Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 February 3

< February 2	February 4 >

Discussions
Centralized discussion

edit • talk • log • watch
Discussion on the current notability guidelines Use of global rights on English Wikipedia Proposal to add 'class C' to the article grading system Revisiting status of WP:Attribution FritzpollBot to help WikiProject editors make new geographical articles Centralized discussion on terrorism related articles ArbCom proposal to create a Sourcing Adjudication Board Proposed policy regarding threats against schools and students Discussion to work out the implementation details of flagged revisions Discussion over the approval of bots Wikipedia:Plot summaries Global blocking on Wikimedia projects SSP/RFCU merger proposal Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)
Archive

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

The result was Keep per Snow/Speedy Keep - Non-Admin Closure . Fosnez (talk) 12:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Niall Bruton

little recalled irish athlete; who with passage of time lacks notability

I am completing this nomination on behalf of 213.202.176.96 (talk · contribs) Natalie (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. He competed at the IAAF World Championships In Athletics and the IAAF World Indoor Championships. That proves notability. --Eastmain (talk) 04:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 04:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep Because he has received attention from some very well established newspapers, I believe notability has been established. See http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Niall+Bruton%22&btnG=Search+Archives&ie=UTF-8 (Mind meal (talk) 04:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC))
Speedy Keep. Clearly notable. Pointless AFD nomination.--Michig (talk) 12:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep International class athlete and notability doesn't evaporate over time. Nick mallory (talk) 12:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy keep indeed. I realize that Natalie Erin was acting in good faith, but we don't need to complete every misguided deletion nomination made by anonymous editors. RFerreira (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Better to just let this run its course so their opinion is obviously refuted then have to continue to deal with this particular issue. The anonymous user is on a bit of a campaign in regards to Irish athletes, and this seems to be the easiest way to demonstrate to him or her that the opinion is not shared. Natalie (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy keep. No valid deletion reason given by nominator. Notability is not temporary. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep Non-Admin Closure. Tiddly-Tom 07:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sharon Foley

athlete who has no standing outside Donegal; not known in Ireland. No internationals for Ireland to speak off and performances far short of world class standards in the events she competed in. Ireland is a small country and a multiple national record holder/ champion should not automatically be listed on wikipedia without regard to the distance/ time that he or she achieved --213.202.138.250

I have completed this nomination on behalf of the anonymous editor. Natalie (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Badly needs references, but a national champion athlete in an internationally recognized sport is an encyclopedic biography subject. Quale (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Refs available at Google News. I've put one in the article that shows that her success goes beyond Ireland, even though that's not necessary. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep Have added a couple more links to the article, she clearly meets the main notability standard. Davewild (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Reply- She is the Irish record holder in the pentathlon but her mark is 1897 points below the world record which is a huge margin at that level; this comment has recently been removed from the text of the article. Likewise her High Jump best is 34 centimetres below the world record. Again this is a huge gap. The listing on the IAAF website and the fact she compted at a Grand Prix in the UK prove absolutely nothing. All the IAAF website does is set out those less than impressive standards the 1.75m high jump. Irish athletes get invited to meetings in the UK. Wow- thats a surprise. Other than that this is a lady who never went to a European, World or Olympics championship does not have any meaningful secondary sources lsited and is unknown outside Donegal. Ireland is a small country and not every multiple national champion is of import such that they should be on Wikipedia. 1897 points below world record in one instance and 34 centimetres in another- think about it. --78.16.64.211 (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply. Maybe its not much that she got invited to a UK athletics meeting, but that's not what the article, and the source, say. They say that she won two events at a major UK athletics meeting. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Reply It's not much no: it doesn't say what she did in the high jump but it obviously wasn't more than 1.75 metres; in the triple jump she is listed as winning in 12.44 metres. The world record in the triple jump is 3.06 metres more than that; and as stated in the high jump it is 34 cm more i.e 2.09 metres. It seems unlikely that anyone other than British and Irish athletes were competing in these two events in light of the poor distances that were performed which allowed her to win the event. The article also now has the air of protesting too much as to how good Ms. Foley is. There are no other comprable entries of track and field athletes, that I have seen, where there is such a focus on the fast that the runner or jumper once won 2 events at a non-championship meeting. --78.16.64.211 (talk) 09:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter if she was only competing against British and Irish runners - she was a national champion, which is enough to satisfy our notability requirements. She wouldn't even have to be a champion: "Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis" is the only standard. Natalie (talk) 14:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply No your wrong; was not a profesisonal athlete so the standard is:

Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them). And she doesn't meet this. So it's a delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.125.76.23 (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

How does she not meet that standard? She meets the general secondary source criteria, and was a national champion in several different events. What else are you looking for? Natalie (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply- I'm not looking for anything as she is a 12.44 metres triple jumper and 1.75cm high jumper (3.06 metres and 34 centimetres shy of world record)- there is no hidden answer she plain should not be on wikipedia. But it intrigues me how in effect you can say that she compted at the highest level and met secondary sources. Mere fact she was a multiple-national champion in a country of 4 million people where athletics is a minority sport says nothing in of itself. --194.125.76.23 (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, on this website it does. That's the notability standard, and this person meets it. If you wish to change that your best bet would be to start at Wikipedia: Notability. Natalie (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep - many times over national athletics champion meets notability. matt91486 (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - per WP:BIO. Chris (talk) 23:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment - the same set of IPs who are trying to delete this article are also trying to delete the Aoife Hoey (bobsleigh) article. Most of them are WP:SPA. Chris (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - meets WP:BIO and references from reliable sources are available -- Whpq (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment- The editor making the WP:SPA point repeatedly is shooting the messenger not the message. A national champion in Ireland has not competed at the highest level; to compete at the highest level you would have to go outside that State and compete internationally the very low marks mentioned above in relation to Foley's jumps are relevant; she is not notable. The logic and interpretation being set out is wromg; who would you propose leaving off wikipedia. There are not really any secondary sources for this lady and she seems a parochial figure who has been overpromoted by those who do not undertsand athletics and are forgetting that not all national champions are equal. This is not a British, German or American national champion this is someone who won titles in a not very competitive era in Irish athletics by jumping sub-international heights and distances. Very strong delete. --83.71.168.81 (talk) 11:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, international competition isn't the standard at all. There are many articles on Wikipedia concerning athletes that have competed in the highest level within their own countries and that otherwise meet the notability standard. Natalie (talk) 14:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

And in this circumstance that is not an appropriate way of looking at it giving regard to the sport involved; the performances recorded and the country same was done in.--194.125.71.53 (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"the performances recorded and the country same was done in." This sentence doesn't really make any sense. Could you elaborate? Natalie (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what confuses you about that remark. The thrust is that Ireland is a small country; athletics is a minority sport there and some years undistinguished people become national champion. In some eras they win more than one title. The argument being made by the one size fits all argument that if you have won 1,2, 3, Irish national titles or whatever benchmark you want to read into the wikipedia requirements, that doesn't automatically cut it. You have to look at whether someone is a 12.5 metres jumper or a 14.5 metre jumper. Some people who have commented above don't seem to understand how low Foley's bests are for an athlete who is asserted to be notable--194.125.71.53 (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking at your sentence again it seems like you wanted a comma instead of a semicolon. As a dependent clause it makes sense, but as it was written as an independent clause it was missing several important things, like a subject. Anyway, I understand your point about the standards within specific countries, but we don't have country-specific standards for notability. The standard is the same across the board. Natalie (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - The WP:BIO still applies to this article. Also, I am not shooting the messenger on this issue, but every time an edit is applied to an anonymous IP user, it leaves a mark on edits. These edits can be traced. Chris (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep Clearly meets notability requirement for athletes. Edward321 (talk) 05:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep per Snow/Speedy Keep - Non-Admin Closure . Fosnez (talk) 12:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archibald Leach

This is a misuse of a disambiguation page—no one looking for Cary Grant would enter "Archibald Leach", an option which, in any event, would always be available via "Search". As for the other two entries on this page, the architect whose name is Archibald Leitch does not belong here—Wikipedia cannot strive to provide disambiguation and redirect pages for every alternate spelling of every name contained therein. Even the celebrity performer Donovan Leitch doesn't (and probably shouldn't) have a redirect to "Donovan Leach"—again, that is why Wikipedia has the "Search" function. As for John Cleese's character in A Fish Called Wanda whose archly-chosen name is "Archie [not "Archibald"] Leach", there is no point in including him in a disambiguation page, unless there are a number of other individuals with the same name. Celebrity names facetiously given to fictional characters only create visual clutter under these circumstances—Roman Spinner (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep Redirects are cheap, disambiguation pages slightly less so, but this seems like a reasonable dab page to me. Of course "Donovan Leitch" shouldn't be redirected to "Donovan Leach", but it should be the other way round. You say that's why Wikipedia has a "Search" function, but Wikipedia's search function is absolutely rubbish and will not pick up phonetic differences or minor/common spelling errors, hence why the use of redirects and disambiguation is necessary. Wikipedia does not need to strive to cover every phonetic redirect or disambig, but there's no need to delete those that already exist. --Canley (talk) 00:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Strong keep, for reasons stated by Canley. --Orlady (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Perfectly valid disambiguation page. --Eastmain (talk) 05:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep, an encyclopedia exists in no small part to explain confusions such as this. No policies violated. Obviously this could be taken too far, but this does not seem to be one of those cases. --Dhartung | Talk 07:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep as a valid disambiguation page. RFerreira (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep It is ridiculous to suggest that this page should be deleted, as a perfectly valid disambig page. So ridiculous that it seems the only reason for its nomination is to assist with justifying this nomination. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 03:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Nomination update Having read the above comments, I feel that I should have been more specific in discussing the purpose and use of Wikipedia disambiguation pages which, we can all agree, are first and foremost there to enable users in distinguishing among same-named individuals whose biographies appear in Wikipedia. Similarly-named individuals are not combined—there are separate pages for Elliott, Elliot and Eliot as well as for Green and Greene. There are also, of course, individual articles listing notables named Leach and Leitch. The only "legitimate" Archibald Leach on Wikipedia was, in fact, named Archibald Leitch and this disambiguation page with its alternate spelling can be converted into a redirect. As for the remaining two "Leach" entries, while pointing out that "Gladys Smith" and "Bernard Schwartz" are the birth names of Mary Pickford and Tony Curtis may be popular in playing Trivial Pursuit, trivia is discouraged in Wikipedia. The "banal-sounding birthname of a glamorously-named celebrity" inclusion may be acceptable on the Bernard Schwartz disambiguation page if there are at least a couple of other notables with that name, but to create an "Archibald Leach" page solely on that basis is a misuse of disambiguation. Finally, John Cleese's "Archie Leach" in a A Fish Called Wanda is completely indefensible because, while Wikipedia includes many fictional characters in its disambiguation pages, opening the doors to every minor or trivial character in every form of media, would overwhelm all listings. In essence, this disambiguation page consists of one "alternately spelled" but, in actuality, "misspelled" name of the architect and two Trivial Pursuit entries for Cary Grant—hardly encyclopedic.—Roman Spinner (talk) 10:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Spebi 05:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Davien Jones

I wasn't quite sure if this would merit speedy since he's received coverage of being student of the year, but I have real questions of this passing notability, apart from being written like a resume. For those not familiar, "Who's Who" is an honor to anyone willing to pay to be included. Travellingcari (talk) 23:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete vanity page by WP:SPA; fails WP:BIO. Jfire (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete - He's just a normal person who is not in any way notable. --Taxman214 02:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taxman214 (talk • contribs)

Delete - obvious vanity article and entry doesn't meet notatbility standard for biographies. BowChickaNeowNeow (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Buckwheat Boyz. The amount of plays of the song on a MySpace page does not determine the song's notability; someone could have accidentally pressed play on the song instead of another song. Spebi 05:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ice Cream and Cake

Song is not notable. Besides, it's reversed. The phrase is "cake and ice cream", not "ice cream and cake". BallPark2 (talk) 14:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Redirect, notable song by Buckwheat Boyz so redirect to that. See - http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Ice+Cream+and+Cake%22+Buckwheat+boyz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seriousspender (talk • contribs) 14:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment. Apparantly, it was deleted before Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ice cream and cake. BallPark2 (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted before because it contained a copyright violation and was seen as nonsense. Changed vote to speedy redirect.--Seriousspender (talk) 15:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Song seems to be notable as it has over 127000 plays on the group's myspace [1]. Page would be better if it linked to the song though. Skip1337 (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Redirect at best to Buckwheat Boyz, but even that article has no references but the band's own myspace page. Leaning toward delete all of them. Gatoclass (talk) 00:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Redirect or, if possible, merge. The song is less notable then their song "Peanut Butter Jelly Time" and even that doesn't get its own article. — Balthazar ^(T|C) – 00:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
A redirect would probably work, although I imagine that sources can be found to show its popularity. Believe it or not, this odd song, with lyrics like "Ice cream and cakey-cake" is a staple among young cheerleaders (elementary school age), often as a halftime show at kids' football games-- apparently because it's easy to dance to ("step step step slide" and waving of pom poms are the only moves) and because it's squeaky clean. The song makes no sense at all, but your little sister, niece, daughter, whatever probably knows it. If someone can find it on a bunch of cheerleading websites, then I'll go for a keep. Mandsford (talk) 04:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Looking through the Google News link above, I found http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-128027537.html. It's a subscription news link, but there's enough information over the fold to suggest that it seems to be used at Old Dominion University during timeouts. Jury is out on whether or not it is "trivial" -- RoninBK _{T C} 13:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to Buckwheat Boyz for now. There is probable notability with the song, but better referencing is needed to be sure. RFerreira (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Redirect - Some notability to the song, but needs expansion and sources. Taxman214 02:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taxman214 (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 06:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jacob Golomb

Seems to be a non-notable academic (or at least, the page doesn't show any evidence of notability). Geoffrey.landis (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Please see the Google Scholar results at http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=Jacob+Golomb&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_allsubj=some&as_subj=soc&hl=en&lr=&safe=off

--Eastmain (talk) 04:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 04:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep Obviously notable scholar, as Google Books comes up with 240 hits. See http://books.google.com/books?q=%22Jacob+Golomb%22&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=np (Mind meal (talk) 05:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC))
Keep - This is a stub, not a full article, therefore not subject to the same requirements as an article. It doesn’t need deletion, it needs expansion. —Travis ^talk 19:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy keep - but the stub requires a great deal of work (so good faith of nominator not in doubt). --Paularblaster (talk) 23:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

good faith, sure, but it is not helpful to omit to check even Google Scholar. DGG (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'd considered tagging it for speedy delete, since it seems to meet the explicit criteria for speedy deletion (specifically, A7: "article does not indicate why its subject is important or significant."), but speedy delete is too often abused, so I stuck it in for AfD instead. Obviously that was a good choice, but when the article's claim to the guy's notability gets down to listing what languages he speaks, I'd say it's an article with little evidence of notability. As for the fact that it's "only a stub"... the stub hasn't been edited in about 18 months, so as far as I could tell, it sure looked like what was there was likely to be all that was gonna be there. And, in fact, despite the discussion here, it is still an article that fails to make any real case for notability. Was anybody thinking of adding some text to it? Geoffrey.landis (talk) 03:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

keep and improve too short, references needed Logastellus (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Weak Keep- Proven notable scholar. Needs expansion and sources though.Taxman214 02:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taxman214 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was Keep per Snow/Speedy Keep - Non-Admin Closure . Fosnez (talk) 12:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Doell

Seems to be a non-notable sports figure. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep From WP:BIO sports figures who have competed at a professional level are notable. Edward321 (talk) 00:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep The individual has received widespread media coverage. See http://news.google.com/news?q=%22Kevin+Doell%22&sa=N&tab=pn. He was also named ECHL's Rookie of the Year. (Mind meal (talk) 05:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC))
Keep He has played a few games this year at the highest level, and since he is a young player, he may play plenty more in the NHL. Thricecube (talk) 13:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep per WP:BIO#Athletes - He is a NHL player, i.e. a professional athlete playing in a fully professional league, therefore notable by definition. —Travis ^talk 19:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 06:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Bonifacio

Animator. That appears to be it, unless I'm missing something. Currently misses WP:BIO by a mile. BLACKKITE 17:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep, meets WP:BIO. GreenJoe 17:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Would you care to expand your reasoning, GreenJoe? I see nothing notable about this animator, though he has certainly worked on notable projects. henrik•talk 19:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ "worked on" is not sufficient. The one reference given includes only the sentence in an article on Clive Smith (who is certainly notable, that "[a]s the resident artist at Nelvana, he recruited and nurtured a host of young animators, mainly from Sheridan College in the mid-'70s. Among them were Chuck Gammage, Charles Bonifacio, Robin Budd and Frank Nissen, all of whom went on to careers as directors and animators for Disney and other companies." that is not a significant mention. DGG (talk) 05:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Being director of animation on two Care Bears movies was enough to get him mentioned in the Canadian Journal of Film Studies and in the New York Times. He was also quoted in an article about Sheridan College in The Globe and Mail while he was working at the college. (I have now added the references.) These multiple mentions, I would say, is enough—just barely—to pass WP:N. Keep. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep. One of the criteria listed at WP:BIO#Creative professionals is:

The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

Although DGG is also correct to question the depth of coverage provided by the sources (thus the "weak" portion of my "weak keep"), I would agree with Paul Erik that an animation director does play a "major role" in the production of animated films. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 22:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Changed to Weak keep on the basis of the Care Bears -- something I could never have imagined myself saying, but it does apply to the animator. DGG (talk) 02:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep per Paul Erik, I believe that the directorial work with the Care Bears satisfies any notability concerns. RFerreira (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep reference to notability in 2nd party reviews Logastellus (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Neıl ☎ 10:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Myrna Williams

This nomination is for the disambiguation page entitled "Myrna Williams". There is only one (arguably) notable Myrna Williams (politician), a Clark County, Nevada figure who had been in public office on the state and local level between 1984 and 2006. The other two names on the disambiguation page are of a top movie star of the past, Myrna Loy, whose birth name was Myrna Williams, and Myrna Williams (actress), an unknown individual whose sole IMDb credit is a bit part in a 23-year-old movie, The Toxic Avenger. One would no more search for Myrna Loy via "Myrna Williams" than one would search for Cary Grant by entering his birth name, "Archibald Leach" (another misused disambiguation page which contains no other viable entries). In this case, the Myrna Williams (politician) page should be moved to "Myrna Williams" and the "Myrna Williams (disambiguation)" page deleted—Roman Spinner (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep as the current disambig page It is certainly possible that somebody may search for Myrna Loy via her birth name (and Cary Grant via Archibald Leach for that matter). Given that there are three individuals, although one is of arguable notability, a disambig page makes perfect sense. I see no reason to make the politician the sole target, especially as they do not themselves seem to have more than minor notability. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. It is a disambiguation page. Clearly there are two notables with this name and there are several others with this name not mentioned, including at least 1 actress. Having a dab page hurts nothing. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete, in this case (not Archibald Leach) I agree with the nom, primarily because there are only two potential targets (and a search doesn't reveal any other candidates). This may better satisfy the least surprise principle with a hatnote in the politician's article, which can be moved here. --Dhartung | Talk 07:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

There are actually at least three targets, and the second actress should not be dismissed as a potential article. Now that this article exists, going to the trouble of deleting it seems pointless. Even if a hatnote were used it should still point to this disambig page. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 03:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Nomination update. In justifying this nomination, I need to place greater emphasis on the nature of notability. As an article inclusionist, I do not question the existence of the Myrna Williams (politician) biographical entry, although deletionists might. Disambiguation pages, however, are another matter. If there were six or seven notable or, at least, marginally notable individuals named "Myrna Williams", it may, perhaps, be less obvious, but with only three names, it is untenable. The Trivial Pursuit entry on Myrna Loy's birth name might have been able to receive a William Henry Pratt-like redirect to Boris Karloff (who is also included in the (barely justifiable) disambiguation page for other individuals named William Pratt), but with Myrna Williams (politician) already in possession of the name, the redirect should not be forced with this disambiguation page—it should be simply abandoned. Finally, the matter of one Myrna Williams "(actress)", a name found on IMDb and included to (slightly) pad the names on the disambiguation page. This name appears 33rd down on the cast list of the 1985 film The Toxic Avenger and...nowhere else. Staying with Williams (surname), it may be useful to examine the notability, or lack thereof, of the hundreds of thousands of names on IMDb by examining Robert Williams, a common name which not only has an extensive disambiguation page on Wikipedia, but has at least 41 listings on IMDb, including studio drivers and stagehands. A couple of those 41 Robert Williamses are even notable enough for Wikipedia, but even so, none has so far found his way into the disambiguation page, to say nothing of the numerous book, movie and theater characters who were given that name or "Bob" or "Bobby". If Wikipedia disambiguation pages are meant to be taken seriously, they must not cram every use of the name in existence, but confine their purpose to non-trivial references within the bounds of existing articles.—Roman Spinner (talk) 10:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep Diambig pages are "cheap" and helpful. Fosnez (talk) 12:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep, although it is a minor political figure, it does seem to fall within the guidelines for notability. I would suggest someone clean up the article a bit.--Sallicio 07:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Neıl ☎ 10:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NFL on FOX announcer pairings

Unreferenced for months. Non-notable. Unencyclopedic. Arbitrary collection of information. Mikeblas (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

delete unreferenced original research, no assertion of notability as a subject unto itselfBeeblbrox (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
delete, I agree with the nom. It's a good list, but it still needs references.--Sallicio 08:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Neıl ☎ 10:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Claudia Zacchara

Non-notable fictional character just introduced into a soap, General Hospital, last Thursday. No history and no background for the character exists. Previously redirected to main soap page in accordance to soap project for minor characters but that seems to not be working. Article does not meet notability for fiction and includes nothing but possible spoilers. KellyAna (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Note. I've repaired this AfD listing. -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable fictional character. -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep Character is on contract therefore will be notable, also questioning nomination as the editor has a vendetta --KingMorpheus (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Just because an actor is on contract doesn't mean the character will end up being notable. KellyAna (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment -- Sarah Brown was an integral part of General Hospital when she played the original Carly. She's supposed to be on the show for at least another year to play out the Claudia Zacchara storyline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.145.9.20 (talk) 20:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply to comment - what Sarah Brown did before is not relevant to the article in discussion. She's not notable enough to have a page yet. It seems the reason people want her to have a page is because of what she may do and who's playing her. Neither of which are legitimate reasons to have an article. The character has no notability to speak of at this point in time. IrishLass (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. The character may or may not become notable but at this time they certainly aren't. Article is also full of unverified information that claims to be "confirmed" but no sources listed. IrishLass (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep per KingMorpheus--72.229.214.90 (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete, the article needs references and third-party sources. And I don't think that a few weeks on a day-time soap opera qualifies as notability within itself. --Sallicio 08:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 06:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jayden James

Can't find enough reliable/verifiable sources (under both Jayden Jaymes and Jayden James)to ascertain her notability under WP:BIO. She was quoted on ABC News but that's it. Vinh1313 (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Vinh1313 (talk) 22:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete. She may be quite a looker, but I can't find any news articles relating to her. Web sites relating to her are all of pornographic movie reviews or snapshots. I don't think these alone are enough to assert notability. — X S G 22:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Just another porn actress. No awards, no references, none can be found, especially admist the stuff about one of Britney Spears and Kevin Federline's sons.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 08:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete- no references. could be fake. Taxman214 02:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taxman214 (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 06:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Derek Foran

Fails WP:BIO#Athletes as has never played in a fully-pro league.[2] пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Not notable per WP:BIO. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per WP:BIO. Peanut4 (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
~~Keep~~. I don't know how to differentiate between a professional league and one that isn't, but the fact that the league to which Foran belongs, FAI League of Ireland, appears professional, and the number of pages which link directly to Foran's page coupled with the WP:NPOV nature of Foran's page lead me to believe that the league is sufficiently notable and therefore so is Foran. — X S G 22:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- But he hasn't played a game under WP:BIO guidelines. So still delete whether it's a pro / semi-pro / amateur / Under 12 league. Peanut4 (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  - Exactly. The WP:BIO criteria is very clear: He must make an apperance in the first team. He has not done that, therefore he fails the criteria. And the only reason why lots of pages link to his article is this template of the club's squad. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, per WP:BIO; I'm convinced now.— X S G 05:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Per above. Also, no Google News hits. See http://news.google.com/news?tab=pn&hl=en&q=%22Derek+Foran%22&btnG=Search (Mind meal (talk) 05:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC))
Keep He has played for the first team in pre-season friendly matches. He has caps for Ireland at underage level too. He is considered a rising star at the club. What harm is leaving his page up doing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camackhazai (talk • contribs) 11:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
NB: User:Camackhazai is the article's creator
- It is well established that youth caps do not confer notability. As for "What harm is his page doing?", that could be used to justify having articles on Sunday League players. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Would the fact that he is playing for a fully professional club (therefore himself a full professional) not put him a step up from Sunday league? He is expected to have a big season this year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camackhazai (talk • contribs) 20:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  - WP:CRYSTAL much? He can have an article when he plays the game, otherwise he fails the criteria. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 20:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete- Not notable. Taxman214 02:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taxman214 (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 06:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Credit Rating Agency of Bangladesh Limited

Fails WP:CORP and WP:NOTABILITY. No third party links to assert notability. Check the oter credit rating agency articles to compare with this one. Delete Undeath (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep. I added some references. --Eastmain (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Sources only take a few seconds to find with a Google search. Why waste everyone's time by nominating for deletion? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep- Passes WP:CORP with secondary sources.Taxman214 02:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), nom-withdrawn. Chetblong^{T C} 22:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Okhotsimsky Dmitrii Evgenievich

contested prod, no online sources, it's probably a hoax, ~~the creator has made a mistake: he said that Nikolai Stepanovich Chernykh had discovered the asteroid 8062 but it's wrong, see here.~~ my mistake Cenarium (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

A research on Okhotsimsky returns results, a certain D.E.Okhotsimsky, I'd like a third opinion, it seems that the subject is notable so I'll withdraw it's clear that it's not a hoax. Cenarium (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Clearly not a hoax, Google results for Russian spelling of his name, "Oхоцимский" [3], return quite a few results: Here's from the Great Soviet Encyclopedia: [4], here's more: [5], [6]. Can't make a decision about notability; but it's clearly a genuine space scientist, not a hoax. Minor point -- all those sources indicate his year of birth is 1921, not 1906. S. Proudleduck (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Plenty of English-language Google results as well, allowing for alternative transliterations: [7] S. Proudleduck (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Obvious speedy keep. I hadnt known the BSE was available free on line--great resource, considered very reliable for everything non-political, especially in the physical sciences.DGG (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I withdraw, but I couldn't make my mind alone.Cenarium (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Neıl ☎ 11:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mfx

Article fails guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (music); has been tagged for notability check since November 2007 with no major updates made since –Dream out loud (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No delete I think: Article is for extend. Why delete? IMO this article is shaky, but this article. IMO: No delete. Alden(Sharon boyfriend) or talk 21:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:BAND, no charted songs or major labels, among other things. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
KEEP WP:BAND does not apply. This is not a music act. I hate to be the first one to point this out... but... http://www.pouet.net/groups.php?which=168 clearly shows they are a prolific and notable group within the demo scene. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 20:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete It fails the policy mentioned above, and also fails to source the statements about style. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 21:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep per Alkivar, winning first at Breakpoint confers a great deal of notability indeed. RFerreira (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep (and extend) per Alkivar and RFerreira and the fact that similar articles like Kewlers have been considered notable enough as well. -mrbartjens (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete, this is a Finnish band which doesn't seem to fit the criteria for WP:BAND on the English Wikipedia. I will consider changing my vote, if there are verfiable English references or third-party citations. Otherwise it should be crossed over to the Finnish side of Wikipedia.--Sallicio 08:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep per Snow/Speedy Keep - Non-Admin Closure . Fosnez (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rigas French Lycée

Disputed prod about a school in Latvia. After I added the {{prod}}, the editor who created it said on my talk page that "This Lycee is one of the most prestige lycee in baltic states". But there are only 190 pages about this school in Google [8] and no references for notability are cited. Pegasus «C¦T» 21:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

~~What language did you search in?~~ (Sorry, I searched and commented before I realized you linked to your search). When I searched, I got more hits than that, though: here . matt91486 (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No delete because this article is for extend. People wrote this article very taked steps, because he want good article. Alden(Sharon boyfriend) or talk 21:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I suggest searching under the school's French name "Lycée francais de Riga" ([9] [10]). I'm sifting through the hits for quality. There's also at least 1 possible hit from Le Monde behind a paywall. Secondary schools tend to be notable and some of the article's contents appear to be verifiable. • Gene93k (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
keep and rename to English translation French Lycée of Riga Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Strong keep. This AfD is surely in error. What could be more notable than having a French lycee in Latvia where pupils are taught in the French language rather than their native Latvian? There are only around 400 French lycees outside France in the whole world. The article needs a clean-up and referencing not deletion. There are multiple sources, many in French (which are quite permissible according to WP:EL, which testify to the prestige of the school. A search under the French name yields more hits as does a simple search for "Lycee Rigas". This would be an ideal candidate for a DYK on the front page. Dahliarose (talk) 00:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I've now started to tidy up the article and have added two alumni with refs. There will no doubt be many more. As with many foreign schools, prestigious alumni don't always have articles in the English Wikipedia.

Keep Clearly notable, per Dahliarose and others. Unless the english name is in common use, I'd think the French name would make more sense. DGG (talk) 04:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep per Dahliarose and others, I believe this to meet our guidelines on notability. RFerreira (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - plainly notable, as discussed above. TerriersFan (talk) 04:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep per Dahliarose efforts. looks to have potential for expansion. valid stub. Sting au Buzz Me... 10:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 06:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Trebes

No appearance in a professional league, therefore WP:BIO not met Kevin McE (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete Non notable footballer. No independent non trivial WP:RS - also fails the football guidelines. Obina (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Not notable per WP:BIO. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:N for football players. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:BIO#Athletes. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Possible deletion Perhaps we should wait until tomorrow, it is the last time he will be called up to the Barnet squad, and according to their website he may make his debut then. I know I shouldn't crystal-ball, but if he doesn't play I would endorse deletion. Cg29692 (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment Trebes won't play - FACT Jimbo^[online] 18:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment How do you know this? Cg29692 (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I've seen him play, Fairclough's no mug Jimbo^[online] 22:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete Rochdale game is off, Trebes won't play, delete article Cg29692 (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep per Snow/Speedy Keep - Non-Admin Closure . Fosnez (talk) 12:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tracker (Business Software)

I initially speedied the article for WP:CSD#A7, but this was contested by the author, who made some valid points on my talk page. I then requested a deletion review (see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 29). During the review, it became apparent that there was reasonable doubt about the article's deletion, so the speedy deletion was overturned. It also became clear, however, that there was no consensus that this product is notable enough for Wikipedia, and that the article is non-spammy enough for inclusion. That is why I'm nominating this article for deletion. This is mostly a request for community input, I myself am neutral for the moment. A ecis^Brievenbus 20:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep – There certainly is enough Google News hits to generate a contention of notability here: [11]. My question is why nominate? Shoessss | Chat 20:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Because there was no consensus either way in the DRV. There was not enough consensus to warrant speedy deletion, so my speedy deletion was rightfully overturned. But the deletion was endorsed by User:Lifebaka, who cited G11, and by User:JzG, who referred to A7. This means that there was reasonable doubt about the article, which per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion means that "discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead." A ecis^Brievenbus 21:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep Lots of sources. I'm struggling if they are all WP:RS, but the number persuades me to keep. The article could have more balance, but that is no reason to delete.Obina (talk) 20:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Would have nominated for AfD under the same circumstances, but there seems to be enough reliable sources to prove notability. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Perhaps the article was in a different state at the time, but I fail to see how this should have been speedy deleted. RFerreira (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Notability is demonstrated by sources. And whatever state the article was in before speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7, there's no way that should have happened, because it's not about "a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content". I'm rather surprised that we have admins who are so unfamiliar with what must be by far Wikipedia's most commonly cited policy. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jamie Matsukubo

The article's subject is a WP:NN studio engineer who owns his own studio. The article does not have any sources to back up claims. I think the article just about asserts notability so I couldn't speedy. For those of you that trawl google for any indication of notability; there are maybe a handful of relevant links about him... mostly "testimonials" from his own site. I see no big roster of bands that he has worked with etc. Additional note: It appears as if it's a WP:COPYVIO: [12] - I will speedy aswell and see what happens. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 20:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete No evidence of notability.Obina (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete – Agree with nominator. Only sources found were MySpace. Shoessss | Chat 21:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete. The assertion of notability is so insignificant and unreliable as to be worthless. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete as failing both WP:BIO and WP:V.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Not notable. MBisanz ^talk 07:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Merging can be discussed on the talk page. Core desat 07:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Tarlow

Does not seem to meet WP:BIO. Claim to be an "important figure" in security and tourism is not supported by the sources listed and is pure NPOV. The few outside sources listed only confirm his position and that he wrote a single book. Collectonian (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Strong Keep Individual is quite notable, after a quick look at Google Books. See http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&q=%22Peter+Tarlow%22&sa=N&tab=np (Mind meal (talk) 05:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC))
delete - seems short on notability. is the book important? there are no reviews listed in the article. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Keep notable in field of tourism security and as as leader of the nation's oldest Hillel at Texas A&M where individual is a profesor. Bhaktivinode (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't demonstrate notability as an academic. The biggest barrier right now for the article is that it does not cite any reliable, third-party sources (The Batt is a newspaper, but since it is a school paper for the school where he is a professor, it can't stand alone in establishing notability, and the other "sources" are websites of places he is affiliated with.). Can you find reliable sources-quickly-that discuss him in detail? Karanacs (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep - should be more explained why he is so important--YY (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep A simple Google search shows numerous sources supporting the article's claims. Culturalrevival (talk) 23:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 01:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep, he is notable, as a professor, rabbi and head of Hillel. If he were only a "Hillel rabbi" he would lack notability. But searching the web proves that he is a noted sociologist and expert in a number of significant areas. See this: Peter E. Tarlow is a sociologist specializing in the impact of crime and terrorism on the tourism industry and also in tourism and economic development. This: The Crytpto-Jews and the Inquisition in New Spain: A Symposium at Texas A&M University...Committee Members:...Rabbi Peter Tarlow, Hillel Foundation;... and this: Listed in Texas A&M University Department of Philosophy and many more like this that proves his notability in a number of fields: academic, Jewish and communal. IZAK (talk) 01:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

And yet, no one is adding any of this information to the article? Wouldn't that address the issue far better than just saying "here's stuff"? Collectonian (talk) 02:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Then WHY did you nominate the article without even checking if there were other sources, if the article did not meet "your" standards? This nomination is rather BOGUS and far from constructive! Bhaktivinode (talk) 02:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You were the one who created the article as a two sentence stub, and despite having its notability questioned previously, did nothing to address the issue. It is not the job of other editors to fix your articles when you make them like this then abandon them. The article makes none of the assertions of notability given here and is entirely sourced by primary and local sources. My quick search only show that he writes a few niche books and is a professor. As I didn't feel any of that meet WP:BIO or Wikipedia:Notability (academics), I sent it for AfD.

Only now is more information being given, and even then it is all of the stuff IZAK lists comes from TAMU, his unversity, so it is not an independant, secondary source. Where are outside sources showing that he is "regarded as an important figure by independent notable academics in the same field," "has published a significant and well-known academic work,", "has received a notable award or honor", or that he is "the subject of published[2] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject?" It was not a first resort, the article was previously CSDed. Collectonian (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

And yet you used Afd as a first resort? Far from civil! Bhaktivinode (talk) 02:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Try again. It was questioned for notability over a month ago when it was sent for CSD, so you and anyone else interested has had a month since then to address the issues. You did nothing and still have not shown any actual notability outside of TAMU. Collectonian (talk) 02:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no clue what your motives are but you seem to consistantly delete artiticles related to Jews in Texas. This article is notable, I feel other editors will agree. I am sure we will be discussing other deletions in the future. Bhaktivinode (talk) 02:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You make the same accusations anytime anyone nominates your articles for deletion, subtly questioning if they have something against Jewish people instead of acknowledging that you frequently make articles that do not properly assert notability. Four articles of yours have already been AfDed, while another resulted in a redirect because it couldn't establish independant notability. I'm not the only editor to notice this or to regularly go behind and play clean up when you do this. Why not actually weigh an article against the notability guidelines before creating them so we wouldn't keep meeting here? Collectonian (talk) 02:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not be constructive instead of attacking articles as you began with Temple Freda, disscussion noted here, please review [13]. Bhaktivinode (talk) 02:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I've repeatedly pointed you, Bhaktivinode, towards the wiki policies on reliable sources, notability, and verification[, yet the new articles you create tend to all have the same problems (lack of reliable, independent sources and/or no claim to notability within WP's guidelines), which is why so many of your articles are AfD'd. Find reliable, independent sources that support the claims you make and the articles won't be brought here. When an article does get brought to AfD, that is your cue that it needs to be fixed pronto. Karanacs (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Karanacs/Collectonian, figuratively speaking, there is no need to stick your head in the sand, look around, this is a notable person with sources to support it. Bhaktivinode (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Then why don't you provide those sources when you create the article? If you are having trouble understanding why the sources you do provide do not qualify to establish notability, please ask. There is a reliable sources noticeboard that can provide advice. Karanacs (talk) 15:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. That is kind of you, and will be helpful for new articles. Bhaktivinode (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep (edit conflict) I found two articles on Google News that appear to provide sufficient coverage of this person. The sites require subscription, so I haven't incorporated the info into the article, but the urls are now on the Talk Page of the article. Karanacs (talk) 15:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep per IZAK. On a side note, I have observed over the past few months a significant number of Jewish-related Texas articles nominated for deletion almost as soon as they're created. While I'm not raising the question of if all of them belong on Wikipedia, I do know that the appearance created may discourage potential editors from creating worthwhile topics. Some of this may be simply the result of the nature of the topic. Perhaps articles concerning Judaism & Texas are more easily noticed and therefore picked out more often than, for example, articles concerning Judaism & New York, simply because Judaism is generally recognized as more synonymous with NY than Texas. Instead of tagging them immediately for deletion, maybe they should be tagged as needing to be improved, at least allowing the article's creator ample time to develop the article. I doubt most articles are written to Wikipedia standards at the moment they are created. A child is not born fully developed and able to stand on his/her own, neither is an article. Nsaum75 (talk) 03:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with your evaluation of the situation; I have used Wikipedia for some time but never registered until I came across some Jewish Texan articles whose merit were being debated. My time is limited outide of school and work, but the main reason I have not contributed much to Wikipedia is because I feel some editors have created a environment that is not supportive of the creation and enrichment of articles related to Jewish Texas.Lchaimgirl (talk) 02:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  - Comment I have to agree, there appears to be a consistancy to these nominations, from the same two editors. The article at hand is clearly notable, a simply google search confirms this. I hope this trend does not continue, or that there is some solution to counter it in the future. Culturalrevival (talk) 03:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    - The best way to ensure that an article is not brought to AfD is to cite reliable independent sources when you create the article. Unfortunately, many of the Jewish Texas articles do not cite reliable independent sources and have weak claims to notability. I found them because I frequently clean up Texas-related categories, not because I have a vendetta against Jewish articles or Texas articles. Karanacs (talk) 04:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
      - Examples in your edit history show that you tried to delete Congregation Shearith Israel (Texas), Simon Theatre, Leon Toubin, Jimmy Kessler to name a few. Culturalrevival (talk) 04:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
        
        This discussion is on Peter Tarlow, we should all focus on this topic for now. Bhaktivinode (talk) 04:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect to Texas A&M Hillel.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep per IZAK. Lchaimgirl (talk) 02:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep per IZAK and Culturalrevival. Religion is a sensitive subject. I edit Hinduism articles, and I have seen descrimination and bigotry present in almost all religious discussions and debates. The person being discussed, here, is a notable scholar, and as for the nominator, I believe the assumption of good faith until proven otherwise is the proper attitude to take. To echo Culturalrevival, I hope this is not a trend. Ism schism (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep per IZAK. --MPerel 07:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 07:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Monica (given name)

Do we really need a page of semi-random people named Monica? Calvin 1998 ^Talk _Contribs 20:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete I was prepared to root for this page, but it's not to be confused with an article about the name Monica. This is essentially a navigation aid to help a person distinguish between Monica Lewinsky and Monica Seles, among other things. Which one got stabbed by a deranged fan? Which one interned with President Clinton? Unneccesary. Mandsford (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. The "random" entries are vandalism that just happened. This a disambiguation sub-page to help editors who wikilink to "Monica". Yes, such links exist. • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge to Monica. We don't need two separate dab pages with the same title. What next? Monica (disambiguation) (disambiguation)? J Milburn (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge to Monica like every other name disambiguation on Wikipedia Doc Strange (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep for the same reasons noted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julie (given name). There is much content that could be added that does not belong on a disambiguation page. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge the list of names back to the regular Monica disamb; if/when the list becomes too unwieldy due to length, then split the disamb into seperate parts again. I really don't see any need as of yet for this action. Zidel333 (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment—I have added content to the article: name etymology, history, popularity, the name in literature, name days in various countries. That all constitutes examples of the sort of content that belongs in an article about the name "Monica". Dab pages are not articles. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep unmerged, especially after Paul Erik's etymology additions. Dabbers are trying to get rid of the name flood on dab pages, so a merge would set a precedent to undo the efforts of the last six months. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep/Do not merge I created this article as part of my cleanup several months ago of the Monica disambiguation page. The Manual of Style for Disambiguation Pages states:

Persons who happen to have the same surname or given name should not be mixed in with the other links unless they are very frequently referred to simply by the single name (e.g., Elvis, Shakespeare). For short lists of such persons, new sections of Persons with the surname Title and Persons with the given name Title can be added below the main disambiguation list. For longer lists, create a new Title (name), Title (surname) and/or Title (given name) page.

I felt the list was long enough to warrant being moved to a separate page, which was a judgment call on my part. I also want to remind editors that a given name page is not the same as a dab page (again, see the Manual of Style). Since nominated for deletion, this article has been amended with a significant amount of information about the name itself that should not be merged to or included on a disambig page, which is only intended to guide the user to the article about the topic they're looking for. Propaniac (talk) 14:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep This isn't a disambiguation page, and sufficient content has been added to make that clear; merging its contents to Monica, which, like all disambiguation pages, is a non-article in the article namespace, would be wholly inappropriate. --Sturm 15:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
keep - to much for a disambiguation page. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Proposal - I suggest creating a new page with a list of people named "Monica" (perhaps named List of people named Monica), and turning this page solely into a description of the name itself. Calvin 1998 ^Talk _Contribs 23:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Why? (that's with a curious tone, not a challenging tone) I think that would only be necessary if this article became too long. As an example, the article Smith (surname) was too long, so a separate list was created, People with the surname Smith. But Monica (given name) is not that long. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep, do not merge This is encyclopedic content, even as ugly as some of you may find it; disambig pages are sure as heck not the place to dump this. Read the guideline at MoS:DP. That guideline says to move it here, to Monica (given name). Anyone who recommends merging an article such as this into a disambig page, which is not an article, has not even begun to understand what disambiguation means within Wikipedia, and should recuse himself or herself from this discussion. Chris the speller (talk) 23:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep, do not merge I also added the {{WikiProject Anthroponymy}} to Talk:Monica (given name). This is a valid given name article, not a disambiguation page. See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Lists of names and (if you've got even more time & inclination) the rest of Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy#Background reading. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep, do not merge Remember (talk) 13:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep, do not merge it is not a disambiguation page and the content is for the most part encyclopedia. older ≠ wiser 14:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep, should be separate from disambiguation page per WP:MOSDAB. Now has infobox etc as a standard Given Name article. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Neıl ☎ 11:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Camp Doublecreek

Non notable children's summer camp (I am guessing there might actually be notable summer camps) Jacksinterweb (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I see no sources indidcating this is a notable camp. Verification problems too. So it should be deleted. Or perhaps redirected to Round Rock, Texas. seresin | wasn't he just...? 21:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep: Camp history has been updated to make it a little more notable. 67.110.95.170 (talk) 13:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
DELETE, non-notable...there are no references, no third-party citations, nothing within WP:NOTABILITY to keep the article. If the author (or anyone else) brings it up to standards, I will change my vote. --Sallicio 08:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Joe mclaughlin

A freelance journalist and DJ, article doesn't assert enough notability or provide any references to help disambiguate this guy from the many other Joes and Joseph McLaughlins out there. Prod removed by author without explanation. JuJube (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete - doesn't make WP:BIO. JohnCD (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - does not satisfy the notability criteria for inclusion. gb ^{(t, c)} 20:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment The creator of this article has been indefblocked for vandalism. JuJube (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete, looks like a completely non-notable person, no reliable sources, none about him likely to exist. Could easily be a speedy A7.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

delete - seems non-notable. His newspaper is a red link, even. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] VFA-6 Alpha

Individual fictional elements do not have or lack real world information to establish notability. The fictional information is already mentioned a variety of related articles. There is no current assertion for improvement. Also nominating the other "Veritech fighters":

and the animes' military organizations

Strong Keep on U.N. Spacy. As that article already says, the term directly inspired the nomenclature in at least three other separate franchises. This is not mentioned in other articles. 1-54-24 (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If it is cited to a reliable source, then it matters. But without a citation, it doesn't matter. seresin | wasn't he just...? 21:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Just where does it say this term originated or was borrowed in the first place from this anime? Even if did, how does this term alone warrant keeping this article instead of being in a "reception" section in Macross? « ₣M₣ » 23:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Reference added. Also, the coinage of a new term that is subsequently used in other works is notable in of itself. 1-54-24 (talk) 01:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No significant coverage by reliable sources independant of the topic on any of these, ∴ it isn't notable. I personally find the link in one of the reference sections with the (site no longer exists) note hilarious. At any rate, isn't notable, so I support removal of the content, either by outright deletion and subsequent recreation as a redirect, or just a redirect. Also, to the nominator, I suggest in the future that you nominate things like this separately, otherwise people get screamy and the nominations fail on that basis alone. seresin | wasn't he just...? 21:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

content not notable enough to make a separate article need not be deleted. It would f verifiable at all and of any relevance be appropriately merged, not lost in a redirect. Items of content are not expected to be independently notable.DGG (talk) 02:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. seresin | wasn't he just...? 05:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to Robotech. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Ned Scott 06:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Close as malformed AfD and pending the ArbCom case and its injunction on merging/redirecting/deleting fictional articles. There are several unrelated articles being combined into this AfD that doesn't belong together. --Farix (Talk) 22:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Close pending result of Arbcom case linked above. D.M.N. (talk) 14:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete by me. J Milburn (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tragedy dismantel

Unreferenced, no apparent notability, possible confict of interest issue CultureDrone (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result wasSpeedy close as author has blanked page and it has been tagged as db-author. Non-admin closure. JuJube (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Guns from James Bond: Nightfire

A list without context or real-world relevance that amounts to a game guide. Prod removed by author without explanation. JuJube (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. JERRY ^talk _contribs 17:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Hudecki

Another animator. Doesn't appear to pass WP:BIO. BLACKKITE 17:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep, meets WP:BIO. GreenJoe 17:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete for the same reasons I already expressed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda Bel. Instructor at an art college is not enough to pass WP:PROF without either significant publications or art exhibits, and he seems to have neither. His work as an animator doesn't seem to have led to much of the public recognition that would pass WP:BIO. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete doing parts of works is not notability, and that is all that is claimed in the article.DGG (talk) 05:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Buried in the imdb filmography, and absent from the article until I added it, was the fact that he was the director of the notable though ultimately unsuccessful animated series with Roseanne Barr, Little Rosie, produced by Nelvana for ABC Television in the US. This series was a big deal when it went into production. His directorial credit on it makes him notable, per WP:BIO. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I should also point out that he has, since June 2006, been included in Template:Nelvana as a notable staff member -- from the template's inception, in fact. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 18:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep - his direction of Little Rosie makes him notable. matt91486 (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep, the artwork listed in the article makes him notable. Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 05:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 07:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kent Ninomiya

Non-notable person having bio created by sock puppet accounts, external links are spammy, article is part of a campaign by some publicity company; see article's talk page Markusbradley (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

~~Weak~~ Definite Keep spammy to be sure, but isn't the AJR article [14] evidence enough for notability?DGG (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- I seriously doubt one mention in an online publication qualifies. He's not of national or global significance -- he's just a local TV news anchor who got canned last year for some weird sex scandal and then hired some PR army to go and clean up the mess. This article is a result that is in sync with that campaign, it was created by the same people at the same time (as in, it was created after the sex scandal and not while he was still on the air). You'd have to be a super, super, super hardcore inclusionist to keep an obvious spam article about someone of basically no tangible significance (other than the sex scandal). Markusbradley (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

AJR is a highly respected print "publication of the University System of Maryland Foundation with offices at the Philip Merrill College of Journalism at the University of Maryland." It's not a blog; it's not a peer reviewed journal, but a respectable professional magazine, held in about 800 US libraries The item cited just the online version---the print eds to be found and listed also, but that's a detail. The material presented there seems clearly enough for notability regardless of anything else. I see there was some sort of a scandal, but I see no suitable unquestionably reliable sources for it to be added to the article. But FWIW, I notice the article omits the dates of his positions, and seems to omit at least one of them. Probably needs some careful editing. DGG (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

A valid point, but one page consuming a press release (which is what the link above is) doesn't sound like concrete or significant evidence of notability to me. I've been shocked to see what longstanding articles have passed AfD and been nuked in the past; it seems like this one is almost of exponentially less importance, especially considering all of the edits have been made by the same sock puppet juggling user or PR firm. Markusbradley (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep - Historically Significant Kent Ninomiya was the first Asian American male to be a primary news anchor at a US TV station. That is a significant issue in the journalism and Asian American communities. It is well known that there are many high profile Asian American women on TV but very few Asian American men. Just because Markusbradley is on some crusade to remove the wikipedia page doesn't diminish the accomplishment. That's like saying Jackie Robinson isn't important because you don't like black people. It is racist to say an issue isn't important just because you personally don't care about it. There are many people who do care about the Asian male anchor issue. A discussion on the topic is not complete without mentioning Kent Ninomiya. Markusbradley also sites false internet rumors about a sex scandal. If you look at the facts you will see that Kent Ninomiya was never arrested or charged with any crime and left that station months before the woman's trial for reasons not associated with her drunk driving. [User:Markusbradley|Markusbradley]] has done nothing on wikipedia in more than a year other than try to get the Kent Ninomiya wikipedia page removed. Ask yourself why he has this agenda and why it means so much to him to have this page removed. Georgiamonet (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel weird having to reply to this, but it's not a racist issue, so please don't try to make it one. I nominated it out of my own opinion, and because it's overly spammy and it was created by users whose edits aren't from the community, but from a cadre of sock puppet accounts. Markusbradley (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, conflict of interest? Markusbradley (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

REMOVE SPAM Weeunit (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Strong delete (self vote) Viewing the article's edit history shows that a handful of users have created and continued edits on the article. Their contributions are limited to the same article. As proof that this is a spam article and that it is not of encyclopedic significance, one has only to view the posts made by Georgiamonet to understand the POV action that is of an extremely aggressive public relations caliber. Furthermore, please look at the usernames of the contributors to the article and do some simple Google searches to get a more full understanding of the true nature of this article:

Dialga27

Georgiamonet

Sontoku

Markusbradley (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete While Mr. Ninomiya's achievement as first Asian-American male anchor is significant, perhaps that should be merged into a section under the AAJA article. He is mentioned in about 90 news articles on a Google News search for his name as of today. Shouldn't there be a book about this man to cross-reference the magazines or short news articles? Snowxh (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
tough call The sources seem to establish notability, but the article has terrible POV issues, in that it reads like a press release. I'm gonna go with keep but it needs to be completely re-written from a neutral POV.Beeblbrox (talk) 02:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep Some valid points are made here and changes were made to address them. Some spam and incorrect information has been left on this article in the past by suspicious users, but was later removed. Most notably Sontoku who posted completely false information about a bunch of random people with the same surname. There are sock puppets out there but I am not one of them. I resent Markusbradley's assertion that I am. He has made no contributions to wikipedia since 2006 except to try to delete this article. If anyone is a sock puppet he is. I believe the historic significance is validated by reputable sources. What will deleting this article do except remove information from wikipedia that could be of use to someone? Georgiamonet (talk) 04:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: you already listed one vote. Also, seriously, relax; your fiercely pointed rambles do no credit to you or your cause. And I've love for you to address how you are NOT some PR agent working overtime to fill the internet with Kent Ninomiya spam. Markusbradley (talk) 05:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wabbit98 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

commentLet's try to keep the focus on the subject at hand, not the people involved. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: text rewritten and spam removed to address the concerns of community Georgiamonet (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep - Subject is notable, but references are needed and article needs to be framed in neutral way. Taxman214 03:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taxman214 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was Keep. JERRY ^talk _contribs 17:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jinx.com

This could potentially be controversial- Jinx.com seems a fairly famous website, but I am seeing no evidence that it is notable, and so I bring it here for discussion. I was responsible for cleaning the article a little a while back, and even removed a prod, but I basically did that because I had heard of the site, and so assumed it must be notable. J Milburn (talk) 14:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep: Another one of these cases where the website is very popular in the Internet community, but doesn't get a lot of mainstream coverage. I did find some coverage of Jinx [15], [16] -- pb30<talk> —Preceding comment was added at 13:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 18:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep appears to meet, WP:WEB based on the links provided by Pb30 and [17], if barely. --Asmodeus Samael (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Eah. The link cited by Samael provides just enough notability it my mind. Barely. seresin | wasn't he just...? 21:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep: Jinx.com is the sole distributor of merchandise for the wildly popular World of Warcraft computer games, runs notable forums in the computer security online community, is the publisher of a series of podcasts called "J!nxcasts", and has and organized community at defcon. Zelmerszoetrop (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- It also does the official Dungeons & Dragons clothing. J Milburn (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 07:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bunny Dees

Bunny Dees had a very minor role in an minor 70's schockumentary about the Arkansas Big Foot. Apparently a drama teacher in Texas since then, she has yet to have another film role Jacksinterweb (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Weak Delete she has been in only one notable film, while WP:BIO implies multiple significant roles in notable films. --Asmodeus Samael (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete If Bunny Dees sets the standard, then every two-bit actor who appeared just once as an "extra" in a film will rate an encyclopedia entry. StudierMalMarburg (talk) 19:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete Not notable and no reliable sources. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Characters and groups in Bionicle#Toa, and move the Toa (disambiguation) page to Toa. Black Kite 02:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Toa

Article has been tagged for trivia, plot section larger than rest of article, original research, being written in-universe, being unencyclopedic, self published resources, having no secondary sources that meet WP:RS (only the blog of the original author, I believe) and probably a few others. What really matters is the fact that Toa is not notable outside the Bionicle universe, thus they have no place in their own article. Fails notability by itself. Pharmboy (talk) 17:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there are no sources to indicate individual notability. So, at this time, I support removal of the content either by deletion and subsequent recreation as a redirect, or only a redirect to Bionicle. My preference would be only a redirect, so as to leave history intact for editors who wish to merge neccesary content. seresin | wasn't he just...? 21:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment and Keep/Merge I feel this article is notable enough for inclusion for its own article. Obviously it needs to be stripped for its OR, out of proportion in-universe writing style, and gather as many secondary sources as possible. If length becomes too short, we should consider merging back into the Bionicle article where it originated from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zidel333 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment about what is/isn't notable In order to be notable outside it's own universe, it needs to be familiar and used outside of just bionicle/lego. That is the primary problem. The other issues can be fixed, the fact that it is ONLY an in universe subject, is fatal. As an example, C3P0 is notable outside the movie Star Wars because 1000 parodies of him have been done, hundreds of citations exist that are about him and him alone, and he has transended his existance as only a character within the movie. While interesting within its own universe, Toa doesn't come close to passing as notable outside of its singular domain. Unless references can be dug up that demonstrate that Toa is more than a Bionicle good guy and there is some other cultural or notable relevance to Toa, any other argument is moot. Pharmboy (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If by Lego you mean primarily Lego in universe/in merchandise mythos, then I completely agree with you. However, when I think of this article's subject I consider the commercials, the films, the comics, games that all increase awareness of the subject matter and its backstory in main stream society. Sources can be found on these, and similar topics to creat citations for this article, as long as the citation pertained to the plot, not the merchandise itself. Zidel333 (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you can use commercials and merchandizing for a product as reliable sources. Sources have to be independent, otherwise anything that ran a bunch of commercials would be defacto 'notable'. I understand that those commercials and merchandizing may be part of an article, but not to prove notability. Pharmboy (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Whether notable or not, I would suggest that the page Toa would be most useful as a disambiguation page, and this should be moved to "Toa (Lego)" or something similar. The related acronym page also has quite a few possibilities. Bob talk 13:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as A7 by Anonymous Dissident. Non-admin closure. seresin | wasn't he just...? 21:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stand One Records

Fails WP:CORP and WP:MUSIC. Non notable artists. No third party links. Nothing to assert notability. Undeath (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable record company. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete non-notable. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 18:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete A7, doesn't assert an iota of notability. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was

Close as merge. Dreadstar † 23:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bristo Bay

Fails WP:Note This is a non-notable fictional town, it's only existence in the novel that the film Hostage is based on (in the film itself, the town has a different name and there is another article for that, also up for deletion). The only source for info on the town is the novel itself. This specific location is not a notable part of the novel. The page should be removed per WP:Notability. - Gwynand (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge and redirect (article creator) into film and Hostage (novel) articles, it's only notable that the name is different in the film. MickMacNee (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hut 8.5 17:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Any relevant info can be added to the article on the novel, which is need of some serious work itself. Pairadox (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect, I agree with MickMacNee.--Sallicio 09:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect per MickMacNee. D.M.N. (talk) 14:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison of massively multiplayer online role-playing games

Unencyclopedic list. WP is not a guide, or a price list. Additionally, any actual comparison between the games would likely be OR. GlassCobra 17:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep Needs a rework, not a delete. Such a table is useful. Annamonckton (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep I know, someone is going to jump all over you for employing the u-word ("useful, alone, is not a valid reason for keeping"). However, this is sourced and does provide data on products of a large and growing industry. Mandsford (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Some people mistakes AfD for clean-up. If this article is not good, rework it. Zerokitsune (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not a pricing guide. I can't think of a possible way that this page could be reworked in an encyclopedic fashion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Normally, I would support deletion. But I think it's an important topic, can all be cited, and encyclopedic. And yes, it's useful. seresin | wasn't he just...? 21:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep This article has potential and with time can probably become quite useful for a quick overview of MMORPGs. Perhaps I am also biased in this discussion because I created it. --Svip_pong 21:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 22:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Unencyclopedic - Wikipedia is not a directory --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep If this exists, and continues to be updated without a problem (the author having noted themselves that such a list will be hard to maintain without diligence), I see no reason why a similar list about MMORPGs shouldn't stick around. The only problem I have is that games, by their nature, differ wildly - what is fun to one person will not be fun to another one, so they can't be directly compared. Forum software, on the other hand, can be easily classified by features, installation ease and method, price, etc. Like I said, weak keep, but it's going to be difficult to keep on top of this unless several editors are checking up on it. Duncan1800 (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep Encyclopedias are used for research. This list provides a concise, sources comparison of MMORPGs. Fosnez (talk) 12:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep reasonably well sourced, the things that aren't sourced are not controversial, and to boot eh editors of this article have managed to avoid OR. Sethie (talk) 17:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 07:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 13th note

Seems to be non-notable; searching google brings up a lot of hits, but searching through them extensively reveals only youtube videos, blog and forum posts, and a whole heap of gig and travel listings. While there seems to be some evidence of realiable third-party sources writing about some of the bands that have played there, there's nothing about the venue itself, and notability is not inherited. PirateMink 12:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Weak delete unless multiple reliable sources about this venue in particular with non-trivial coverage are provided. Wikipedia is not a travel guide or directory either.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hut 8.5 17:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete Per nom. Annamonckton (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep At least in the US, there aren't too many vegetarian restaurants and it is probably the same in Glasgow. Besides, it seems that the restaurant and bar is a venue for local bands, instrumental to local music scene. « D. Trebbien (talk) 19:01 2008 February 3 (UTC)
Delete Trying to guess whether there are a lot of vegetarian restaurants or not in Glasgow is not really going to help establish notability, and without any secondary sources at all, this article does not meet notability standardsBeeblbrox (talk) 03:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, spam. Pegasus «C¦T» 21:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HealthCentral Network

Spam Jellogirl (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete Per nom. Annamonckton (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete as blatant advertising. I can't believe this crap has been up for a year.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DeSoto High School-Freshman Campus (DeSoto, Texas)

Though the high school is notable, the freshman campus (located next to the main facility) is not. There appears to be little to merge that already is not on main campus' article. Jacksinterweb (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - not only a high school but the website states "The Freshman Campus was named a top school in Texas for improvement in measurable areas from the Nat’l Center for Educational Accountability." Unless this is untrue then that is a clear statement of notability. TerriersFan (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - Despite its location adjacent to DeSoto High School, the Freshman Campus is treated as a separate facility by both the DeSoto Independent School District and the Texas Education Agency. Other than the common library, the Freshman Campus is totally independent of the high school. --Acntx (talk) 12:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep as per TerriersFan and Acntx. If it acts like a separate institution, then there is likely to be more encyclopedic information added than would fit in a section of an article on DeSoto High. Noroton (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 07:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UEFA Cup 2007-08 first round

There is no need to go into such detail about individual matches at this stage of the competition, just like there is no need to go into so much detail about the pre-Group stage rounds of the UEFA Champions League. – Pee Jay 17:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Strong Keep First Round is counted into formal round by UEFA. Deleting formal round's articles means that Group Stage and knockout stages articles are also useless. Yes, I would request for deleting group stage and knockout stage articles if there is a consent for deleting first round article. Raymond Giggs 17:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - The majority of the teams involved in the First Round of the UEFA Cup are minor teams from minor countries, compared to the teams in the Group Stage. – PeeJay 17:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  - It's not completely true that the "majority of the teams involved in the First Round of the UEFA Cup are minor teams from minor countries." Prior to the first round, two qualifying rounds and an Intertoto Cup have been held, meaning that the truly minor clubs have already been weeded out. The lowest ranked team in the first round was IF Elfsborg, the Swedish champion. Aecis^Brievenbus 18:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    - Oops, my apologies. – Pee Jay 18:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    - The lowest ranked team should be BATE Borisov, from the UEFA Champions League. However, I still agree to the statement from Aecis. From the first two qualifying rounds, 59 minor teams were eliminated. Also, the minority from UEFA Intertoto Cup are completely eliminated from second qualfying round. Counting the teams of the first round, there is no more than 20 teams are from minor country. Raymond Giggs 18:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
      - Regardless, no matter how major or minor the teams involved are, the required level of detail for this round is no more than the amount of detail already given in the UEFA Cup 2007-08 article, which makes this one a mere duplicate. – Pee Jay 18:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
        
        Okay, where is the two legs' detailed result? Where is the match held? Who scores the goals? I can see those things in the UEFA Cup 2007-08 article. On this rate, I can see the detailed report of the UEFA Cup final in the main article in the future. Please be reminded that the goals scored in the first round would be counted into the scorer table. Raymond Giggs 19:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
        
        According to the time system uefa.com used, unified EST was adapted from Round of 32. It shows that first round and group stage are not proper rounds, just qualifying rounds? So group stage article should be deleted in this case? Those are just referenced question. Raymond Giggs 04:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
      - I stand corrected, BATE Borisov was ranked 80th, 8 places below Elfsborg. A ecis^Brievenbus 19:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Furthermore, in the later rounds, such as the group stage and knockout stage, the level of detail that each match is subject to is higher than earlier rounds, necessitating separate articles. – Pee Jay 17:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. – Pee Jay 17:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete totally unnecessary. Should already be all at UEFA Cup 2007-08 if not already. Peanut4 (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete like Peanut4 said, already enough in the main article he stated. Govvy (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Strong delete Totally unnecessary as UEFA Cup 2007-08 exists. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 17:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per the last three. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- What I want to do is, putting the two-leg detailed result into the article. But seems it is not favored. Raymond Giggs 05:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete, simply cruft. Punkmorten (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Why don't you improve it instead of giving nonsense opinion? Raymond Giggs 04:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  - Because nothing can be done to improve an article like this that would stop it from being crufty. – PeeJay 04:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    - NOTHING!? NOTHING!? Oh that article is nothing, so UEFA Cup 2007-08 is also nothing! Where is the detailed result of the two legs? Did first round's goal doesn't count into the scorer table? TOTALLY NONSENSE! Raymond Giggs 14:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    - Another thing, If first round is not useful, the group stage is ALSO not useful too. Over half of the teams are not notable too. Raymond Giggs 14:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
      - Try to remain WP:CIVIL, matey. OK, how do you define "notable"? – Pee Jay 16:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
        
        I don't think UEFA Cup is very notable - the whole competition. The winners just could participate in the UEFA Super Cup. That's it. The competition is not notable enough to make the articles about Group Stage, First Round, or Knockout Rounds. But if you made Group Stage and knockout rounds, I think the proper rounds should be made too. Sorry for being rude because someone annoyed me around. Raymond Giggs 07:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment As individual American wresting 'competitions' apparantly warrant their own article, I don't see why a competition round in a vastly more popular sport shouldn't be considered notable - even though I personnally doubt that it is per WP:NOT. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - way, way too much detail. Keep this sort of thing for RSSSF, main UEFA Cup 2007-08 article displays just the correct amount of information needed in a general encyclopaedia. - fchd (talk) 08:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - uncyclopedic and fails WP:NOT#INFO. Some information could be considered useful, but this belongs on the UEFA website. EJF (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Same idea here. I would make a AfD of UEFA Cup 2007-08 group stage and UEFA Cup 2007-08 knockout round because they also fails WP:NOT#INFO.
Delete because it is unnecessary, but I don't think it it is too detailed, the co-efficients information is useful, perhaps that could be merged into the main UEFA Cup article. Cg29692 (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- The co-efficients could not be merged into the main article. I did it, but being reverted for many times. Raymond Giggs 07:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge and redirect to McAllen Independent School District. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Carlos Castañeda Elementary School

Non notable elem. school in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas. Too new to be historic or have famous alumni. Note: school is named for local educator, not for famous authority on shamanism that wiki-links to Jacksinterweb (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Redirect or merge to McAllen Independent School District, its parent school district. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge into McAllen Independent School District. Fascionating that a school is named after the "Master of Intent and Awareness", and if the school follows a program at all like its famous spiritualist namesake, that would be worthy of an article. However, that by itself is not enough to keep this as a stub. Mandsford (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Redirect as nn. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge into McAllen Independent School District. --Daddy.twins (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge/redirect into McAllen Independent School District per WP:SCL and accepted practice. TerriersFan (talk) 23:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 07:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Liberal Fascism (graphic novel)

Fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. May not even be real book, but looks like an attempt to gain Google PageRank (aka Google bomb). No ISBN number, no author listed, etc. Even if real, not-notable. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Fails to produce any exact Google results. Kakofonous (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:V.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment This is very much a real, though self-published, book. It is available here: http://www.lulu.com/content/1811025 Keyboard Kommandos was a long-running and very popular webcomic, as Googling "Keyboard Kommandos" indicates. At least one of the strips was nominated for a Koufax Award. The proprietor of the website has taken down the on-line versions of the cartoons and created the book in question. While the book, by itself, may not be notable by Wikipedia, the web comic most certainly was, and as the book is the only form in which the webcomic is presently available, I believe that it should have a wikipedia page. Let me add that I have no interest (except as a consumer) in The Poorman or the book in question. Thanks for your consideration! BenA (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Self-published is virtually always non-notable. Edward321 (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Unfortunately the Koufax Awards did not survive AFD so that's not a claim to notability. This wasn't a standalone webcomic, it was a feature in the blog The Poor Man Institute (which has now taken the name Liberal Fascism, I guess, for branding/culture-jamming purposes). thepoorman.net does not have an article, either. At best this is an additional bit that could be in such an article should it be sourced well enough to pass muster. I dunno if it could be, though. --Dhartung | Talk 08:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge and redirect

[edit] That Day (One Buck Short)

Non-notable singles by One Buck Short which is also up for deletion.

I am also listing the following articles for the same reason:

And the album that the songs are on, for lack of notability:

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete All None of these songs ever charted or were notable for any reason. All fail WP:MUSIC Doc Strange (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep (10:04, but maybe others—I haven't looked) 10:04 mentions that it is popular on Malaysian English radio. It needs a reference, but keep for now. « D. Trebbien (talk) 18:44 2008 February 3 (UTC)

On second thought, merge into One Buck Short, keeping content « D. Trebbien (talk) 22:31 2008 February 3 (UTC)

Merge and Redirect to parent article. Doesn't meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY.--Sallicio 09:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect per D. Trebbien. D.M.N. (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. JERRY ^talk _contribs 18:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] One Buck Short

Does not seem to satisfy any criteria of WP:BAND and has no sources for any claims of notability made. The article claims that they have only just released a debut album on a apparently minor (independant?) record label, have only opened for other acts and have some airplay for a single (again these claims are unsourced). Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

~~Delete~~' – In fact should be speedy deleted for copyright violation as noted here [18]. If the article can be rewritten and sources supplied I would change my opinion. Shoessss | Chat 16:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep – We, as in Wikipedia, not me personaly, appreciate cleaning-up the copyright violation. But the article still needs some work on grammer and speeling (Yes that was intentional). However, I see enough coverage, international not necessarily English speaking (But enough), to say they have established notability. Shoessss | Chat

Speedy Delete Copyvio. Even if it wasn't the band is NN per WP:MUSIC anyhow Doc Strange (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Weak Delete becuase the copyvio has been removed. they don't pass WP:MUSIC and the article still doesn't assert notability. Doc Strange (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete as copyvio of this page, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Will the deleting admin also see that the template is deleted as well? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Weak delete Copyvio removed (props to the nom for doing so), but I still don't see quite enough to pass WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep I see no reason to harm our coverage of the Malaysian music scene by deleting this article. Clean-up is needed, but not deletion. Catchpole (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You have not given a legitimate reason for keeping. The question is notability not whether you feel it "harms coverage of the Malaysian music scene". Please adddress the notability concern, including the issue of sources. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a perfectly legitimate reason to keep the article. Delivering notability shrubberies doesn't always help the encyclopedia, there are other ways of improving this article other than deletion. Catchpole (talk) 17:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry but the question here is whether the article is about a notable subject, Wikipedia only contains articles on notable subjects. You cannot just dismiss this fundamental requirement. Can you provide an argument for notability, or not? Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The band might satisfy criteria 11: "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network." « D. Trebbien (talk) 22:54 2008 February 3 (UTC)

Thanks. The article does claim that "The first single of the band's debut album (Halal & Loving It), "Fast Times", had significant airplay on Malaysian English radio.", but I do not see any claim that it has gone on "rotation" at a "major radio network", and certainly there are no sources to back that up currently. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 23:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't speak Malay, so I don't know if any of this is true. You are right to point out that there is not a cited source for this, but also keep in mind that there is at least one Malaysian who is taking interest in this article (kawaputra) and there are several news sources (some of the other editors have added links to search results). Thus, it isn't implausible. « D. Trebbien (talk) 03:02 2008 February 4 (UTC)

Comment. We should be careful to make sure that, just because One Buck Short isn't notable in the US or other countries, that doesn't necessarily make them NN in their home country. We need to make sure that they are indeed NN entities there, too. This goes for the individual band members and recordings articles also up for AFD. I'd hate to see the Malysian equivalent of Sid Vicious deleted simply because we haven't heard of him over here. I lack enough knowledge of the subject to provide an informed opinion as to whether to keep or delete, so I abstain for now. 23skidoo (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Foreign notability is a sketchy issue, but the basis of Wikipedia content inclusion (WP:V, WP:OR, WP:N) is proper sourcing and there doesn't appear to be any available sources for this group. It's unfortunate when something that might potentially be notable gets deleted, but we can't just assume that sources might exist. There is an essay about this floating around Wikipedia, but I don't have the link handy. Doctorfluffy (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep I have fixed the copyvio'd portion of the article. With regards to being NN, the band satisfied some criterias from Wikipedia:BAND#Criteria for musicians and ensembles (only needed to satisfy one criteria). kawaputra^torque 17:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Request Can you please indicate which criteria you feel it satisfies? Also, could you please comment on the issue of sources? Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope i got it right:

C.1: Jakarta Post, New Straits Times

C.2: Fly fm, Hitz.fm (local radio stnz), also implies satisfaction of C.11. kawaputra^torque 10:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Appears to fail WP:MUSIC. No secondary sources appear to be available to verify notability or provide critical commentary, sales figures, etc. Doctorfluffy (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep enough said Pegasus «C¦T» 21:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you say a bit more? Such as which notability criteria you feel this is evidence of the band meeting. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep "2007 SingFest music festival in Singapore". Some of their songs are apparently popular on Malaysian English radio. Editors seem to be confusing famous/well-known with notable, which only means worthy of note. « D. Trebbien (talk) 22:39 2008 February 3 (UTC)

Can you please explain which notability criteria you feel this is evidence of the band meeting? Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep as meeting the primary notability criterion, multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources intellectually independent of the subject, as evidenced by the GNews search which User:Pegasus linked to. cab (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete all. JERRY ^talk _contribs 18:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Band members of One Buck Short

I am nominating the five biographical articles above as there only claim to notability is membership (or previous membership) of the band One Buck Short which I have nominated for deletion on the basis that it fails WP:BAND on all counts. As the only claim for all of the bios is the same (membership of the band) listing them together seems to make sense. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 15:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete All According to WP:MUSIC "Members of notable bands are not given individual articles unless they have demonstrated notability for activity independent of the band", which apparently they haven't. Even if the band hypothetically passed WP:MUSIC, the band members don't. However, not even the band itself passes WP:MUSIC anyhow. All fail WP:MUSIC Doc Strange (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete All as the band don't even match the notability criteria. (GowsiPowsi (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC))
Strong delete all, even images as they assert no notability whatsoever, and the band they're in is clearly non-notable. On second thought, Speedy delete A7 for all of them, no notability asserted whatsoever, so tagged. And oh yeah, don't forget the images. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge into One Buck Short « D. Trebbien (talk) 22:32 2008 February 3 (UTC)

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

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

The result was a non-admin keep with consensus endorsing the belief that the subject is notable. SorryGuy Talk 06:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wambui Otieno

This article stood out to me as not being worthy of an encyclopaedia. It doesn't establish who Wambui Otieno is, or why we should care. Other than it having the Category:Kenyan politicians at the bottom, I wouldn't even have a clue as to who they are. It is entirely without references, and for all I know is plagiarised from someone's personal essay on the person. This article might be worth keeping, but it needs serious work, and I thought that an AFD might be a good way to get it the work required. PS sorry for the mess ups, this is the first article I've nominated for AFD. Dyinghappy (talk) 14:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep Requires clean-up and sourcing, not deletion. Catchpole (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).. Punkmorten (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  - Um, how do you know that it needs keeping? It doesn't establish notability at all. A google search gets a barely notable 5,340 hits, and the first hit is almost word for word identical to this article [19], which indicates, as I said, that this article represents plagiarism. Dyinghappy (talk) 15:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  - I did fix the page, per the information in Google hits. Her brother, a former foreign minister, Manyua Waiyaki does not have an article, nor does her husband Peter Mbugua. So why is she famous? Because she, aged 67, married someone aged 25. She had her 15 minutes of fame, back in 2003, and now she is a nobody. Dyinghappy (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    - Why doesn't her brother have an article? If he were the foreign minister of a European nation, he would, but WP:BIAS means that he doesn't. There's probably more than enough information in Kenyan newspapers and Wambui's autobiography to write an article on him, and I'd bet there's some decent biographical information published by a Kenyan reliable source.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment. Passes WP:V but maybe not WP:BIO because being notable for one event (WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS) is not enough to warrant a biography. There has to be evidence that either this had some sort of lasting significance, or that she was notable for her work as a politician, otherwise it'll have to be a delete.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep – The women is notable! First three hits on Google News were (2) from the Washington Post and the third from the BBC. That in and of itself established notability. See here for sources [20][. Shoessss | Chat 16:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:BIO1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. Her notability depends on how important she was as a politician, not anything else.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Why should her notability depend only on "how important she was as a politician, not anything else"? Notability depends on how well she meets the requirements of WP:N and WP:BIO. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes I did read it and have interpreted the policy, as it states in the opening sentence: “…When a person is associated with only one event, such as for a particular relatively unimportant crime or for standing for governmental election, consideration needs to be given to the need to create a standalone article on the person." Hence, keep the person as there is no article on the event. Call it a difference of opinion :-). Shoessss | Chat 16:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep; international news coverage is frequently notable. So are founders of political parties.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep notable enough when searched on Google. http://www.jendajournal.com/issue7/kariuki.html (GowsiPowsi (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC))
Comment: Of the 5,000 Google hits, they almost exclusively talk about her 2003 marriage, as a 67 year old, to a 25 year old guy, an incident which gave her 15 minutes of fame, and is not sufficiently notable to warrant an article 5 years later. Corey Delaney threw a party which received worldwide media attention, and gets over 666,000 google hits, yet we decided not to have an article on him, because it was a momentary incident, and wouldn't matter to anyone years later. This is the same kind of case, except that we are already 5 years later. Dyinghappy (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- As I understood it, we decided not to have an article on Corey Delaney because he was a kid who did some stupid stuff one night. Unlike that article, this article discusses the life-choices of a mature woman and is not a negative article. Moreover, she's notable outside of this, as the founder of a political party.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  - If she was a leader of a political party, then she's notable. But simply being a mature woman who can make her own life choices, even if controversial, does not in itself make her any more notable than Corey Delaney.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

'Sorry to say – Yes – it does, In that, she was not any older ordinary women, who made that choice, but a woman who was notable enough to generate articles in the Washington post. Shoessss | Chat 21:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't make her more notable than Corey Delaney. But I think Corey Delaney is plenty notable. The reasons we deleted Corey Delaney didn't have a whole lot to do with notability; the question as I remember it was whether we have an article on a person which would cover one stupid party done as a minor and present the entire life as one stupid mistake. The fact she's an adult and this is a major decision, not a stupid mistake, makes this different.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to sidetrack matters too much, but Corey Delaney's party wasn't "a stupid mistake". He has gotten media deals and is in consultation for his own show starting next year, and is going to appear on Big Brother next year, albeit as a guest as he is too young to appear on the show proper. I am quite certain that Corey Delaney is very much proud of what he did. If it was deleted for being a stupid mistake, that was a poor reason. Dyinghappy (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

STOP - This discussion page is for the article as it pertains to Wambui Otieno. If you cannot contribute, as it relates to the article, please do not participate. Shoessss | Chat 21:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the sidetrack. Would it be appropriate for me to delete the side track? Dyinghappy (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Just leave it, please, and continue the discussion about Wambui Otieno below. As I said, it's what information can be found per WP:V about her political activities that determines whether I think this article should be here or not.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep She is notable neither for her marriage to a younger man, nor for her unsuccessful candidacies, but for her 1994 legal case that established modern legal rights of wives in polygamous marriages vs. tribal law. There's a whole chapter on the case in this book. --Dhartung | Talk 08:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Can you add it to the article? I note that you haven't got around to doing that yet. Dyinghappy (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. The sources found clearly establish notability, whether they are for her political activity, her marriage or her involvement in the legal case found by Dhartung. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fen Line Users Association

This article seems to show no referencing and other things. All it does is give the history of the group and aspirations of what the group want done. I'm not sure it is notable enough. Simply south (talk) 13:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Kakofonous (talk) 15:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per Kakofonous - WP:NOT a soapbox. Notability not established. — ERcheck (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete for reasons above (GowsiPowsi (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC))
Delete as per other reasons, and Move to http://train.spottingworld.com, where such articles are welcomed! BG 7 17:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete as above, though parts of the article could be included as a summary in Fen Line. Tivedshambo (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete as not convinced that it satisfies the notability criteria. Adambro (talk) 17:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete: just a brief mention of the group's existence on the Fen Line article is all that's needed here. --RFBailey (talk) 15:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was transwiki to Wikibooks. I've placed a request on Wikibooks for a transwiki to be carried out. Neıl ☎ 11:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction to metrics, norms and inner products

Proposed for deletion by Leolaursen with reason: "The tutorial style is against WP:NOT#MANUAL. If these subjects really merits an introduction, the article should be split-apart." Indeed, the first sentence of the article is "The following article is an introductory tutorial to inner products, norms and metrics." Such articles are probably welcome at Wikibooks but not in an encyclopaedia. There is no information in the article beyond the three articles inner product space, norm (mathematics) and metric (mathematics). So I propose to transwiki and delete the article. Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Move to Wikibooks where this is just the sort of material that is needed. -- The Anome (talk) 14:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Move to Wikibooks: although we on Wikipedia do, occasionally, have "introductory" articles on complicated topics, in this case I think a move to an appropriate project such as Wikibooks is the best solution. S. Proudleduck (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Move to Wikibooks: this article has just begun, so it is hard to definitely say it has a howto style, but it seemed to me that it was intended to assist the reader attempting the first homework set on these problems. I believe such problems were recently discussed on LiveJournal's math help community. If the article was truly meant as a conceptual introduction to these topics, then I think it would be suitable. The article Group (mathematics) has sections with {{main|Topic}} tags which basically only serve to introduce the topics in a nice overview. Such an article for Rudin's Principles of M.A. style topology would be useful, but the current seems much more like an attempt at a textbook companion. JackSchmidt (talk) 04:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Move to Wikibooks. Paul August ☎ 02:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete as crude copyvio; I considered a redirect to bisector but this is an unlikely typo. Pegasus «C¦T» 06:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bisector plan

This article seems to be a mistake in translation; it appears to be about a bisector plane. However, we have lumped all such content into bisection. Rather than merging from a spurious term, I suggest outright deletion. Mangoe (talk) 13:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

As is, the text appears to be unsalvageable: as far as I can see, this appears to be at least partially machine-translated from the source given at http://assex.altervista.org/prog-grafica/tav2005/tav7-1.htm -- either delete as copyvio, or delete as unsalvageable content where a total rewrite would be needed to make an intelligible article. -- The Anome (talk) 14:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. and The Anome. I don't think anything useful can be salvaged. JohnCD (talk) 15:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete – Agree with nominator. Looks like a mistake and should read bisection plane, which is already covered under Bisection. Shoessss | Chat 16:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per above. Poor translation; does not merit merging; intended to be "plane", not "plan". — ERcheck (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Translating the text from the source (poorly) doesn't make the text freely licensed. So tagged. (Even disregarding copyright issues, though, this is so badly translated as to be practically useless.) Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've run this through Google and Babelfish, and while there seems to be some commonality of terminology, I wouldn't call it a copyvio per se. Not that it makes much difference. Mangoe (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 07:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Greg Turk

Prod tagged twice, redirected and brought back. This associate prof is best "known" for being the junior developer of the Stanford Bunny and would no doubt be embarassed to learn that he has a Wikipedia page. Somebody at Georgia Tech seems to be creating numerous pages on professors and departments without being aware of Wikipedia's notability requirements. No outside sources demonstrating that he passes the very high bar of WP:PROF are provided. AnteaterZot (talk) 12:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Google Scholar [21] finds papers with 627, 576, 464, 309, 275, 238, 235, 222 & 216 citations, with a further 5 papers >100 citations, and a further 7 papers >50 citations. On several of these he is the first or second author. Highly cited research meets WP:PROF point 3. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Where do you see these numbers of citations? I'm using WebofKnowledge, and getting much lower numbers. AnteaterZot (talk) 12:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  - Oh, these are mostly conferences; posters and talks and so forth. These are hard to verify. As far as the other 5 points of Wikipedia:Notability (academics), I'll bet donuts to dollars he fails. AnteaterZot (talk) 12:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    - It's not my area at all, so my ideas of citation rates might be off, but even for review type publications >200 citations is a lot. As to the precise WP:PROF criteria, he certainly meets point 5 for originating a new concept; point 1 also seems likely from the high citations. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
      - As I read it, WP:PROF requires that reliable third-party sources make the claims of points 1 and 2. Point 5 requires multiple non-trivial mentions in review articles. As for point 3, the number of times he gets cited must be more than the other folks in his field, which seems citation-happy to me. AnteaterZot (talk) 13:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    - Re "oh, those are mostly conferences": in computer science in general, one publishes primarily in conferences, with a journal version later as a more archival record, but in computer graphics, this is taken to an extreme: one publishes only in conferences. If one has a paper in SIGGRAPH or Eurographics, it is not acceptable to then publish the same results in a journal: the conference is considered archival. These conference publications are highly selective and are considered much more important than the journals (such as ACM Trans. Graphics or Computer Graphics Forum). Web of Science has very bad coverage of this whole area, because of its emphasis on journals vis-a-vis conferences: it doesn't know about the conference publications and it doesn't know about the citations from other conference publications. Google Scholar is a much more appropriate choice. And as for WP:PROF, only one point need be satisfied, though it appears that Turk satisfies more than one. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
      - Question So, are you asserting that his publication record is much better than his peers? AnteaterZot (talk) 04:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
        
        WP:WAX. We shouldn't be questioning whether the record is better than certain other people (and how many peers would it have to be worse than, in how broad a subject area, to make him unnotable?), we should be questioning whether he is himself notable. But since you asked, I found this list of graphics researchers which happens to include him and seems like a pretty representative set of peers to compare him to (its length is a reasonable number of names to include in Wikipedia, I think, and anyway it's of comparable length to Category:Computer graphics professionals). I tried searching the first dozen or so names on the list in Google scholar, and Turk seems very much to fit with the rest; he doesn't stand out as being either significantly better or worse than them. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
        
        I'm trying to interpret the guidelines given at WP:PROF. About 1 in 1000 adults in the US is a college professor, so we have to be sure on notability. And you're saying he's average. AnteaterZot (talk) 05:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
        
        That is a blatant misinterpretation of what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that someone in Hong Kong took the trouble to make a list of the top computer graphics researchers, Turk was one of them, and the evidence indicates that he deserves his position on that list. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
        
        The Hong Kong source doesn't say "top" anywhere, it is just a list. Maybe they're his friends or something. AnteaterZot (talk) 05:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
        
        Fine. Since you won't believe what I find, make a list yourself of the top researchers in graphics, of similar length to Category:Computer graphics professionals, or use Category:Computer graphics professionals itself, do the Google scholar searches yourself, and tell me how he stacks up. I'm trying to remain civil here, but your disingenuity is making it difficult. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
        
        The other guys in that category have authored books and have patents or awards. One I just glanced at won an Academy Award for CGI. AnteaterZot (talk) 05:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
        
        Which are enough to pass WP:PROF, but not the only way to pass it. I started doing the same Google Scholar comparison for the other members of that category, but got bored after the first few. Author, number of papers with over 100 citations (Google scholar search, restricted to Engineering, CS, and Math): Abel, 0. Akeley, 4. Apodaca, 0. Bezier, 1. Blinn, 6. Carpenter, 5. Catmull, 5. Clark, 15. Cook, 6. Crow, 3. Csuri, 0. Remember, for comparison: Turk, 14. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
        
        There's a caveat (#5) about relying on Google Scholar WP:PROF page. AnteaterZot (talk) 06:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
        
        Yes. It says that Google Scholar works well for computer science, less well for other fields. Fortunately, we are looking at computer scientists here. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
        
        And it says older works won't even show up. AnteaterZot (talk) 06:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
        
        Well, then, it's mistaken. Older works show up just fine. What doesn't show up is older citations. But in this case even that's a red herring, because the whole ACM back library is included. Look, if you're trying to insinuate that there's something untrustworthy about Turk's citation record, can you say more explicitly what it is? If there were missing data, it would only make him look better. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
        
        Older sitations don't show up for the other guys, maybe. Given that Turk has been doing all that publishing and getting all those citations, I would like to know what he has been doing. AnteaterZot (talk) 06:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  - (arbitrary unindent) More specifically than computer graphics? That Hong Kong page that you didn't like says reaction-diffusion and surface reconstruction. Or you could look at the titles of his highly cited papers... —David Eppstein (talk) 07:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    - The best way to be sure that those topics are something he is known for would be a would be a review paper saying something like "Turk's pioneering work on X," or a huge grant for a topic he owns, or semething from a national newspaper or magazine mentioning his contributions. Something from the secondary or tertiary literature attesting to his noteworthiness. AnteaterZot (talk) 08:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 12:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Very well known graphics researcher. 14 papers with over 100 citations each, a very impressive citation record. Several of the best cited papers are single-author. Chair of SIGGRAPH, the most important graphics conference. It does seem that, at least as of a couple of years ago, he is or was associate rather than full; if so, I have no idea what his department is thinking, because his publication record and time since degree looks like that of a full professor to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe the fact that he is still an associate prof means that his own Dept knows more than you do? I cannot just accept your word that he is notable; where are the sources? AnteaterZot (talk) 04:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  - Are you denying that he has that many papers with that many citations, or that he is the chair of SIGGRAPH'08? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    - Neither, of course. What WP:PROF says is that there must be reliable sources that explicitly state that the body of work is notable. If no such sources exist, then you can't claim he passes points 1 or 2. AnteaterZot (talk) 05:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
      - It says no such thing. It says there should be sources that show that he's notable. That's not the same as having a source containing the exact sentence "Greg Turk meets the notability standard for inclusion in Wikipedia." There are sources: the thousands of papers that cite his. Collectively, they show that his body of work is significant and well known (WP:PROF #4), and that his specific highly-cited papers are significant and well-known (WP:PROF #3). Additionally, his selection as technical chair for SIGGRAPH indicates that he is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area (WP:PROF #1). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
        
        Saying it vehemently doesn't make it so. And using strawman arguments is uncool. I'll leave it others to read the article, look at the various guidelines and policies and weigh our arguments. AnteaterZot (talk) 05:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. This is obviously not a great article but Turk is one of the biggest names in the field of computer graphics. MaxVeers (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep - A published academic and notable in his field; he's technical papers chair for SIGGRAPH 2008, after all. "Embarrassed" about having a Wikipedia article? The guy should be proud. — X S G 22:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Listed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep per Eppstein. Tparameter (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep per Eppstein. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 00:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy keep Turk is a notable researcher in the field of computer graphics. AnteaterZot seems to be on a crusade against Georgia Tech academics! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- A. I'm not on any crusade; it appeared to me, from the two sentence article I came across, that someone was creating articles for every professor there. AnteaterZot (talk) 04:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  
  I have no opinion on your crusading tendencies, but you certainly seem to be zealous regarding this deletion and inquisitorial to good faith, responsible, assertions of notability, rather than open-minded and fairly inquisitive. If you were deleting a bunch that were overhastily created, great, but even if 9 out of 10 sucked, 1 might be good. --Lquilter (talk) 13:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- B. BTW, being chair of the conference may be important, but we need a third-party source that says being the chair of that conference is notable. AnteaterZot (talk) 04:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  
  We don't need a source that says that the chair of SIGGRAPH is notable for this discussion; the good faith assertion of knowledgeable editors is sufficient for a discussion. We also don't need to cite the notability of the conference in the Turk article, by the way; that would be a distraction. Such a citation needs only be in the article on the conference. --Lquilter (talk) 13:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC
  
  Really? I'd like to see where that was entered into a guideline. AnteaterZot (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- C. As it stands right now, the article consists of three sentences; He is a CG associate prof at GT, he worked on the Bunny, and he was technical papers chair of a conference with many initials. A user of Wikipedia would have no idea what any of this means, and nowhere does the article provide reliable sources for the notability of working on the Bunny nor being technical papers chair of a conference. He may be well-known within his field (although no source explicitly says so), which makes me still question his notability. I'm pretty sure the Google search cannot be used as a citation, too. AnteaterZot (talk) 04:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  - While I agree that the article as it stands doesn't do the best job at asserting/explaining his notability (with it being three sentences and all), your edit summaries of "Deletion proposed. Somebody at Georgia Tech is busy creating pages for professors and departments without being aware of Wikpedia's notability requirements." do sound a little bit crusade-ish. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    - Please assume that I am operating in good faith. There were a cluster of articles, and I made what may or may not be a bad assumption. And even if I was "out to get" this article, the debate must address the merits, not my actions. AnteaterZot (talk) 05:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
      - You do know that "associate" professor means he's gotten tenure. It's not "assistant" professor. --Lquilter (talk) 13:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
        
        Yes. AnteaterZot (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep - Technical papers chair for SIGGRAPH 2008 is *not* an easy feat. The article may need work but I think it would be a better use of our energy (and more in line with what Wikipedia is supposed to contain) if we try to improve and expand the article rather than removing it. --Ubardak (talk) 06:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- If this were the Computer Graphics Wiki, then such a feat would count. But every article on Wikipedia needs to demonstrate notability outside the narrow confines of its field. AnteaterZot (talk) 06:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  - I think so far all the editors who posted a vote here already thinks that he does demonstrate notability. I really fail to see how further discussion will change people's votes or attract people voting otherwise. The sheer number of published and cited papers should be enough for notability and then there is being the SIGGRAPH 2008 chair on top of that as well. Does one need to win an Oscar in order to get a Wikipedia article if she/he is in CG ? --Ubardak (talk) 06:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    - By the rules of AfD, these are "not votes". I was directed to compare him to the other members of the category; you should take a look at them too. AnteaterZot (talk) 06:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
      - Bad choice of word on my part - does "opinion" suit your tastes better? The main idea behind my statement remains which is that you have your peers disagreeing with you overwhelmingly about this person's notability. I did (and am) looking at other members of the category. --Ubardak (talk) 06:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
        
        It's just that the opinions of people in the field are informed by their immersion in the subject. That's why Wikipedia wants to see sources outside the field attest to the notability of a topic. AnteaterZot (talk) 06:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
        
        Comment. Where in policy or guidelines does it say that "Wikipedia wants to see sources outside the field attest to the notability of a topic." You may want that, but I see no evidence that it is Wikipedia's opinion, which is formed by consensus. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
        
        Mostly it's in here. AnteaterZot (talk) 09:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
        
        Sorry, but I still can't see anything that says or implies that sources need to be "outside the field". Phil Bridger (talk) 09:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
        
        It says, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." It goes on to say, * "Presumed" means objective evidence meets the criterion, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors. Non-notability is a rebuttable presumption based only on a lack of suitable evidence of notability, which becomes moot once evidence is found. It is not possible to prove non-notability because that would require a negative proof. Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable. However, many subjects presumed to be notable may still not be worthy of inclusion – they fail What Wikipedia is not, or the coverage does not actually support notability when examined. For example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, minor news stories, and coverage with low levels of discrimination, are all examples of information that may not be evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation, despite their existence as reliable sources.
        
        "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker. "Tough love child of Kennedy", The Guardian, 1992-01-06. ) is plainly trivial.
        
        "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. Self-promotion, autobiography, and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works should be someone else writing independently about the topic. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it. Otherwise, someone could give their own topic as much notability as they want by simply expounding on it outside of Wikipedia, which would defeat the purpose of the concept. Also, neutral sources should exist in order to guarantee a neutral article can be written — self-promotion is not neutral (obviously), and self-published sources often are biased if even unintentionally: see Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for discussion of neutrality concerns of such sources. Even non-promotional self-published sources, in the rare cases they may exist, are still not evidence of notability as they do not measure the attention a subject has recieved by the world at large.
        
        "Sources,"Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article. defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred. Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. Mere republications of a single source or news wire service do not always constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing articles in the same geographic region about an occurrence, does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article within the same geographic region from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works.
        
        "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large. See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for handling of such situations.
        
        A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article." AnteaterZot (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
        
        Comment. I can see that you can copy and paste like the best of them, but none of that answers my question: where in all that does it say that sources have to be "outside the field", which was what you claimed? Phil Bridger (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
        
        The crux of the nominator's point is "independent of the subject". Unfortunately, it does not mean what he thinks it means. "Independent of the subject" does not mean "outside the field" and I have never seen that even asserted. Of course, mainstream press coverage of a scientist would be a very strong indicator of notability, but it is by no means required. --Lquilter (talk) 13:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
        
        Reply I have seen it asserted. For example, many a video game character and D&D article have been deleted even though they had sources (typicaly reviews) from the video game and D&D communities that were independent of the companies that published the games. AnteaterZot (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
        
        Furthermore, the Greg Turk article still does not have sources (even from within the CG community) that assert his notability. His papers are listed and their high numbers of citations are provided, and the fact that he is tech papers chair of SIGGRAPH is sourced, but that's it. AnteaterZot (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep SIGGRAPH '08 tech papers chair is by far enough notability by itself. The impact of SIGGRAPH is enormous. It's the richest and most visible of all the ACM SIGs. Pete St.John (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - chair of siggraph is highly notable in CS. David Eppstein's research also shows notability of published articles & cites per WP:PROF. --Lquilter (talk) 13:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Question Does anybody have a source that says that chair of technical papers of SIGGRAPH is notable? AnteaterZot (talk) 19:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Google found [22], which attests to the conference's importance as a publications vehicle within the computing field, showing the importance of its chair of technical papers (the equivalent of the editor-in-chief of a high-impact conventional journal). Espresso Addict (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Viridae ^Talk 07:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Maritime Football League

Contested prod, asked to be discussed here. Original reason for prod was Fails WP:ORG, only 56 direct hits in google, most of which are wikipedia mirrors and not one of them reliable, fails WP:V. No opinion from my side. Tone 11:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep Semi-pro league that plays Canadian football, covers a large geographical area and has been in opeartion for seven seasons. Since googling "Maritime Football League" yields 3,720 results, I'm impressed that nom went through all of those and eliminated 3,664 of them. However, "hard work" is not an excuse for keeping or deleting. Mandsford (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
here's the exact google hits count Secret ^account 20:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

So why do I get [this]? Mandsford (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Because most of those pages listed is dupicates, you have to click on the fifth or sixth page of hits to find out the exact number. 131.94.55.71 (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete without the proper Reliable, seceutrary sourcing, an article can't exist, fails WP:N Secret ^account 20:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep Of those 56 hits, the majority are either official league pages or provincial/national football bodies. There are also local newspaper articles listed. As it is a major football league in Eastern Canada (to the point of having a University field a sponsored team) it deserves a page. It requires a rewrite, but does not constitute a deletion. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 04:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Official league pages aren't indepentent of the article required for WP:N, local news coverege isn't the significant converage needed for N, and I don't even see that, the majority I see are mirrors. Secret (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
KEEP (Provisionally), if the author (or interested party) adds references for statistics and third-party citations for notability.--Sallicio 09:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Can you give a policy based reasoning please, i searched for sources myself, I couldn't find anything, if not I would have never made the AFD in the first place. Secretalt (talk) 03:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Nn. D.M.N. (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 07:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Firebugs

Unreferenced, short article about a subject which is not notable enough to have its own article. Can be deleted, or at least merged to a general topic. Please also notice that the page has been there since 2004, so if there was any chance to improve it, it should've taken place by now. huji—TALK 10:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete - barely more than a dicdef, no source cited. If there were any source, a sentence could be added to Arson#Motives. JohnCD (talk) 12:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Dicdef or a slang synonym for arsonist. Assertion that firebug is a sexually motivated arsonist is not only uncited, it's ridiculous. Emeraude (talk) 12:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Claim is "likely to be challenged", but source is impossible to find, plus WP:DICT. Kakofonous (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Can't find any references at all to this meaning! Jellogirl (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I've heard this slang term, it's mainly in British usage I believe, and from my own experience I can say that it exists, but equally, it's nothing more than a dictionary definition, failing a core conctent policy of Wikipedia: WP:WINAD.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I said I could not find any references to this meaning, i.e. the sexual motivation. I'm aware of the word. Jellogirl (talk) 10:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
It's used in the US, but mainly in headlinese. My hometown had a "firebug" terrorizing us for about two years back in the early 80s. --Dhartung | Talk 08:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete as trivial dicdef and redirect to firebug as the plural of that.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete and redirect to firebug, which already includes the correct hatnote to pyromania, which is the formal name for the diagnosis in question. Firebug is an old term in the literature dating back to 1951, but we don't need two articles. --Dhartung | Talk 08:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 07:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nazar - A South Asian Perspective

Non-notable website. (Contested PROD) Rocket000 (talk) 10:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete - does not meet WP:WEB. JohnCD (talk) 12:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete, appears not to be a notable website.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete for reasons above. (GowsiPowsi (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC))
Delete per above. --Antonio Lopez ^(talk)01:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 07:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Raley

This preacher's notability appears to rest solely on the fact he has a TV show on some of the largest Christian networks, but I can find no references that show this is actually true. For instance, this Google search returns only one hit - this Wikipedia page. The show does exist, but I can only find references to it being on AOL TV and INSP - though it isn't even mentioned there. Black Kite 10:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Strong Keep - 1) Jim Raley certainly exists [23] and is what the article claims him to be, ergo this is not a hoax. 2) Possess the Land certainly exists [24] so that is not a hoax either. 3) Possess the Land is shown on TBN [25] so that is not a hoax either. 4) Jim Raley does appear on Possess the Land [26]. It seems that what we have here is a failure for Google to be used properly. Try more appropriate search terms next time you use Google. Dyinghappy (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Maybe an article for Possess the Land should be created, and this article be merged there.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment. I did not suggest a hoax. Yes, Jim Raley certainly exists. Yes, "Possess The Land" certainly exists. Yes, Jim Raley appears on "Possess The Land". None of those make Jim Raley notable. Your link definitely does not confirm that "Possess The Land" appears on TBN (in fact, it's almost completely irrelevant - what it actually says is that a third party, Calvary Christian Center, has been featured on TBN and also on "Possess The Land"). And even if such a reference was found, that would only establish the notability of "Possess The Land", not Mr.Raley ,for whom independent notability has not been established. Black Kite 15:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete I cannot find Possess the Land OR Jim Raley on TBN's official website, which has a guide to its programming, searchable by both hosts and show title. Like Black Kite, I would be willing to change my vote if I could see something from Trinity Broadcasting that shows otherwise. That's one hell of a claim, so it's disturbing that the TBN website doesn't confirm these facts. Mandsford (talk) 17:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete as per Mandsford. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 17:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment User:Dyinghappy has inserted links into the article, including the one above which claim to show the show is broadcasted by TBN or Daystar. I have reverted these changes as they plainly do not show this, and left a note on the user's talkpage. I would be quite happy to withdraw this AfD (or at least redirect it to a new article Possess This Land) if such assertions could be proved, but as yet they are not. Black Kite 00:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The article was created with false information, an assertion that a person's show was "regularly" broadcast on one of the major religious cable networks. While I don't think it was intended as deception, that lack of attention to accuracy doesn't give me any assurance about the reliability of any other "fact" included in the article. Mandsford (talk) 01:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Count me out of this AFD and all future ones. If this is the way that people behave, I don't want any part of it. And please don't message me with nonsense. Dyinghappy (talk) 01:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
No problem. I can see where the mistake came about. cite #3 says that Mark & Gina Groover have been "featured on TBN's Praise the Lord" as well as "Calvary's flagship television broadcast Possess the Land". Two different shows. Honest mistake, but one that might not have been spotted if it weren't for Black Kite's so-called behavior. Have faith in the word of Christ-- be skeptical when it comes to anybody else. Mandsford (talk) 03:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 07:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jordan Russolillo

Player has not featured in a fully professional league GauchoDude (talk) 10:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Player has not featured in a fully professional league. While he is listed on the MLS roster for Chicago, he has not been in a game. Since he has not made an appearance, he is not notable per WP:BIO. Once he gets into a league game, the article can be recreated. GauchoDude (talk) 10:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. He's on the team. "Plays" on a team does not necessarily mean he has to actually play in a game for them. Backup players are still on a team. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Errr, yes it does. The criteria is "Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league". пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 20:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Not notable per WP:BIO. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:BIO. Peanut4 (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:BIO#Athletes. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 20:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep any current MLS player per 'WP:HOYTE' ArtVandelay13 (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete until and unless he makes a competitive professional appearance. - fchd (talk) 08:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete has not played in a fully professional league, if/when he does, the article can be recreated. King of the North East 11:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 07:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Chabala

Player has not featured in a fully professional league GauchoDude (talk) 10:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Player has not featured in a fully professional league. While he is listed on the MLS roster for Houston, he has not been in a game. Since he has not made an appearance, he is not notable per WP:BIO. Once he gets into a league game, the article can be recreated. GauchoDude (talk) 10:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. He's on the team. "Plays" on a team does not necessarily mean he has to actually play in a game for them. Backup players are still on a team. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Errr, yes it does. The criteria is "Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league". пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 20:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Not notable per WP:BIO. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:BIO#Athletes. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 20:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete has not played in a fully professional league, if/when he does, the article can be recreated. King of the North East 11:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 07:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Dello-Russo

Player has not featured for a fully professional league GauchoDude (talk) 10:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Player has not featured in a fully professional league. While he is listed on the MLS roster for FC Dallas, he has not been in a game. Since he has not made an appearance, he is not notable per WP:BIO. Once he gets into a league game, the article can be recreated. GauchoDude (talk) 10:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit for FC Dallas GauchoDude (talk) 10:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep. He's on the team. "Plays" on a team does not necessarily mean he has to actually play in a game for them. Backup players are still on a team. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Errr, yes it does. The criteria is "Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league". пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 20:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:BIO#Athletes. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 20:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep any current MLS player per 'WP:HOYTE ArtVandelay13 (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete has not played in a fully professional league, if/when he does, the article can be recreated. King of the North East 11:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep He has played for the professional club Minnesota Thunder, and it's possible that the USL First Division is fully professional. If not, he might qualify under the proposed notability standard that treats someone who has played for a professional club in a national league as notable. Jogurney (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Meets point 1 of the suggested new criteria (played for a professional club). Even if some issues still are to be ironed out there seem to be a concensus in favour of point 1 (even no57 and King of the NE agreed with this suggestion). Sebisthlm (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 07:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eric Kronberg

Player has not featured in a fully professional league GauchoDude (talk) 10:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Player has not featured in a fully professional league. While he is listed on the MLS roster for Kansas City, he has not been in a game. Since he has not made an appearance, he is not notable per WP:BIO. Once he gets into a league game, the article can be recreated. GauchoDude (talk) 10:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit for Kansas City GauchoDude (talk) 10:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep. He's on the team. "Plays" on a team does not necessarily mean he has to actually play in a game for them. Backup players are still on a team. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Not according to WP:BIO Peanut4 (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Not notable per WP:BIO. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:BIO. Peanut4 (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:BIO#Athletes. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 20:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Weak Delete. WP:BIO#Athletes reads: "Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis." Kronberg has not yet competed, however as a goalkeeper for the Kansas City Wizards in a fully professional league (Major League Soccer) he might compete at any time. — X S G 23:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete has not played in a fully professional league, if/when he does, the article can be recreated. King of the North East 11:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 07:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Duke Hashimoto

Player has not featured in a fully professional league GauchoDude (talk) 10:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Player has not featured in a fully professional league. While he is listed on the MLS roster for Salt Lake, he has not been in a game. Since he has not made an appearance, he is not notable per WP:BIO. Once he gets into a league game, the article can be recreated. GauchoDude (talk) 10:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. He's on the team. "Plays" on a team does not necessarily mean he has to actually play in a game for them. Backup players are still on a team. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Errr, yes it does. The criteria is "Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league". пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 20:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Not notable per WP:BIO. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:BIO#Athletes. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 20:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:BIO. How many more AfDs on non-notable footballers are we going to have? Until they play, footballers aren't notable. Can editors please hold fire. Rant over! Peanut4 (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete has not played in a fully professional league, if/when he does, the article can be recreated. King of the North East 11:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 07:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chad Dombrowski

Player has not featured in a fully professional league GauchoDude (talk) 10:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Player has not played in a fully professional league. Also, the USL is not the highest level of soccer competition in the United States, the MLS is. GauchoDude (talk) 10:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - he has played in a fully professional league - the Wikipedia entry for the USL First Division (the division Dombrowski currently plays in) states that "The United Soccer Leagues First Division (often referred to as simply, USL-1) is a professional men's soccer league in North America". GiantSnowman (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep Has played in a fully professional league (USL1). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 20:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - Easily meets the one appearance rule. matt91486 (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep meets WP:FOOTY notability criteria. King of the North East 11:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 07:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Behonick

Player has not featured in a fully professional league GauchoDude (talk) 10:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete - The player has not featured for a fully professional league. Also, the USL-1 is not the highest level of competition in the United States, the MLS is. The USL does not make a player notable. For more information on soccer player notability, please see WP:BIO. GauchoDude (talk) 10:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - he has played in a fully professional league; the Wikipedia entry for the USL First Division (Behonick's current division) states that "The United Soccer Leagues First Division (often referred to as simply, USL-1) is a professional men's soccer league in North America". GiantSnowman (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep Has played in a fully-pro league (USL1). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 20:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - USL1 appearances indicate notability. matt91486 (talk) 21:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep, meets WP:FOOTY notability criteria King of the North East 11:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep plays for professional club in USL-1. Jogurney (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 07:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Justin Hughes (soccer)

Player has not featured in a fully professional league GauchoDude (talk) 10:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Player has not made an appearance in a fully professional league. Also, international caps do not count for notability unless they are senior international caps. For more, see WP:BIO for athlete notability. GauchoDude (talk) 10:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Weak Keep - Whilst he hasn't represented a professional league, it is notable that he has represented his country at junior level. He is also only 22 years old, so is still considered to be a junior, hence this is still relevant. The likelihood is that he will at a minimum play professional soccer in a short period of time, and has a good chance to represent his country. This makes him notable. Dyinghappy (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Not notable per WP:BIO. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per WP:BIO. His representation at junior level doesn't make him notable yet. If he plays for his club or country then recreate. Peanut4 (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:BIO#Athletes. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 20:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep: AFAIK, international representation at U20 or above is usually taken as sufficient. Kevin McE (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - Amateur participation for his country at an international level qualifies him with the BIO guidelines. Neier (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete until and unless he makes a fully professional competitive appearance. - fchd (talk) 08:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep, as per Daniel Parslow, Wales Under-21 player, who was kept despite never playing in a fully professional league. Under-20 is the highest level of youth football in North America (except Olympics). There has been no formalisation of this precedent, but playing in the U-20 World Cup is the highest level of youth football. I will raise the subject at WP:FOOTY King of the North East 11:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 07:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shane Brewer

Player has not featured in a fully professional league GauchoDude (talk) 09:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete This player has not played in a fully professional league ... semi-professional does not count as stated in WP:BIO. When said player appears for a fully professional team, then he would be worthy of an article. For international schoolboy appearances, international appearances do not count unless you are a full international. Simply being a youth international does not qualify one for being noteworthy, captain or not. GauchoDude (talk) 09:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete, the reasoning presented by the nominator holds truth. Punkmorten (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Not notable per WP:BIO. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 20:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment - I don't know how this factors in to anything at all, but I just wanted to note that he has played in an FA Cup match, shown here. I'm not saying this necessarily indicates nobility, but I just wanted to make sure all of the information was known. matt91486 (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 07:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sam O'Sullivan

Player has not featured in a fully professional league GauchoDude (talk) 09:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete This player has not played in a fully professional league ... semi-professional does not count as stated in WP:BIO. When said player appears for a fully professional team, then he would be worthy of an article. For international schoolboy appearances, international appearances do not count unless you are a full international. Simply being a youth international does not qualify one for being noteworthy. GauchoDude (talk) 09:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete, the reasoning presented by the nominator holds truth. Punkmorten (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete for reasons above. (GowsiPowsi (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC))
Delete Not notable per WP:BIO. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 20:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 13:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Viridae ^Talk 07:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of foreign football players in Vyscha Liha

I also nominate

All the list were CURRENT list, not past and present. Compare to List of foreign Serie A players, the year and previous clubs were missing, and all the past players too. It can be replaced by more effective Category:Expatriate football players in Romania, Category:Expatriate football players in Ukraine, Category:Expatriate football players in Greece, Category:Expatriate football players in Bulgaria. Matthew_hk t c 09:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —Matthew_hk t c 11:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Matthew_hk t c 11:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

* Strong Delete - I am not convinced that this is useful, or interesting, to anyone. Vyscha_Liha is a football team in the Ukraine, who are hardly well known as a great footballing nation (and certainly not for their domestic competition), as the competition itself has only existed for 17 years. Vyscha Liha is not considered to be notable enough for its own article (it is a redirect to Ukrainian Premier League), therefore it is surely a no brainer that something about who is a foreign player in this obscure side is not relevant either. It just isn't interesting, unless you are an obsessed fan of Vyscha Liha who likes to make lists that nobody else would find interesting. Dyinghappy (talk) 14:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

- Comment. It appears that Vyscha Liha is not a team; rather, it is the Ukrainian name for their "Premier League". See Ukrainian Premier League. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  - Oops - lost in translation there! Good pick up. If it were a side, then it should be deleted, but if its for the entire competition, thats another matter entirely. Dyinghappy (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Weak Delete - Ukraine is not a particularly strong footballing country, and the Ukrainian Premier League (also known as Vyscha Liha) has only existed for 17 years. Whilst they do participate in the UEFA cup, something so obscure as who is a foreign player is not particularly relevant, or interesting. Whilst it does give some indication as to how popular soccer is in Ukraine (as in - because they have foreign players it indicates that they are recognised by foreign countries), this is not particularly exciting, as every country's domestic competition has international players - this is the nature of what football is. This list really isn't very useful to anyone, other than people who desperately want to find out if Ukraine might one day be more powerful as a football country than they are now. Far too obscure. Dyinghappy (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- You should know that the most important teams in Ukraine, Dinamo and Shakhtar participate almost every year in the UEFA Champions League. You said that the league is not an important one but Dinamo Kiev has won the UEFA Super Cup and two UEFA Cup Winners' Cups; and in 1977, 1987, and 1999 the club reached the semifinals of UEFA Champions League. Mario1987 (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Actually there's a pretty good reason why this league has only been in existence for only 17 years, and if you don't know it then I'm not sure that you have the required standard of general knowledge to make any useful contribution to discussions such as this. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Further comment. As regards Ukraine not being a strong footballing country, UEFA rates the Vyscha Liha as the 11th strongest league in Europe. I don't know of any official world ranking for leagues, but I can't imagine that any non-European leagues outside of Brazil and Argentina would be anywhere near this level, so this is one of the top 13 leagues in the world. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete for reason above. (GowsiPowsi (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC))
Keep but expand to the entire countries in question. I think the lists are far more useful than the corresponding categories, and reduce overcategorisation. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep because this is a current list of foreign football players that are active in the Ukrainian Premier League which is updated regularly. Mario1987 (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep all, and expand to incude former players on the lines of List of foreign Serie A players. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep per ArtVandelay13. D.M.N. (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep (provisionally) it needs references.--Sallicio 05:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 07:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Matt Prosser

Player has not played in a fully professional league GauchoDude (talk) 09:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete This player has not played in a fully professional league ... semi-professional does not count as stated in WP:BIO. When said player appears for a fully professional team, then he would be worthy of an article. GauchoDude (talk) 09:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete, the reasoning presented by the nominator holds truth. Punkmorten (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete for reason above. (GowsiPowsi (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC))
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Not notable per WP:BIO. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per WP:BIO. Even the article asserts his own NN. Peanut4 (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Eddie6705 (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was The result is redirect to List of people from Rotterdam, if some players missing in the main article you can transfer those if necessary.--JForget 00:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of football players from Rotterdam

Not encyclopedic, it just share the function of Category:people from Rotterdam and List of people from Rotterdam Matthew_hk t c 09:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment How does it share the function of List of people from Rotterdam? Everybody from Rotterdam is a notable football player? Torc2 (talk) 10:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment It can be merged to List of people from Rotterdam and become a section called "sportspeople", just like List of French people. Matthew_hk t c 11:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —Matthew_hk t c 11:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Matthew_hk t c 11:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
merge and redirect to List of people from Rotterdam, useless on its own. Punkmorten (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete listcruft. Possibly merge or categorise. Peanut4 (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge per Matthew HK. Definitely should not be categorised. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete indiscriminate list. D.M.N. (talk) 14:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete This can never be a complete list, if it was List of professional football players from Rotterdam it might meet that requirement, but even then it should be merged to List of people from Rotterdam. John Hayes^talk 17:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 07:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Norkia Datta

Completely unsourced "upcoming character" in a British cop show, allegedly to be played by an American film actress. Note that Norika Datta was an actual character in the 1990s. Article creator User:PC Sally is hot has a history of dodgy edits relating to this tv show, and I'm guessing is probably the same user as the blocked User:Sally Armstrong is well fit. FiggyBee (talk) 09:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. JohnCD (talk) 12:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete as almost certain hoax. Creator seems to have a history of dodgy The Bill-related edits. --Canley (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 07:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dani Franks

Completely unsourced "upcoming character" in a British cop show, allegedly to be played by an American film actress. Article creator User:PC Sally is hot has a history of dodgy edits relating to this tv show, and I'm guessing is probably the same user as the blocked User:Sally Armstrong is well fit. See also nom for Norkia Datta. FiggyBee (talk) 09:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. JohnCD (talk) 12:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete for reasons above. (GowsiPowsi (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC))
Delete as almost certain hoax. Creator seems to have a history of dodgy The Bill-related edits. Was trying to think of the inspiration for this (a la "Norkia Datta"), possibly WPC Delia France/French from the 80s? --Canley (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 07:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coming Full Circe

Comic (or webcomic?), with no clear claim to notability and no third party sources. Possibly speediable as A7, but I'm bringing it here to give it the benefit of the doubt. Sandstein (talk) 08:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete, appears to be a nn webcomic without reliable sources in existence.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
delete for reason above (GowsiPowsi (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC))
Delete, I can't find any reputable independent sources, there aren't any in the article, let alone any suggesting any sort of historical significance or impact. --Dragonfiend (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Procedural close. Not a deletion discussion. Merges/moves should be discussed on the relevant talkpages. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Haití Español

on an english based website. the name should be Spanish Haiti not Haití Español . A quick google search will reveal that you'll more under the name Spanish Haiti then Haití Español in english. Myworldyourlife (talk) 08:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Rename to Spanish Haiti and clean up. - Gilgamesh (talk) 09:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Move The article should be moved back to Spanish Haiti properly, not by copy and pasting. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 09:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Procedural Close a suggested move is not an AfD. FiggyBee (talk) 11:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Yea, the user who started this wasn't familiar with the procedures. This isn't exactly the noticeboard but we're going to need an admin to delete Spanish Haiti to do a history merge to fix this copy and paste mess. So, hopefully they'll see this here and take a look into it. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 11:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Close - AFD's are not for discussing page moves plain and simple. D.M.N. (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dustin Slade

Non notable hockey player.Canuck85 (talk) 07:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment this seems to be listed in the wrong category... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delicious carbuncle (talk • contribs) 17:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jj137 (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete. fails WP:BIO. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete: Article makes no claims to meet WP:BIO#Athletes - if Slade appeared in games within his league and the league is fully-professional, WP:BIO#Athletes is satisfied. (hint, hint) — X S G 05:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete: Athlete has not played in a fully professional league. Flibirigit (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete this does not pass WP:BIO, and considering notability.... - Milk's Favorite Cookie 17:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete non-notable junior player. -Djsasso (talk) 21:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 05:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Bad Girls Club 2

Unessacary, mostly duplicates the information on the second season of the show that is already in the The Bad Girls Club main article. Mr Senseless (talk) 07:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge anything not already in the main article. While unfortunate precedent exists for separate seasons of some reality shows to have their own articles (i.e. Big Brother), this series doesn't have the same level of notability to justify separate season articles, especially when it's clear some editors already feel the second season can be sufficiently covered in the main article. 23skidoo (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge into main article per 23skidoo. D.M.N. (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge into main article. See American Idol, this format would be best for multiple seasons.--Sallicio 17:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 07:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UPOhtml

I've tried to clean this article up, at the start it was nothing but advertising hyperbole. (see versions before my edits). The company website says "coming soon", and googling returns two relevant hits other then Wikipedia. One is a web forum where apparently the creator of the software was trying to find some beta testers. There are no sources on this article, nor any real commentary that I can see on the web. As a side note, checking the article before I attempted to clean it up, shows that there was supposed to be a final release around September. It is now February, and there is no news about this release, or really any conversation going on at all on the general internet. LinEagle (talk) 07:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete Advert, never asserts notability. Not many relevant Google hits (many are to forums and Wikipedia mirrors like Answers.com) Doc Strange (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - not notable. JohnCD (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - no reliable sources about the product. Search results show a lot of directory type entries where it is one a whole slew of HTML editors being listed. -- Whpq (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 However someone else has to complete the merge, for now I will redirect it to the suggested page. Someone else needs to go into the history and pull out the appropriate info. Viridae ^Talk 07:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LT-TV

Non-notable public access channel supported by a high school. Prod removed by author. JuJube (talk) 06:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge as a brief mention in Lyons Township High School. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge or Keep - it is certainly notable that a school has its own TV station, and should be mentioned in the school's page, and also in a separate page (if one exists) for school-based TV stations. It does seem pretty unusual to have a school TV station, but is oddity enough for inclusion? If Wikipedia was judged on being informative, this article should be kept. If Wikipedia is merely judged on being encyclopaedic, then this article should be merged. Dyinghappy (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Having a cable tv activity is no big deal. Edison (talk) 03:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge or Keep - station is the winner of numerous awards, as listed in the article --Travismars (talk) 06:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note above vote is from the creator of the article. JuJube (talk) 02:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete or Merge. Local cable productions are generally not notable. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge per RHaworth. D.M.N. (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kitting

It's a dictionary definition with some OR thrown in for good measure! It already exists in Wiktionary so transwiki isn't applicable. I don't see anything encyclopedic about this, but I don't think it fits any speedy criteria. Unless of course having more tags than content is one! Travellingcari (talk) 06:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete - unsourced, dicdef +OR. JohnCD (talk) 12:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - WP:OR D.M.N. (talk) 15:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Transwiki which has already occured, as such I am deleting it and redirecting to Argentina and Brazil football rivalry. Viridae ^Talk 07:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Macaquitos

Article extremely slandering towards Argentinians and completely unsourced - the only footnote links to a very tendentious, non-reliable website. Rsazevedo ^msg 06:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Wikipedia is not censored. Newspaper headline demonstrates notability. --Eastmain (talk) 07:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- This is not about censorship, it is about the asserting the relevance of an article in a serious encyclopedia. The article in question does not provide a source for this "newspaper headline", simply mentions it. This supposed Olé headline is an old urban myth widely circulated in Brazil, which has never been properly proved. Rsazevedo ^msg 15:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 07:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 07:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Transwiki/merge - I don't think use of the term in a newspaper necessarily proves a term is individually notable. The term itself probably belongs in Wiktionary, and mentions of its use would best be served in each team's article. There's really no use to have this as its own article. Torc2 (talk) 10:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Transwiki/merge per Torc2 unless additional references are found by the end of this AfD.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete While the term is real and belongs in Wiktionary, the usage as defined in the cited article is dubious at best. It is unsourced, unverifiable, and speculative. StudierMalMarburg (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment. I added some references. See also the article in the Portuguese-language Wikipedia at http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macaquitos --Eastmain (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment. I searched for macacos at the website of Diario Olé, the newspaper where the headline supposedly appeared. The newspaper's searchable archive is from June 1998 to the present. I found nothing, which suggests that the term has not been used by the paper since June 1998, but doesn't answer the question of whether the headline actually appeared. The other references do seem to agree that the headline was used. --Eastmain (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Eastmain, the article in Portuguese is also nominated for deletion, and considering the votes at the present time it is going to be deleted. As for the other references, they are also speculative -- as I said, this is an "urban legend" widely known in Brazil but which nobody has been able to prove so far. Rsazevedo ^msg 22:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep The sources seem to be sufficient. Perhaps we take a stricter interpretation of NOT CENSORED than some other WPs. notable ethnic insults are notable. DGG (talk) 02:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- "The sources seem to be sufficient?" So one can just make up a headline and slap it into an article, and it will be considered a properly sourced article? Rsazevedo ^msg 03:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep per Snow/Speedy Keep - Non-Admin Closure . Fosnez (talk) 12:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wild rivers

I came across this page in a moment of boredom by clicking Random Article. The term "wild rivers" strikes me as simply jargon that is in need of a definition rather than a complex concept in need of an encyclopedia article. Perhaps it should be deleted and taken to wiktionary. I may be wrong, but I think it sould at least be discussed here. William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 05:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep Government in Queensland Australia consider it notable enough to make an Act about it. Also, check out the 'Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 1968' in US. And Google Scholar reveals it is certainly a term of some significance. Vegetationlife (talk) 13:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep But needs better documentation that it is a term of art. Mangoe (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep but I agree with Mangoe. JohnCD (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep as Mangoe said above. Think outside the box 11:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment I've added sources and rewritten some of it. Think outside the box 11:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 07:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Swaldo

Reason WP:Notability seems questionable and/or marginal Pgagnon999 (talk) 05:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 07:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
~~Keep~~. Recognition by Prevention Magazine and Men's Health magazine would seem to prove notability, but actual issue and page references would help. --Eastmain (talk) 07:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I searched for "Brian Swaldo" with keywords that would corroborate the information in this article. Let's see: <"Brian Swaldo" Shawnee Ohio> gets 0 hits [27], <"Brian Swaldo" Elida Ohio> gets 0 hits too [28], <"Brian Swaldo" Prevention> gets 0 hits [29], <"Brian Swaldo" "Men's Health"> gets no hits as well [30]. Hell, even <"Brian Swaldo"> gets only 6 hits [31], only 1 of which is apparently relevant [32]. So delete unless references are provided. Pegasus «C¦T» 08:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete A minor employee in a school! "(F)ounding member of the OHSAA Board of Student Athlete Safety" is meaningless as an assertion of notability (how many hundreds/thousands?). It might mean something if any of the 'references' checked out, but until they do he is just a minor employee in a school. Emeraude (talk) 12:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete, fails both WP:V and WP:BIO.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Neutral. I withdraw my previous Keep !vote. I searched for Swaldo at both Prevention (magazine) and Men's Health (magazine) and didn't find anything. --Eastmain (talk) 05:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 07:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moviestorm

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Moviestorm

Articles for deletion/Moviestorm (2nd nomination)

Only assertion of notability is that it was used in a book. No independent sources. Recreated on a crystal ball basis; the article creator wrote on the talk page that "I think it has future".--Drat (Talk) 05:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete For the same reasons it was initially deleted. Nothing has changed, flimsy sources. James Pinnell (talk) 08:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete No assertion of notability, recreation of deleted material Doc Strange (talk)14:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eugene Field Elementary School

This school is not notable. Mike2892 (talk) 05:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

~~Redirect~~ to Park Ridge, Illinois#Education. Possibly make a note there that Hillary Clinton is an alum. While verifiable, that appears to the reason it gets attention. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Vote changed to keep given weight of evidence. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 12:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep That's a pretty damn good reason. See this citation for verification. Mandsford (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep The fact that Hillary Clinton attended this school makes it notable. Georgette2 (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep per Georgette2 « D. Trebbien (talk) 04:01 2008 February 4 (UTC)
Keep

It can be verified that Hillary attended the school. That should be well-cited in the article.
Hillary Clinton mentions the school by name in a speech during her Senate term. The transcript of her speech is recorded on the official senate.gov website. Remarks of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton at Brookings “America’s First Suburbs” Symposium
Hillary Clinton visited the school while First Lady. Abstract of "The Washington Post" article from 1997.

If an editor would appropriately add the information above, I think that this would significantly help the argument of Notability, Verifiabilty, and Reliable Sources for the school. --Daddy.twins (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the research! Georgette2 (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep - schools attended by leading political figures are always notable since readers will want to research them. TerriersFan (talk) 23:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep Significant connection establishes notability. Alansohn (talk) 05:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was a split decision close: Consensus is clear (almost unanimous) to Delete List of Democrats, so be it. There is no consensus to the others, so I'm closing List of Hollywood Republicans, List of African American Republicans, and List of Latino Republicans as No consensus with no prejudice towards an individual nomination to gain a clearer consensus. List of fictional United States Republicans and List of fictional United States Democrats have a closing decision, based on discussion, of Keep. Again, I would not oppose to a separate relisting to further articulate this apparent consensus. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Democrats

Indiscriminate, arbitrary, and better served by Category:Democratic Party (United States) politicians. See also the recently concluded Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Republicans. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete based on the precedent set by List of Republicans. It's an overly broad and unessecary category. --Asmodeus Samael (talk) 05:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Also including the following:
- List of Hollywood Republicans
- List of African American Republicans
- List of Latino Republicans
- List of fictional United States Republicans (obsoleted by Category:Fictional United States Republicans)
- List of fictional United States Democrats (obsoleted by Category:Fictional United States Democrats)

Needless to say it would be ridiculous to include a list of Republican party members for every ethnicity, although articles on individual movements like the AARLC might be appropriate. Keeping track of (rarely stable) celebrity political endorsements would be nigh impossible and doesn't actually inform the readership of the political process. Finally, the list of fictional Republicans is little more than trivia. These lists are poorly maintained, speculative, and redundant to categories. (sorry, I didn't get to add this part until after Asmodeus' comment) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep the List of fictional United States Democrats and List of fictional United States Republicans. Those pages only include those who explicitly identify as Republicans or Democrats, or who explicitly endorse a Democratic/Republican candidate. The categories does not make the lists obsolete because there are advantages of lists over categories, such as being able to provide references and further explanation on lists. Q0 (talk) 06:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- No they don't: most entries are not annotated, no independent sources are offered to verify any entry, and editors routinely add characters based on their own speculation. This is about as clear case of Wikipedia:Listcruft as I've ever run across. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  - The instructions for the lists are to include only those explicitly identified as Democrats/Republicans. Entries that do not have citations (or are improperly cited, such as those that argue that someone is a Democrat because they are pro-choice, etc.) should be removed. However, I don't think the whole list should be deleted, just the uncited entries. Q0 (talk) 08:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    - Instructions matter only insomuch as they are followed. Consider that there are thousands of notable characters from hundreds of thousands of notable fictions. A small minority of these characters (e.g. The West Wing bunch) have unambiguous polticial views that define their actions and motivations. For the majority of fictional characters, however, political affiliation is a trivial attribute, one dependent on situation and the writer's mood. Encouraging contributors to cherry pick and analyze the political motivations of fictional characters is, at best, tantamount to encouraging original research. For example, a gag from the Family Guy had Stewie Griffin endorse a flat tax. This example brings up a few questions: why does a casual gag define a fictional toddler as a republican? why mention this in an encyclopedia? why would any reader actually care? why should we encourage lists based on half-assed appraisals of pop culture trivia? Sure, the same can't be said of every entry, but if political affiliation does play a major role in defining a fictional character, then there's no reason that it can't be fully covered in that character's article (e.g. Arthur Branch#Character background). ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 11:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
      - It is original research to interpret a character's political party based on their position on the issues, but I don't see how editors are being encouraged to do that. It seems to me that the instructions to only include characters who explicitly identify as Democrats or Republicans is discouragement of editors to add original research to the list. It is true, that some editors ignore those instructions, but I have removed some of those entries. For some characters, the mention of political party affiliation might be relavent in one gag in one episode of a TV show, but there are some characters like Alex Keaton where it is mentioned in almost every episode. Some of the characters are politicians so political party is very relavent for them. There are some characters where a party affiliation is given in only one episode, but are also very opinionated characters, so in those cases the party affiliation is part of the character's personality. Q0 (talk) 13:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Asmodeus, it's unmanageable Travellingcari (talk) 06:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete all. A non-encyclopedic style list --T-rex 08:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Break up AfD - These are not similar enough to warrant a single AfD, and deletion/keep reasons for each may be different. For example:
- Delete - List of Democrats as, even if limited to notable names, would contain several million entries and be essentially meaningless, useless, and a violation of WP:NOT#DIR.
- Delete - List of Hollywood Republicans, List of African American Republicans, and List of Latino Republicans as WP:OR (specifically WP:SYN, reasons at WP:LC are also applicable).
- Keep - List of fictional United States Republicans and List of fictional United States Democrats. Per WP:CLS, the categorization of these is totally irrelevant and should not be considered as a reason for deletion. AfD is not clean-up, and problems with sourcing can be handled within the article. I don't buy the listcruft argument as Wikipedia has literally hundreds of List of fictional (thing) articles, many of which are directly comparable and all have survived AfDs: List of fictional Jews, List of fictional politicians, List of fictional medicines and drugs, List of fictional cats. Lacking adequate reason for deletion, I'm voting Keep on these, but strongly suggest these should be stricken from this AfD and listed separately. Torc2 (talk) 08:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep the two lists of fictional R/Ds, and re-discuss the others separately. Before that, consider renaming to show the intent of the article, a notable R/D political figures. DGG (talk) 08:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep the two fictional lists per Torc2, Delete all the others. JohnCD (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete all but the fictional lists. Too broad scope, more appropriate for a category. Possibliities for WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR issues. The fictional lists need to be policed for WP:NOR and WP:NPOV to make sure someone doesn't label a character a Democrat or Republican based upon interpretations of actions and such. 23skidoo (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment: I have started a cleanup on List of fictional U.S. Democrats and List of fictional U.S. Republicans to remove unsourced and improperly sourced entries. Q0 (talk) 17:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete List of Democrats. Why did you bunch all this crap together in one nomination? The first one is a no-brainer, and there's a precedent. The rest of it seems to have been added because you had time on your hands. Mandsford (talk) 20:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- To me, these are all no-brainers. Most of your comment seems to have been added because you were looking for an obtuse way to chastise the nominator - rest assured that how I manage my time is none of your concern. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 16:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep List of Latino Republicans and African American Republicans, since those are a notable minority of Latinos and African Americans. Mandsford (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep List of Hollywood Republicans (although I'd limit it to the ones who are alive) since celebrity endorsements are, for good or bad, a factor in national politics Mandsford (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete list of fictional Republicans and fictional Democrats; although a list of fictional Presidents has its purpose, the party affiliation is little more than a label for made-up characters. Nobody models their life after "Josiah Bartlett" as a model Democrat. Mandsford (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment A category is superior to the "List of Democrats", which is what this argument should have been limited to. Since all that other stuff is on the table too, there's a limit to categorizing everything, case in point being Sammy Davis, Jr., that famous "African-American actor/musician, American actor/singer, American singer, traditional pop music singer, vaudeville performer, American impressionist-entertainer, jazz singer, male singer, soap opera actor (?), tap dancer, miltary personnel of WW2, Black Jew, American Jew, convert to Judaism, Jewish American musician, Rat Pack member, throat cancer sufferer, Hollywood Walk of Fame star honoree, Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award winner, Kennedy Center honoree, guy buried at Forest Lawn in Glendale, one-eyed... African-American Republican." Mandsford (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete List of Democrats: an excellent example of what can be much, much better served by a category. No opinion on the other articles in the same nomination. S. Proudleduck (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep the two fictional lists. No opinion on the others. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Close this AfD, and start over with a clean AfD for each article - this AfD was malformed. Start over. The Transhumanist 04:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Complicated? Definitely. Malformed? I don't think so. So far editors have been careful about specifying which lists should be kept and which should be deleted. It was my hope that this nomination could be used to determine an overall consensus on such articles, but I'll accept several differing conclusions. Remember that it is within the closing admin's discretion to derive multiple outcomes from a single discussion. When it comes to closely linked articles I'd rather err on the side of a comprehensive debate than perfunctory compartmentalization :) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 16:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Malformed, maybe not. But they are indeed overly complicated. No clear consensus is going to come out of this discussion, looking above many are referring to different parts of the nomination. Each on deserves its own conversation and I have to saying giving each that is probably deserved. SorryGuy Talk 06:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete List of Democrats - but keep the rest. The above arguments make sense to me. The list of all Dems is far too broad for an article, but the others seem reasonable -- that is, verifiable and notable. BTW, I am a Denocrat. Bearian (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 02:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lilyjets

Doesn't seem to be a notable band; at the least, they don't seem to be the subject of any reliable sources. Claims to have had success in Germany and Sweden, but the lack of sources would say otherwise.

I am also listing the band's album, for the same reason:

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete no proof of notability and I was unable to find any published reviews online. --Asmodeus Samael (talk) 05:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep You'll find more about them on the German version of Google. Which makes sense, as this article mentions their alleged success in Germany: http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&q=lilyjets&meta=

They won the NRJ Award for “Best Nordic Hit 2005” in Helsinki on January 19, 2006.

Therefore I would object to the deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.181.58.27 (talk) 10:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep Sources in languages other than English are acceptable and are plentiful. Catchpole (talk) 14:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete per wp:v. -- Jeandré, 2008-02-03t16:10z
Keep They won "Best Nordic Hit" in 2006 and were nominated for "Best Nordic Hit" in 2005. (German Wikipedia page) « D. Trebbien (talk) 19:15 2008 February 3 (UTC)
Keep More than enough sources to prove notability, they're just not in English. As far as I can find with a simple search is that they have charted as high as tenth in Norway [33], they are also part of a version of singstar [34] + [35] + [36]. --E ivind ^t ^@^c 12:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). JERRY ^talk _contribs 17:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] M7 fragrance

Sources can't be found which afford this product encyclopaedic notability inline with WP:V, WP:N and WP:RS Russavia (talk) 06:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep. These are all high-profile products by major brand names, each of which have not insignificant seperate claims to fame. It should not be hard to form good articles about each, should someone actually take the time to do non-Google research (newspaper archives should be a good start). The nominator, however, does not appear to have done any of these, and has just whacked a bunch of perfume articles on AfD. Rebecca (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment As it should not be hard to form good articles about these perfumes, then perhaps you can do so. I own and operate a fragrance business, and have access to books and other resources such as this, this, this, etc, etc and many books on the history of fragrances, and very very few fragrances would qualify for an article on WP due to very little verifiable, non-advertising, non point of view information from reliable sources which could be used to build a comprehensive article. I even considered some time ago building up the fragrances category on WP, but decided not to for the exact same reasons above. You say that notability is inherited, I say notability is not inherited. The advert, spammy, trivial look of these articles, and the fact there are very few articles on individual perfumes, is evidence enough that these articles are squarely against WP policies, and hence should be deleted. --Russavia (talk) 05:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect to Yves Saint-Laurent (brand) which doesn't mention fragrances yet. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep due to acronym laden nomination, I am unable to appreciate the reason why it should be removed (see also: avoid cryptic language) Tarinth (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Click the blue text. It reveals more information. JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep - it was published by Yves_Saint-Laurent_(brand), which is enough for me. They are a well known perfume manufacturer. It is especially notable given that it is the first male scent published by Yves_saint_laurent since the new ownership came by. This looks like a no brainer. Dyinghappy (talk) 14:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -- Jeandré, 2008-02-03t16:08z

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 07:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3 for All

Improv troupe of marginal notability. Single sourced; not much left after removing the copyvio of that source. Reviews listed on their website seem to be from brief local events listings e.g. [37]. Jfire (talk) 05:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete I considered listing it the other day but wasn't quite sure how WP:MUSIC fit since they've had *some* coverage but not significant. Travellingcari (talk) 06:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete. I placed a PROD tag on the article a month ago, which was contested. Since then, only one source has been provided. Though this group may do good work, I am not convinced that they are notable enough to be considered encyclopedic. If they achieve fame outside of their local area in the future, an article can always be re-created. But right now, this just looks like a promotional puff piece, which has no place on Wikipedia. --El on ka 07:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 07:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Koukaki Basketball

While I have no doubt that the lack of sources is due to English/Greek sources, the article itself admits that it's a local team. I know there's no consensus for WP:SPORT but I believe this fails WP:LOCAL so I'm bringing it here for discussion Travellingcari (talk) 05:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete The second tier of a local basketball league? Sounds totally NN, and probably speedyable. Jfire (talk) 05:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete, not a big enough team. Punkmorten (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Scouting in Arizona#Grand Canyon Council; action complete. JERRY ^talk _contribs 17:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Camp Raymond (BSA)

Camping ground with no exceptional notability. Article lacks third-party references. Prod contested by the article creator: "This page is similar to all the other Boy Scout camp pages out there, and contributes to the Scouting in Arizona page." Espresso Addict (talk) 05:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

merge to Scouting in Arizona, there is a home for the information. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a reason to keep, and the majority of the camp articles are against established Scouting WikiProject guidelines. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 06:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment "the majority of the camp articles are against established Scouting WikiProject guidelines. " is not exactly true. See Gadget's links below. --evrik ^(talk) 14:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarify The Scouting and Wikipedia guidelines are to expand in a top down manner, establishing notability at each level. It is difficult to establish that Camp Raymond is notable when its parent Grand Canyon Council does not have an article. This should not be construed that if Grand Canyon Council has an article, then Camp Raymond can have an article, as each must establish notability on their own merits. There is nothing in this article that establishes Camp Raymond's notability on a national or even regional level. The article does not answer the big question- what makes Camp Raymond different from every other Scout camp? --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 15:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

rant If we could get editors to clean up the cluttered by state articles, we could have good council level articles that would include the OA lodge and the council camps. Instead we get camp and lodge articles that I end up chopping all the material that is copied from some website. It leaves a crappy article and I don't like doing that. There are 308 BSA councils, about the same for lodges and 400-500 council camps. Add in the Girl Scouts (where we are really weak) and that is 1500-2000 articles just for the U.S. With our active editors, we can barely keep ahead of vandalism and other weird drive-by edits. So, we end up with camp articles about special songs, mascots, building colors and toilets and nothing about the programs offered that make the camp unique. But, we've been here before and I don't expect any changes. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 15:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge or delete entirely. (I originally PRODded this article.) The camp is not notable on its own. A bullet point in Scouting in Arizona already exists. Expand that paragraph a little, then delete/redirect this article. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
merge to Scouting in Arizona#Grand Canyon Council; see WP:SCOUTMOS#Non-national articles for the Scouting projects guidelines on this; these are derived from Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Non-commercial organizations. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 10:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep the article is a stub and should be allowed the opportunity to grow. --evrik ^(talk) 22:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete. No notability on its own. Also this is more then a stub but that does not affect notability. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

CommentThe camp by itself is notable. The information adds to wikipedia. If anything, the article Grand Canyon Council should be created and the information added to that. --evrik ^(talk) 15:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

merge per Gadget850. It is quite true we don't have enough scouting editors to keep the state/council/lodge articles in good order--not to mention trying to follow our own guidelines. Therefore, we need to focus on what we might reasonably handle, which is quality high level articles first, rather than all this constant fuss over every camp and lodge. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge the camp per above. Failing that, then delete. Nothing in the article suggests notability of the camp and giving the article an opportunity to grow is not a reason to keep. Montco (talk) 07:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This is why {{stub}} articles exist. --evrik ^(talk) 02:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge the camp per above.-Phips (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge, if not Keep As I belive with any article, if you can find stuff for it, it can become useful, but if there is no hope for it, then at least merge. Whammies Were Here 11:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep Since the discussion has been continued I want to repeat my support for keepin git as a stub. --evrik ^(talk) 19:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Note to ADMINS: do NOT count this as a separate vote, this is a previous voter restating his opinion for some reason. -- Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 07:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vernon Army Cadet Summer Training Centre

Non-notable sub-unit of a national organization. See WP:ORG for appropriate guideline. No third-party sources give this subject significant coverage to establish its notability. Previous similar AfDs are: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/52_City_of_Calgary_Royal_Canadian_Air_Cadet_Squadron, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/RCSCC_Victory_(2nd_nomination), Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/189_PORT_AUGUSTA, and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/RCSCC_Captain_Vancouver. Sancho 07:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment The 'Background & history' section is a direct copy and paste from http://www.armycadethistory.com/vernon_acstc_main.htm --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Dont Delete This article represents thousands of Royal Canadian Army Cadets that have passed through Vernon Army Cadet Summer Training Centre (VACSTC). It has stood for now 59 years (in July 2008) and will be 60 years old in the July of 2009. This camp has been visited by HM Queen Elizabeth II, and is the oldest/longest running Army Cadet Summer Training in Canada, and is also the most well preserved H-Hut (H shapped barracks from WWII) remaining in Canada. This article should be kept online for others to be inspire young Canadians to attend VACSTC in the future, and to keep the memories and history of former cadets alive today. The history behind VACSTC has been revised on the article. Theosaul (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete, not notable enough for an encyclopedia - fine for a messageboard or other website. -- Jeandré, 2008-02-03t16:05z
Keep - basic statements of Notability have been made, however there is the issue of verifibility of thoes statements. where, other than the camps website, are thoes events talked about.(Im sure the Queens visit got a writeup in some paper somewhere, that would help). Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 06:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment — The notability guideline requires that we find reliable, independent sources that give this subject significant coverage. Claims of notability are not sufficient. Sancho 07:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete. There has been pretty strong consensus in the past that summer camps are generally not notable. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete a google search of 'Vernon Army Cadet Summer Training Centre' doesn't turn up any reliable sources which demonstrate notability. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per G12. Trusilver 17:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Climate of San Bernardino

Redundant per the San Bernardino, California and Climate of California articles. Also was created by Ie909, a sock of banned user House1090, who still comes back through various socks to edit this page. Amerique^dialectics 03:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:Speedy delete, I'm all for it. Here is a dif of the guy self-disclosing that he was Ie909:[38]. Amerique^dialectics 21:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

delete - There is no reason for there to be a seperate article on the weather in this one county. Move all notable information to San Bernadino#Climate. --Asmodeus Samael (talk) 04:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete if it is indeed a confirmed sock, otherwise just regular Delete per nom. JuJube (talk) 05:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete, speedy if it is a sock editor. Climate of San Bernardino: sunny and pleasant year round, except when it rains. Information about the average rainfall can be included in the main article, if absolutely necessary. Mandsford (talk) 20:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete - per nom. Jonathan (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Fram (talk) 12:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adolf Satan

Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:NOTABILITY. No sources other then first party. No notable label. Delete Undeath (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete Amerique^dialectics 04:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

weak keep they have been reviewed in Vampire Magazine[39] and Deep Fry Bonanza[40], which appear to be non trivial published sources. --Asmodeus Samael (talk) 05:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep Meets WP:MUSIC - point #6: "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable". The band has two members of the band Anal Cunt. Lugnuts (talk) 09:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep per the arguments of the two editors directly above this comment.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep because of the link to Anal Cunt

85.145.103.163 (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Very weak keep, perhaps notable to that group of people, and seems to barely conform to WP:NOTABILITY...so despite my personal opinions, I agree to keep.--Sallicio 09:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Viridae ^Talk 07:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] An Endless Sporadic

Only claim to fame is inclusion of a track in Guitar Hero III. Other than that, fails WP:BAND and WP:MUSIC. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 02:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete per WP:MUSIC and the article: "To date the band has produced three tracks, and has not produced a demo or cd." Geez. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Redirect and merge with List of songs in Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock WP:MUSIC says that if the band "has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album, etc. [it should be included] (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that page.) Kakofonous (talk) 04:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep Song from the band was also included in Tony Hawk: American wasteland. That's two major video game titles that included a song from the band, with each inclusion providing exposure of the the band to millions of game owners. Therefore redirect or deletion are not appropriate.Cstepper (talk) 08:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The band is failing Wikipedia:Notability: it isn't getting significant coverage in sources independent of the topic. As far as I can tell, they're only getting mention because their music is featured in Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock and in that Tony Hawk game. If they come out with a CD that gets reviews and significant press, then it might be notable. Otherwise, I'm going to have to call this one delete. (Having said that, though, the music sounds interesting enough that I hope they make the big time. It's only slightly less difficult to play than Through the Fire and Flames.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 03:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The information in this search result was helpful to me and I think it should remain on Wikepedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.137.139 (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC) — 71.141.137.139 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete per Starblind. Doctorfluffy (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete, author requested deletion. Pegasus «C¦T» 04:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of feature films released to Blu-ray Disc

Contested PROD. A similar article has been deleted through the AfD process some time ago, but I can't remember the exact title. This is a virtually unmaintainable list, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 02:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete - per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY Far too vague a list. Considering most new movies are released on blue ray, this will essentially become a list of movies released. --neonwhite user page talk 02:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Has there been a feature film, lately, that hasn't been released to Blu-ray Disc? This isn't a catalog. Mandsford (talk) 03:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per previous comments and nom. Kakofonous (talk) 04:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well. Looks like I have to be more careful where I put my time when it comes to Wikipedia Articles. Go ahead and Delete the article.Limetolime (talk) 04:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 07:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Web of Lies

Delete - I doubt that this album has even been planned for recording, let alone has a title, release date and confirmed tracks. All based on rumours, lies and speculation. Surfer-boy94 (talk) 16:19, 02 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete per WP:HOAX Doc Strange (talk1) 05:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete -- Otherwise redirect to Wikipedia. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 09:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Strong delete. This article fails WP:V - badly - and looks like 'a web of lies' in itself.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 07:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Beyonce's third album

Delete - An album by Beyoncé Knowles which has no title, no release date, no officially confirmed tracks and more importantly no sources. Surfer-boy94 (talk) 06:38, 02 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete - All the sources are unverifiable and poor. --neonwhite user page talk 02:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Recreate when you have an actual title. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 03:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Kakofonous (talk) 04:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 07:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just Be Free

Delete - An unnoficial album by Christina Aguilera which was recorded when she was a teenager and was never meant to be released. This album does not need its own article. Surfer-boy94 (talk) 03:30, 02 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep - Album charted on Billboard 200 and is included in her discography and stocked by all major stores. It wasn't 'unofficial' if the recordings were owned by the label that released them, regardless this has no bearing on it's notability, i am assuming notabilty is the reason for an afd considering no valid reason is stated by the nominee. --neonwhite user page talk 02:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep reviewed by Entertainment Weekly and other published sources. --Asmodeus Samael (talk) 05:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep "unnoficial" != non-notable. Rocket000 (talk) 14:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep, appears to meet WP:V by the existence of multiple, non-trivial reliable published sources.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep, seems to be somewhat notable, given the presence of non-trivial sources. Also, it charted on the Billboard 200, so that must mean something. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep It charted in the Billboard Hot 200 at #71. It even has an All Music Guide review by Stephen Thomas Erlewine. The review and the chart position give it substantial notability Doc Strange (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep It's not like it's just collection of leaked tracks or fan-made, it was released for real. Celebrity-Benji (talk) 08:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - What a silly entry.—DMWN (talk) 21:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 07:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The War of the Ember

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The War of the Ember

Articles for deletion/The War of the Ember, 2nd nomination

Copyvio: article consists of nothing but copied quotes; also, per original nomination, WP is not a crystal ball. — BillC ^talk 02:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete the article has already been deleted several times and there is no new reason for inclusion. --Asmodeus Samael (talk) 05:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete — WP:NOT a crystal ball. — ERcheck (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This shouldn't be deleted! It doesn't refer to the fact that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, because it's straight from Kathryn Lasky! It's an important article! -Wikipedia Wanderer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.132.110 (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Obvious failure of WP:CRYSTAL, no sources saying it will happen. Jonathan (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete hardly any info, I had more when I created it, so why keep this one, no reliable information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Androo123 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

THIS SHOULDD NOT BE DLEATED —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.108.119 (talk) 02:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was was Keep although one crucial element is not source - the projected release date/period--JForget 00:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Usher's fifth studio album

Delete - An album by Usher which has no official release and it has been slated for release since late 2006, so I think that this article should be deleted until further notice. User:Surfer-boy94 (talk) 08:07, 02 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep No, it has a Spring release. T-Pain has confirmed this, Usher himself has confirmed this, Jermaine Dupri has confirmed this, Yahoo! News has reported this, E! News has reported this. It should not be deleted. Also, the pages has sources (listed by me) from MTV, SOHH, and SoulShine all confirming this album and some tracks. --FSX-2007 (talk) 01:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - Article has cited numerous sources stating that it will be released sometime this year. Admc2006 (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - the MTV article is enough to keep this though the rest are all unverifiable and should be removed. --neonwhite user page talk 02:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - There's sufficient sources to say that this is coming out, but the date isn't currently known. There's many articles like this. So, keep it. Jonathan (talk) 21:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 02:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Crystal ballism. If it really was coming out within a couple of months, there would be better recent confirmation from reliable sources than Jermaine Dupri saying that Usher told him the record would be out "soon". At the very least there would be an actual album title. That stuff is taken care of looong before the album's release. Merge sourced content to the Usher article until release is imminent. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 02:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment True, but Usher did say that it would be out in March or April back in January. Beside, we do have what is believed to be a first single, which I've heard every time I turn on the radio here in Atlanta since it's leaked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FSX-2007 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  - Comment Even if Usher says when it's coming out, that's still not a reliable source. The way the record industry works—especially now, and especially with R&B and hip hop releases—albums are frequently pushed back multiple times, sometimes even cancelled. Considering that the label hasn't even issued a release date or album title yet means that it won't be out until Summer at the earliest. Leaked tracks are usually to build up hype for an album well in advance of its release. It might be months before there is an official (pre-album release) single released. None of the references are proof that the album is coming out soon, just that people thought at one time, that it would be coming out this Spring. Until there's something verifiable from a reliable source, this info should be in the Usher article. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 22:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep —DMWN (talk) 11:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment DMWN, please see WP:JUSTAVOTE. Admc2006 (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ——Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 13:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep KEEP THIS ARTICLE AS IT HAS BEEN CONFIRMED AND ONE TRACK HAS ALREADY BEEN PLAYED ON THE RADIO IN THE UK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.188.255 (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Why so loud? —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - Confirmed by significant coverage and has a release date sourced. --Flesh-n-Bone 18:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment What is the date and source? It's not in the article. Once again—a record label does not set release dates before deciding on a title. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 18:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  - Comment - Huh? They may be in the MTV sources etc... plus a few songs are already confirmed, not that I would ever bother Usher but i just vote cuz I feel that. --Flesh-n-Bone 20:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    - Comment 1st MTV article: "he wants to release an album around November" (guess he missed that mark), 2nd MTV article (from Feb 2008): "Usher hasn't officially announced an album title or release date" and "There is no word yet on whether "In This Club" and "Moving Mountains" are official singles or will even make the album". That doesn't sound like much of a "confirmation" to me. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 07:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brandy's fifth studio album

Delete - An album by Brandy which has no release date, no officially confirmed tracks and this article should be recreated when more information is announced. Surfer-boy94 (talk) 07:14, 02 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete refs. #2,7 don't work, ref. #3 mentions Brandy but nothing about this (or any) album so that's at least WP:SYNTH, can't find the album on ref. #5; ref. #6 does contain a passing 2006 reference to an upcoming Brandy album. Most of the other footnotes provide further info. rather than sourcing the claims as to what'll be on the album. Inadequately sourced, hence must be some combination of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH/WP:CRYSTAL. I don't doubt it's coming but delete until more info. is publicly available. JJL (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Most of the article is unsourced OR. --neonwhite user page talk 03:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - the article is liberally sprinkled with speculative qualifiers such as "it is said". When reliable sources can be used to factually create the article, then would be the time for it to exist. -- Whpq (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - Because she officially stated that the album ist about to come this year. Also all the producers are sourced and the label is kwnown. Besides that planty of new material appeared. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcolmo (talk • contribs)
Delete The first reference quotes Pharrell as only saying "Watch out for Brandy"—this at best implies that he's done (or planning to do) something with her; there's no claim of an album (it could even be for a NERD record). The second reference has Brian Michael Cox say he's executive producing the Brandy album; that's fine—but the interview is from June 2006—in the year and a half since then, things could have changed drastically. The third reference is an undated 24-second video clip of Brandy saying she's working on an album but doesn't know when it's coming out. None of these is a compelling source of information about Brandy's next album. Article is crystal ballism until more substantial information can be found. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 02:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Viridae ^Talk 07:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vor of Barrayar

This article consists almost entirely of plot summary and in-universe content without real-world context or analysis, which breaks WP:NOT#PLOT, and has no reliable secondary sources to indicate notability per WP:FICT. Google returns only 8 hits which appear to be non-reliable fansites and the like and unrelated hits which indicates this topic has never recieved substantial coverage from acceptable secondary sources. As such, it is unlikely any amount of rewriting or improvement can bring the article up to policy by providing real-world significance or establishing notability. Once unencyclopedic, in-universe material is removed (per WP:FICT#Non-notable_topics), there would no content to merge into another article. Doctorfluffy (talk) 01:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete. A lot of speculation and some regurgitation of in-universe info from the series (but not a plot summary). Clarityfiend (talk) 05:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep. If this article were deleted, almost all of the information would end up on the Vorkosigan Saga page and that would violate Wikipedia's policy for an article being too long. A lot of people put a lot of effort into that page and I am sure that they will reuse the info and post it somewhere... Additionally, this is not a minor part of the plot, this is a huge social concept the author introduces that plays a major role in the story. It also shadows real life feudalism. I agree this not a featured-class article hell it's not even a good article, and maybe it needs a template for "Doesn't meet Wiki Standards for Citations" or something along those lines. SO yeah it needs verification and cleanup, but it really doesn't need to be deleted. By the way, I thought using # Google hits as a measure of importance was against the rules too? Anyway I vote Keep and let wiki-time improve it. Dachande (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If the subject of this AFD is indeed a "huge social concept" then there should certainly be reliable secondary sources that have devoted significant coverage to it. Without such sources, there is no way to validate any claims of notability or to add any sort of real-world context that isn't original research. Specifically, there is no way to merely cleanup the article so it passes policy. If I thought such sources existed, I wouldn't have AFDed it. I checked Google web search with no success. Additionally, Google books, Google news, and Google scholar all returned zero hits. You're right, the "Google test" isn't the most compelling argument, but your comment also includes a few arguments to avoid; WP:EFFORT, WP:BHTT, and WP:PROBLEM. Also, the article you mentioned on the Vorkosigan Saga is a poor example as it itself is almost entirely plot summary and needs some serious trimming and the addition of real-world content. Doctorfluffy (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You are not wrong. And I suppose....My greatest argument is really with Wikipedia policy, as opposed to this being AFD under Wikipedia policy. I still say KEEP but I am quickly losing interest in editing wikipedia beyond minor things. IT's too much effort to make sure everything added is legit, especially when you get emotionally attached to the things you add. Does Wikipedia keep an archive of old deleted pages so that this info is not lost? Also, where do I go to argue Wikipedia policy? Dachande (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't keep archives in the sense that you are asking, but admins can restore deleted content and may do so for it to be moved elsewhere. Don't quote me on that - I'm not admin and don't know all the rules.

The Village Pump is a good starting place to discuss policy. You could just check the talk page of the policy in question too. In fact, WP:FICT is currently under major discussion.

Perhaps The Annex would be a wiki you could check out for content that doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I don't know the specifics, but I believe it was created for situations like this. Doctorfluffy (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I am not trying to be unreasonable and I admit a personal bias to information I helped compile. When I get a chance I may go to the village pump and debate this one. I don't think well thought out, non-BS article like this one detract from wikipedia and actually I think they help it, perhaps not rival encyclopedia britannica or whatever, but the first place I turn to for random information is wikipedia, because I know someone like me probably wrote an article on it. So, based on my opinions of Wikipedia, I still say Keep but within the current guidelines of WIkipedia, I cannot actually argue against your point. Deletion is just so destructive, I would personally rather err on the side of keeping than deleting. Dachande (talk) 12:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete - there are no reliable sources to indicate that this is separately notable from the Vorkosigan Saga. And given the lack of these sources, I see no way for the article to be improved and comply with policy.-- Whpq (talk) 17:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Would this content be appropriate under all relevant wikipolicies for inclusion on the Vorkosigan Saga page? (regardless of your opinion of the quality of that page) I think so. It got broken out because the main page, the only one that we'd probably source correctly got really long, and I know that wikipolicy is to keep articles to a certain length. Would it be more appropriate to have a page of similar length to Vorkosigan Saga that contains content from the novels like this in one place and that way it'd be easier to source, assuming a few references exist out there? This way there aren't say 20 short articles out there that might or might not be in violation of wikipolicy, but only one longer one with subsections? I feel like completely getting rid of all this information is counter to the idea of having and online edtiable repository of knowledge. Besides, wouldn't it be better to put up a few templates to alert readers to the potentially unreliable nature of the information, and then let time (wiki-effort) verify it? I know wikipedia hates this argument but there aren't limits on space, so its not hurting anything to leave it up unless it is stated in a way that makes it sounds like verified fact or more important than it is. Anyway, I just wanted to try one last time. Dachande (talk) 12:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Just a follow up. This article doesn't break WP:5P, which appears to be the biggest criteria for keeping an article.

It is verifiable. All the info comes from the series, I think.
It is not point of view. No judgement is made as to the value of the Vor system
To the best of my knowledge there is no copyright issue with the pages (free content.)
I think we are all being rather civil here. No personal attacks. Very good discussion and disagreement actually.
NO FIRM RULES. A good idea is a good idea. Reading the very page you cited about plot summaries indicates that Wikipedia does not have hard and fast rules. Therefore, I think including this information is good idea on the grounds of it being potentially useful. maybe a fifth grader needs to do a complicated book report. Also in response to plot summarization, I would say that this article summarizes plot elements but is NOT a plot summary, would you agree? to me, the point of plot summarization policy is to avoid heavily abridged versions of the story being posted. (The 1-2 paragrpah blurbs on the Vorkosigan Saga page super summarize and so I guess their fine. This page collects one element of the entire series, and lists all of the admittedly in universe detail about it. I admit, I would love a world reknowned historian to write a thesis on a comparison of real life feudalism to the Vor but just because they haven't gotten around to it doesn't make this information bad, faithless, useless, or incorrect.

I am going to have to reaffirm KEEP after re-reading certain wikipolicies. But this is a concensus let's keep this thing going. Thank you.Dachande (talk) 12:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to nitpick, but WP:ENC is more than just WP:V. It explicitly includes WP:NOT, and notability guidelines (like WP:FICT) are natural extensions of the core policies it details. Doctorfluffy (talk) 01:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No, you should nitpick if it helps arguments and helps your case. Anyway, from what i've seen, that's the only one it breaks, and it breaks it softly. I would not argue against a tag for the page somehting like "The real world notability of this subject is in question. Please help wikipedia {expand/verify/source} it." I think that for something that barely breaks/bends one rule, but could potentially be relevant, should not be deleted. Are you deadset on deleting this page or can we tag it for improvement? I doubt this is anywhere near notability for FA or even GA status but maybe someone will be able to find something to improve it. Dachande (talk) 12:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

keep The notion of the Vor is discussed in a number of sources independent of the Bujold. I don't have many off the top of my head, but one examples is [41]. This is also relevant content from Bujold's official website [42]. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The first source is about the author and the series, not about the fictional caste system specifically. The second is just a compilation of interviews with the author, which isn't independent of the subject, and again does not specifically focus on the subject of this AFD. Neither satisfies WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- The first source discusses the system although I agree that it doesn't focus on them. The second one includes material that alllows us to source much of the material in the article without OR (which is one of the main motivating reasons behind FICT). I am trying to find more sourcing. Unfortunately, I only saw this AfD today so am doing what I can. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I am very interested in these independent sources if you can remember them JoshuaZ. Please see if you can round them up. I don't know of any and finding them would actually help the case for keep a lot. I still say Keep without them just because they might exist and could be found eventually. Getting rid of the whole article is really destructive. But I digress and begin to repeat. See if you can locate those independent sources commenting on the Vor. Thanks! Dachande (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 07:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POLICEPAY

Non notable. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. It's an advertisemen for a website. Delete Undeath (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete there are several web links, but these are to articles about police compensation where the subject is mentioned in passing. No references are provided which establish notability.Matchups (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete per WP:SPAM Doc Strange (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Non-notable, and there are no sources providing that it's notable. Jonathan (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete no demonstrated notability, not independant reliable sources Viridae ^Talk 07:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gamma Beta

Article about an Asian interest fraternity? Since when did we start to have these. Anyways, tagged per WP:NOT. UzEE !! 01:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete no evidence of notability, no WP:RS. JJL (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete. There's nothing wrong with having an article about an Asian interest fraternity. There is something wrong with having an article about a local fraternity, per WP:ORG, with no independent reliable sources -- but that's what this is. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Tagged per WP:NOT? WP:NOT is a fairly lengthy policy, which specific part are you referring to? This nomination is poorly formed, and not exactly made in good faith, as the nominator opened with "Article about an Asian interest fraternity? Since when did we start to have these" as their primary reason for deleting. I don't entirely agree with keeping this article, per WP:ORG under notability of local non-commercial organizations, so if this is to proceed it should be re-nominated under that criteria, not under the nominators clearly stated bias against Asian-interest fraternities. If that can't be done, then I say keep until a properly formed AFD can be done. Justinm1978 (talk) 05:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep - have to agree with Justinm1978. There is way to many poorly formed AfD Nomination Statements, to allow to allow even 1 to go unchallenged is condoning deletionism. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 06:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

As the author, what should be done to keep this from deletion? I really don't understand what's wrong with the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.242.142 (talk) 07:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The main issue, to my mind, is the lack of evidence of notability. Has this been covered in a newspaper or magazine article? How can we verify that what's in it is accurate? The requirement of notability helps draw the line between a fraternity with hundreds of chapters and a group of kids who named the house they're renting (which happens). JJL (talk) 16:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The fraternity is registered with the University of Texas at Austin and currently working on making a bigger name for itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cruzer8 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Being a registered student organization does not establish notability, especially for a local organization with only one chapter. I really suggest putting something up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities for help on clarifying, as we have generally established that local orgs are not notable enough for their own wikipage. Justinm1978 (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 02:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Auto Da Fe

No mention of any awards for this band or any other indication of notability. Orphaned and contains no references. Rtphokie (talk) 01:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep and disambiguate with Auto de fe. amazon.co.uk has two of their CDs available. Pburka (talk) 01:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment availability of a CD does not establish notability. This article fails WP:MUSIC. No mention of charting or awards. No references to coverage in reliable media.--Rtphokie (talk) 02:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Well, it does pass WP:MUSIC criteria #6, but I'm not sure it should be kept as a separate article. Maybe merge to Gay Woods. Torc2 (talk) 02:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Availability of a CD on amazon typically indicates that it was released on a largish label. Pburka (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. I've found enough to expand the article. They pass WP:MUSIC, and there should definitely be an article here.--Michig (talk) 10:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep or merge per Torc2. Definitely passes #6.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep, passes (at least) points 2 and 6 of WP:MUSIC. - fchd (talk) 08:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. — ERcheck (talk) 17:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discretionary review

~~Nothing more than a one sentence definition. No references. Orphaned. Fails WP:DICT~~ Rtphokie (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep. As this is a topic of great importance to any independent judiciary, the description above is a crying shame that calls out for correction -- not deletion. I've added some key points. --Dhartung | Talk 05:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep Expanded article shows notability. This seems to be something that simply started out in an excessively stubby state. Mangoe (talk) 14:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Withdrawn This article has been much improved. I'd like to withdraw it from consideration for deletion.--Rtphokie (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Core desat 07:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Elizabeth Shingleton

Another article that was flagged for speedy deletion as criteria A7, but I've declined it and send it at AFD for discussion. The issue with this article based on the tag is again notability. JForget 01:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete A very small scattering of bit parts isn't nearly enough for this actress to meet notability criteria. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Isn't this exactly why there are notability guidelines? (I was the editor who nominated it for speedy deletion) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete per A7. -- Jeandré, 2008-02-03t15:59z
- The same A7 that was declined in the nomination above? - Dudesleeper Talk 12:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  - Yes: the article, about a real person, does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. -- Jeandré, 2008-02-05t11:52z

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

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

The result was delete until another version which asserts notability is created. You are free to recreate the article if you can address the issues that are presented here. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fortune & Maltese

Non-notable band, speedy tag removed. Corvus cornix_talk 00:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete Claims to have toured internationally, which might be why the A7 was removed. Nonetheless, there don't seem to be any reliable sources pertaining to this band, or anything that indicates that they meet WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete - notability not established. KurtRaschke (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete as I originally tagged this. A mere mention of an international tour with absolutely no source whatsoever does not merit avoiding a speedy. Totally not notable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep extensive discography, featured in Kim Cooper's, Lost in the Grooves: Scram's Capricious Guide to the Music You Missed. ISBN 0415969980 Catchpole (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per wp:v. -- Jeandré, 2008-02-03t15:56z
Keep I think they meet the standards, they get some news hits Polly (Parrot) 00:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hillsborough City School District. If the claims could be verified then this article should be considered for recreation, but currently all the sources either do not work, or do not verify the claims. Due to this I will just redirect the article for now, and let other editors choose if to include any additional information in the district article. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] West Elementary School

I dont see anything notable here. UzEE !! 00:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to Hillsborough City School District. Corvus cornix_talk 00:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Redirect per Corvus. Merge any relevant information with that article. Kafziel ^{Take a number} 02:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Redirect or cleanup. Several ref links do not work. Claims of "Blue Ribbon School" notability may not be reliable or verifiable. One link that does work [[43]] does not have an entry for "West Elementary School" in California, although there is a "West Hillsborough School" which may be the same school? The Hillsborough City School District website does list some awards for other schools in the district, but I see nothing for this elementary school under "West Elementary", maybe "California Distinguished School" for West School? --Daddy.twins (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hillsborough City School District

Tagged as {{db-corp}} many times; no assertion of notability is made. I feel AfD is the best place to submit this article. —Animum (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Although I have a real problem with articles about non-notable schools, consensus has long been to fold those school articles into the articles about the school districts. This needs a major rewrite, but it shouldn't been deleted. Corvus cornix_talk 00:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think anything could solve the dispute over its inclusion better than AfD, which is why I listed it here. —Animum (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete The school is not notable. Also I would have tagged it as an advert to, as the creator it also named Crocker (after the school). UzEE !! 00:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- This is not a school. This is a school district. Corvus cornix_talk 00:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - School districts are kept even more often than high schools are. matt91486 (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. I think school districts are generally considered notable. The categories are full of 'em. As for it being an advert... it may have been a bit biased at first, but public schools don't really need to advertise. I think it's notable enough, COI aside. Kafziel ^{Take a number} 02:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep I have not seen a case where it could be established that an entire district should be deleted. Given that the article in its present form doesn't look spammy, looks like a keep. Montco (talk) 07:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Strong keep - pointless nomination. It has been consistently agreed that school districts, as government bodies, are inherently notable and a convenient repository for nn elementary schools. TerriersFan (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment – As I've said above, I didn't expect at all for this to get deleted and am unsurprised at what I read; this nomination was purely to generate a consensus on which the removal of the {{db-a7}} tag could be based, since "It's good practice" sometimes doesn't work for some people. —Animum (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - you stated "I don't think anything could solve the dispute over its inclusion better than AfD". There is no dispute. Schools are exempt from A7 and from numerous AfDs districts are regarded as notable. In future just remove the speedy. TerriersFan (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Strong keep per above. This is a good stub that can be used to add information about Crocker Middle School, and about the imaginatively named West, South and North elementary schools. Guess what their next school will be called (Hint: E---) Mandsford (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge to San Mateo, California Secret ^account 20:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep and cleanup, tag added. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David Chernoff

This article is nothing more than a promotional piece: it's a rewrite of http://cby.org/dchernoff.html with only cosmetic changes (it was previously deleted as a direct copyright infringement); the subject is not notable - there are only a moderate number of ghits that appear to relate to David Chernoff and none of them fit the requirements of WP:NN; unreferenced; non-neutral (e.g. "he was both dramatically saved and filled with the Holy Spirit") contra to WP:NPOV; unencyclopedic. andy (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep Despite some issues with the formation of this article, the subject does appear to be notable. A quick search through Google News and Google Books brings up enough hits to make the case, despite some of these hits being irrelevant. See http://news.google.com/archivesearch?lr=&tab=pn&q=%22David+Chernoff%22&ie=UTF-8 and http://books.google.com/books?lr=&q=%22David+Chernoff%22&btnG=Search+Books (Mind meal (talk) 03:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC))
Keep in spite of COI problems, the subject is notable enough, and there seems to be sources. DGG (talk) 08:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This is a difficult case. His google-fu as a figure in messianic Judaism seems quite high; he is clearly someone that everyone in that community knows of. Finding a reference from outside the community has proven very difficult, though I did find this article from Christianity Today. So at this point I'd say keep, but not with a lot of enthusiasm. Mangoe (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom, especially wp:v. -- Jeandré, 2008-02-03t15:54z
Delete. Content is not encyclopedic. --Funper (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep The article needs more references but the subject seems to be notable and worthy of mention on wikipedia. Nothing will be gained from wiping out knowledge that could benefit someone.Georgiamonet (talk) 04:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Revised I have addressed the wikify tag and cleaned up a significant amount of the prose, discarding unverifiable claims and his personal conversion story. -- RoninBK _{T C} 14:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep I marked the original copyvio for deletion, and was unenthusiastic about the recreation, but this revision seems encyclopedic and the subject seems notable. The article is now off to a good start. JackSchmidt (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 00:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roberta Gilchrist

I dont see anything notable about this, so I AFDed it. Plus there is the case of WP:VER. UzEE !! 00:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

A note to nom: If you felt there were insufficient indicators of notability, Wikipedia:Deletion_policy and Wikipedia:Guide to deletion both recommend tagging, or actually "first do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself". Given the ease I had finding sources that clearly indicate notability, and your nom which says "I dont see anything notable", this suggests you didn't do any homework. It will probably take less of your time, and less of other editors' time, if you do homework before and instead of unnecessary AFDs. --Lquilter (talk) 13:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

~~Weak~~ keep - It looks like the books aren't self-published, so I think the notability concerns are just due to lack of sources. I'd like to see this tagged with the appropriate notability and source warnings for a couple weeks before AfD. Torc2 (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- comment - Upgrading based on Mind meal's information. She's obviously not just an author, but has been quoted by several other authors. Torc2 (talk) 02:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep Published author of books and academic essays. See http://books.google.com/books?q=%22Roberta+Gilchrist%22&btnG=Search+Books (Mind meal (talk) 02:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC))
Keep Very clearly notable specialized author.DGG (talk) 08:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - A two-second search on google scholar [44] showed many citations; for instance, Gender and Material Culture was cited by 62 others. Starting at page seven of the cites for Gilchrist are cites that mention Gilchrist's work in a way that Google didn't pick up in its citation counts. That goes on for 450+ total cites, and my spot-check of several of those pages put them in the same field so likely the same person. --Lquilter (talk) 13:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep, prominent archaeologist - Skysmith (talk) 12:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ska cover

It is totally original research. Cover songs played in a ska style is not a noteworthy topic. Spylab (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

delete - Agree with OR and NN concerns. Torc2 (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - per WP:OR and is totally NN Doc Strange (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Absolutely nothing particularly notable about a ska cover -- nothing that makes it different from any other cross-genre cover songs. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete as self-explanatory dicdef -- a ska cover is a ska cover song. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Sure I've heard these, but it's a dicdef (WP:WINAD) and could not be anything more without going into a list of examples violating WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT#DIR or going into WP:OR.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete. I was the original prodder. Useless article, nothing encyclopedic can be written. J Milburn (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Trivial. --Funper (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete — Seems to be either something that was made up in school one day or a neologism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan (talk • contribs) 00:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment - The "ska cover" phenomena is quite well known above and beyond of the notability of the standard "cover version" but creating a reliably sourced article might be a struggle, especially considering the lack of a widely used term, so I'm remaining neutral on this. -Halo (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Response to comment - The ska cover phenomena is no more notable than any other cross-genre cover song phenomena. Musicians from all types of genres have been doing cross-genre covers for ages. This article is just an attempt at finding and defining a supposed trend, which is original research. Therefore it does not belong on Wikipedia. Spylab (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Absolutely worthless, totally unencyclopedic.--Michig (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - failed WP:BAND... horribly. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 02:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fathom (band)

Fails WP:MUSIC big time. No sources. No notable attributes at all. Delete Undeath (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Woot, I finally timed it just right to list the very first article of the day. HIGH FIVE.Undeath (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete A7, absolutely no assertation of notability whatsoever. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete. Canley (talk) 10:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] January 2008 stock market volatility

The article is simply based upon current events of the time, the page has not been significantly updated for several days and most markets are showing signs of recovery, a minor blip! Rob.derosa (talk) 04:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete if anything, it's suitable for news. If things don't rebound and this becomes a notable time ala 1929 or 1987, there's plenty of time to go back and re-create an article. Travellingcari (talk) 05:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. Jellogirl (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment: January 21, 2008 was "the biggest worldwide stock market crash since 11 September 2001" and directly led to the US Federal reserve making the "biggest interest rate cut in 18 years". Whether or not January 2008 is a particularly notable month is yet to be seen. But January 21, 2008 is clearly going to be a memorable day for quite a while, whether the market rebounds or not. Black Monday (2008) is perhaps a more appropriate title, which already redirects to this page. Anthony (talk) 15:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - Because I feel the biggest FTSE 100 point fall in history and the biggest US interest rate cut in 18 years is of some notability. -Halo (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - per Halo. Since when are we deleting articles about events simply because no one has written a book about it yet? It was world news for days on end with several "biggest ever" events in multiple days. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- COmment Your "it was world news" is exactly why I think it would have been Wikinews at the time, but not necessarily encyclopedic. I think the issues of Wikipedia:N#TEMP apply here, who knows if people will refer back to it as a significant event? It may end up being nothing more than a blip or it *could* be something like 1987/1929. WIki isn't a crystal ball and we don't know yet so I still say delete with no bias against re-creation in the future. Travellingcari (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - January 21, 2008 was "the biggest worldwide stock market crash since 11 September 2001" and directly led to the US Federal reserve making the "biggest interest rate cut in 18 years". Whether or not January 2008 is a particularly notable month is yet to be seen. But January 21, 2008 is clearly going to be a memorable day for quite a while, whether the market rebounds or not. Black Monday (2008) is perhaps a more appropriate title, which already redirects to this page. - WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep per notable reasons listed above, very much needed for the immediate future. Would not be opposed to a later merge if the current Stock Market, and economy continue to worsen for the next several months/years. Zidel333 (talk) 00:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
keep a notable event on its face Hmains (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. A notable, verifiable event covered in detail in hundreds of reliable sources. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete what exactly is the event? The article doesn't say, and it has never been clear. Was it the stock market action of January 21? That was essentially reversed the next day. Was it a stock market crash? Absolutely not, since there was no crash. Was it the stock market action of the week ending January 25? Why that period? Was it the entire month of January? Why? The article arose pushing the idea that there was a crash - which was pretty silly when the largest stock market (the US) was closed. Then the article was renamed January 2008 Downturn, but that was pretty silly when the market ended up for the week. The article has been drawn out appearently hoping that something would happen to justify its existence. But nothing has. Most of the froth quoted above are pretty selectively chosen stats, what happened to all the ups that happened that week? We should not be writing market commentary (especially so when it turns out to be so wrong!), we should not be arguing that something might happen in the future to make this time period notable (see WP:crystal). We're not equipped to write news stories on the stock market. As the article stands now it really doesn't make any sense. Anybody who wants to keep it should be able to say what it is (or was) about. This may turn out to be the most interesting month in the stock market this year, or even in the last 2 years, but probably not. Do we really want to have articles on market commentary of one month every year? Smallbones (talk) 04:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The event was significant (sometimes record) falls and rises on several stock market indexes over the week beginning the 21st that received significant international coverage. It's probably worth adding that I moved the article twice - the first was because I thought the term "Panic of 2008" was too POV, and I boldly renamed it based on 2002 stock market downturn which seemed inappropriate after reading the 2002 article, and indeed the actual events, so boldly renamed it to the current title - it wasn't a reaction to the events as much as trying to find a suitable title for the article that wasn't overly POV and actually reflected the events. I really don't think the article should be judged based on my poor article naming skills. -Halo (talk) 08:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Your dates for the event(s) are still pretty unclear. The series of names for the article "Panic of 2008" "Black Monday (2008)" "January Stock Market Downturn (2008)" simply haven't panned out. After I removed the panic-pushing and Crash template a week ago, nobody has had anything to add, or gone to clean up their messes, and the article just reads like - "Some markets went down, some markets went up, then some markets went down again ..." That happens every week (to a lesser extent everyday). Without the panic mongering the article is simply a collection of random information. With the panic mongering, the article was POV and non-encyclopedic. I'll repeat the main point here - Wikipedia has no place offering stock market commentary. Smallbones (talk) 14:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I'm undecided as to whether to support this article or not. But I do have a problem with the title. So if the so-called volatility continues into February, will a separate article be created called "February 2008 stock market volatility"? Yet at the same time, if we call it just "2008 Stock Market Volatility" that violates WP:CRYSTAL in presuming in advance that it'll continue all year. In any event, if this is kept I'd prefer a different title be given to it if possible to avoid this sort of jackpot. I might support the article being centered around the Jan. 21 date except that it is not getting the same sort of "Black Monday" branding that previous downturns have had. In fact most people have already forgotten about it and it just happened 2 weeks ago. 23skidoo (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

comment - exactly - this is exactly what will happen every time that Wikipedia offers up stock market commentary. It will either end up as a prediction that everybody will forget about (except those people coming in via "Random article" - who'll just say "What was that all about?") or a vaguely defined article that you can't find a proper title for. What markets were supposed to be affected? What time periods? If you look at the talk page for this article - there were many people who said "Get rid of this now!" and all the responses were vague mumbo jumbo. The real question here is how do we prevent this type of thing from happening again? Does it matter? - Yes, 55,000 people read the article. If only 2% of them acted upon the article's predictions and paniced and lost only $1,000 each, that's over $1,000,000 that we have cost our readers. Why do we want to allow this nonsense? Smallbones (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

While a very interesting hypothetical question, I feel that Verifiability assertation that Wikipedia is for verifiability as opposed to truth, and of course the inherent issues with citing a encylcopedia instead of a primary or secondary source of information would deter most if not all readers from such reckless actions. That being said, it is the internet, you should take everything with a grain of salt, and we should not be held liable for their actions. Nick picking I know, but I felt that your comment demanded some response. Zidel333 (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep for now; if it later emerges that the effects were only temporary, move to Black Monday (2008). —Nightstallion 23:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. A week in which many major stock market indices experienced both their biggest one-day rise and fall in history (the IBEX 35 is an example) and had other implications such as the extraordinary Fed cut is surely notable. It does need a bit of a cleanup, though (perhaps in the style of the October 27, 1997 mini-crash article), and may well need to be rewritten/retitled/merged as future events unfold. Gr1st (talk) 13:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete as a POV conglomeration of non-notable events attempting to suggest a crash that did not occur. Pure own-research garbage with sourcing for patchwork pieces. No sources for the whole or its concept. JERRY ^talk _contribs 19:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

To clarify your remarks, do you really think it's just a coincidence that several record rises and falls happened in the same week as the biggest US interest rate cut in 18 years and hence it's a POV (despite multiple reliable sources connecting them)? Or do you simply find these facts individually non-notable (i.e. the biggest FTSE point fall ever or the biggest interest rate cut in 18 years is of no notability at all)? -Halo (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

One can sew together a quilt from properly sourced statements that create a ludicrous collection to support a POV. The overall subject of the article needs to be sourced. If I found 75 articles about females between the age of 13 and 19 being killed over a 3-decade period all over the world, and then made some correlary to the popular music of that period and included references to the temperature at the north pole, I might make an article with incontrovertible references that suggests that global warming and pop music results in death to teen-aged girls. But such an article would be rediculous, wouldn't it? This collection of news has been cleverly assembled to make some suggestion about the circumstances in which it happened, and I see no credible third-party assertions of the same. JERRY ^talk _contribs 22:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Google "Black Monday. It's real. It happened. No one knows what if any long term effect this Black Monday will have. Two effects so far off the top of my head: historic drop in interest rate and financial damage to several financial institutions that bet the wrong way. WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep A pothole is a pothole. This is a well sourced and very informative account of something incontrovertibly major that happened in financial markets, period. Whether it describes a squeaker or a harbinger, the article will be of future use. Calling it "garbage" and "nonsense" doesn't get us very far.--Wageless (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, no assertion of notability, g12 copyright violation. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sins Of The Loose Buttons

Disputed speedy delete. This is a non-notable, unpublished band which has one member who was previously in a marginally notable youth band. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete they don't meet WP:MUSIC standards. Polly (Parrot) 00:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - very simple: There are no references to reliable sources to verify notability. Sbowers3 (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete the greatest band in the history of the world from the greatest city ever with the greatest musicians who ever commissioned their own great NPOV Wikipedia article? Surely you jest! Oh, you don't? --Russ (talk) 18:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete - copy vio of http://www.facebook.com/pages/Sins-Of-The-Loose-Buttons/16067480315. Sbowers3 (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Niall Bruton

[edit] Sharon Foley

[edit] Archibald Leach

[edit] Davien Jones

[edit] Ice Cream and Cake

[edit] Jacob Golomb

[edit] Kevin Doell

[edit] Charles Bonifacio

[edit] Myrna Williams

[edit] NFL on FOX announcer pairings

[edit] Claudia Zacchara

[edit] Jayden James

[edit] Derek Foran

[edit] Credit Rating Agency of Bangladesh Limited

[edit] Okhotsimsky Dmitrii Evgenievich

[edit] Mfx

[edit] Rigas French Lycée

[edit] Tim Trebes

[edit] Tracker (Business Software)

[edit] Jamie Matsukubo

[edit] Peter Tarlow

[edit] Monica (given name)

[edit] Camp Doublecreek

[edit] Joe mclaughlin

[edit] VFA-6 Alpha

[edit] Tragedy dismantel

[edit] List of Guns from James Bond: Nightfire

[edit] Peter Hudecki

[edit] Kent Ninomiya

[edit] Jinx.com

[edit] Bunny Dees

[edit] Toa

[edit] Stand One Records

[edit] Bristo Bay

[edit] Comparison of massively multiplayer online role-playing games

[edit] 13th note

[edit] HealthCentral Network

[edit] DeSoto High School-Freshman Campus (DeSoto, Texas)

[edit] UEFA Cup 2007-08 first round

[edit] Dr. Carlos Castañeda Elementary School

[edit] Liberal Fascism (graphic novel)

[edit] That Day (One Buck Short)

[edit] One Buck Short

[edit] Band members of One Buck Short

[edit] Wambui Otieno

[edit] Fen Line Users Association

[edit] Introduction to metrics, norms and inner products

[edit] Bisector plan

[edit] Greg Turk

[edit] Maritime Football League

[edit] Firebugs

[edit] Nazar - A South Asian Perspective

[edit] Jim Raley

[edit] Jordan Russolillo

[edit] Mike Chabala

[edit] Michael Dello-Russo

[edit] Eric Kronberg

[edit] Duke Hashimoto

[edit] Chad Dombrowski

[edit] Michael Behonick

[edit] Justin Hughes (soccer)

[edit] Shane Brewer

[edit] Sam O'Sullivan

[edit] List of foreign football players in Vyscha Liha

[edit] Matt Prosser

[edit] List of football players from Rotterdam

[edit] Norkia Datta

[edit] Dani Franks

[edit] Coming Full Circe

[edit] Haití Español

[edit] Dustin Slade

[edit] The Bad Girls Club 2

[edit] UPOhtml

[edit] LT-TV

[edit] Kitting

[edit] Macaquitos

[edit] Wild rivers