" is a bit hyperbolic, the guidelines can not cover every contingency for verifiablilty. There is an essay that covers this somewhere, something about not sticking something up your nose. If the general community can not comfirm his notalility, he does not qualify under the guidelines. Mstuczynski (talk) 14:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

All I'm asking for is a translation, certainly not much to ask as the references seems to be one-line trivial mentions. I suppose I could have worded my objections better.user added to own comment @ 14:47, 26 February 2008

That's true, it was a bit hyperbolic. I guess what I should have said was common misconception, which I've altered my comments above. I naturally am unable to translate the sources myself, but you maybe could find someone able to do that. matt91486 (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Notable is notable, irrespective of the language in which sources are written. I do not (yet) claim that the subject of this article is notable, but an article should not be deleted merely for lack of English-language sources. It is inaccurate to equate "the English-language Wikipedia" with "the Wikipedia for the Anglosphere". Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:41, 2 March 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. Poor writing is annoying to see in articles yes, but it's not a cause for deletion, just cleanup. Wizardman 05:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Data Palette

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

advertising Thru the night (talk) 04:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. There may be COI issues here, but the product is notable, given the references in the article. --Eastmain (talk) 05:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Gary King (talk) 09:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Why? This is consensus, not a vote. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Article reads like an adverisement, makes unfounded claims, most of the article merely copied from the corporate website. This is exactly the type of article that Wikipedia is not about. Should have been speedily deleted. Bardcom (talk) 15:06, 22 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 22:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - there are references indicating notability from reliable secondary sources. It is written as an advert, but this in itself just makes it a cleanup issue - Fritzpoll (talk) 23:49, 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 speedy delete G12 — as for the injunction, that only applies to articles created before 2:07 February 3, 2008. Besides, copyright trumps that. seresin | wasn't he just...? 05:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Seacht

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

It is an article about a TV series, or a comics, or a book series (it is not specified on the article) that doesn't seem to assert notability and provides no sources. The description of the characters is made mainly of non-NPOV statements and it seems to be just a copy and paste of material found somewhere on the net. Victao lopes (talk) 22:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Keep AFD violates the current Arbcom injunction. Jtrainor (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete appears to be wholesale copyright violation from http://www.tg4.ie/Bearla/inte/seacht/stud.htm GundamsЯus (talk) 02:45, 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 delete. Wizardman 05:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Giselle Yum

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

Porn star article which doesn't appear to satisfy WP:BIO. I couldn't find any significant coverage of her on Google. Epbr123 (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete- there is nothing that indicates that she is anything more than an average porn star. Rigby27 Talk 14:07, 1 March 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. Wizardman 05:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kurt Kivisto

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

A college hockey player--search of Yahoo or Google turns up no awards won at the college level, and no instances of being named an All-America. Therefore, fails WP:BIO. Blueboy96 22:11, 25 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) 04:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete The player doesn't seem notable enough to keep. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 04:56, 2 March 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. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 02:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of browser-based Flash games

List of browser-based Flash games (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Disputed nomination to be prod deleted, reason for which was "Aside from the tautology in the title (arent all Flash games browser-based?) I cannot see this list ever being remotely near comprehensive, or anything other than an arbitrary random sampling, and of course will always be open to abuse from spamming. The only linked games on the page are to what are basically marketing strategies, so currently fails WP:NOT#ADVERTISING as well as WP:NOT#DIRECTORY." Also, Category:Flash games and Category:Browser-based games serve the same function dont they? Iamaleopard (talk) 21:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. the reason this entry was created was because it appeared that many Flash games would not be considered notable enough for their own entry. if you wish, we can change it to list of "Online Flash games". --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete In response to the above, that's exactly the problem: Flash games are very rarely notable, and Wikipedia is NOT a web directory or list of external links. There are hundreds of thousands of Flash games and more being created literally every minute. Wikipedia just isn't the place to catalogue them all. For the few that are notable and have articles, there are several categories that cover them, making this doubly unnecessary. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Like the nominator says, there are already categories which cover this topic, and this article appears to have been created to house content deleted at AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flash Trek 2, for instance). "List of X" articles aren't a license to ignore notability criteria. Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep content can be not notable enough for an article, and still be appropriate for inclusion in a suitable list or combination article.DGG (talk) 00:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, making it a list doesn't mean we can ignore policy. If the games are notable, they can be kept, but there is no notability here (asserted or otherwise). Justin ^chat 18:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand your justifiable concerns. so one thing I would suggest is that maybe we could consider this article a stub, and perhaps give this article a little time and leeway to grow. By the way Flash trek 2 is extremely notable. i had an article which explained all this. basically, it allows players to interacts with other races, to buy and trade items, to buy ships, to make alliances, to colonize and develop planets, all in a browser-based game. Doesn't that sound a bit notable? I wasn't sure how to indicate though. So how about we all work together, and try to make the article more responsive to the many valid concerns which have been expressed here? i do greatly appreciate all the thoughts, input, and the understandable criticisms expressed here. thanks very much. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I have revised the article, to address some of the valid concerns which have been raised here. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Flash Trek 2 was specifically found to be non-notable at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flash Trek 2 (which you participated in). Claiming that it is "extremely notable" is hardly convincing. Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I meant notable enough for inclusion in a list. By the way, noone said that it was non-notable, they said you cannot claim notability without sources. i understand your rightful and justified concerns, but I do feel that this is a small but important difference. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I don't see any evidence that these two games, or a list of games meeting the criteria are in any way notable. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 21:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support I don't see why this article should be deleted it is suggeested that flash games are rarely notable, and that wikipedia could not possibly survive with a flash game list, while there is a online game list in this article. Even if this article is not added, then I suggest it be merged. ⊕Assasin Joe ^talk 23:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Compulsions70 (talk) 00:04, 1 March 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. -- Longhair\^talk 10:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alexandra Hills Cricket Club

Alexandra Hills Cricket Club (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable cricket club. No evidence of notability established using reliable independent sources. The club plays at a generally amateur and social level. Mattinbgn\^talk 21:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions.

Delete. Makes no claim to notability, and thus fails WP:ORG. (Did you notice "Extinction: 2010 (predicted)" in the infobox? Strange.) Stephen Turner (Talk) 22:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The page originally had a bit of an attack page feel to it if go back through the history. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. It appears the article was written mainly for a WP:BLP attack. I think this could even have been speedied under G10 (attack pages / BLP violations). Even if the page survives (which I don't think it will) this should be removed from the history. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Article appears to be a plaything (at best) between some club members. Non-notable. Murtoa (talk) 13:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Probably speedy-able. This looks mischievous: see the motto, for instance, which is pretty much the opposite of all the good things club members are encouraged to be and do on the club website. Johnlp (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, the above notwithstanding, this appears to be a thouroughly unremarkable suburban amateur cricket club. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC).
• Delete Requires little explanation. WP:N. Twenty Years 11:27, 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 nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Justin ^chat 18:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barney Pell

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

Contested speedy, then prod. Fails WP:N and WP:PROF. Only primary sources provided. Google hits lead either to this article, his own sites, or to sites which list press releases and speaking engagements and such. No independent reliable sources found. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. There are plenty of 3rd party sources for Barney Pell. There is a PC Worldarticle from 2007 talking about Powerset Inc. (Barney Pell's company) to develop a search engine in tandem with Xerox that would rival Google, and it quotes Pell heavily throughout the article. That alone should justify this article. Another article at CNet News talks about the impending release in September of the Powerset AI search (although that second link is a blog, it is a blog for a respected news service which satisfies WP:V. The San Francisco Chronicle had its own article that mentions Barney Pell and Powerset's search engine. The Guardian quoted Barney Pell in an article, and the New York Times mentioned him in a blog... Do you really need more sources to show notability? As I'd said on the discussion page for this article, I'm working on getting these sources in the article, but I haven't had time to get to it yet. -- Atama^chat 21:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• These sources should have been provided up front, so we wouldn't have had to go through this whole process. Why weren't they? If you had time to provide the primary source links, you had time to provide these as well, especially after you'd been notified. I waited a couple of days after the PROD was removed to nominate this for AfD. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• What are you talking about? I didn't provide any "primary source links", I haven't even edited this article before except to deprod it after I did a search and found a fair number of articles about Powerset, and to leave a note on the discussion page that I was going to integrate some references into the article. I think you have me confused with someone else. Oh, to the others below, I don't mind moving this to Powerset either because those sources are admittedly more about the company than Barney, though he is mentioned and/or quoted in all of them. -- Atama^chat 23:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Move to PowerSet and rewrite as about company. Sources indicate WP:CORP is more easily passed than WP:BIO. That said, Atama did request more time and you only gave xer three days. --Dhartung | Talk 21:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Move to PowerSet (corporation) per Dhartung. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Having pondered the matter and Dhartung's vote, I'm leaning toward Move myself. However, it would need some rewriting to make the point of view as that of the company and not of Pell. Personally, I still think PowerSet is more hype than substance right now, but it has enough independent coverage to pass WP:CORP pretty easily. (Frankly, I'm surprised the company doesn't have an article by now, and the logs don't show any deletions I can find.) If User:Atama is agreeable to this, well go ahead and do it and do a non-admin close of this AfD. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 23:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm in total agreement with moving everything to a PowerSet article. -- Atama^chat 23:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Then let's do it. I officially withdraw the nomination. Someone can close this now (I would if I knew the procedure). - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Chetblong^{T C} 01:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Birmingham bus station

Birmingham bus station (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete Fails WP:N. Google search shows 71 ghits [3], but no significant coverage in secondary or third party reliable source. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: This refers to the bus station in Birmingham, England, not Birmingham, Alabama, United States. The latter might actually have notability because of violence which occurred there during the U.S. civil rights movement. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. If this doesn't fail WP:N nothing will. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{aka john lennon} 23:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Sorry, the encyclopedia doesn't need a list of bus routes. Majoreditor (talk) 00:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm sure there's lots of things that can be written about Birmingham but the buses that ply from the bus station is not one of them. Not notable. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as non-existant, according to the first sentence of the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - The bus station might be notable if it existed, but as it doesn't, and there's no particularly unusual reason why it doesn't, this is merely a non-notable list of bus routes. —  Tivedshambo  _(t|c) 08:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - to quote the article, "Birmingham, England does not have a major bus station". Since the bus station does not exist, the article cannot be permitted to survive. There was a bus station under the Old Bull Ring Centre, but that is not what the artiel is about. Bus routes change periodically. The bus operators have an incentive to maintain their own websites, WP does not. This articel will thus be difficult to maintain, which is another good reason for deletion. Several times in recent months articles on bus routes have been deleted, and this should be no exception. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Izzy007 Talk 02:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete ditto ... richi (talk) 18:20, 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. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Helen Svedin

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

No notability at all. Having worked as a model is hardly notable, as there are tens of thousands of models in the world; neither is it notable to be married to someone famous. I would guess the only reason this woman has an article about her is because she is married to a Portuguese footballer, and that hardly satisfies notability. JdeJ (talk) 21:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Being the face of a major company does, however, make one notable. matt91486 (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • There's a Forbes slideshow here: in which she features. I realize it's for her role as Figo's wife, but Forbes is certainly a reputable enough company. matt91486 (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • And a Times reference which confirms her being the face of H&M. matt91486 (talk) 23:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • And another substantive source is here. I think there's enough on her to warrant keeping, needless to say. matt91486 (talk) 23:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, sorry, I'm a terrible liar. Her wedding is noted in this New York Times article. Obviously the main purpose of that article is elsewhere, but it can be used as another source. There's an AP article here that alleges that Svedin played a significant role in his decision to sign for Inter. Other mentions in articles from significant sources, with various degrees of coverage, are here and here. matt91486 (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I appreciate you finding all the references, but each and every one of them mentions her only because she is married to Figo, never for anything she has accomplished. As for H&M, they change faces many times each year and she's no longer the face of the company. I'm half Swedish myself and lived in Sweden at the time she was the face of the company, and I don't recall a single article on her during that time, so I'm not sure how notable it is. While being married to a prominent president, or being married to a king, might be enough for notability, there are over 10.000 articles on more or less notable sportspeople on Wikipedia and I fail to see that their spouses would be notable, if that's the only thing they are notable for. JdeJ (talk) 06:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• I understand where you're coming from (and I didn't actually see any articles in Swedish either, interestingly, just mainly English and Spanish), but there's still a lot of sources from very reputable publications in which she features prominently, as Figo's wife or not. I looked for the other model you nominated for AfD, and there's not nearly so much on her, and Raúl's a fairly high profile player as well. Notability may not be automatically inherited, but tons of mainstream coverage over a series of years makes a person notable. Additionally, the Diario AS article alleges some role outside of simply being a wife, regardless if her spousal connection is how she ended up with it. I just haven't quite determined how to translate it it and put it in the article. matt91486 (talk) 15:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Merge to Luís Figo and delete the page here. Non notable in her own right. Cloudz679 (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mamen_Sanz

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

No notability at all. Having worked as a model is hardly notable, as there are tens of thousands of models in the world; neither is it notable to be married to someone famous. I would guess the only reason this woman has an article about her is because she is married to a Spanish footballer, and that hardly satisfies notability. JdeJ (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - no sources, the models need to have a picture in prestigious fashion magazine and complacent review which should be provided as reference; wives of famous men simply don't belong here except if acknowledged as social celebrity, charity worker, first lady ... greg park avenue (talk) 03:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, no notability, and is in conflict with WP:NOTINHERITED. PKT (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. Cloudz679 (talk) 21:59, 2 March 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. Revolving Bugbear 12:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Olsha Law Firm

Olsha Law Firm (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be insufficiently notable. Googling Olsha Kiev law finds only a dozen or so unique hits, and even Googling in Cyrillic - ОЛША - finds very few. Note the conflict of interest: see WP:COIN#User:Olaffpomona. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

firm keep the legal professional is a proimninent part of the world and it only makes sense the articles relating to it are allowed to prove their own notability. it seems unfair to rush off to a delete vote without even giving an obvious stub article a chance to develop. who knows??? maybe this will even become a Featured Article after all??? unlikely, possibly, bu stranger things have happened. Smith Jones (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding? I'm well aware of the risk of systemic bias, but this is a firm whose web presence extends to two single-page entries on free web hosting sites and, as far as I can tell, no site in its native language. For a company in a major city like Kiev, that is seriously one-horse league. See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies): where are the reliable independent sources that are the criteria for establishing notability? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

well obviously its not hyper-extremely noable now but with the fall of the soviet union and ew new system of laws in ukraine is is prefectly reasonable for a new and qite possibly pre-eminent lawfirm to have its own articles. at the very least it deserves the publicit.y as for its lack of a web presence ^[1][2][3] here. admittedly, that is a few but a large web presence is not theonly indicator of notability. i honestly recommend that that a search using Ukrainian lettering instead of cyrillic and in Ukraine itself might yield a lot more source sthan previously extant. i would like a few days to conduct one myself please before this article is rushed off to the gas chambers like so many other stub articles. Smith Jones (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ukrainian lettering is Cyrillic, unless Romanized, and I tried both. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Inclusion in legal directories is not evidence of notability. Is there no press coverage? What about important clients, or major cases? EdJohnston (talk) 01:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence of notability. Fram (talk) 08:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. MBisanz ^talk 06:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Lacks notability, fails notability (organizations and companies) guideline. — Athaenara ✉ 01:44, 2 March 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 05:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anti Ittna Haapapuro

Anti Ittna Haapapuro (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Only notability seems to be mainly from online forum websites rather than professional media networks. Per WP:MUSIC. Gary King (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 00:01, 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, Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as per nomination. JdeJ (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:57, 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 No consensus for deletion (default keep). The nomination did not assert valid criteria for deletion, in that it seems to imply that notability was temporary. The sole participant who supported deletion stated the reason was that the subject had not "made innovative contributions to the field of entertainment", which is not a requirement for establishing notability. The sole keep recommendation was also completely non-valid. So we are left with nothing to consider, in which case the deletion policy advises us to decide as keep. Considered relisting, but I did not belive this discussion would get any better, considering its poor start. Editors should endeavor to improve the article. Failing that, a valid renomination should be considered. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 16:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alex Kramer (presenter)

Alex Kramer (presenter) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

time to remove failed Quiz show presenters who are now not on any terrestrial channel & are not up to Notability Wikipedia standards.

A person being only on in-store TV promo advert is hardly Notable! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bertsquirrel (talk • contribs) 21:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment fixed malformed listing (please use {{afd2}}). Also note that "not now on any terrestrial channel" is not a reason for deletion; people may be notable even after they are no longer on the air. Notability is not temporary. I found at least one source about her from a newspaper in Wales [4]. More may be available. cab (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - The fact that a subject is no longer notable is not reason to delete. Once notability is established, notability remains. If this person was notable, then the article should not be deleted. - Fritzpoll (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment by bertsquirrel - was any quiz presenter on after midnight on ITV1 ever notable? the fact that nominated for deletion before shows they are not. other presenters (ie Anna Fowler) rightly got deleted ages ago, yet she has a web presence too. That's why I nominated it. - You decide.Bertsquirrel (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Pages are judged on their own merit, not on what happens to other pages. The fact that this was nominated for deletion before (not that I can see it in the logs) is also irrelevant; on the one hand you can argue that people want to get rid of it, on the other, you can argue that this implies that consensus opposed deleting it. To avoid this, the fact that articles have been considered previously for deletion is not a criterion for deletion - Fritzpoll (talk) 00:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment One old newspaper interview is hardly facts for notability. Perhaps her lads' mag underwear poses & thousands of screencaps on quiz tv forums is the basis for notability today! This person was picked for deletion as one of the main culprits who almost prostituted themselves to ITV to get money from gullible users via these tacky quizzes. The "Make Your Play" page & similar have been severly edited from it's original content as proof no-one cares or rates as of value. It alone should be left, but an article on those within it is worthy of deletion. The fact none of the presenters have made it beyond quiz tv shows they are not notable. The lack of interest apart from tech replies shows I'm right. Bert's Quarrel perhaps? Bertsquirrel (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - following some digging around, I conclude that she is not notable in her own right. Being the presenter of television programmes does not accord her notability. She has not had a significant part in a notable TV programme (one of many presenter of Quiz Call), does not appear to have a large fan base and has not made innovative contributions to the field of entertainment. As such, she fails WP:BIO. That said, I should like to state that this does not endorse the reason given by the nom, which was that she was no longer notable. - Fritzpoll (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete My point summed up rather well by another. Have nothing against her personally, but if she is worthy of deletion, all other non-notable call-in TV Quiz Presenters (ie the lot...) should go the same way. Wikipedia is not a fan site or a place for a CV as this entry appeared to be. Bertsquirrel (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep She was a main & regular presenter on ITV1 Make Your Play & Glitterball for well over a year from Sep 06-Dec 07: the amount of hours she was on ITV1 (a main channel) surely means she is the MOST NOTABLE of all Quiz Presenters. The amount of clips on YouTube & other web presence she has via quiz forum comments & photos shows that this person is worthy of an entry & that same entry that was severely edited before this one had been on Wikipedia for well over a year, with a photo of the person even, got locked for abuse by comment writers: she must be well-known in her circles to get that sort of attention. Fritzpoll hasn't done much research on her. Wikipedia is flawed by this sort of half-hearted 5 min look research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.99.129 (talk) 04:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Have reverted page detail to what it was just before deletion notice. Doesn't look a person of no worthy note to me.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 User:Jerry under WP:CSD#G11 as a separate action from this AfD. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 15:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Office Commercial Technique

Office Commercial Technique (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Promotional entry and non-notable Puck (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:58, 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 Redirect to Han unification --Stephen 01:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UTF-2000

UTF-2000 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

• Delete: A single newsgroup posting exists about this topic. Hardly a reliable source, and no verifiable information. — Timwi (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect. Unreliable source; no verifiable information; odd Google hits. Answers.com refers to original reference. Possibly redirect to Unicode or Han unification? - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to Han unification. This may or may not be notable but judging from both the content and the age of this article it's never going to be more than a stub so it should be found a better home with a bigger parent. It gets a single mention at Han unification, which could be expanded using the last two sentences from this article (the first two are context-setting). Or they could just be a footnote to its mention if that's what the editors there prefer – strikes me as an apt solution as it's a metaphorical footnote in the history of CJK character sets. The editors of Han unification are the best judges of what to do with the content as they can presumably read the sources, unlike most of us I suspect (Google finds another possible source in a link from here (half-way down under "Papers and Presentations") but even my browser can't read it, never mind me.) The only other substantive article that links to UTF-2000 is Unicode#Philosophical and completeness criticisms, but it's in the context of a summary of the same issues as the "controversy" part of Han unification#Rationale and controversy, so the wikilink can be replaced by a cross-ref to there without loss. Qwfp (talk) 21:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC) (dear me I got a bit carried away there, don't know why)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Elliot Elam

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

Non-notable cartoonist, fails WP:BIO and WP:RS - external links go to artist's own site, a solicited blog, and some page about Disney in which the subject isn't mentioned. Reference is quite useless for verifying info. Google's only acknowledgment that this person exists is this article and his home page. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Possibly emerging artist, but no notable coverage. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't meet the WP:BIO criteria. Johnbod (talk) 22:46, 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.--Kubigula (talk) 04:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008 Fat Joe Mixtape

2008 Fat Joe Mixtape (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreleased mixtape (crystal ballism) with very little media coverage. WP:MUSIC#Albums and songs says "mixtapes... are in general not notable"; nothing indicates that this one will be an exception. Fails WP:MUSIC. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Insufficient coverage; MTV summary is vague and doesn't actually say something's being released; seems more like a guide to create a mixtape of their preferred artists as opposed to who's releasing one. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Several reasons 1) Unreleased without significant coverage. 2) Mixtapes are generally not notable. 3) Very short article that (were it not otherwise deletable) should be merged into artist's article. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Mdsummermsw in particular, this certainly fails WP:MUSIC and any other relevant guideline. RFerreira (talk) 19:55, 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 new version, which I have now put in the article. Wizardman 16:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ten Commandments of Computer Ethics

Ten Commandments of Computer Ethics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not content for an encyclopedia Plushpower (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete--copyvio. Justin Eiler (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Lots of soap suds for cleanliness, with a bit of copyvio thrown in for the complexion. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, although we could probably have an article on the Computer Ethics Institute itself, and discuss the Ten Commandments development process there. --Dhartung | Talk 21:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Denaar (talk) 02:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete? This is a copyright violation, is it not? RFerreira (talk) 19:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Let's quickly fix the copyvio and keep the article (I can do this). This subject is widely referenced in ethics of computing articles books. It is also used by professional organizations such as the CISSP. Book references: [5],

[6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noah Salzman (talk • contribs) 01:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I have created an alternative stub article here. Haven't had a chance to incorporate the book references yet, but it may be a workable replacement to deal with the copyvio issues. —Noah 02:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I've done a little more work and I think the stub is quite viable at this point. Please consider replacing the current article with my version rather than deleting it outright. Thank you. —Noah 07:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and replace as per Noah. Eithin (talk) 13:33, 1 March 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 no one's bothered to look at this in two weeks then the answer's obvious. Wizardman 05:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Forest of Sound

Forest of Sound (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable advertising group. References provided are all trivial, solicited, or in violation of WP:EL. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment does seem rather non-notable, as does "Paul's brother and professional artist Elliot Elam." Perhaps another AFD candidate? maxsch (talk) 21:42, 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, Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Reply to comment: Aye, probably so. I'll put him up in a different nom. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:01, 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. Wizardman 16:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Here Comes the Sun (novel)

Here Comes the Sun (novel) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable per WP:BK. No notable media coverage, and not an author of extreme notability. Gary King (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. In spite of Wikipedia:Notability (books), there are thousands of literature stubs like this one. I'm sure someone will expand the article and add a reliable source. <KF> 04:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. "'In spite of..." argument has no validity here on Wikipedia. Notability is at issue here, not the fact that the publication exists. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep something, especially when it's spitting in the face of a notability guideline. This article provides nearly no information about the book, and completely fails WP:BK and WP:RS. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

References have now been added. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 17:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and expand. If you want to ban stubs you need to change policy. The fact this is a) a book by a major UK author and b) is published by a major publisher, qualify it for existence. Content issues are a different matter. 23skidoo (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Please read WP:BOOK. This book fails all six of the nutshell points. Unless best-seller ratings or other coverage indicating its notability can be found, if fails, period. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 21:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! WP:BOOK? nutshell points?? :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Tom Holt is certainly notable, and I would say this book is, but the article as it stands is pretty much pointless. Delete unless improved. the wub "?!" 22:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• It was a nice enough book, but I'm not finding much in the way of reviews that establish its notability. Merge (or if you insist, redirect) to Tom Holt as part of his bibliography. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I've found two references which I believe satisfy criteria 1 of WP:BK. I'll add them.--Rtrace (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Holt is notable enough in his field of comic novels to warrant an article about this side step in his career (into science fiction). He is one of comedies most well read and followed authors. At least in the UK. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - don't forget that WP:BK key criteria is an inclusive list ie. if one applies the article is automatically deemed notable, the opposite only "suggests" that the novel might not be notable. Anyway the author's notability should be sufficient in this case. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and expand. Holt's an extremely popular author in his field, and his work (this one in particular) fits well into a particular SF tradition of humanizing the world, so it's interesting in itself. Eithin (talk) 13:15, 1 March 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, doesn't assert notability per WP:BAND. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Exit State

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

Article reads like an advertisment. Less than 20 Google hits for ("exit state" "curtain call") (one of the groups albums). Single editor. Looks like blatant advertising--may qualify under Speedy Delete. Justin Eiler (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - unremarkable band per WP:MUSIC and written like an advert for the band. - Fritzpoll (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. And I've marked it as such. Should never have made it to here. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:21, 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. While the subject-specific notability guidelines do not trump the general notability guideline, they do provide a convenient means of treating a subject when sources are expected to exist but are not currently available to the discussion. They do not provide an additional hurdle that the article has to pass just because the subject of the article matches the subject of the guideline. So from that standpoint, the first keep argument in this discussion had the chance to outweigh all of the delete arguments, as the subject is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. However upon inspection of the source provided in the article, of which there was only one, it was a trivial mention (just mentions he was the goaltender for at least a portion of a game with Rushden & Diamonds F.C. -- no critical commentary of how he played), hardly meets the requirements of WP:N, in that the depth of coverage is not substantial. Therefore we must fall back upon the subject-specific notability guideline, which the delete arguments clearly identify as this article does not pass. My decision therefore is delete. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dale Roberts (footballer born 1986)

Dale Roberts (footballer born 1986) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails WP:ATHLETE. Rushden & Diamonds now play in the Conference National, which is not fully professional, so appearances this season for Rushden do not establish notability. robwingfield ^«T•C» 19:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. robwingfield ^«T•C» 19:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep He is Forest's number 2 keeper and has occupied their bench. He has played 5 games for Rushden, a professional club. There is plenty of coverage mentioning him in third party reputable media (BBC site, Halifax press, Yorkshire evening post). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:FOOTY/Notability requires that the clubs professional status be confirmed by a Reliable source. I cant see this on the R&D article English peasant 01:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:ATHLETE BanRay 22:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep played in the Conference at a professional club, hence meet new WP:FOOTY notability criteria. Peanut4 (talk) 03:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I wasn't aware that the WikiProject's notability criteria had been accepted by the project. Until this AfD, I would have said precisely the reverse. Happy to be proven wrong, so could you let me know where that discussion has taken place? robwingfield ^«T•C» 07:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Reply - See Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability criteria 1. Peanut4 (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
      • As I said, I'm after the discussion which proves that the criteria have been accepted, not the criteria themselves. robwingfield ^«T•C» 00:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Sorry, misread your comment. The discussion is here. And confirmation Conference National players notable is here. Peanut4 (talk) 00:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
          • I've already seen the WikiProject discussion... I haven't seen where that's been accepted by the community. A number of requests were rejected at WP:DRV after that discussion because WP:FOOTY did not get the new criteria accepted by the wider community and added to WP:BIO. I'm not trying to be difficult - I'd be very happy if they were accepted, but I'm not convinced they have been. robwingfield ^«T•C» 07:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
            • As far as I know they haven't been yet, so we have to stick with WP:BIO. John Hayes^talk 12:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Delete obviously fails WP:BIO#Athlete. It's possible he might pass WP:BIO#Basic criteria, based on the comment above, but at the moment his notability isn't asserted by multiple independent reliable sources. John Hayes^talk 12:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - never played at a high enough level. - fchd (talk) 08:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete does not meet WP:Athlete at this time. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:46, 2 March 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. Further to the consensus reached through the discussion below, it is clear that the conclusion of this debate is that all three subjects have failed to assert their notability through the provision of reliable sources. This falls short of the minimal provisions of Wikipedia policy, and to this end I am closing as delete. AGK (contact) 21:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nancy Donohue

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

David Dechman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Miles Doherty (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The Nancy Donohue article was created, tagged for speedy deletion and untagged all within the space of 18 minutes on 17 August 2007. Creator was Summit499, whose only other Wikipedia work has been to create David Dechman and Miles Doherty. Now, all three of these are officers of a firm called Summit Rock. All three articles were created on the same date and speedy tags for all three were removed by User:DGG. Despite DGG's edit comments in removing the speedy tags, none of the articles asserts a genuine notability beyond the position held in the company they are all members of. A Google search for Nancy Donohue, for example, turns up basic directory entries and a brief wedding notice from the New York Times, but no third party evidence of notability that I have been able to discern. (Ignore the actress with the same name.) These articles, to my mind, constitute a concerted effort to publicise a company and its directors, none of whom has any real notability that can be evidenced from reliable external sources. Note also that none of the external links - to major financial organisations - do anything to provide such evidence. Emeraude (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment My removing the speedy tag does not imply they were notable, just that there was a rational claim that should be tested by the community. Even the nom says there is a claim to notability based on their present company, but for some reason wants to establish notability outside of it. Rather, I think the notability of them will probably depend on how notable Summit Rock is, about which I have no opinion. Incidentally, Donohoe was VP of Harvard's $16 billion Investment Management Company, with a remarkable rate of return--that is a claim to notability, quite independent of her present role at Summit Rock. DGG (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Hope I didn't appear to suggest any impropriety on DGG's part - not my intention. My nomination though does not say 'there is a claim to notability based on their present company' - being leaders of their company is NOT notability unless the company is a major player AND they are responsible for it being such. I did say that I have found no evidence of notabilty in reliable third party sources. Otherwise, these articles are little short of spam. Emeraude (talk) 10:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Nancy Donohue and Miles Doherty; Neutral on David Dechman. My rationale for the deletion is that they are not notable in their own right, since the assertion of notability appears to rely purely on performing a private job at a private company (as distinct from, say, CEOs, etc.). My neutrality on David Dechman is simply that, whilst the big notability claim is his work with the same company, there is the possibility of greater notability depending on the extent of the charitable works described in the article - I'll look into it more and wait for more arguments on this article before possibly changing my view. - Fritzpoll (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —86.149.53.196 (talk) 10:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Addhoc (talk) 19:57, 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. Rationale on talk page. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deadman Wonderland

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

Delete nn manga w/o sources written by redlinks. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Noting the fact that being written by editors without a user page is not a criteria for deletion, this article establishes no notability for the book and further violates WP:PLOT. No references, either. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm not finding much of anything about this manga in English, which suggests that it just started serialization. The creators listed previously collaborated on the manga of Eureka Seven, so they're not total unknowns. Can anyone dig up something in Japanese to confirm the series status? —Quasirandom (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Two volumes out, apparently. ja:デッドマン・ワンダーランド Doceirias (talk) 22:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• That's pretty far along, especially for a monthly serial, to get no official notice, which suggests a certain lack of notability. OTOH, I've found a couple scanlation groups working on it simultaneously, which suggests a level of popularity in an extremely unreliable way. Can anyone find anything about licensing outside of Japan? —Quasirandom (talk) 04:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• I tried to reformat the article to something more acceptable. I was able to find some very basic information about the serial, but not enough to presume notability from. It do want to take issue with the nominator's "written by redlinks" comments. The fact that the writer and illustrator do not currently have articles is not a presumption of non-notability. All it means is that we don't have an article on them for one of many reasons not related to their notability, or lack thereof. --Farix (Talk) 19:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This manga has been running for a considerable amount of time. I decided to start it so that it at least existed on Wikipedia and could be added to later by anyone, but I made it with the intention of expanding it soon after. It seems it has been added to, and I have edited it a bit further. Presumably this makes it eligible to avoid deletion. N-Denizen (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep The cleanup done seems to have established reasonable notability. Doceirias (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Like most Japanese works of fiction, the availability of sources in English are hard to come by, so it's not surprising this was brought to AfD. Even if all we know is the publisher and past work done by the creators, I think that's enough for a longer grace period. -- Ned Scott 04:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• I'm a little conflicted about this one: there's been a fair amount of work put into the article since the AfD, but very little of it demonstrates notability. But as Ned Scott says, sources are such that it would be difficult to find those quickly. (BTW, as noted above that the article or the series was written by users without userpages or creators without articles is a highly spurious deletion argument: manga coverage on Wikipedia is still very spotty -- there are many creators of highly notable works that don't have even stubs yet, and ditto the works.) (These being award-winning serials running continuously since the 1970s.) So mark me down as weak keep to give editors some good-faith time to find better sourcing. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep This page is much like many other manga pages that are accepted by Wikipedia. It has enough information to be useful to the reader, and the format is easy to add to. It has no need of deletion anymore. N-Denizen (talk) 19:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Even the original creator of the article stated in an edit summary that the work is too obscure and unknown to have a proper reception section.[14] However, the notability of this work depends heavily on such a section, or similar section using third-party sources, being written. --Farix (Talk) 20:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• What are you talking about? Reception sections for untranslated manga are nigh impossible to find, and have never been a requirement for anything below a B rating. Doceirias (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• But apparently, it's not notable in Japan either, at least to get any coverage over there. And I'm not about to assume that it is automatically notable because potential sources are WP:NOTENGLISH. --Farix (Talk) 01:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Other than a Japanese wikipedia page? I've almost never seen any coverage for anything beyond top selling manga by reputable sources. There just isn't a reputable online press dealing with manga. I think a manga by a major publisher by creators who have had work translated into English (Eureka 7 was, right?) is more than enough to satisfy notability requirements. Doceirias (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• This work doesn't inherited notability from its creators. It still has to pass WP:BK or WP:NOTE on it's own like every other manga. The only manga that I know would could a free pass by WP:BK are those created by Osamu Tezuka because he is had huge historical impact on on both anime and manga industries. --Farix (Talk) 02:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• I can see many articles on wikipedia which fall under your reasoning for deletion, and not all of them have Reception sections. They aren't deleted, and do not need to be deleted. Why should this article be an exception? N-Denizen (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Citing the presents of other articles that may fail the notability guidelines is not grounds to keep other articles about non-notable subjects. Especially after you admitted in that edit summary that the work was not notable. --Farix (Talk) 23:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not designed as a defense for someone arguing a set of standards significantly harsher than standard operating practice. I've seen a number of books with similar claims to notability survive deletion uncontested, and am baffled as to why you've suddenly decided to move the goalposts. Doceirias (talk) 01:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• The goal post hasn't been moved, but that we really haven't been looking to see if we were clearing the goal post in the first place. Also, unlike other nominations, we have a clear assertion that the work is non-notable work. Your argument also reminds me of the ones used to defend episode articles that also don't have third-party sources from which we can presume notability. --Farix (Talk) 04:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, I know it does. I think we'd be using basically the same language no matter which end of the line of reasonableness we were on. Frankly, I think if something is notable on the Japanese wikipedia, then it is notable enough to get an article here. Doceirias (talk) 04:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Deadman Wonderland is published in Shonen Ace, has Two released volumes, is created by the author and illustrator of a manga of another known series. It has had attention from various people, as proven at least by the japanese wikipedia article - I could list other people, but they most likely would just be rejected as not reliable enough. Farix, You focus on the fact that the reception section was unnecessary, as if somehow because I can't dredge up unneccessary information that simply proves people read it, we should delete an entire article. This article was marked for deletion because it barely had any information to begin with. It's been fleshed out to an acceptable standard now, and yet you insist on scrutinization of it, but not to let it stay, but to be deleted. Is this truly the correct attitude to take? Frankly, I think this discussion is tired and little more than picking at particular statements, and if there are no more dimensions to add to it, we should just end it. Many say Keep, so let's keep it. N-Denizen (talk) 23:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. This series is published in Shonen Ace, and by notable mangaka. The series has no official presence in English at this time, but that is not a prerequisite for notability, just an undeniable proof of it. (The time someone tried getting the articles on Saint Seiya deleted jumps to mind here.) --erachima formerly tjstrf 23:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Saint Seiya, though, has more clear-cut notability, having been adapted as anime (thus clearing WP:BK in one hurdle), spawned several derivative series, been reissued several times, been licensed in multiple languages, and been cited by many other mangaka as influential. Not everything in Shonen Ace is automatically notable, just as not everything published by The New Yorker is. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:01, 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 keep. RFerreira (talk) 19:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jagdschloss Glienicke

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

• Delete no indication that his hunting lodge cum castle is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. There is a lengthy article on this castle at de.wikipedia [15]; perhaps someone could translate it? Kafka Liz (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The German wikipedia article claims this castle is an UNESCO World Heritage Site, and the Norwegian wikipedia also has an article on it. (I added this claim of notability and added the interwikis). – sgeureka ^t•c 20:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

My translation skills aren't exactly good, but I tried my best. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep, World Heritage standing confirmed. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 21:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - as a UNESCO site, it seems to be plenty notable. matt91486 (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep (suggest withdraw) after sgeureka's translation from the German article; I'll fix as necessary any remaining issues with the translation. Eusebeus (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Carlos, you ok if someone closes this now? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. The Telegraph calls it "One of Germany's finest baroque buildings". —David Eppstein (talk) 06:58, 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. There was no support for the nomination to delete. Although many participants suggested merge as an alternative, most said "keep or merge", or "merge if...", and only one suggested where to merge, but not specifically what to merge. Others suggested merging with some article that does not appear to even exist yet. It is not reasonable, therefore to conclude that there was consensus for a merge from this discussion, although from a glance it seems to have been a popular recommendation. Keep by default. Merge can happen by editor action independant of AfD. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 15:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Corn Stalk Defense

Corn Stalk Defense (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

In my opinion this chess opening is not notable, as the references do not list any significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The lead does nothing to demonstrate any notability (quite the contrary). SyG (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep - needs tidying up, but the article asserts that it was an opening played in recorded games by a notable chess player. - Fritzpoll (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

'Merge per the proposals below - an article on this class of chess opening would be better than simply removing the material. -Fritzpoll (talk) 10:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete - This "opening" is the epitome of non-notableness. No one rated over about 1400 would play this today (and very few would have done so even in Preston Ware's time). The fact that a second-rate player fond of ridiculous openings played it over a century ago does not warrant inclusion. Krakatoa (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge I question whether Preston Ware was a notable player. There is no article on him in any chess encyclopedia (e.g. The Oxford Companion to Chess, Golombek's Encyclopedia of Chess, The Encyclopedia of Chess (Sunnucks), or The Batsford Chess Encyclopedia (Divinsky)), although the first of those does mention the Ware Opening (i.e. 1.a4, a/k/a/ the Meadow Hay Opening). To my surprise, there is an article on Ware in Edward R. Brace's An Illustrated Dictionary of Chess, which describes him thus: "(1820-1890) American chess player. He was an influential member of the Mandarins of the Yellow Button of Boston. In 1882 he visited Europe and played at Vienna (1882). Here he provided Steinitz with his first defeat in nine years, but finished last of those who completed the tournament." Ware is also listed in Gaige's Chess Personalia, but so are assorted FIDE Masters and such. Gino di Felice's Chess Results, 1747-1900 shows just four significant tournaments that Wade played in: the Second American Chess Congress (1871) (5th-6th out of 9); 4th American Chess Congress (1876) (7th out of 8); 5th American Chess Congress (1880) (7th-8th out of 10); and the aforementioned Vienna 1882, where he finished 16th out of 18th with 11/34. Three of his eleven points came from forfeits, and he most likely would have finished last if Noa (9 points) and Fleissig (7 points) hadn't dropped out after the first half (it was a double round-robin). Against the top half of the field, Ware had the win against Steinitz, 2 draws, and 15 losses. Ware scored 32.8% (+18 =8 -41) in his games given on chessgames.com [16]; as you'll see, the vast majority of his games against notable players are losses. (By comparison, I score 83.3% and no one would call me notable [17].)

Nonetheless, I have changed my vote to Merge. I think this opening and the other "Brand X" responses to 1.e4 (e.g. ...f6, ...Na6, ...Nh6, ...h5, ...f5) should be merged into an article called something like Unusual responses to 1.e4. Krakatoa (talk) 10:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's correct to say Preston Ware was a second rate player(unless you mean by todays playing strength). In his day Ware played in top tournaments and was able to win a competitive game against Wilhelm Steinitz in 1882 when Steinitz was the Unofficial World Chess Champion. ChessCreator (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep or Merge Firstly I agree with the above, this opening has no interest to respectable chess players. In chess terms it's a useless opening. I believe this article could be written to be interesting to the casual reader, but is unlikely to meet the WP:RS criteria for referencing.

There are several other first move openings all in the same situation Amar Opening, Durkin Opening, Barnes Opening to name but three. I think together they could make one complete and referenced article. ChessCreator (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Update to Keep or Merge in light of new reference information. Amar Opening, Durkin Opening, Barnes Opening where poor examples. Better examples are Goldsmith Defense(1.e4 h5), Adams Defense(1.e4 Na6) and Lemming Defense(1.e4 Na6) ChessCreator (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep or Merge - I agree with Quayle ChessCreator - I don't want to lose this information, but it is questionable whether it should be an article. I think it would be best to collect several of these unusual openings into one article. Bubba73 (talk), 02:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Weak merge. In the defense of Amar, Durkin and Barnes per ChessCreator above, each of those openings are one of 20 possible opening moves on the first move by White, and each of them have an entry in the Oxford Companion to Chess (1984 edition), which is the closest we get to a gold standard chess encyclopedia. The Corn Stalk does not have such an entry, and if we will have an article on each of the Black responses to White's first move, we are up to 400 possible combinations, most of them which are not taken seriously by anybody. As Krakatoa says, this opening is not something you will find played seriously by players with a 1400 rating (for non-chess buffs, that is a mid-level amateur tournament player), or even by players with a 900 rating, except as some silly joke. After all, the move 1...a5? is a time wasting weakening of the queenside which does nothing for development and has no redeeming characteristic over 1...c5 for example. However, we could expand the article King's Pawn Game with a mention of some of the obscure responses to 1.e4, like this one, provided that there is some source to ensure verifiability, the Chessmaster comment is such a source. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Putting them under King's Pawn Game as you suggest is also a good thought. Rather than being an article for these, there could be a section for unusual responses. (Probably one for unusual responses to 1.d4 too.) Bubba73 (talk), 07:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep or merge with redirects, if merger is possible while conserving all of the data. There is a fair amount of third party commentary about all of these unorthodox openings. I think Benjamin and Schiller's Unorthodox Chess Openings (Collier; ISBN 0020165900) covers them all, as does Dunnington's Winning Unorthodox Openings (Everyman; ISBN 1857442857), which focuses on Black's response to odd moves by White. My own favorite is the American Attack in Alekhine's Defense (1 e4 Nf6 2 e5 Ng8). At any rate, these chess openings would appear to meet our general notability guideline, being the subject of multiple works of commentary by third parties who write chess books. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep. I think any chess opening played by a notable player (Preston Ware is notable), is worthy of keeping. Also, this is a response to White's most common opening move! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.18.31.12 (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep. Seems to meet WP:N as references have been provided. But I would not really have an objection to the content being merged to a larger article on unusual openings.Pawnkingthree (talk) 09:45, 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 Delete. While the subject-specific notability guidelines do not trump the general notability guideline, they do provide a convenient means of treating a subject when sources are expected to exist but are not currently available to the discussion. They do not provide an additional hurdle that the article has to pass just because the subject of the article matches the subject of the guideline. So from that standpoint, the first keep argument in this discussion had the chance to outweigh all of the delete arguments, as the subject is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. However upon inspection of the sources provided in the article, of which there were three, two are extraordinarily trivial mentions (one just lists him as a member of a team along with all of the other members, the other just lists him as one of three other players to leave a team after the entire article specifically discusses two other prominent players -- both offer no critical commentary), and one just says he was picked up by a team as its newest rookie, and has a brief quote from the subject of his opinion on it. The latter is boderline, but hardly meets the requirements of WP:N, in that the depth of coverage is not substantial. Therefore we must fall back upon the subject-specific notability guideline, which the delete arguments clearly identify as this article does not pass. My decision therefore is delete. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 21:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Steven Cann

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

Contested PROD. Has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails WP:ATHLETE. robwingfield ^«T•C» 19:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. robwingfield ^«T•C» 19:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:BIO#Athletes and consensus is that youth caps do not confer notability. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. BanRay 22:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Passes WP:BIO#Basic criteria with multiple, reliable, independent sources. John Hayes^talk 12:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Youth caps don't count....apparently--Egghead06 (talk) 12:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:FOOTY/Notability and WP:ATHLETE,the article can be recreated if/when he makes his professional debut. As for the links, one is a BBC link that where he shares a sentence with another jetisoned youth player, another documents his participation in an event which does not confer notability (Milk Cup) and the Soccerbase link is just a row of Zeros. That leaves the BBC source that documents his joining Rotherham, an event which, in itself is not notable.) English peasant 01:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Article meets core policies, and a wait and see approach towards articles on youth footballers is preferable. Catchpole (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep.--Kubigula (talk) 04:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Final Call (album)

Final Call (album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails Wikipedia:Music#Albums_and_songs: Unreleased albums are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, non-trivial sources available: [18] [19] east.718 at 20:01, February 25, 2008
• Keep east718's sources are adequate. Catchpole (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per east718. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 19:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect. RFerreira (talk) 19:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bicentennial Jr. High School

Bicentennial Jr. High School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete nothing to indicate that this primary/jr. high school is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect (?) to List_of_Nova_Scotia_schools#Dartmouth_Centre_-_Albro_Lake-_Harbourview where it is listed simply as "Bicentennial School" under the Halifax Regional School Board. --Daddy.twins (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. No indication of notability, but a logical search term. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and Redirect per the nom. No notability. Eusebeus (talk) 22:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect per User:Daddy.twins. No valid excuse exists for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 02:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect per User:Daddy.twins. as said above, no valid argument for deletion has been produced. TerriersFan (talk) 00:30, 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. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Exclusive Audio Footage

Exclusive Audio Footage (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails Wikipedia:Music#Albums_and_songs: Unreleased albums are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep; found two news articles on it: Through Hell and Back by Malcolm Venable in The Virginian Pilot, 11/26/06 and Clipse Feels No Scorn Over 'Fury' in the News & Observer, 3/23/07. east.718 at 19:56, February 25, 2008
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete --Stephen 01:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] We The Living (band)

We The Living (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Band article that fails WP:MUSIC. Single album release is self-published. Ros0709 (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages, the aforementioned self-published album

Heights of the Heavens (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Delete - self-promotion. Deb (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment While the band has a very small degree of notability, the article reads like a copyvio from their own promotional material. Some of it was lifted directly from their Myspace. There are about four decent articles out there, on the band. Someone should rewrite the article based on what's found in them. -Freekee (talk) 02:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7. PKT (talk) 19:40, 2 March 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 Delelte. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 21:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Burntwood Town

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

Club has never played at a notable level, no reliable sources to give notability via any other means ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• The following is copied from the article's talk page:

no please keep. it is going to be added to clubs such as Northfield Town in the same division have a page that is not even as good as this one! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burntwood07 (talk • contribs)

Firstly, you are not permitted to remove the AfD notice (as it states), so do not do that. Secondly the place to argue your case is not here but on the deletion debate page. Thirdly, the only clubs in the same division as Burntwood who have articles are those who have played at a higher level. Northfield, for example, are former Mid Comb champions, whereas Burntwood have not played in the top division..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• I moved the above here for completeness' sake ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Club has never played above Step 7. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• DO NOT DELETE, notable club! good page more work to be done!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burntwood07 (talk • contribs) (the article's creator)
• Delete Does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia at this time, which is set by consensus at level 10 of the pyramid. This club is a level below that. The article can be restored should the club gain promotion to the Midland Football Combination premier league (which doesn't seem likely at the moment as they are rooted to the bottom of the division one). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:41, 2 March 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 05:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CREATE/RECREATE

CREATE/RECREATE (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

A self published book with no assertion of notability, and a Google search doesn't provide any. Fails WP:BOOK TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. No assertion of notability. AndyJones (talk) 13:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chrome Dreams

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

Fails Wikipedia:Music#Albums_and_songs: Unreleased albums are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep the article takes its information from several biographies of Neil Young. Catchpole (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Very well known unreleased album, which has been the subject of enough coverage.--Michig (talk) 19:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

...and I have added refs to demonstrate this. --Michig (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - Now that it has refs to substantial coverage in RSs. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep 5 hits on google books [20] Ridernyc (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - more than adequately referenced Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 10:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Very well sourced. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 03:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep by unanimous decision, notability is quite evident. RFerreira (talk) 19:57, 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. Wizardman 06:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kiley Dean

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

Fails Wikipedia:Music#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles, no released albums, no reliable sources, no tours, etc. Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Gone, appears to have already been deleted TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC) Keep, appears to pass WP:MUSIC TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The nomination was malformed with an incorrect article title. Now fixed. —Travis^talk 18:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Arguments from previous afd still apply - also featured by MTV [21]. Catchpole (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep had a song on the national charts. Ridernyc (talk) 22:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• This nomination was not linked from the article itself until this point. Now fixed. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 13:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Ridernyc, also she was signed by/released albums with big record companies which also establishes notability. Rigby27 Talk 14:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Signing w/a major label does not establish notability. The label has apparently declined to release both her albums which would weigh against notability. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep Seems to squeak by WP:MUSIC: 2 charting singles (albeit on component charts, not main charts) and some mainstream media coverage. What gets me is that no one has added these (and the refs from the 1st afd) to the article. Perhaps when I get a chance I will, if no one else has by then. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:54, 1 March 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} 01:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Keegan Ayre

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

Another contested prod; Player that fails WP:BIO#Athletes as he has never played in a fully professional league (Berwick Rangers F.C. are not professional) and consensus is that youth caps do not confer notability. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. robwingfield ^«T•C» 18:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom -- Alexf⁴² 18:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep ample reliable sources exist. As this is a likely search term at the very least this article should redirect to his father Garry Ayre. Catchpole (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:ATHLETE BanRay 22:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep - sorry to rain on your parade and end the sheep voting but Berwick Rangers are professional, out of all the teams in this league, there is only one which is not, Queen's Park F.C.. Please do not wikilawyer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.142.59.172 (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • No they are not, they are semi-professional.[22] And even if they were professional, as you have noted, Queen's Park are not, so it is not a fully professional league. Calling using facts wikilawyering is a little over the top. пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    • They are professional now, that source is 7 years old. There is only one team in the entire Scottish League system that is not professional and they are Queen's Park F.C. as stated in the article. Are you saying it is OK to keep article on players in Division 3 (a division below Division 2 and fully professional) but not for players in Division 2 which is 90% professional. You do realise that if Queen's Park are relegated you will have to delete all the articles on Division 3 players, and if they are promoted you will have to delete all the articles on players in Division 1, and if they are promoted to the Premier League, you will have to delete all the articles on Premier League players, because in your reasoning, 'it isn't fully professional'. I find this absolutely dumbfounding wikilawyering,process wonkery and a bad-faith nomination. The policy of Wikipedia has always been to use common sense - please read WP:UCS and WP:IAR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.141.5.169 (talk) 12:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
      • "There is only one team in the entire Scottish League system that is not professional" - so East Stirlingshire's players are fully professional on their infamous wages of £10 per week are they? Houses must be reeeeally cheap in Falkirk...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Precisely; the claim the Scottish Divisions Two and Three are fully pro is laughable. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I thought U21 teams counted towards notability? Canada don't have a U21 team, but he's listed here as a U20 player which is the equivalent - google shows he's been playing at this level for two years now. It seems to me that the article doesn't need deleted? 88.104.176.110 (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, turns out there's a U23 side I wasn't aware of. However, he's been named in the squad [[23]] for the qualifiers which start in two weeks or so - so again, with definite notability just round the corner, is there a real need to delete the article? 88.104.176.110 (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • WP:CRYSTAL applies here. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

*Keep Passes WP:FOOTYN, fails WP:BIO#Athletes, just about passes WP:BIO#Basic criteria, so in this case, especially as the league is almost entirely pro, I think we can make an exception and keep the article. John Hayes^talk 14:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Can you provide a source that confirms that the league is "almost entirely pro", because as far as I'm aware it isn't anything of the sort..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Just been having a very cursory look around and Cowdenbeath are certainly semi-pro (their website lists the players' day jobs), Queens Park are of course amateur, Ayr United's website lists most of their players as "contract: part time", that's at least 30% of the league that's not fully pro..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, the Scottish Second Division is nowhere near being fully professional. An educated guess is that Airdrie, Ross County and Raith are all full time, but the rest not. Can you say how he passes WP:FOOTYN? пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• As the source above was rubbished for being seven years old, here's a source from 2008, from the Times, no less. Berwick Rangers manager Michael Renwick is quoted as follows:

There ya go - there are only three full-time teams in Scottish Div Two ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought they were pro, in which i case i withdraw my keep, and change to Delete John Hayes^talk 15:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, recreate if he plays for a professional team ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, Chris and number (to replace my previous keep) John Hayes^talk 15:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:FOOTYN, Berwick are not fully professional English peasant 01:29, 1 March 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, unreleased, not notable, no thorough coverage --Stephen 01:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Simple Girl

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

Fails Wikipedia:Music#Albums_and_songs: Unreleased albums are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, substantial coverage: [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] east.718 at 19:59, February 25, 2008
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Note that links 4-6 are all the same AP article. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete None of the four articles (different) above devote much coverage to the album, just mentioning it in passing. That it was tentatively scheduled for release passes WP:V but I don't see anything approaching "substantial coverage" for the album itself. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:03, 1 March 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 16:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Saltee Islands (Airman setting)

Saltee Islands (Airman setting) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. A article on a fictional setting. The novel it is from has been released a month. I'm unable to find any real world coverage and suspect that there is none Nuttah (talk) 17:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails to meet WP:FICT and, consequently, WP:N (the book itself was released a month ago and certainly has a very small fanbase). Almost every citation from the page refers to the book itself. Anyway, the article is too big and probably not closely related to the plot and merging it in the book article would be a bad choice. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 18:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, as noted apparently not even closely related to the plot, primarily just background material. Fails WP:FICT. --Dhartung | Talk 19:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The setting in Airman is a very important part of the plot. There is a real Saltee Islands. Littleteddy (talk) 10:28, 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 delete. Wizardman 16:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Youth United

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

Contested Prod. Article fails WP:ORG#Non-commercial organizations. Non notable organization, I did a google search on pages from India regarding this NGO, [30]. Basically the search results still relevant are only two, that too of their own site. Also the article is sort of a copy vio of their own website (not an exact copy though). Welt^anschaunng 17:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Well I didn't notice it earlier, but after I had tagged the page as prod, someone put a speedy A7 tag on it. Apparently, the creator has removed both prod and speedy tags. Welt^anschaunng 17:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and salt - non-notable org. This is a multiply-recreated article, the newest version by an S.P.A. of the classic type: It's such a worthy ideal, it's sure to become big. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Welt^anschaunng 18:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• the justification- My article 'Youth United' is listed under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. I have gone through the details for this and I found that the answer to the question why its subject is important or significant, is implied by the full article, particularly, headings of philosophy, vision, and mission statement really imply the answer to the same question. Youth United is a registered Non Governmental Organization, as Rotary International or Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The only difference is that they are quite reputed and old. Youth United solely works for the betterment of Society and Youth and it does not have any profit making motive as per its Constitution. Moreover everything was written from a neutral perspective. Had it not been the case, everything about the past events, activities and tabloids would have been flooded in the article. It was avoided to make the article as neutral as possible. Everything written was written to make the article informative and inform the general mass about Youth United and its missions and objectives which in turn have absolute nature of Community welfare. This article is to propagate the mission statement of Youth United and not the Youth United itself. If required I can send you the official charter and bye laws of Youth United. However you can also let me know as what all should be incorporated in the article to make it agreeable to wikipedia policies.

Searching the NGO on google is quite a speculative thing to do, especially when the organization is listed in India. It takes years for a name to come on google and not to mention this organization is quite a new organization. I have gone through the policies of wikipedia in this regard, it does not bar any one to write an article for a new organization. it also maintains neutrality and above all it just propagates the message which is in accordance with Society welfare and not any profit motive. really soliciting your cooperation,

Firstly, this is not CSD. Familiarize yourself with WP:ORG to understand why this article is being nominated for deletion. Your organization is non-notable i.e. it is not peer-reviewed by notable third party sources, nor does it feature in print media. Being a registered organization is not a criteria for inclusion in wikipedia. If you say that google search it not enough, I'd suggest you bring forward notable third party sources (i.e. links, most notable indian newspapers have websites) to show that you ARE notable. Welt^anschaunng 18:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concern. But you may like to consider the fact that this organization is a very new organization and finding third party sources for this is somewhat difficult so early. However there are some print media sources that I may be able to produce to you. Nonetheless, third party sources will be incorporated as soon as possible and for the time being this article may be approved as this article does not violate any other policy of wikipedia. However there are certain articles which does not cite the source from third party sources and still not having any problem. e.g. [31]. So in this regard, I request you to close the discussion and approve this article, with some reservations and liabilities that it will list more third party sources in near future. However organization's official website may be taken as the official source for the time being as in the case of few articles like [32], where the sources are primarily taken from the official website.

Your cooperation is really solicited,

Regards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Extolmonica (talk • contribs) 20:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete and salt. Unless the article is improved with verifiable information from reliable sources, its subject cannot be considered notable by Wikipedia's standards, no matter how lofty its subject's goals. In its current state, the article could be considered not neutral and either promotional or a copyright violation (depending on its author's relationship to the subject). The article is unquestionably a recreation of deleted material - its author should have followed Wikipedia:Deletion policy, discussed with the deleting admin, and failing in that, posted to Wikipedia:Deletion review, rather than recreating the article.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• In that case I would like you to clear the position of these articles [33], [34], [35],[36], [37]( or similar hundreds or thousands of articles) having no sources at all. These are just similar organizations found alone from the list of Youth Organizations. I believe wikipedia policies are meant for all kinds of organizations be it any NGO from India or US. So with all respect, I would still request you to follow one standard to tackle one kind of situation and close this discussion, in regard of my earlier request.

Sincerely, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Extolmonica (talk • contribs) 21:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• • responses' - If the organization is new, that may explain why it is not yet notable. Please note, also, that other articles out there aren't very good either is not a valid argument for the retention of this article. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability. That's all there is to it. The worthiness of the goals and activities of the organisiation are irrelevant. -- Whpq (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• response- I am unable to understand the subtleties of the notability of this organization. The notability is quite an abstract issue. One issue may be notable to you and one may not. You can not prove the non notability of any entity just by saying that the corresponding wikipedia article does not have third party sources. At least the article Youth United has a lot of sources referenced from its official website, and in many a cases, excluding or including wikipedia, official website is taken as the official and authentic reference. regarding the Google search thing please refer in here. I am aware of this policy [WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS], but it does not mean that these articles are still to be overlooked after having noticed. This is a registered NGO having certified charter and bye-laws. The offical website cites these information only and challenging the authenticity of a certified charter is uncalled for. This matter is quite irrelevant for wikipedia administrators that what are the goals and activities of Youth United.I request you to take the matter more seriously, so that we may finally reach to a valid conclusion and hence close the discussion. sincerely. Extolmonica (talk) 20:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• the request I request you to consider this, and hence contesting the nomination of Youth United article for AFD. I also request you to be flexible and make the best use of wikipedia liberal policies. Extolmonica (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply - As per WP:Notability, the way you can save this article from deletion is to provide reliable sources to establish the notability of the organisation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whpq (talk • contribs) 21:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Concern 1 - Google Test - Firstly the example in WP:ATA#Google test tells us to see the quality, not quantity, of the links. I used the google search to indicate that I found nothing to make your article notable. Hence I put this article up for AfD, so that you could provide third party sources which I might have missed, since google is not perfect. So far you haven't provided any.

Concern 2 - Notability - A policy is a policy, if they are relaxed for one article, there goes the neighbourhood. Also consider reading WP:NOT. Welt^anschaunng 08:11, 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 Delete: deleted under snow, then restored for unknown reasons, then speedied under G4 for recreation. I think consensus is safely on the snowy side of delete at this point. Non-admin closure. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The result was deleted by User:SGGH. Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Discussion reopened and relisted to generate a more thorough discussion to ensure that a consensus is reached. Guest9999 (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of characters in The Simpsons by MBTI type

List of characters in The Simpsons by MBTI type (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I really don't see why there should be an unreferenced list of the Simpsons characters based on their Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Non-notabilty and/or original research SGGH ^speak! 21:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Heck, even a list based on blood type would be better than this, as at least in a couple cases it's been a plot point. Anyway, delete as original research, indiscriminate information, and, yes, cruft. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete absolute shit. JuJube (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Please try and remain civil. Guest9999 (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, absolute defecation. JuJube (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Original research based on the inappropriate assumption that a real-life psychological test is applicable to fictional characters. EALacey (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Without any reliable sources it is impossible to say that this is not 100% original research. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Guest9999 (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete Par above. To bad there is no speedy for this. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 21:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I guess this guy wasn't meant to do stand-up comedy. Mandsford (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment as per WP:SNOW I have deleted it. SGGH ^speak! 21:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guest9999 (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Don't know why this was re-listed. Consensus seemed to be reached to me, which is why I never entered the discussion. Delete based on original research and no possibility to be independently sourced and verified as of now (and hopefully, never). Hazillow (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Possibly it was relisted because it was closed with less than an hour of discussion. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per A1. Just a list of names with absolutely no context. DarkAudit (talk) 19:32, 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 Keep. Meets requirements of WP:Music. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 15:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Who Will I Run To / Kiss Me Like That

Who Will I Run To / Kiss Me Like That (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails Wikipedia:Music#Albums_and_songs, non-notable. No substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep the single charted on a national chart. Ridernyc (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: "A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; permanent stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

then that is reason for redirection not deletion. My vote is unchanged. Ridernyc (talk) 14:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete, with strong prejudice against recreation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Boubaker polynomials

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

The only publications mentionning Boubaker polynomials are from Boubaker himself or closely related people. We are really lacking any relevant source that would confirm that this concept is anyhow accepted among mathematicians. At this time, very far from verifying WP:N (47 google hits). I also hope we can avoid the problems that followed the AfD on French language WP (speedy delete has been used in german and swedish as far as I know). Clem23 (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable enough. I fully endorse an opinion given on the article Talk Page by Lambiam : "by condoning such blatant self-promotion we effectively encourage it". French Tourist (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• I corrected the formatting of this nomination. No opinion on deletion. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I wonder if it's correct to call this a "second nomination". I seem to recall that an article with this title was deleted after AfD and rightly so (IMO), but this article is so radically different in content (even though perhaps written by the same person) that that deletion decision simply doesn't apply to it. It's another article with the same title, not the same article that was AfD'd before. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

While the content may differ dramatically, this is the second nomination for the article entitled "Boubaker polynomials". As a procedural matter, this nomination is and should be separate from the first, even if the content under consideration does not overlap at all except for the title. We see this sometimes where a deleted term ends up as the name for a band; the two are unrelated, and that's usually noted in the debate (which this has been, now, as well). UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Not to Delete ; the references are true, some notorious publication in the press about it. --Mario scolas (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  The references do indeed exist, but they are from Boubaker himself (and not really notorious). No mention of the polynom in any other scientific publication, and that's the problem. Clem23 (talk) 07:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as a recreation. The original AFD closed as delete due to apparent non-notability. Change in the precise content of the page aside, those concerns are abosutely not addressed with this new version. As mentioned by others, hardly any ghits and no independent publications on them. And as far as I can tell from Google Scholar, their papers haven't even been cited by anyone other than themselves. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think "speedy delete" is ever appropriate when some people who understand what the article says are arguing in good faith for keeping the article. Even if I thought this article were a re-creation of a properly deleted article (and it is not a re-creation) I would still hold that. There is not doctrine of stare decisis in deletions, and that is as it should be. As for the claim that the grounds for deletion was non-notability, I think that is highly questionable. It may be that the nominator and at least some of those voting for deletion had in mind those grounds, but one cannot read the minds of all who voted for deletion. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. No, but I can read the deletion comments, and everyone who !voted to delete said it wasn't notable; pretty clear to me. And if users in good faith dispute the result of the last AFD, there is a venue for them to challenge it. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as per Someguy1221. A non-notable topic does not become notable by rewriting the article text. If not deemed speediable, my recommendation is still Delete: not notable.  --Lambiam 23:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete not yet notable. Only possibly reliable source to support notability reads as press release, and this is after significant effort by many individuals to source this article. I personally have spent several hours searching, and the enthusiasm of its proponents compared to the number of sources generated, should indicate the difficulty. JackSchmidt (talk) 04:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment One should note that very recently a possible WP:RS has been given, but only one, and it was not clear to me how independent the source was (to my very weak french, it read like a departmental newsletter; the source itself seems not to be such a newsletter, but perhaps it was released as "copy" by a university to the magazine; in the language of WP:N, a "press release"). At any rate, speedy deletes based on the old memory of the article, should check out the new (a day or two old) source given to support notability claim, especially those with passingly good french. JackSchmidt (talk) 04:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

  Well, the journal is a tunisian magazine (officially 55000 printed). It is treating about very general topics and does not have any scientific credibility as far as I know. The article is presenting Mr Boubaker's work with some mistakes, and at the end is talking more about the interest of the scientist for poetry and his acknowledgements to the tunisian president. It nevertheless confirms what we did know, that Boubaker & all are real researchers in mathematics and that they claim to have invented that polynom. But nothing consistent otherwise. Clem23 (talk) 07:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Not to delete see http://www.tunisie7arts.com/?nomPage=suite&newsid=555 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.224.221.156 (talk)

  Note : this is most likely, according to the used IP, from Boubaker. Darkoneko (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Warning to they who contributed to make and keep this discussion at a high level. Please J. C. M._Clem23 if you have problems with the Tunisian President, that is your matter, but please leave enPW away from Racism and Xenophobea, Do you want to project your behaviour in En.WP?? Do you want everyone know Which ideas you have already expressed in fr.WP. Ok? You promised to order an immediate deletion of this page from en.WP, do you think enWP administrators, who contributed to its enhancement,are your agents?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.224.221.156 (talk)

For the 25th time I've never ever insulted anybody about those polynoms, especially not for racial issues. I'm not going to apologize because your only solution to save "your" article is to use calomny against those who propose to remove it (I'm not talking only about me). Your widespread vandalisms on the french language wikipedia over the past few days have been tiresome, but this nomination is disconnected (I was willing to do so way before that). Clem23 (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok Sir, you decided it!

En.WP's will see immediately your discussion pages with administrators , saved in htm. format, from your OWN archives where you express your opinion and your real motivations ...(don't think we can rewrite them here .. this site is very clean) ... the honorable EN WP's will see and evaluate... .

For your informations, many En.WP administrators contributed to the correction on SCIENTIFIC Basis .. NEVER any one of them behaved like you in FR.WP..

In every case En.WP is too clean for you, so thanks to that feature, your language and behaviour in En.WP seem to be very very very different from yours in Fr.WP!!!!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.224.221.156 (talk)

Please do not hesitate to show the concerned pages, I have nothing to hide. But if possible show the diffs where the alledged insults are: Saying "they are here" in pointing a 500 message archive page and mixing what other people said in totally different cases with pure fakes as you did on fr:wp is not so honest :-). Clem23 (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you EN.WP, you made C.L.Martin bahaving like an ANGEL !!!. If only you know how was he in FR.WP.

Ok, the en.WP will judge if what Jean-Clement Martin23 wrote to Balougador Popo le chien , and Doctorcosmos and others was racist or not, and his annexed antecedants with other people will be examinated.

You know, Clem23 is not very wise, he wants to make the debate's level low... so our last comment to him is : good night! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.224.219.31 (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Clem 23 acts only by one feeling of hatred. The sources are sufficient to show the relevance of this article.--Mario scolas (talk) 23:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

A very interesting link. Mario scolas is the worst ever vandal on the french and dutch wikipedia. He has been a very painful issue for us, with very violent threats towards 8 sysops or chechusers (and even Anthere). I'm somehow surprised that he is still active there as his case has been notified on meta many times. If somebody says that he's not active as a vandal on en:WP, check the history of my talk page... Clem23 (talk) 07:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The specialist in lynching comes here with his own problem (see the discussion[38]). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mario scolas (talk • contribs) 18:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

To each page his own problem, vandal. The present page is about wether to keep a page, and that and this one (amongst others...) are about you. Darkoneko (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. I was considering merge to Chebyshev_polynomial, but the absence of any clearly reliable source suggests otherwise. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Please be aware !! Sir, please debate on the polynomials use, proprieties and usefulness, don't let such persons disturbing the debate; P.S. see the page Dicussion of Boubaker Polynomials , and be wondered by the level of the discussion (criticism, demonstrations, formulae correction..), if someone tries to make the level lower by evoking insults don't give it attention ; you'll see it will vanish naturally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.224.219.31 (talk) 00:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

  Note : this, too (sigh...), is most likely, according to the used IP, from Boubaker. Darkoneko (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Not to Delete. The references added (in French) are true and well-known, the page has been rewritten by several WP contributors in a scientific way (we checked the discussion page). Claiming that :" ..The only publications mentionning these polynomials are from the author himself or closely related people<see Clem23's comments above>" is simply wrong and strange, what does closely related people mean??, the press? Citypark2008 (talk) 02:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

  closely related: People working in the same researcher team. This opinion might be sock-puppetry. Clem23 (talk) 07:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Not to Delete. Undiscussable notority, may French-native operators check (and translate the content) the 3 last annexed references.K71811418 (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

  Very likely sock/meatpuppet. Clem23 (talk) 07:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Another reference has been added by 41.224.219.31. I merged two listed references, since they were different web versions of the same LaPresse article, leaving two sources which support a claim of notability. This is exactly the sort of edit which forces me to reconsider my vote. My only remaining concern is whether the sources are independent; both are by the same author and published in the same magazine, but are separated by several months. At this stage, if the consensus is delete, I think it would be worthwhile to userfy the page; presumably if the polynomials can generate this much press in a few months, they could generate more over the next few months, until it becomes clear the subject is notable enough for inclusion. JackSchmidt (talk) 03:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment In a different direction, I suspect some editors are overworried about the "scholarly honor" of Boubaker the person (who is so uncouth to use his own name in his article's titles at least three times). I suspect other editors are over-concerned with the "lasting scholarly value" of the research, the utility of the polynomials, how intrinsically interesting or beautiful they are, etc. The AfD is just here to decide if the article meets wikipedia's inclusion criteria, certainly not to endorse (or demean) the man behind the polynomials, and not even to judge the value of the polynomials themselves. The encyclopedia should document those things, that for whatever unknowable reasons, human beings have decided are worthy of publication and "significant coverage". Surely catastrophe theory, fractals, chaos theory, E8, and others have received more press coverage than other more "noble" or "deserving" mathematics, but in their own way they have impacted human history, and so have a place in the encyclopedia. Certainly all things noble and deserving better be included too, and luckily those will get significant coverage in first rate scholarly journals. At any rate, all I'm trying to get at, is that this AfD isn't some sort of scholarly debate. No one should ask the researchers to justify their research, and the researchers should not try to justify it here. Simply finding citations to the polynomials in reliable sources, and otherwise meeting the inclusion guidelines is what should be at issue. JackSchmidt (talk) 03:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Recreation. ➪HiDrNick! 05:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment As I have pointed out above, this is clearly NOT a re-creation. I mention it here since some people don't read the who page. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. This article has been deleted on many other projects such as :de or :sv. This has no believable source. This is a hoax, don't be part of it. This link explain that there is a serious problem. Like tears in rain (talk) 09:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Not to Delete 196.203.50.144 (talk) 10:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

  Comes from the creator that has already "voted" 3 times. Unfortunately he has 2 internet accesses and dynamic IP. Are we going to have all of them? Clem23 (talk) 10:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Self-promotion + recreation + undocumented/able. Popo le Chien (talk) 12:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• delete. Apart from the article itself, the user has been a real problem on frwiki for the last 8 months (he even tried to fake being an advocate office recently and posting "alarming" comments on random talk pages...). We'll probably have to block /16 ranges pretty soon... An IP list is available at fr:Wikipédia:Vandalisme de longue durée/Mmbmmmbm#Adresses_IP_connues, amongst other things (in french, but IP are universal :) Darkoneko (talk) 14:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Research not recognized + serious problem on WP-fr (we must stop this as soon as possible). DocteurCosmos (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

  Comment : as Tourist says below, "topic is covered only by a very small number of sources, which hardly pass the tests of Wikipedia:Reliable sources" + intolerable racist-salted self-promotion (sorry if my english is not understandable). It makes not only one but two good reasons for deletion. DocteurCosmos (talk) 06:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete and editprotect. This article was already deleted once. Now, once again, there is one registered user and a few anonymous IPs pushing heavily for its inclusion. There is only one source offered for these polynomials besides that written by the author himself, and that is an obscure Tunisian magazine written entirely in French. A Google scholar search returns only three hits on the subject. Again, two of these are by Boubaker himself. It's not looking good. Delete with prejudice. The author(s) should have to request a review to recreate the article again. Silly rabbit (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Literally, there's only one real hit on Google Scholar, written by H. Labiadh. The other two hits are just the citations Labiadh made to two of Boubaker's papers. And what do you know, Labiadh co-authored at least one of them. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Not to Delete I knew the Boubaker polynomials from the second refernce. Thanks to WP I could establish an ORDINARY GENERATING FUNCTION -in press- of the shape:

Alieldear (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: 3rd sock-puppet already, + 2 IP "votes". It's not a vote - thus it would be nice if you could bring any extra references. What would be the most interesting would be scientific publications not connected to the main team that mention the boubaker polynomials. I do not see any yet. Clem23 (talk) 17:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment This is not a vote. Please read over the article and its sources before commenting. If you do think the article should not be included in wikipedia, please try to indicate what part of the inclusion guidelines it fails. If you believe it should be included, please try to indicate why it meets those guidelines. An article topic may easily move from not meeting the inclusion criteria to meeting the inclusion criteria. For instance in 2003, it was premature to discuss the 2008 Oscars, and such an article would be deleted under WP:CRYSTAL, but such an article is clearly worth including now. Some of the previous comments address these issues, but many include details unrelated to the inclusion guidelines. JackSchmidt (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

  I still think the article fails to meet notability guidelines, because though notability is claimed, and supported by two reasonably reliable sources, the coverage is not yet "significant". One reporter for one magazine has covered the polynomials (twice), while the standard for inclusion of a mathematical concept is usually several available citations from peer-reviewed journals, and preferably articles written by authors outside of the core group of researchers. Indeed, a good article has explicit citations to textbooks which cover the topic. JackSchmidt (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I wonder if these "non-notability" claims would ever have been mentioned if not for the alleged "self-promotion" problem. Is there a hard-and-fast rule forbidding "self-promotion" or is there rather (as I think there ought to be) a rule against the various evils that can often result from self-promotion? There's an article titled Harry Binswanger, which once stated erroneously that he was a professor at Duke University. Harry Binswanger himself edited it so that it said he visited Duke for one day and gave a lecture there. Someone objected that one should never edit an article about oneself. I think rules of that sort are too extreme; obviously weakening the claim from a statement that he was a professor there, to the statement that he gave a lecture there one day, is not an instance of using Wikipedia to advertise oneself. Even if someone does in effect advertise himself, I don't think that should be considered a problem as long as the article limits itself only to the sort of content that a disinterested party would have written about the topic. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Four or five intervening parties here (among which myself) have been expressing themselves here mostly because they were fed up by the behavior of some user (users ?) on :fr, retrying ten times to recreate the deleted page under variations of its initial name, or trying to insert links towards it in the article fr:Polynôme. So, certainly, a disruptive behavior has caused much of the fuss here. If it has consequences on the length of this discussion, it is of very small relevance on the analysis of the article relevance. This article is not relevant, not because its author has not understood how to behave properly on WP, but because its topic is covered only by a very small number of sources, which hardly pass the tests of Wikipedia:Reliable sources (scientific articles by Mr Boubaker himself or co-publishers, two articles in a generalist newspaper which contain quite suprising mathematical assertions ("Mr Boubaker has broken with the 22 polynomials classified in five families (beginning in 830 with the so-called canonical polynomials of Khawarizmi) ; while the last three have been classified by T. Chihara in 2004, V. Jones and P.J. Namara in 2006, they have been rejoined and overtaken by what is to be called as from April 14th 2007 Boubaker polynomials0" (bad translation from French by myself)) which should disqualify them as sources of an article of abstract mathematics, or even as proof of the notability of a mathematical concept. French Tourist (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

    I may have been the first to apply the label "self-promotion",[39] yet my argument here for deletion has solely been the lack of notability. While COI is not per se an argument for deletion, there is a good reason to apply the notability rule extra diligently in case of self-promotion.  --Lambiam 06:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment in answer the {{!vote}} frame : about five participants to this discussion (myself, Like tears in rain, Popo le Chien, Darkoneko, DocteurCosmos) are sysops on :fr Wikipedia, lured there by a discussion on our Sysop Noticeboard about actions required to counteract disruptive behaviour around these Boubaker Polynomials. I hope this can explain the probably rather astounding participation on this not quite sexy topic. French Tourist (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

  comment too. The page has just been is being (*sigh*) under sock attack (see also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Clem32_and_User:Mario_scolas for information). I took the liberty of reverting it. Hopes it doesn't cause any problem. Darkoneko (talk) 12:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete and editprotect. I stumbled on this page a couple of weeks ago. This is 2006-2007 material, according to the references, and nothing particularly exceptional. Time will tell us if this is really notable for inclusion (as for now, it is not). Plus, original research, self promotion, repeated spamming. There is plenty of reasons to delete it, and to take measures so that the author will not attempt to recreate it a third time. --Fph (talk) 21:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  Unfortunatly, if this goes like frwiki, protection against recreation won't help (the bad title blacklist can't be used, as there could be too many false positives) : it will simply recreated using similar titles (examples ). Darkoneko (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete I came to that page earlier, and tried to find reliable sources for this. This is non-notable original research and should be deleted. Herve661 (talk) 14:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Not to delete , the last debate,VERY VERY intresting DEBATE (see translation) : [40]between the 'DELETE' claimer Clem23 and some Fr.Administrators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Citypark2008 (talk • contribs)

I have no particular interest in whether this article is or is not deleted. An editor noted some issues with the conduct of editors, which I addressed. I further recommended additional actions if additional disruption took place. I note also, for the record, that you have already recommended that the article should not be deleted; this is a duplicate !vote. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ultraexactzz:

It was precised that this is not a 'MAJORITY VOTE'; and we wrote this message just because you adressed us a message telling about about a possible BLOCKING.. and as we fear you do it, we contacted you this way.... this 'vote' is naturally withdrawn. Ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Citypark2008 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it's a discussion and debate - but the recommendations to Keep or Delete are what is debated, as well as their reasoning for so recommending. On that basis, every editor who participates can make one such recommendation, which can be changed or amended, but not duplicated. The warning was in reference to re-adding comments that had been moved (not deleted), and had nothing to do with participation in general. By all means, feel free to leave messages for me on my talk page, rather than here, if the comment is for me rather than on the article or its fate. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Imo the most interesting point was stoping the vandalisms from user:Mario scolas' socks and inform the admins here about the numerous problems encountered with this guy. This is now done, it's never a good thing that an editor is blocked permanently, but in this case it was the only solution. Then there is this polynom author, which is on my opinion a secondary problem despite his trend to spam tenth of talk pages on fr:WP in revealing at the same time a bunch of user's real names. In weeks (months, it dates back to the beginning of may 2007) of debate he hasn't been able to provide any reliable reference about these Boubaker polynomials. From my experience of WP, the more socks a person uses the less fair arguments she has. So for me it's now over - we'll continue blocking the spamming IP on WP:fr, delete the recreation of articles about Boubaker polynomials, but I stop wasting time in trying to have a fair discussions when there is so much bad faith involved. Clem23 (talk) 13:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This is the comment of a regitered user, Darkoneko has not to remove it..

• Comment: to voters; let’s summarize the 5-days (legal duration) debate:

Thanks to En.WP administrators wisdom  :

>Intentioned contributes (Mario, Clem23, Popo le Chien, K71811408, DoctorCosmso, Darkoneko..) were Check&mate. Racism and xenophobia deviation has been avoided.

>Sock/meat-puppets were unveiled

>A deletion in 5 seconds (the time of reading the Nationality of the contributors ) as in Fr.WP has been avoided.

>Attempts to tame En.WP Operators failed, see  : [41] '..§4 : ufortunately this page is becoming out of the cotrol of FR.WP.."'translation of a last message from Clem23

Now let's let En.WP’s apply En.WP lawsCitypark2008 (talk) 18:26, 1 March 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 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Make Me a Song

Make Me a Song (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails Wikipedia:Music#Albums_and_songs: No coverage in reliable sources, barely charting (#99 on hot 100) from an unreleased album from a non-notable artist. Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep WP:MUSIC recommends redirecting to a more appropriate article (in this case that could be Kiley Dean) rather than deletion. Catchpole (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Kiley Dean per Catchpole. Hazillow (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a charting single. That qualifies under WP:MUSIC. Anyway, it's inaccurate with regards to charts. I've hopped over to the Billboard's site and found out that coverage is incomplete. I'm about to update, with source. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Duly updated and sourced. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:06, 2 March 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 06:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Karen Carreno

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

She "appears on US Television regularly" really? Where? Not that these are considered 100% reliable but there's one listing under Karen Carreno, nothing with the middle and nothing under AB. RS coverage under Karen is trivial and Alessandra is even less with two false positives. Plain google searches don't turn up anything more, so without any verification, she fails WP:BIO TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 17:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. StudierMalMarburg (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment, I don't know if she's an actress, but she's apparently a model, having appeared in Maxim magazine[42]. --Pixelface (talk) 20:20, 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 Delete. Chetblong^{T C} 01:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jordan Spence

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

Fails notability test for footballers - he had not made an appearance for a senior team in the FNLP. Checking the club site seems to suggest he hasn't even been selected for the reserve side. Fredrick day (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Amble coverage in sources, has captained his country at various youth level tournaments. Catchpole (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Which the agreed notability criteria on footballers say is not enough - you have to have a cap at senior level to qualify. --Fredrick day (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Notability criteria are not binding. This is an encyclopedia. When sources exist they should be used. Catchpole (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    • In any case WP:FOOTYN is only an essay and is overruled by WP:BIO. John Hayes^talk 12:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. robwingfield ^«T•C» 19:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails WP:ATHLETE. Consensus has been reached that youth caps only apply for notability at U21 level and above. robwingfield ^«T•C» 19:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - mainly as per Robwingfield as above, and I'd even go further and say U/21 caps are not notable enough! - fchd (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Robwingfield. GiantSnowman (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. -- Alexf⁴² 19:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:BIO#Athletes. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. BanRay 22:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:FOOTY notability criteria. Peanut4 (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per current notability criteria he fails. He has a 1st team squad number and is playing at the highest England level for his age, has a profile on the FA page but is unlikely to play first team this season. My only comment is that this deletion seems very selective. How do articles for Stephen Darby, Dean Bouzanis, Lauri Dalla Valle and (!) Liverpool F.C. Reserves and Academy (to name but a few) still exist? Is this 'big 4' bias on Wikipedia?--Egghead06 (talk) 09:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • • Comment The Prod for deletion for Dean Bouzanis lasted less than 2 hours and has been removed on the grounds that he has played for 2 international youth teams. This deletion is an emotive subject - if edits wars are not to break out surely rules need widening especially for under 20's?--Egghead06 (talk) 11:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - there's no bias, it may simply be that no one spotted those articles. I've now proposed the player articles for deletion. robwingfield ^«T•C» 09:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I'd like us to avoid getting into a Bryan Arguez situation where everyone changes their vote because the player plays one game. It seems more sensible to me to adopt a wait-and-see approach for young players who have achieved verifiable success at youth levels and with professional contracts who are waiting for their opportunity to break through into the first team. Catchpole (talk) 11:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment I happen to agree with the option of wait and see especially for young (i.e. Under 20) players such as Jordan Spence. However this is the 3rd time his article has been Prod'ed and if the only criteria are the ones agreed upon, I am tired of saving the article. This deletion campaign does seem over zealous but rules is rules! I have looked though today and found dozens of articles on young players which could be marked for deletion. A final thought - surely if the management of a professional football team sees merit in a player sufficiently to give that player a 1st team squad number then they must think he is notable and yet that isn't good enough for Wiki? --Egghead06 (talk) 11:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Weak Keep Has one independent reliable source, and lots of non-independent reliable sources, I would be happier in keeping it if it had another independent one. Just about passes WP:BIO#Basic criteria. John Hayes^talk 12:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:FOOTY/Notability and WP:ATHLETE,the article can be recreated if/when he makes his professional debut. English peasant 01:23, 1 March 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} 01:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Smalling

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

Astoundingly, the PROD on this article has been disputed. Anyway, this player has never played above the Isthmian League Premier Division, which is three levels below a fully professional league and therefore an egregious failure to meet WP:ATHLETE ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't meet WP:BIO#Athletes or WP:BIO#Basic criteria. John Hayes^talk 17:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - England U18 schoolboys seems to meet WP:BIO#Athletes (top amateur level). It's easy to find sources. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Obviously fails WP:BIO and consensus is that youth caps do not confer notability (and English football is not an amateur sport). пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. As has been said, this player fails WP:ATHLETE. The fact that he's played at U18 level is irrelevant - the amateur level criterion is for amateur sports... football is a professional sport. robwingfield ^«T•C» 18:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Schoolboy football is certainly amateur, as is the vast majority of football played in England. Youth caps would apply to (say) England U21 teams, a different thing, and I would be surprised if such a player (in England) was not already an established professional. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 18:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Indeed it is, making it not notable. I agree, it would be surprising if a player was capped for England at U21 level without having made an appearance in a fully professional league. However, that doesn't apply here. robwingfield ^«T•C» 18:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. BanRay 22:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, "schoolboy football" is not a sport, football is. And the amateur clause does not apply. I.e. not notable. Punkmorten (talk) 19:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete as per Punkmorten English peasant 01:28, 1 March 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 Void Invalid nomination. Merge requests are made at article talk pages or in RFC. AfD discussion can result in mandating a merge, but they can not start out with that as the nomination. Editors may merge and/ or redirect as they see fit. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 15:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Back to Basics and Beyond

Back to Basics and Beyond (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article has no use- I'd merge it into the Back to Basics article under the track listing, among the Tour DVD edition!! Olliyeah (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep nominator is not arguing for deletion. Catchpole (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Then Merge. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 18:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge it or delete it its a useless article on its own.--202.12.144.21 (talk) 04:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Simple - Merge and Redirect. Even the nominator suggests merging over deleting. --Wolfer68 (talk) 19:07, 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 Delete, apparently duplicate discussion? Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of characters in The Simpsons by MBTI type

List of characters in The Simpsons by MBTI type (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Original research, no references, no notability, I can't see any reason for an analytical psychological profile of each Simpsons character. Original AfD here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters in The Simpsons by MBTI type speedy closed by myself per WP:SNOW but request was made to re-open. SGGH ^speak! 17:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. The first AfD was quite clear that this is pure OR. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• I second a speedy delete. See first AfD for more information. Hazillow (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per A1. Just a list of names with absolutely no context. DarkAudit (talk) 19:32, 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 merge to Cuban Link. The album fails WP:MUSIC, but the information warrants inclusion in the artist page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 24K (Cuban Link album)

24K (Cuban Link album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails Wikipedia:Music#Albums_and_songs: Unreleased albums are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete: Not notable. It was never released. Thanks, George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^{Help and assistance} 17:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge: I'd merge it into his Biography!!Olliyeah (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep a merge/redirect would be a more appropriate fate for this article than deletion. Catchpole (talk) 17:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to Cuban Link; information is relevant to the artist even if it doesn't warrant its own page. Cloudz679 (talk) 10:16, 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} 01:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Russian Premier League 2008 results

Russian Premier League 2008 results (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article is not notable, there is no need to go into such details about matches in football league season. Seems like no other league articles have separate article for match reports.  ARTYOM  17:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: As above. Thanks, George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^{Help and assistance} 17:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, standalone lists of results have nothing to do in Wikipedia. Punkmorten (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete this would be better suited to another site. John Hayes^talk 08:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: As above. JdeJ (talk) 09:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman (talk) 11:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. BanRay 15:59, 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 delete. "Disambiguation pages are solely intended to allow users to choose among several Wikipedia articles" (quoted from WP:MOSDAB), so there is little point in having such a page for a single article. The page can be recreated if/when the need arises. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Priscilla Coleman (disambiguation)

Priscilla Coleman (disambiguation) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

So far there is only one Priscilla Coleman with an article on WP, so is a disambig page necessary at this time? ukexpat (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No, probably not!--IronAngelAlice (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete: Recreate when another Priscilla Coleman gets an article. Thanks, George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^{Help and assistance} 17:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Merge her name to this page Coleman (disambiguate). It's where all the other "Coleman's" are at. StudierMalMarburg (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, possibly as WP:CSD#G6, non-controversial housekeeping. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep per consensus. WP:BLP does urge us to be cautious with respect to privacy, and I personally appreciate editors who are mindful of that particularly in regards to minors (however such editors may have decided on this individual case), but WP:ONEEVENT does not mandate its removal. Several responders have suggested or conceded that merger may be appropriate, but there is not clear consensus to close as merge, and that can, of course, still be accomplished outside of AfD. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chukwu octuplets

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

Whilst octuplets are rare, they are not unique. Simply being an octuplet does not make one notable, and certainly does not necessitate us having a bio on these children. Yes, we kept this 2 years ago, but I suggest our tolerance for unjustified BLPs (especially of minors) has decreased since then. Doc^g 16:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Notability does not degrade over time. Hazillow (talk) 16:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Em, I'm not arguing it does, so how is your argument relevant? I'm contending that consensus can (and has) changed--Doc^g 16:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Em, I'm arguing consensus should not be changed because notability does not degrade over time. So how is your objection to my argument relevant? Hazillow (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    • It doesn't make sense to me. Why should the contention that notability doesn't change mean that Wikipedia's consensus should not change? Wikipedia's consensuses are not set in stone. There's a non sequitur in your logic.--Doc^g 17:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I mean that the consensus can change, but it shouldn't in this instance. If it was notable then, the consensus should be that it is notable now. To be fair, I sort of ignored your argument that we feel differently than we did before about living people, especially minors. I guess what I'm saying is that, yeah, we feel differently about living people now due to accusations of slander, but as long as we are really careful there should be no reason to delete this article based on that. These children are still notable. I hope that makes sense. I think I explained it adequately but it still looks really confusing. Hazillow (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete- Not notable enough. Λua∫Wise ^{(Operibus anteire)} 16:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep apparently first set of octuplets in the US and significant RS coverage. Granted the media goes crazy for multiple births and this could easily fall in the scope of BLP1E, but I don't know .. there's been some coverage many years post birth as well. I think they might eke in. Yes they're notable for their birth, but then wouldn't we be all? I'm really not sure on this one. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are not sure, and think BLPIE applies, and (WP:NOTNEWS?) isn't it safer to delete. We need a good reason to keep such articles.--Doc^g 16:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

BLP1E might apply, but it goes beyond news to the overall issue of multiple births (an example. I wholly agree that had they not been part of a multibirth, we wouldn't be hearing of them at ~9 years old, could it be merged somewhere? I don't think it's an obvious has to be deleted as there are no BLP issues. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 17:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Merge. Octuplets are a rare occurence, but Fermat numbers are rare, too. Yet, we don't have an article about each of them. It may deserve its own paragraph and maybe even a subsection in the Multiple birth article (that's where octuplets redirect), but it isn't worth a page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Admiral Norton (talk • contribs) 18:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, we do have separate articles on 3 (number), 5 (number), 17 (number)... JoshuaZ (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    • That's true, but we have articles on these numbers because they're small enough to be often mentioned and important. 4294967297 (number) is also a Fermat number (and notable, because it's the first composite Fermat number) and yet it doesn't have its own page and I wouldn't advocate its creation. Chukwu octuplets have been a major news event, but not much more than that. BTW, we don't even have an article on octuplets, so why should we have an article on one of its specific occurences. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 22:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, I see that we did at one point have a separate article on 4294967297 (number) and it was merged. I'm tempted to unmerge and give it a separate article (the story of that number's history might be long enough for its own article). I wouldn't object to adding an article on octuplets either but that's not an argument against having this article. It is also the large number of births that has made them notable, not necessarily the exact number. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. (Edit conflict) Not my favorite article, but I don't see where BLP requires us to get rid of it. I'm assuming that there's not a different article specifically about the births, as a merge to that article would be our normal resolution per WP:BLP1E. The story was following by major news outlets for the entire time the surviving octuplets were in the hospital, see the 12 articles in NYT here. Xymmax (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• keep This is an interesting case. If we had a direct request by the parents for deletion I would advocate deletion since we are not talking about willing public figures. See User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP. However, we should not engage in BLP-penumbra deletions unless we have a request from individuals or their guardians to delete an article. BLP1E is also not relevant given the high level of news coverage and the lack of any reasonable merge source. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that argument is that it insists that if people do not want publicity, then they must publicly ask, on a website that anyone can access, for the removal of their biography. They must publicly argue for their own privacy, and have their right to that privacy openly debated, scrutinised, and noted. That really is not a solution to Wikipedia's potential for harming private persons, now is it.--Doc^g 23:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

We explain very clearly how they can make a request by email to OTRS. DGG (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

As DGG observes we have OTRS for a reason. If we took this argument to its logical conclusion we would need to AfD all articles that remotely had the possibility of such a request occurring. Furthermore, the family gave interviews and talked to the press demonstrating that they didn't mind certain levels of publicity. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The OTRS argument is invalid. As OTRS people cannot delete articles on request. They still have to publicly have their request for privacy reported to the community and publicly discussed - sometimes heatedly and nastily, anyone who thinks that's a real option of private people needs to carefully rethink.--Doc^g 08:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Right, so they can request an AfD which will then be courtesy blanked. Given that they gave interviews and other work, the default assumption that they would want deletion of this article is hard to understand. Furthermore it is simply not our job to anticipate that people will not want an article about them except in the obvious cases. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Rare but not unique? I'm sorry, how many other cases of octuplets have there been in human history? Mandsford (talk) 00:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 08:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Song for You (Bizzy Bone album)

A Song for You (Bizzy Bone album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails Wikipedia:Music#Albums_and_songs: Unreleased albums are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Gsearch failed to find strong evidence of notability, and an unreleased album is unlikely to have charted yet. No prejudice against recreation if notability is established through reliable sources.--Fabrictramp (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice, unsourced with no coverage that I could find. east.718 at 20:00, February 25, 2008
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Sources added. If they're insufficient, you can read through dozens of other confirmations of this through a simple Google search. Amazon and many other retailers confirm the March 25th date as well. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 00:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep There does appear to be sources: SixShot.com Electronic HipHop magazine 2/21/2008. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 21:29, 2 March 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 both. Chetblong^{T C} 01:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Medy Elito

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

Contested PROD, article about a 17-year-old Colchester United guy who failed WP:BIO#Athletes. The PROD was contested under the claim that he played the U17 World Cup, which, in my opinion, is definitely not an assertion of notability. Angelo (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I am nominating for deletion for the same reason the following articles:

• Jonathan Franks

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Angelo (talk) 16:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Delete He doesn't pass WP:FOOTY/Notability, but there is this article [43], if there were a few more, and independent ones, I would change my mind, as he would pass WP:BIO base criteria. John Hayes^talk 16:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • However this is not exactly an "independent secondary source", as it was released directly by the English FA. --Angelo (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Oh for sure, hence my and independent ones above ;) and at the moment he doesn't pass it so it doesn't matter anyway. John Hayes^talk 16:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    • and Delete Johnathan Franks per nom. John Hayes^talk 16:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep It is verifiable through reliable sources that Elito and Franks are contracted with professional teams and have appeared for England at the under 17 World Cup. Elito, Franks Catchpole (talk) 16:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment that's not enough in itself per WP:BIO and WP:FOOTY/Notability. For FOOTY they need to have played for a pro team, for WP:BIO#Athletes he needs to have played in a pro league, and for WP:BIO#Basic criteria they require these reliable sources, which aren't in the articles. John Hayes^talk 16:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Arbitrary notability guidelines do not trump core content policies. I see little value in deleting existing articles which are likely to meet these arbitrary guidelines before our current backlogs are cleared. Catchpole (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    • In terms of those sources, the colchester one isn't independent of the subject, and the other one is a tertiary source, quoting the newspaper article, which gives a one line mention of him, it could do with more. John Hayes^talk 16:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete (both) - whilst they are contracted to professional teams there is no evidence that either of them has (yet) made a first team appearance and the U17 World Cup appearances do not meet the guidelines at WP:FOOTY/Notability which state that appearances at a FIFA tournament should be at senior level. nancy ^(talk) 16:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete both Fail WP:BIO#Athletes, and it is common consensus that youth caps do not confer notability. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete both per nom. robwingfield ^«T•C» 17:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete both per nom. --Fredrick day (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete both - per nom -- Alexf⁴² 18:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete both per nom. GiantSnowman (talk) 18:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete both per nom BanRay 22:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete both, not notable. Punkmorten (talk) 17:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• I have extended the article and think that it should not be deleted. He has a professional contract with Colchester United (see article for reference for this) and has appeared for the England youth side, the Colchester United reserve side and been selected for the first team as a substitute. For me, this merits keeping the article.Lunalutra (talk) 02:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Clarification - Elito has been named on the substitute's bench, but has not actually made a substitute appearance, so still doesn't pass the notability critera. robwingfield ^«T•C» 12:13, 1 March 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 & redirect. Chetblong^{T C} 01:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cylon Resurrection ship

Cylon Resurrection ship (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per WP:FICT. No assertion of real-world significance, in-universe information only. The ship was only featured in a couple of episodes, and those episodes have their own article. No sources, no apparent importance. I would oppose a merge because the episode articles should have more real-world perspective rather than less. Mangojuice^talk 16:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. If it's only been referenced in a handful of episodes, and those episodes have their own articles, information on this starship should be incorporated there.Hazillow (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Resurrection Ship. No evidence that this is notable outside a single pair of episodes. It would be good if the Resurrection Ship article included information about the ship's conceptual history, but this is just plot summary and not worth merging. A single sentence in the episode article along the lines of "A resurrection ship later reappeared in the episode 'Collaborators'" would be acceptable. EALacey (talk) 19:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Resurrection Ship. --Explodicle (talk) 14:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 (talk) 00:32, 1 March 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 05:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Abadawn

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

Procedural: creator removed PROD notice. Prod reason was "non-notable artist".  —SMALLJIM  16:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per A7 Lordjeff06 (talk) 17:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• SD per A7, definitely. Does not assert importance. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I can find no references to the artist outside of social networking sites. I assert that there is no possible assertion of notability. A7 -Freekee (talk) 02:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• The references added by the article's creator (this and this trivial mention) are not sufficient to establish notability. And I have not found other sources. Delete. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:47, 2 March 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. Davewild (talk) 12:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair Point Communications

Fair Point Communications (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence of notability for this ISP and ghits don't show anything either. Appears to fail WP:CORP TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, weakly, and without prejudice. No references or other indicia of notability are present; but note that the article claims that this is a telephone company and utility provider as well as an ISP. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:17, 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. Davewild (talk) 12:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Its Business Baby

Its Business Baby (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable web-based business, all of the sources presented have been worthless. Fredrick day (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete RS coverage is false positives and ghits don't assert any notability. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete it also reads like an advertisement. This is essentially a second to TRAVELLINGCARI's statement. --Belinrahs (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, concur with all above. Web based businesses need a fairly strong showing from the outset. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Majoreditor (talk) 00:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Baby. RFerreira (talk) 19:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• snowball delete advertising plus a version of this article was already deleted. Special Random (Merkinsmum) 23:41, 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 No Consensus defaulting to Keep and needing improvement. Davewild (talk) 12:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Treatise

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

A dictionary definition, already transwikied to Wiktionary, followed by a fairly random list of things that meet some undefined notability definition. TexasAndroid (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete there's no doubt that treatises are notable, but this list is far from complete and I don't think it could ever be complete. The linked articles are notable in their own right, but this list is unnecessary. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep. My comment about "undefined notability definition" was referring to the criteria for appearing in this list, not for having their own articles on the project. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and turn into a slightly amplified disambiguation page or list. Not sure whether the subject of treatises constitutes a specific literary genre the same way that essays are, but I am open to persuasion. A number of the works that are not specifically called treatises here probably ought to be removed; claiming the label for them may well be original research. I would also suggest that the current disambiguation page tractatus be merged / redirected here as well, since tractatus and treatise are essentially the same thing, one Latin, the other French. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. A quirk of titling is not a sufficiently discriminate criterion for a list article, and it's improper to disambiguate articles on the basis of this one word. Deor (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. List has unclear inclusion criteria and could never cover anywhere near all notable "formal, lengthy, systematic discourses". Dictionary definition is unnecessary in an encyclopedia. I can't see that we need a disambiguation page here either; nobody is going to search for "Treatise" to find out about an individual work which happens to have that word in the title. EALacey (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, clarify inclusion criteria, adequately source, and prose-ify. I agree that the current article is too broad, but it can be narrowed and clarified to highlight only discourses that are specifically singled out by historians as significant "treatises". Not all "formal, lengthy, systematic discourses" are treatises, but that doesn't mean that no "formal, lengthy, systematic discourses" are treatises. Or to put it another way: Not all formal agreements between two or more nations are necessarily treaties. Does that mean that WP shouldn't have an article on treaties? Groupthink (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Its a type of scholarly work,and a distinctive type. The term is used in various senses, and the article attempts to explain their nature and distinguish by examples. The article should be expanded to do it more explicitly, there are sources available about scientific book and scientific publishing. DGG (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. This could be vastly expanded. The practice of the treatise is especially important in certain disciplines, such as constitutional law. It's not just a high-falutin' word for essay or argument. --Dhartung | Talk 05:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG and Dhartung. A treatise is a distinct type of publication; at minimum, this page serves as a disambiguation page. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:06, 2 March 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.