Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 February 5

< February 4	February 6 >

Discussions
Centralized discussion

edit • talk • log • watch
Systematic review of the Requests for Adminship process Broad RFC on the nature and purpose of notability and the GNG Discussion on the current notability guidelines Proposal to add 'class C' to the article grading system Revisiting status of WP:Attribution Centralized discussion on terrorism related articles ArbCom proposal to create a Sourcing Adjudication Board 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 consensus (non-admin closure). EJF (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aldermaston Soke

A grouping of houses does not make this place notable enough for a wikipedia article. Tavix (talk) 23:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. All towns and villages are notable. --Eastmain (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Seems just about large enough to pass for a village [1]. Tivedshambo (talk) 07:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete. The original author, and nobody in the 6 months of the articles existence, has found nothing notable to say. I was going to correct the article (it is actually a hamlet mostly in Hampshire) but didn't think it worthwhile. MalcolmGould (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Drove through here today. Just a small number of houses scattered along the road. There is not the normal roadside-sign on entering a town/village so it is not even clear where it begins/ends. MalcolmGould (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Okay I withdraw my Delete - I hate to see work going to waste. I must propose some more articles for deletion - it seems a good way to get them improved! MalcolmGould (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
weak keep. The notable thing about Aldermaston Soke, as can be seen from the map provided by Tivedshambo, and can be read by searching for the name on Google books, is that when driving through it you are (briefly) driving along the course of a Roman road. In England it is fairly unusual for modern roads to follow the course of Roman roads even to this minor extent. It also seems that the dip in the ground here gives it distinct growing conditions of interest to botanists, but my knowledge of botany is not sufficient to judge the sources. --Paularblaster (talk) 21:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Good point about the Roman road. I've added it to the article, though some modern roads (the A5 for example) follow Roman roads more often than you seem to imply. Tivedshambo (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply: So I saw. I just added a bunch more details - it's amazing what just a couple of sources can do for an article. I'd change my "weak keep" to a "keep" - but since I've just spent my evening on this I might be biased. You're right that I might be guilty of exaggeration when it comes to Roman roads, but from the perspective of Belgium (where I live) and Northern France (and I'd guess even more so Southern France and Italy) English roads are a bit random. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Botanical and historical interest fills in any potential gaps in the 'inherent notability' claim for me. Benea (talk) 10:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. If it warrants a mention on the map, it's a settlement, more than a mere "grouping of houses". Waggers (talk) 16:21, 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 undisputedly hoax. Pegasus «C¦T» 02:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Extreme underwater basket weaving

Disputed prod for an article that I suggest is a hoax; the article itself suggests (near the end) that no Google hits will be found. This doesn't meet verifiability standards and I seriously doubt it can. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete I tried to find sources on Google but could only find references to it on forums and jokes -- just as the article itself claims. Completely unverifiable, possibly a hoax or just plain original research. Kamek (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete – vanity/hoax/nonsense. Dicklyon (talk) 23:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Tagged as CSD per A7. Kamek (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete I lol'ed when I read this article. This is just nonsense. Tavix (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete junk. JuJube (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Extreme Underwater Delete This is well-constructed nonsense, and hats off to Omni for putting this together. It's a clever satire of both extreme sports and the use of the phrase "underwater basket weaving" to describe a ridiculously easy college course. I liked the part where sharks and electric fences were added to make it even more extreme. It can't stay up, of course, and I'm sure it'll be taken down before the day is one, but it's very well done. Mandsford (talk) 01:33, 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 --JForget 01:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kwik Way (Restaurant)

Delete unsourced article about nn restaurant with some pretty negative comments Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete Not just negative, but potentially libelous. Kwik Way is (or was) a real restaurant in Oakland, and one of the editors (not the original author) has made a pretty serious claim with absolutely nothing to back it up. I think the defamatory nature of this qualifies for a speedy. Someone needs to have a word with the editor in question. Mandsford (talk) 01:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete conceivable that it was notable prior to its close [2] but no evidence thereof. Delete unless WP:RS are found. JJL (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete, agree with Mandsford. --Sallicio 07:51, 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 delete.--Kubigula (talk) 04:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chicken Farm

The article fails WP:MUSIC for songs. I've searched for any charts this song could have appeared, or for any awards it could have earned, but I found nothing. The article may also contain Original research. Victao lopes (talk) 23:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to delete this article. The song never charted because they were an underground punk band on an independent label. Underground bands tend not to chart. The article simply explains what the song's about, giving context to any listeners who may be curious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socaldagger (talk • contribs) 00:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete as original research. the song itself has no independent notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per WP:MUSIC. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 05:56, 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 delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Epic snowboarding

Originally marked as PROD due to probable violation of WP:NEO, WP:V and WP:N. PROD was removed from article with no explanation or reason. CultureDrone (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete crap. JuJube (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per JuJube. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete, ditto. Besides, everybody knows that to be truly epic, snowboarding must be performed in a toga while wearing a laurel wreath, or in plate armor. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:51, 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 this nomination was withdrawn as KEEP by the nominator (non-administrator closure), no other editors having contributed. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 07:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Internet Superstar

Podcast first aired less than a week ago. Unlikely to have become notable in that time, and no reliable sources cited to assert that this has happened. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Withdraw AfD. The originating editor has added a reference which I think satisfactorily establishes notability. I wish to withdraw the nomination, as no-one else has commented since it was made yesterday. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 07:07, 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 Redirect to Multi-Coloured Swap Shop. (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 19:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Posh Paws

nn alone; already detailed on Swap Shop page Rapido (talk) 23:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

How about changing to a redirect to Multi-Coloured Swap Shop ? CultureDrone (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to Multi-Coloured Swap Shop. All the material in this article is already in Multi-Coloured Swap Shop so no need to merge. -- Whpq (talk) 16:49, 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 speedily deleted by Keilana as CSD G7, author request. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Todd Karr

Biography of a magician and publisher written by user:Toddkarr. Is he noatable? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete The creator, Toddkarr, just blanked the page, and in the edit summary, requested that it be deleted.--Nkrosse (talk) 22:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete per creator request. Pairadox (talk) 02:24, 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. Addhoc (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marcel Vezina

A local politician with no significant news coverage thereby failing the standard set by WP:BIO. Was prodded but the tag was removed. Indrian (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No significant news coverage??? well how about "the internet was not fully expanded", when he was in power. Furthermore, abundance of articles exist on microfiche about Marcel Vezina, Journal de Montreal, Nouvelliste, Journal De Quebec, Lapresse, but not on the net. I contacted a newspaper person in TRois Rivieres, and was told that any circulation news prior 5-6yrs ago, is not posted on the net anymore but relinquished to the microfiche.

Furthermore, the city of Shawingan -Sud, has merged other local cities in 2001., hence all websites maintained by the city of Shawinigan-sud, (which would provide many sources) have been put down and/or removed from the web. This doe not automatically dismiss

I'm not sure how to "link" paper article/microfiche to this wiki page!!!??? Can anyone please help? I'm fairly new at this Wiki posting. Wikimike123 (talk) 08:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but what kind of news coverage was it? Any mayor is going to be mentioned in the local paper because he is in charge of the town. Did he get national news coverage for doing something particularly innovative or something particualrly rotten? Indrian (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

delete a personal page, no sources Logastellus (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

again instead of disputing that there is no sources (because its not on the net), how do you bring to the net any national article that are on microfiche but not on the net?? There was many regional and national newspaper article that covered his exploits.Wikimike123 (talk) 8:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:OUTCOMES, mayors of major cities are usually kept on Wikipedia, but mayors of smaller cities and towns are kept only if additional notability can be shown beyond the fact that they served as a mayor. Shawinigan-Sud, which had a population of just 11,804 in 1996 according to the article on Shawinigan, falls within the latter category. Delete unless additional notability can be shown. Bearcat (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

COMMENTto the author: I have cleaned up the article (cosmetically). The subject still needs to have notability. Find references (in English...this is the Englsih Wiki) and third-party citations of notability and I will find a suitable place to put it.--Sallicio 12:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete with encouraging note at Wikimike's talk. Franamax (talk) 08:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete No notability established. Being former mayor of a small town is not enough. --L. Pistachio (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 01:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spygate

This article functions as a POV fork for an issue already sufficiently addressed in the article 2007 New England Patriots season. It functions as a sink for criticism of the team over a relatively minor incident that is sufficiently covered in the main article. This article is not necessary. Eleven Special (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Also covered in article Bill Belichick. Eleven Special (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep - Hmm....I don't think this should be "swept under the rug". It's a good article, and it details the incident much better than the entry in the season article. As a major issue involving cheating in the NFL, I'd say this merits inclusion. Mastrchf91 (^t/_c) 22:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
speedy keep - This just survived an AfD under the name Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Spygate_incident_(American_football) less than two weeks ago. The article must have been moved and renominated. Torc2 (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - It was all over the news, and now Goodell will testify before the Senate. As much as the hurt Patriot fans would like it to go away, Spygate is about to expand. There is no reason to delete, no exclude it from the "Culture" section of the Patriots template. Zeality (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Look at the references—clearly this article has enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. Kakofonous (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment The last two sentances make me question, is this a WP:POINT nomination? This article is not necessary if we wish to bury truth and justice. seems like someone has another motive. Forgive me if i'm mistaken. (Full disclosure I voted delete on the first AFD, but I understand conensus went the other way and I respect the community's choice.)--Cube lurker (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- I noticed that too after voting. Seems like a bad joke. Torc2 (talk) 02:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- My original nomination text was maliciously vandalized by an anon before anyone else commented.[3] I've restored my original text. Eleven Special (talk) 13:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  - That explains it. Didn't think to check the history.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep Appears to be notable independently of the single season in which it occurred. Maxa megalon 2000 06:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Keep per discussion two weeks ago. You can't just nominate and nominate and nominate until you get the result you want. I'm surprised this was even discussed once...much less twice. --Smashville^BONK! 15:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Typically notice is posted on the talk page that the article was reviewed under AfD. There is no template there and I was unaware of the previous AfD discussion. If there was I probably would not have nominated it a second time. While I still stand by my position that I feel this article on this topic is redundant due to the topic's inclusion in two other articles, and only serves as a sink for negative criticism and bashers of the New England Patriots, I would not oppose an admin speedy closing this. Eleven Special (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  - I apologize...my response definitely wasn't too WP:CIVIL...which is why you don't get on WP first thing in the morning after sitting up most of the night with tornado warnings...but I stand by the speedy close... --Smashville^BONK! 19:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep Although I originally wrote this article, I do not see any anti-Patriots POV. I think the article is well-sourced, and it also presents an overview of the Jets' involvement. Please offer proof that this article is a "sink for criticism" of the New England Patriots. I will make necessary changes, but I do not think this article should be deleted. Spygate is noteworthy; the Patriots were not the only team involved in the scandal. By the way, your characterization of Spygate as "relatively minor" is definitely POV: it is not supported by the facts. I'm not against the Patriots, but this incident has become exceptionally notable in sports and the NFL. CVW (Talk) 21:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- You may consider the opinion that the incident was relatively minor as POV, but when weighing the worthyness of an article it is perfectly acceptable to express your POV. In defense of my view I have to ask: have there been any major changes to the way the NFL does business or conducts its rules because of this incident? Would it be on par with other sports incidents like the Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens doping scandals? Or the Black Sox scandal? I think the attention this has gotten in the media is out of proportion with the consequences of the actual event. If there are Congressional hearings on this matter and there are overarching rule changes or laws enacted, then I would say that there would be a place for a separate article. But just because the sports media and bloggers get hot and bothered about something doesn't mean that we have to regurgitate it in the encyclopedia. As for a rationale for deletion, there was already consensus on avoiding "Criticism of X" articles. IMO, this article is just another version of that beast. Eleven Special (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment Not going to rehash what went on in the previous AfD. However, I can see where the nominator is coming from. This article was originally created to centralize and expand information dealing with the specific instance. But when every Tom, Dick, and Harry weighs in on this article with a published quote, and when other "rumors" and "development" of varying substance gets thrown in, it does become a "sink for criticism." If any prominent figure has something to say about this, it goes into this article. If there are more accusations, rumblings, and affects (i.e. opinion on what it means to legacies, etc.), it goes into this article. There is certainly a tendency for this article to drift away from encyclopedic into the realm of blog or message board, or "log" of opinions and rumors. Pats1 ^T/C 22:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep I think this is significant enough a topic that it should be kept separate, especially because its timeline is sufficiently long enough not to be easily covered within the aforementioned 2007 New England Patriots season article, at least without losing some of the content. I agree that there are some POV issues, but the article and subject seem significant enough--especially given Congress' new interest in the matter--to warrant keeping the article. Kevin Smith (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep Keep this page. Deleting this page would be like a member of the RNC deleting the Watergate page. Just stop it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.6.154.8 (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC) — 129.6.154.8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep Article is valid and should remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.226.96.226 (talk) 02:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC) — 96.226.96.226 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep but create a link in the Bill Belechick bio to a seperate chapter on "Spygate" linking to the page in question. NoseNuggets (talk)10:51 AM US EST Feb 8 2008

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

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

The result was Keep. Fram (talk) 10:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1996 in Australian television

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/1996 in Australian television

Delete; The pages for *Year* in Australian television all do not seem to include an article. They are merely lists that provide little or no notable content. Pages have already been deleted before because of their consisting of only a template with broken links to uncreated pages. Most pages also seem to need references and most can be considered stubs. Even though an article, for the mere fact of it being a list, does not make it encyclopedic, it would depend on what the list is about.

Also, does the inclusion of a group of articles on the years in television history mean there will also be others about American television history by year? Mexican television by year? Russian television by year? And what events on television would be notable enough to include in the articles? Technically, anything that's past is historical, but would news be notable enough? If the Oscars are included, does that mean Premio Lo Nuestro is too due to the fact that is one of the most anticipated Spanish-speaking shows throughout the year by Latinos, though not by english speaking people, in the United States? Monkeytheboy (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (talk) 22:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - I don't watch television - not interested in television, ..... but articles of this type have precedent. The alternative would be to merge with year in Australia articles, which for the content in this article would be feasible, ie merge to 1996 in Australia and/or to 1996 in television - the latter I suspect is US biased and could be renamed 1996 in US television - I have no difficulty with articles on Mexican or Russian television. I note that 1996 in television is quite lengthy already.--Matilda ^talk 22:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - 1966-67 United States network television schedule would seem to indicate that there are indeed articles about US television programming by year.--Matilda ^talk 23:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - I am not sure in the nomination the point of the comment The pages for *Year* in Australian television all do not seem to include an article. They are merely lists that provide little or no notable content. Pages have already been deleted before because of their consisting of only a template with broken links to uncreated pages. Most pages also seem to need references and most can be considered stubs. Red links and stubs are both OK on Wikipedia and neither are reasons to delete. Lists are also OK. Note that notability guidelines do not limit content of lists except when it comes to people - see WP:NNC. I have not been able to find a specific guidleline for television but there is a comprehensive wikiproject and perhaps they can shed more light.--Matilda ^talk 23:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Matilda ^talk 23:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep Some of these "19XX in Australian television" articles were deleted recently because they contained no content apart from the navbox and that's fair enough, however if there is sustainable content I see no reason to delete the article. As Matilda says, stubs and lists are fine and articles are not required to contain prose. If you look at the more recent articles such as 2007 in Australian television, you'll see that they are intended to be quite well-referenced listings of series debuts, endings and channel changes, as well as notable events in television. If someone wants to work on a Mexican television article, so be it, if not there's no need to delete articles people are willing and able to work on (see WP:OTHERSTUFF). --Canley (talk) 00:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge While 2007 in Australian television may generate sufficient interest and content due to its recency, it's harder to imagine that either of say 1981 in Australian television or 1982 in Australian television would progress much beyond stubs. This suggests perhaps Australian television in the 1980s might be a more sensible aggregation, with similar articles for the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, or even the 1990s. Murtoa (talk) 02:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - I, along with Allied45 have been working on both 2007 in Australian television and 2008 in Australian television with the intent of creating an entire series of articles right back to 1956 when television was first broadcast in Australia. We are still deciding on the format, structure and content before completely rolling these out. The reason for these articles, as correctly pointed out by Matilda above, is the Year in television articles are in essence Year in Amercian television. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - I should also point out that to supplement the main Year in Australian television articles, there are also Category:Year in Australian television, Category:Year Australian television series debuts and Category:Year Australian television series endings. So for last year, there is Category:2007 in Australian television, Category:2007 Australian television series debuts and Category:2007 Australian television series endings. These have all been created and I am in the process of populating these categories which well help me in forming the main articles. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 03:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - As mentioned above, I have been working hard, alongside Ianblair23, to create a series of articles relating to Years in Australian television. Sure, this page hasn't took off yet, but it can be called a stub, and editors can have the oppurtunity to add what relevant content that they wish. I'll also like to point out that as well as 2007 in Australian television, there are also articles for Canada, New Zealand, United Kingdom and the United States. -- Allied45 (talk) 09:25, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jenae Rubin

Notability criteria not met. Appears to be advertising. Boson (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete as spam / self-promotion -- Whpq (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete. I couldn't find anything suggesting she meets the notability criteria, and the article is certainly strongly promotional in tone.--Kubigula (talk) 04:46, 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 keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] James McDermott

The entry is redundant, since a McDermott disambiguation entry already exists. Users of Wikipedia who are looking for a McDermott without knowing for sure McDermott's first name should be able to also find the James McDermotts in the disambiguation page. If the McDermott entry is already too large, the entry for James McDermott in it could lead to a second disambiguation page, for James McDermotts only. But it's not helpful having two separate entries; we should not presume people always know exactly what they're looking for. The Gnome (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep. The situation described (having these listings at a two-name dab page and at the surname dab) is not unusual at all; have a glance at Category:Lists of ambiguous human names. I suppose many of the two-name dabs could be redirected to the surname dab, but that would be a major change in how we have handled these pages and I am not convinced that there is any strong advantage to changing the precedent. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep per Paul Erik. Disambigs are cheap and there's absolutely no reason to get rid of this. The McDermott surname page is unusually large for a disambig right now and this presents an advantage to the user who only cares about those with the survey who are named James. Redfarmer (talk) 09:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
keep. When it comes to finding aids, redundancy is a good thing. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:59, 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 redirect, since it had no salvageable encyclopedic content. Mukadderat (talk) 23:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tarnished Gold

It's nothing but a plot summary without any context. Travellingcari (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to V. C. Andrews#The Landry series per WP:FICT. Jfire (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep The article needs work but it is a notable book. Snowman (talk) 17:31, 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 delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tenaga Sayaw

A goofle search returns Wiki and lots of copies of the article's text, but no actual information about the art. Travellingcari (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because like the above, there's very little in any language that's not Wiki or a Wiki mirror.:

Delete if this were a kata by two countries, there would be more online mentions. I've never heard martial arts practice as Tenaga Sayaw here in the Philippines.--Lenticel ^(talk) 22:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Even its version in WikiPilipinas questions its notability. Seems like it's a term used by a school of martial arts in Cavite (see here). Starczamora (talk) 02:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 03:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 03:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete nn, 7 ghits excluding WP. JJL (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep for Tovak Kali which I see has been added since my comments...marginally adequate number of ghits though wholly unsourced. JJL (talk) 04:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete NN possible advert. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 09:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete for Tovak Kali (the first one is for Tenaga Sayaw so I am not double voting), no hits on Philippine news, Google news, Google scholar, Google and Google books. Also notability seems to be confined in Cavite which means this hasn't spread nationwide yet.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:46, 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 WP:SNOW clear hoax. --Salix alba (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fletcher Field Strength

Suspected hoax. Google returns no hits. gb ^{(t, c)} 21:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete Appears to be a hoax per total lack of hits. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete. If it is an SI unit but Google is silent, there is a fairly good chance that it is a hoax. Kakofonous (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - the claim is that it is an SI base unit which it is not since these are the SI base units. -- Whpq (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete made up unit, given references in the article do not support the existence of the unit. --Salix alba (talk) 18:16, 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. Any merge discussion should be taken to the talk page. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Online skill-based game

Page is basically unreferenced, with misused references that don't establish notability. Should be deleted, or merged into Online gambling, or a mention of competing for money in the Game of skill article. Also concerned that this is just an excuse to pimp lots of online gaming sites, many of which are redlinked. Anitpatel (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep or Weak Merge with Online gambling. The actual industry term in common use is "Skill gaming", so the article is mis-named. The subject is notable enough for its own article, but the article as it stands now needs cleanup. Needing cleanup isn't a valid reason for deletion though. If we deleted every article that might be used to pimp other sites, we wouldn't have any articles left, so that's not a valid deltion reason either. Rray (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Do you have some references to support that? I think that's half the reason I haven't been able to find anything on this subject. A rename might make it easier to establish notability. But if no one can do that, we should delete or merge this article. Anitpatel (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  - A Google search for "skill gaming" brings back almost 80,000 results, so references probably exist. (A Google News search only brings back 16 results though, but that's still a significant number for something that's "non-notable".) I don't have specific references to add, nor do I have the time at the moment to clean up the article myself. (The wife is away and I have to take care of three children tonight.) Rray (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    - This also raises concerns about WP:neologism. That's one more reason this should be condensed to a quick mention in online gambling. Anitpatel (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
      - Being a neologism isn't a reason for deletion either. Rray (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - Case that this article is policy-noncompliant hasn't been made. Article could use cleanup but that's not a reason to AFD it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Either Keep or Merge and Redirect into a separate section of Online game, which this is really just a fork of; the games are the same, only the chance to win money is different. Black Kite 22:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep Much to great potential content to merge. No evidence of spam so far, though that wouldnt be reason to delete in any case, just to watchlist.DGG (talk) 03:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 10:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom, or merge. I agree this a non-notable fork from Online gambling, or possibly Game of skill, but since most of these games are driven by web based advertising, I would suggest the former is a better merge candidate. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge topic seems to have the required minimum references for WP:N, but I share the nominator's concern about the article being used as a farm for redlinks. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Redirect or Merge. Limited notability. Best fit with an article on online gambling. Ludologist12 (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge to a suitable article (Online game would be my choice). One can find coverage which discusses "online games of skill" or specific instances thereof, but I'm not convinced the subject is discussed in sufficient generality to justify a separate article yet. --Sturm 09:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep, valid, referenced, verifiable, clearly separable topic. Mukadderat (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep—references establish notability. Concerns about spam seem excessive. Spacepotato (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Consensus as of Feb 14:I still don't see how the advocates for "keeping" have established even one valid reference about "online skill-based games". There's one article from about.com that talks about competing for money online, but no explicit mention of the concept in this article. And another white paper about how to make money off of games, which I'm concerned isn't even a valid reference. The purpose of a white paper is (quote from wikipedia page) "designed to promote a specific company's solutions or products as it relates to the issue or topic examined". This is the epitome of WP:SPAM.
These two references (one that doesn't mention the concept, and one that is not reliable) are not enough.
Still, it looks like there is a decent consensus for a merge. People are split about deletion. But of the 11 contributors to this page, 7 would have stated they agree with a merge, and the remaining four don't appear to be against it. I understand this isn't a vote, but we may be able to extract a consensus here. A merge keep the information, and delete the "online skill-based game" article, which is a decent compromise. Anitpatel (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to your contention, the about.com reference is about the subject of this article. As for the white paper, any number of organizations, commercial and noncommercial, issue white papers. This one is from IGDA, a nonprofit industry association which the article does not promote in any way. Spacepotato (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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: all verifiable geolocations are for wikipedia by common decision. Mukadderat (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Justo daract

Seems to be a small collection of facts and some headings. No article to speak of. Nv8200p talk 21:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Move to Justo Daract, Argentina and put a {{cleanup}} tag on it (so tagged for cleanup). Google maps turns it up as a real location. Looks like an article that somebody started and never got around to finishing up. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep, clean up and move to Justo Daract (I'm okay if Justo Daract, Argentina is preferred). All towns are notable and this one with thousands of people is quite sizable. --Oakshade (talk) 17:04, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Massimiliano Tagliani

Youth player, not yet a professional Matthew_hk t c 20:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I also put them on AFD

Matthew_hk t c 21:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete All fail WP:FOOTY notability criteria and WP:BIO#Athletes. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete all. Fail WP:BIO and unsourced to even suggest now otherwise. Peanut4 (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete all, all fail WP:FOOTY notability criteria, recreate when/if they ever make an appearance for the 1st team, King of the North East 22:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wikipopuli, a more suitable wiki for biographies of people whose notability is in question. All these football players could be appropriately listed there.TheYellowCabin (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

delete not notable Logastellus (talk) 11:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - not yet notable --Dweller (talk) 13:01, 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. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Woodworking for Women

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Woodworking for Women

Articles for deletion/Woodworking for Women (2nd nomination)

Article has been discussed in an XfD discussion in 2005. No improvement since the last deletion discussion. Article tagged for speedy but only eligible for AfD. Procedural nomination. --VS ^talk 20:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete Article is stagnant, Magazine does not exist and the external link takes you to a craft site. Found this with a search - ceased publication with the October/November 2006 issue. I Agree with Deletion ♫Slysplace | ^talk 23:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete something nonverifiabe notability. Mukadderat (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Salt Grammar School

Speedy declined and the person removed some of the unencyclopedic content, however there is still nothing notable about this school. Travellingcari (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep School is a specialist school in Maths and Computing. Also has recently received The Sportsmark 2007/8 award. Paste (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. It is notable for being one of the few surviving grammar schools - there are only 164 grammar schools left in the whole of England. This one also has a history going back to the 1800s. Dahliarose (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment. After a few quick searches I've now discovered that Salt Grammar School is a historically important school. A whole book has been written about it which will be a valuable source for further expansion if anyone local has access to it. The school was founded by Sir Titus Salt as a factory school for the children of the model village of Saltaire which is now a World Heritage Site. Despite its name it no longer appears to be a grammar school.

Keep - historic grammar school. Plenty of sources available from which the page can be expanded and which meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment I didn't think schools were inherently notable, even though Wikipedia:Notability (schools) is just a proposal. My nomination stemmed from the fact that I could find no evidence of 2nd party coverage that doesn't concern an event at the school. Travellingcari (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - events at the school are fine when covered in reliable sources. Even in your search there are several significant references which, taken with Dahliarose's research, incontrovertibly meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment. For UK schools you should search on www.google.co.uk and confine the search to the UK. There are also UK-specific sources listed at WP Schools. A search at COPAC or Google Books would have told you about the published history. Dahliarose (talk) 23:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

- Reply fair enough, but that wouldn't have helped much for news in this case. You guys have done a good job cleaning it up since I met it, I'll give you that. I'm curious what these UK-specific sources are is this the schools proposal you're speaking of? I'd obviously not have nominated it if I thought it met the criteria. I'm probably missing what defines it as notable Travellingcari (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

That's very odd. I'm getting pages and pages of results here. There are lots of source links at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools. Any school of this age will inevitably have plenty of sources available, even if they're not online. Dahliarose (talk) 09:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Web v. Google News, got the difference now. I default to News first in order to directly find ~60-80%% (depending on article subject) of the reliable sources for most articles. When nothing shows in a local/national/int'l newspaper, then I trifle more in Web searches for something that might pass for reliable. I know the sources in Project School, I was looking at the proposed guidelines which say, A school is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage[1] in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the school itself. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability.[2] and while I agree there *should* be a ton of sources on a 100+ year old school, there haven't proved to be that many that meet WP:RS. But it looks like I'm outvoted here, I can live with that. Travellingcari (talk) 12:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

A whole book on the history of a school is significant coverage and is a reliable secondary source. It can hardly be described as trivial. The sources available online are only the tip of the iceberg. It is also worth searching separately on Google Books. Dahliarose (talk) 14:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep as school with such a long history should be able to satisfy notability. Potential to expand and currently a valid stub.

Sting au Buzz Me... 04:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep Secondary schools are part of wikiproject schools. Snowman (talk) 17:33, 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 delete. Deleted by User:Versageek per WP:CSD#A5 (article that has been transwikied). —David Eppstein (talk) 03:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sidewalk superintendent

This was apparently transwikied a year ago, but it's still here. It's unclear from the comment later on the talk page and the history whether it came back or why, but it's still here. I wasn't entirely sure what to do with it, so I brought it here since I don't think it's encyclopedic and it's a neologism/dicdef at best Travellingcari (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete A5, tagged. Jfire (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Not a neologism. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sidewalk%20superintendent gives a date of 1940. --Eastmain (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment ok so it's still a dictionary definition that was previously transwikied. It doesn't need to be here as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travellingcari (talk • contribs) 03:31, 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. Canley (talk) 10:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shut Up Already

Delete; NN song. Fails WP:MUSIC per criteria for albums/songs. Was not a single. Merge to Liberal Animation. Cool song, but does not deserve it's own page. Endless Dan 20:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete; Article does not mention notability and fails to explain anything other than the fact that the song exists to people who have never heard of the band or the song (such as I). Monkeytheboy (talk) 22:25, 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 per author's request, and per nominator's volunteering to do as much. Easiest solution. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NBC Slogans

Full of WP:OR, uncited info, and opinion--and what's worse, the useful meat of it (the list of slogans themselves) has already been collected at List of NBC slogans. We definitely do not need TWO articles about the same subset of ad slogans, no matter how notable (and most of these, as evidenced by the large "delete" consensus at the AfD's for their individual articles, weren't very notable to begin with.) Gladys J Cortez 20:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge into List of NBC slogans. You're right, we don't need two - so why not just have one that combines both? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge. I created this page because each of the slogans pages were up for AfD thanks to Gladys but the information was too much to be merged into the NBC article. Someone else is welcome to merge this stuff into the List of NBC slogans page, but I've paid my dues for this issue. — X S G 22:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment:I've left a comment for XSG; I didn't realize this was an effort to solve the problem rather than a separate problem of its own. My mistake, and as penance, I'll take care of the merge. Gladys J Cortez 23:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  - Comment: it can be both, really... an attempt to solve a problem can become a problem in its own rights. It should be merged with the List of NBC slogans. — X S G 15:49, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Norman David Roussell

9 month old orphaned COI resume dump by entirely non-notable businessman. Travellingcari (talk) 20:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete not notable in the least. Jfire (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete notability. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete non-notable orphaned conflict of interest. Doczilla (talk) 01:02, 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 Speedy delete as blatant copyvio with no salvageable text within the article. nancy ^(talk) 22:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Network of European Active Citizens

Contested prod. Non-notable organization. A total of six Google hits - and two of those are in Wikipedia and two are related to NEAC. Sbowers3 (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - the main part of the article is copied directly from their website. Tagging as a copyvio-- Whpq (talk) 17:16, 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 per CSD:A7. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Rannachan

There is absolutely no evidence that this psychic is in any way notable. Travellingcari (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete A7, tagged. Jfire (talk) 21:58, 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; nicely cleaned up and referenced by Paul Erik.--Kubigula (talk) 04:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dylan Rice

Asserts some importance, but seems non-notable _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{play it cool.} 19:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There have been non-trivial mentions of Dylan Rice in The Advocate (at least twice) and in the Chicago Sun-Times. There has been a full article about Rice in the Chicago Tribune. I would say that's easily enough to pass WP:N. I've added those references just now. Keep. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep per Paul Erik. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep -- there is no reason to delete this page based on the deletion guidelines. -- The tatooed lady —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.126.106 (talk) 04:09, 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 delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Admission Possible

Non-notable organization. Article borders on advertisement, is written in a promotional tone (and has been tagged as such since the day it was written), a contains a solitary source link pointing to the founder's bio. Coverage by the New York Times and Business Week is claimed, but no specific source is cited. I waited a while for the author to improve this, but he or she never did. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. KurtRaschke (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Written like an advert and appears abandoned. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{play it cool.} 19:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - it's written like an advertisement. And it may be a possible copyvio of[4]. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 20:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete addishness. Doczilla (talk) 01:04, 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. Fram (talk) 11:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dave Clarke (DJ)

Listed at votes for deletion because he does not meet Wikipedia's biographical criteria and probably the notability criteria as well (WP:NOTE). Should really be transwiki'd under GFDL to a more apprepriate wiki. Solumeiras (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Is Dave Clarke and this one, one and the same? if so, redirect, if not, Delete. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No, they're not the same individual. --Solumeiras (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete. This particular Dave Clarke doesn't appear to be sufficiently notable - no significant independent coverage found.--Michig (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to 100.7 Heart FM or a similar page. There are lots of these DJ articles, and I would personally be in favour of merging many of them into something like List of British DJs. Paul20070 (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete This has to be the least notable man on the face of the Earth.TheNextOne (talk) 22:06, 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. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Audioscape

Reads like an advertisement, with no objective references (ie. all provided links sing the praises of the product). JuJube (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete - looks like a copyvio of[5]. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 20:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Audioscape is not a product. It is a research project exploring an area which is relatively new: 3D audio modeling for music performance and listening. The text will evolve over the following two weeks. as it is indeed in a synthesis from our research texts. Regarding the provided links, they are strictly documentation of our research, or artworks. I do not understand at all how they can be regarded as "singing praise" of a product. I suggest taking a closer and more considered look at the text. zkonateZkonate (talk) 23:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Note Zkonate is the author of the article in question. JuJube (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete, weakly, and without prejudice. Frankly, I suspect conflict of interest issues are the largest problem here. The article's lead:

Audioscape is an open source research project, exploring 3D audio modeling for live music performance. It provides a framework for immersive spatial audio performance, where a user's body can be modelled within a virtual 3-D world, and the propagation of audio is computed based on acoustic physical modelling. This framework is among only a few that have explored virtual environments from the perspective of music and digital signal processing (DSP). It is an interactive and perceptually engulfing experience that causes users to feel like they are inside of an artwork or instrument.

sounds interesting, but is also extremely vague and abstract, and gives me no sense of the hardware needed to perform in this environment or to listen to it. The article gives credit to the Canadian Council for the Arts, among other donors, so this may have some documentable notability. But I fear that someone less connected to it would write about it better and more clearly. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete, no independent verification of notability. Mukadderat (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 22:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Digital bra/bikini

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Digital bra/bikini

A neologism sourced from one comment in an online discussion. Guy (Help!) 18:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete, non-notable neologism; Wikipedia is not for things made up in a forum one day. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete – It is a shame, a well written article. However, I could find No sources or references on/for or about the term. If they could be provided, I would defentitly reconsider changing opinion. Shoessss | Chat 18:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete due to insufficient sources. If sources later become available, the article can be re-created later. The term did show up in a Google Books search, which supposedly had a U.S. Congressional document saying, "The economic path the US is on, with the Digital Bra accelerating economic gains out of proportion ..." but the document turned out to actually say "Digital Era". [6] --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment LOL! --Canley (talk) 05:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Strong Keep: You need to read this entry and to ask yourself "What is an appropriate level of sourcing for a word used by Anime fans?" this isn't a redflag claim, or an extraordinary entry, it's an entry about a simple phrase used by Anime and Managa fans to describe something simple and non-volatile. In this instance the level of sourcing is appropriate. As for not being able to find references to this phrase, please look more closely, within 10 seconds I found a good half dozen uses on a single notable website. * *

* * * *

Here are a couple of examples of fan use * * on message sites that don't meet sourcing criteria.

The term is notable and commonly used. It's also a stub so having 1-2 sources is no big deal. The fact that it has an image actually showing what happens is also a big thing in its favor. - perfectblue (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment – Hey - perfectblue I checked your sources and they are all from the same place. And to be honest, a quote from just one Site does not make for a Notable phrase. Sorry to say, you have not swayed my opinion. Shoessss | Chat 22:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Google search shows only de minimis usage as idiom. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 03:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
'delete or consider transwiki to Wiktionary. Right now, there are fan uses and a few mentioned in more substantive works but no reliabel source defines or discusses this notion at all. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:22, 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 per A7 (band that does not assert notability). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Safeer-e-arsh

Looks like an A7, but that may be misleading (if it were a US band with sourcing this poor, it would be in the bitbucket by now). No independent sources, no evident claim of notability. Guy (Help!) 18:09, 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. Borderline notability, but probably just enough. Some more (offline) sources from local editors would be good. Black Kite 22:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sophia Danenberg

First person of a certain ethnicity and gender to climb a certain mountain. And that's about it, really. WP:BLP1E applies, I think. No sources included for anything outside of this one achievement. Guy (Help!) 18:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Ho and hum. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep This is both a notable mountain, a first (whether race, ethnicity, gender) which is also notable, and also a rarity in the sport (race and gender in high altitude climbing). rkmlai (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Weak Keep – There seems to be enough coverage to pass WP:Notability based on my Google search as listed here [7]. They all state the claim, to notability, is that she is the first Black-American female to climb Mount Everest. Shoessss | Chat 18:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep Passes WP:N, though not by much. Sethie (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Weak delete. The article notes that the local media didn't cover this so why is it notable enough for Wikipedia. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The article as written: "But then she kept a low profile before, during, and after her climb. She wasn’t sponsored and didn’t send satellite photos or dispatches to news organizations, as many climbers do. The only people she kept in touch with, by e-mail, were her sister, her husband, and a colleague at work." so it is not that she, is not notable but that she didnt have publicity about herself before or after the event. I say it is Notable for wikipedia and the world.
--rkmlai (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a new and surprising criterion if it is more than a compact way of saying "It's relatively easy to get publicity from your local paper, so what has kept the Hartford Courant from covering her?" That is far from a mere rhetorical question, and i can offer two quite specific and compelling possible answers:

The Courant presumably invested substantially in the "on assignment" expedition expenses of its reporter Michael Kodas, author of High Crimes: The Fate of Everest in an Age of Greed (releasing this month). I don't think we need to become authorities on the conflict-of-interest standards or financial realities of modern journalism to say that it's plausible that the paper might weigh the hazards of either being stereotyped as obsessed with Everest, or simply undermining its readers' appetites for Kodas's Everest tales, if it covered Dannenberg's story.
Dannenberg is a professional working in an engineering-dominated mega-corp, in an area that some engineers may consider significant mostly as an impediment to their work. I can imagine such a professional fearing that local publicity could evoke hostility in co-workers, based on theories that publicity enhanced her influence in decisions that should be based only on technical considerations, and therefore requesting that there be no local coverage.

--Jerzy•t 08:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Weak Keep - does meet WP:N. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 20:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. The Chicago Reader is pretty much a local (metro) paper (she's from Homewood, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago). The Chicago Tribune has also covered her.[8] Biggest problem here is not notability but cadging too much from the Reader article. --Dhartung | Talk 20:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

She also spoke of the event as guest of honor 200 miles (of dense urban corridor) away.
--Jerzy•t 08:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep:

Perhaps i've not read far enough in WP:BLP1E, but the tone of its first 'graph certainly doesn't support deletion in this case: minor crimes and running for office, AFIC see, are massively less notable than climbing Everest, even without the firsts, and IMO the article will be sought by student essayists and identity-pride speakers/educators (which most WP'ians aren't), and found by them if it is the target of suitable lks, so our individual interest in it, or the general public's, is a poor gauge of its notability.

As to "First person of a certain ethnicity and gender ...":

I grant that what we have here, a first for a combination of ethnicity and gender, is somewhat less notable than "first of an ethnicity" or "first of a gender". But the nom says "certain ethnicity and gender" as if any choice of them has the same significance. (Wrong: Suppose by a statistical anomaly something comparable had happened to be done by black men and Euro women, before the first Euro man. I don't think (even if some might) that either a black woman's Everest ascent or the hypothetical first Euro man's accomplishment is per se better than the others. But i don't think the Euro man's accomplishment would have the same significance and notability as Sophia Danenberg's.)

And even if someone has achieved complete "race blindness" and "gender blindness" and is thus free of prejudice, i can't see how they could be so unaware of the role in modern thought of concepts like internalized racism and "multiple handicaps" operating synergistically, as to dismiss the significance of the concepts, and such talismans as Sophia Danenberg, in the lives of more typical humans.

Please note that you don't have to even believe that internalized racism or synergism of handicaps is real, to know that the ideas matter. This is not a question of our taking the corresponding PoV, but of recognizing that holding the PoV is a real phenomenon, and that people doing so makes a difference in society and social psychology.

I started the article without a clear thought about what makes it notable, but more the thought "far from run-of-the-mill, and others are better equipped than i to judge whether it rises to notability or not." And my first thot on the AfD was to argue a "weak keep" -- but i see the topic as more notable as i consider it. (I admit to being disappointed in how it's developed in abt 6 months, since i created the 2-sentence stub, but a lot of that is tone -- uh, dare i say, WP articles shouldn't sound like identity-pride speeches? -- but always remember that AfD is always about notability of the topic, and never about the current content of the article.)
--Jerzy•t 08:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

week keep' notable but more sources needed Logastellus (talk) 11:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Wikipedia coverage of athletes is quite comprehensive and consensus standards for notability are rather generous. Significant press coverage is likely, though mostly offline media. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 03:18, 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 Keep. Fram (talk) 13:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pilot und Flugzeug

No evidence in any language that this m magazine is in any way notable. Creator seemed to agree on the talk page about a year ago. Travellingcari (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep - It's ironic that we look for articles about a subject from certain sources to establish notability of that subject, but some editors find those same sources un-notable. Also ironically, the google news link provided by the nom above demonstrates that this magazine is frequently reference by some of the most prestigious publications in the world like Die Welt and the Financial Times --Oakshade (talk) 02:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
comment: the edit history shows that the creator twice blanked the page, and despite being the only contributor of substantial content was twice reverted (once explicitly as a "vandal"). A few days later the only other substantial edits were made by "Janbrill" (coincidentally the name of the editor of the publication in question is Jan Brill, and these are the only two edits Janbrill ever made). Is it not normal to delete under these circumstances? Of course, if other editors beyond the creator are asserting and demonstrating notability, the article should be kept. --Paularblaster (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
KEEP, falls within guidlines of WP:CORP.--Sallicio 10:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

comment, as annoying as it is for the article creator to be vandalizing his own creation, the article itself is notable for Germany as Road & Track is to the US. So the article is keepable per guidelines, but is irrelevant for me personally.--Sallicio 10:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete A7 by AndonicO. RMHED (talk) 20:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Phillip Silverstone

This was nominated as failing WP:CSD#A7, but I'm not 100% sure, and think an AFD might be better. · AndonicO ^Hail! 17:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep Being the host of a two-time Emmy-nominated show might be enough, but a few of the other items listed, if given proper sourcing, should be enough to meet WP:BIO. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Delete looks like somewhat of a copyvio of[9]. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The Silverstone Collection.com is my own website and I own sole copywrite of it. I have amended my submission and linked to many pages. "Wine-tertaining" is also copywrited by me. Phillip Silverstone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.2.130 (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete Phillip silverstone has already been deleted. Continuing blatant self-promotion and advertising by Phillip and his sockpuppet. dbfirs 20:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. · AndonicO ^Hail! 23:38, 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 transwiki and delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 07:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cariad

non-notable, 126 Google hits "Cariad wine" Rapido (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Transwiki – Would not say non-notable, quite a few hits on Google News. However, more a term of a particular type of wine that seems quite popular in England and Wales. Shoessss | Chat 16:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Transwiki - is also, IIRC, the Welsh word for love. Grutness...wha? 00:55, 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 keep. John254 01:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Parker Vector

Advertising; no evidence of notability of this product. Dicklyon (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep - Googling "Parker Vector" returns 116,000 pages, and the line is unquestionably popular. Sadly most of the sites are commercial (How do you find sources for a line of biros? LOL!). There are a couple of reviews I found here and here but I'm not sure they'd qualify as sources. If this article is going to be deleted, I think most of the branded items from Category:Pencils and Category:Pens would have to go too.-- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 16:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep – notable as shown here. [10], unless reviews by the New York Time and Washington Post do not count. Shoessss | Chat 17:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep per those above me. — Cuyler91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 17:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep. I found 291,000 hits on Google! I do agree that the rule is not like the more hits, the more its notability. Still without having any substantial importance a pen won't get such a high number of hits. I do also agree with the point that it sounds like an advertisement. But, solution to this problem is cleanup not deletion. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •} ^Contribs) 18:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep, per google hits (which in this case can be considered valid) and reviews by newspapers (per Shoessss).Vice regent 20:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. While GHITS alone aren't strictly speaking WP:V, they should indicate to a responsible editor that reliable sources are more likely to be found than not with some sifting. If, after sifting, you still can't find any, then nominate and say so. Among other things, the pen was used to sign the pledge of impartiality during the Clinton impeachment trial in the US Senate (The Breach). --Dhartung | Talk 20:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep is notable, and a google search returns over 100,000 pages. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Clearly notable. Doczilla (talk) 01:08, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neil Michalares

Contested deletion, notability issues. Afd-ed to geenrate a consensus. Thank you for your opinions. --Tone 16:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC) Tone 16:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete – sorry only hits were MySpace and some blogs. Not quite enough to establish notability. Shoessss | Chat 16:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete does not meet WP:BIOGtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Detele as failed at both WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC (for being a drummer). -- Niaz ^{(Talk •} ^Contribs) 18:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep Blogs and Myspace dominate the links - locally and regionally through the Indianapolis area Neil's bands are very poular. He is also a teacher of music throughout the Indiana area, and has affected hundreds of students. Through WP:MUSIC he has taken part in multiple national tours with Percival Potts, and released 2 albums with them and 1 with Mental Afro, amongst multiple guest appearances. As well, he is notably the only drummer in established live hip hop groups in the Indianapolis area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by In3d (talk • contribs) 21:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete WP: BIO says it all. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:25, 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The faerie door

Contested prod; removed by anon IP without explanation. Non-notable book. Only 3 ghits; cites no sources, only makes claims of notability. Author does not have an article, either. Fails WP:RS and WP:V. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete - It is not notable at all, as it has 208 Google hits (at least when I searched it), and not many of the searches seem connected to this article. It is also written very unencyclopedically. — Cuyler91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 17:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - WP:CRYSTAL. This book hasn't even been published yet (and isn't scheduled to be until October). While some upcoming books are notable, this book doesn't quite fall into the Harry Potter sphere. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 17:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - I tried with Google and found 544,000 entries. I found so many things, The Faerie Door Network, The Faerie Door Shop, The Faerie Door House, The Faerie Door Forest... but Alas! Where is The Faerie Door Novel? ... failed at WP:N and WP:V. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •} ^Contribs) 18:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Per nom--NAHID 19:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete as a crystal-ball. The fact its release date is given as October 2008 may be part of the reason for its lack of sources. Recreate if and when the book is released and becomes notable enough. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP: CRYSTAL. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Unlike most spammy adverts for books, this one at least is coming out from a major publisher -- but reviews indicating notablity won't be coming out until at least a couple months before publication. No prejudice against recreating if and when notability can be demonstrated. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per crystal. It's pretty ad-like. Doczilla (talk) 01:09, 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 delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sex economy (essay)

Article is essentially an essay about an essay which has not been shown to be notable in any way Obiter dictum (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep. I believe the fact that the essay has been reprinted twice in independent anthologies on Reichian body-psychotherapy, several decades after its original publishing, as well as its printing both in English and in Norwegian speaks volumes about its appraisal among people who are knowledgable about Reich's work in this field. Of course, the fact that the essay outlines the theory and practice of sex economy in an outstanding fashion certainly makes the information conveyed in the article no less invaluable to Wikipedia's readers. __meco (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- No doubt the topic of Sex economy is notable, and the essay in particular is a reliable source on the topic. But there is no reason Wikipedia should have an article on the essay rather than on the topic, cited to the essay. The article should at a minimum be moved, reduce its dependence on the essay as its primary source, and add additional sources and views on the topic. Obiter dictum (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete for being schizophrenic. Is the article about the theory of "Sex economy" or is it about the essay that described it? The article can't seem to make up its mind which it is. Under nearly all circumstances, academic articles themselves are not notable no matter how many times they are reprinted, but their subjects may be. I could be convinced that there could be a 'Sex economy' article if there are multiple verifiable references to it from reliable sources (this essay, by itself, counts as one reference, not multiple). The current references in the article are ancillary information, and don't address the actual subject of the article, which ostensibly is supposed to be about the essay itself and not the theory or theorists surrounding it. I'm also a little unmoved by meco's WP:INTERESTING argument right now. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 18:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete This is presumably meant to be a summary of the general Reichian theory of sexuality, as interpreted by Raknes. I am not sure Reich ever actually used the phrase "sexual economy"--if he did, this article --and the article on Reich-- do not document it. It is therefore a neologism by Raknes, which does not seem to have come into general use. If there should be an specific article on Reich's views on sexuality, it should be written in a more general fashion with inclusion of references by others. If this particular interpretation is notable, there's no evidence of it provided in the article. The essay itself: like almost all scientific papers, the article by itself is not sufficiently notable for an article. (There seems to be an interesting walled garden of articles on Reichian concepts, mostly unreferenced--most are probably worth an article--all probably need to be re-examined from a NPOV.) DGG (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete unless heavily rewritten per DGG and Obiter. Reichian views of sexuality are eminently notable; Raknes's interpretation of them, not so much. The Raknes essay might easily be a source for an article, but not the focus. --Dhartung | Talk 20:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete - per DGG. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete for all the good reasons given above. --DrTorstenHenning (talk) 08:13, 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. Hut 8.5 07:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] XIII. století

Fails WP:MUSIC. Lack of sources and references. Not a notable band. Undeath (talk) 16:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Doesn't seem notable, and even if it is, there are no sources and references to back it up. — Cuyler91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 17:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete all the Google hits I getare to lyrics, tabs, videos, AOL video, last.fm, no actual sources of verification that this band passes WP:MUSIC. Never asserts notability Doc Strange (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete non-notable. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable band; fails WP:MUSIC. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 04:56, 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.--Kubigula (talk) 04:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aaron Goode

Contested prod, original reason was "Footballer who has never played in a fully professional league - fails WP:BIO", contested by CJPargeter with an edit summary "Object to propsed deletion, as subject meets WP:N, having attracted attention from reliable sources." In fact, if he has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources then he meets WP:BIO too. In such case such coverage should be shown. Jhony 16:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Jhony 16:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Clearly fails WP:BIO#Athletes and the attention from reliable sources is made irrelavant by this. Sean Thomas (English footballer) should also be deleted for the same reason. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Number57, I left a reply for you on the project talk page: [11] :) Jhony 17:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete both fail football notability criteria. If/when they make their professional debut they can be recreated King of the North East 16:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - non-notable footballer. Come back when/if he makes a fully professional league appearance. - fchd (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Question? Is the role of the secondary criteria to replace the primary criteria over the field they cover, to supplement it, by providing an alternative justification, or to add to it be requiring that both they and the publication criteria be met. as far as i can tell the official line is that they merely act as a shorthand for predicting whether the primary criterion is overwhelmingly likely or not to be met. If they are merely predictive, then an article with 2 RSs discussing his putative career would stand regardless of whether he ever actually played a game in any league at all. There is however only one source at present, but there would probably be another, and then he would be notable. Personally, I think that's nonsense, and the correct view is that they replace the primary criterion. Does that have general acceptance? Or is it only in sports that they replace it?
  - Well, WP:BIO says as it's base criteria "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.". That surely overrides everything else. Either someone is notable or not. You can't be notable from one rule. and then become unnotable again from another. But I don't think it applies yet. John Hayes^talk 20:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:BIO. Prod shouldn't have been contested. Peanut4 (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom and WP:BIO. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Weak Delete currently fails WP:FOOTY, but if more second party sources are added I will change my vote. John Hayes^talk 20:16, 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. John254 01:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jeremy Flint

On Google, there are very few sites about him. Not referenced. Redmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 16:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep - he seems notable from what I can see. He was notable enough for the New York Times to feature his obituary -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 16:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep – Quite a few articles from the New York Times say in the area of at least (40) as shown here [12]. In addition, multiple other articles both in the US and internationally as shown here [13]. Shoessss | Chat 16:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep—ACBL (Am Contract Bridge Lge) Encyclopedia entry for Flint fully justifies his inclusion. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep - definitely notable having played for hist country in the Bermuda Bowl. The number of websites about someone is not a very reliable indicator. JH (talk page) 17:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep - Flint was a leading player of a well known card game that is widely played all over the world. He has even played bridge on TV. Viewfinder (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep - As above. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep Number of Google search results should not have been used as a rationale for deletion, particularly for someone who died in 1989! Even then, did you check Google Books? Unreferenced articles should probably be deleted if it's clear such references are not going to be forthcoming, but it's a bit unfair to nominate an article four minutes after its creation rather than just tagging it as needing references and allowing a day or two for the article to be fixed up and referenced to its current state, which I'm sure you'll agree is fine. --Canley (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep From what I have seen on Google, he seems pretty notable (I'm not an expert on this stuff, so correct me if I'm wrong...) — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 04:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Notability looks good. Doczilla (talk) 01:10, 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, fails WP:V. Recreate if you can provide reliable sources. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] True self

Delete this has been unsourced for 1.5 years and reads like a personal essay and OR. I am not sure that anyone can come up with any streamlined meaningful universally agreed upon definition of true self much less a coherent encyclopedic article about its significance. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep, the abstract concept of "true self" has been studied in psychology -- that is, the question of whether there is such an animal and what might be a means to discover it. There's a close relationship to consciousness, of course. There are sourceable religious aspects as well. --Dhartung | Talk 22:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Unsourced original research. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 02:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 15:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep, weakly. Perhaps this stub would benefit mostly at present from being stubbified further; but the concept seems to be easily widespread enough to support an article. If deleted, it should be without prejudice. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - Unsourced or not, I believe that this could make a valuable encyclopedic entry. I dont have the knowledge to make it 'up to standard' but that is not to say that it wont ever be. The AfD process is to weed out the articles that wont ever be encyclopedic, this one will be. And the article does not have to be a 'universally agreed upon definition', that would be a editwar begging to happen. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 05:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete. After all this time, it's still not an article. Regardless of originality of the term, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Doczilla (talk) 01:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge into Self (spirituality), and perhaps create a redirect here to the Self dab page since it's a common, but ambiguous, term. There's no reason to have two separate stub articles (True self and Self (spirituality)) when we could consolidate their information and become closer to having one full-fledged article. -Silence (talk) 04:18, 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 Withdrawn by nominator. Even though the second title is still not reliably sourced, we can move it later if need be. — Edokter • Talk • 23:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dead Man Walking (Torchwood) and A Day in the Death

Double nomination. The episode titles are currently unsourced. "Several websites" was named as a source, but even those have conflicting information. — Edokter • Talk • 15:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Official confirmation of the title of the episode currently labelled "Dead Man Walking" will come from the BBC within the next week. So it's probably best to wait and see what they say before deciding whether to delete this page. Alberon (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment - DWM 392 is out on the 7th, and will probably give the remaining titles, so we'll see then. Stuart DD _{contributions} 15:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. If the episode titles change, then it's easy enough to move the articles, however note both episodes are scheduled to air within the next 4 weeks, therefore firm indication of their titles should be available very soon if not already. 23skidoo (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep I removed the previous prod tag from both of these because they are already tagged as upcoming episodes and therefore subject to change. If something changes, deal with it then. Not sure why this would go to Afd. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Agreed. If there was some doubt of the existence of these episodes, then fine. But there are multiple confirmation that all 13 episodes of Torchwood Series 2 will air, so even if the articles were simply called "Episode 11" or whatever, they would be viable. If the titles end up changing, then the articles can be renamed in about 10 seconds. 23skidoo (talk) 04:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete if it's not on Outpost Gallifrey, it doesn't exist Will ^(talk) 18:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Good grief, Keep. It comes from HDnet's online program guide. The information was taken down pretty soon after it went up, but not before it was mirrored everywhere. Aderack (talk) 03:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - if they're not BBC-confirmed titles, then why on Earth are they on Wikipedia? Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 20:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep and move if the titles change for some reason. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{round of applause} 21:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

*Delete - I'm guessing that these titles are not in DWM (since they would have been referenced by now if they were) - so there is no reason to have these articles. Stuart DD _{contributions} 21:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep, keep, keep - There is simply no good reason to remove information such as this. It should be verifiable soon enough, weeks before it airs. Keep it around for another 10 days or so, at the very least.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Homoaffectional (talk • contribs)
Keep. Plenty of sources provide the names -- e.g., tv.com.[14] Doczilla (talk) 09:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep The Radio Times website now has the listing for episode 7 and the title given for the episode is "Dead Man Walking" [15]. Given that the Radio Times is published by a subsidiary of the the BBC, I think that can be considered an official source. Alberon (talk) 14:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Change to Keep - First title now sourced by Radio Times. Stuart DD _{contributions} 16:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - as per above. 84.70.190.214 (talk) 23:26, 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 then redirect to Diamond (rapper) as recreated content. --Nlu (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bitch Music

Completing unfinished nom by User:Mdsummermsw; tag was placed but discussion was never made. Edit summary read "needs salt". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops. My bad. This article has been deleted repetedly and reposted (with no improvement/changes) by the same user. Please delete, with salt. Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete and salt, repeated re-creation of non-notable mixtape; a search for sources turned up nothing, and mixtapes aren't inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment My !vote is in no way biased by my procedural completion of this nomination on the nominator's behalf. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete – LOL getting a little paranoid there Ten Pound Hammer :-). Agree with nominator. Shoessss | Chat 17:15, 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 Redirect to Walnut Valley Unified School District. Please note, I will not be merging any content that can be found in the page history of the redirect page, as it would give undue weight to this one school as compared to the 14 schools. Also, note that the other middle schools, Suzanne Middle School and Chaparral Middle School (Diamond Bar, California) may be rediredirect candidates as well. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] South Pointe Middle School

NN school. There is nothing to distinguish this school from every other middle school in America. No sources are present, every link provided fails WP:RS. meshach (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ Merge/redirect - 1) "California Distinguished School" probably doesn't meet the proposed guidelines in Wikipedia:Notability (schools)"receiving the highest available official assessment". GreatSchools.net is not a reliable secondary source. 2) The use of technology (podcasting, iMacs, XP, etc) in the classroom is not sufficiently unique, nor are any secondary sources provided. 3) The modern style of the campus is also not sufficiently notable. In general, without any additional secondary sources, the article about this school fails to meet Notability, Verifiability, and Reliable sources. It also falls short of meeting any of the other proposed Primary or Alternate criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (schools). Merge/redirect to Walnut Valley Unified School District as suggested in proposed Wikipedia:Notability (schools). --Daddy.twins (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ Merge per twins, above. I clearly can't think for myself. ;) CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge/redirect to Walnut Valley Unified School District per accepted practice. TerriersFan (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:SCHOOL I think the redirect is a good solution. meshach (talk) 20:25, 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 deleted per WP:CSD#G12 -- pb30<talk> 17:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] India’s Contributions to Mankind and World Progress

Delete as blatant WP:POV pushing and unwarranted WP:FORK Mayalld (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete. In addition to POV pushing, the page is a copy of http://user.wangjianshuo.com/UmaShankar.htm. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:06, 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 delete as obvious hoax Gwernol 14:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lemony cricket

I don't remember this character, and apparently neither does Google. If he/she does exist, then I suspect that they are a stunningly minor character with no sources that attest to their notability or importance. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 14:19, 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 delete - G7, blanked by author. Hut 8.5 20:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Liam James Spencer

Seems to be a non-notable amateur bowls player. Has possibly won an U18 singles title in Leicestershire, but I cannot find anything online to back this up, or indeed anything on this particular competition, which leads me to believe it may be non-notable. Additionally, "Liam James Spencer" in Google turns up nothing except this article, and various other permutations of his name only pick up an artist by the same name in Leicestershire.

Either he's a non-notable amateur bowls player, or, based on the tone of the article and utter lack of supporting material, it's possibly a hoax. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 14:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Note to Admin: The article, aside from the AFD notice, has been blanked by the original author. This should be a Speedy Delete as author requested. -- Whpq (talk) 17:27, 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 per previous consensus of the related Lists (missed nom). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of contemporary and crossover baritones

As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of contemporary and crossover bass-baritones (and other similar lists nominated therein). This article should probably have been included in that AFD at the time... Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete as the nominator of the other lists. I simply didn't catch this one. AniMate 23:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:38, 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, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete, does no good. Punkmorten (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Question - What is a "crossover baritone"? The Transhumanist 18:28, 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New York Zoo (film)

This film article is a suspected hoax as part of a trend to create fake articles about animated films involving animals with celebrity voices. See previous AFDs of these deleted articles: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal City (film), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Rat Movie, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jujitsu Deer, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vic and Marty. I attempted to AGF first and seek out verifiable coverage for this film, but there is none to be had, making it extremely likely that this is a hoax and the editor is a sockpuppet of Lyle123 (see report here). Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete as a hoax, or at best, as per the notability guidelines for films. No verifiable coverage exists on this production either way; it should go. Steve ^{T • C} 13:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete No IMDB entry, no Google news coverage – it's a hoax. It would be nigh on impossible for Wilson's name to be attached to any project without some coverage, these days. --Sturm 12:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete — Rlevse • Talk • 15:29, 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. Keep per apparent nom withdrawal (see last comment by Niaz). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Little Wars (album)

Delete as per WP:MUSIC. Unreferenced and unverifiable music album that even doesn't contain its artist name! Tried to go for a speedy but didn't find any suitable criteria to fit it there. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •} ^Contribs) 12:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep This is the new Unwed Sailor album. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Thanks. I tried with Google but it didn't return a single page (within first two pages) that supports its existence. Now with the help of your post (taking artist name) I managed some references. But, this album has not been released yet, and will be released on 18 March 2008[16]. I am also in a dilemma (Delete or Weak Keep?). -- Niaz^{(Talk •} ^Contribs) 13:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  - I know what you mean, and while articles for not-yet-released albums tend to be discouraged, I can't see much reason to delete an article which will almost certainly be recreated a month from now. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    - I was thinking exactly like you. If we delete this article today, we'll have to create it once again in next month. So, there is no point of deleting such stuff. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •} ^Contribs) 14:07, 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 DELETE per WP:CSD#A3 and WP:CSD#A7. — Satori Son 16:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Moore (writer)

Fails WP:BIO. No significant coverage to support notability. Article is an infobox Nv8200p talk 12:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete no article there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete as no content there. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •} ^Contribs) 13:40, 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thenginkalbetta

Seems to be a nonexistent town, Google (both standard and maps) turns up nothing for this town. Maybe a hoax? NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 12:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete unless sources can be produced. The article says that this is a hill, not a town. I'm of the opinion that major topographic features are inherently notable, but unless some evidence of the very existence of this hill can be found, the article fails WP:V. In addition, its current form is unsuitable because Wikipedia is not a travel guide. If it can be sourced, I might support keeping a stubbed version of the article. Deor (talk) 12:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - fully in agreement with Deor. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 05:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - This appears a hoax. Unless this is a misspelling, there's nothing on google. --Oakshade (talk) 06:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - fails policy verifiability. If sources can be found, then it would be a keep as a geographic feature. But there is zero sources that can be found when searching for this name. -- Whpq (talk) 17:32, 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. Tikiwont (talk) 09:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lords of Fara

This is not a Jacobite title. It isn't in Ruvigny's Jacobite Peerage and the books listed as references do not exist Jess Cully (talk) 12:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete as probable hoax. Choess (talk) 03:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This is about a completely bogus title, and should be deleted as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carruculis (talk • contribs) 20:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete - per nomination. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 20:49, 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 and cleanup. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Place management

Despite the fact that an Institute of Place Management exists, I feel that the term is too much of a neologism to be included here yet. Also the article is too much of an essay and is spam having originally been created at Place Management by user:Instituteofplacemanagement. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The term has been in usage for decades, with an established literature (which can be added in as references to the entry) and many thousands of people across the world now employed as place managers. There is also an existing link from the 'urban design' page, suggesting that the term is understood in other, related contexts. With this in mind, I do not think deletion is warranted, although some improvements might be in order.Hththt (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is a valid (and much overdue) addition. The term 'place management' is not an artificial neologism, created to facilitate interest in its study, but rather a legitimate one that reflects the tangible and acknowledged impact of, and progress made, in the field over the last 50 years - both at an academic and a practitioner level —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchest2r (talk • contribs) 10:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
keep There seem to be sources, though the articles needs to be rewritten--it seems somewhat overenthusiastic and I am not surprised it aroused suspicion. DGG (talk) 02:09, 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tonislav Hristov

This article about a Finnish filmmaker was speedied by me per WP:CSD#A7, but afterwards the editor who created the page said that many of his works had been aired nationally on TV in his home country, which would make him possibly notable. The following sources were provided as support for this claim: [17], [18]. Since there is a plausible claim of notability I'm bringing it for AfD comment. Personally I have no opinion whether this is deleted or not. Pegasus «C¦T» 11:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep There are not many foreign documentary filmmakers in Finland that have achieved their films to be broadcasted on YLE. He is also one of the few in last 15 years bulgarians, he is from bulgarian nationality, that had been funded to make long documentaries. Jovchev (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Tonislav Hristov was one of the people who presented his country at "Bulgaria By DocPoint" with "My brother Fedja" (2006) at Kiasma Museum of Conteporary Art in Helsinki. He was the only one to give a short interview live after the documentary, which certainly made a difference to the audience. todorv 22:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.221.31.33 (talk)

Keep I recall some of Tonislav's films were screened at some very serious festivals, such as the "Bulgaria by DocPoint" section of the DocPoint Helsinki Film Festival, as well as in the Documentaries section of the Cork Film Festival in 2005 [19], also the the Calgary International Film Festival 2006, and the Helsinki International Film Festival Love & Anarchy, [20] which is the biggest film festival in Finland. His films were also listed at least once in the Annual Documentary Catalog of the Finnish Film Foundation (2008) [21] and in the Annual Finnish Short Film Catalog of the same for 2006 [22]. I also recall him being screened in Berlin in summer 2006, but can't find the reference for the moment. Anyway, while he is not a celebrity (which is hardly a surprise for a documentary director), he is quite certainly noteworthy. Bbugg (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Notability in Europe is sufficient. This isn't the Americapedia. Doczilla (talk) 01:13, 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 speedy delete CSD G4: Recreation of deleted material. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Techorate design

Neologism / non-notable trade name invented by LG Electronics (or their advertising team) who are paying Douglas Wilson to advertise for them. Thinly veiled advertising created by user:Dwltd (Douglas Wilson Ltd.?) and his team of sock puppets who also brought us this lump of pure spam and the techorate article. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Speeded. --Yamla (talk) 15:06, 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. — Satori Son 22:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Madonna's upcoming Best of Remixes compilation

Delete this article has been blanked a number of times because it's just a rumor and it didn't materialize. So how long does a wishful rumor about a future album get to pose as an encyclopedia article especially when the rumored date of the album has come and gone? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete. The album has been canceled 2007. --Red-Blue-White (talk) 11:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete as WP:NOT#CRYSTAL-- what would we do with this article were the recording released? Mangoe (talk) 12:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete An editor with the IP of 84.172 has come along at least twice to remind the world that the year 2007 came and went without the release of an album, then blanked the article. Another editor then wiped the thing clean except for the non-sentence "The album has been canceled 2007". The approach by Carlos is a lot more appropriate, which is to nominate the article for deletion. I hasten to remind the editors not to blank an article while the deletion discussion is in progress. Otherwise, people can't figure out why the thing was nominated in the first place. I'd add that there are very few occasions where taking the law into your own hands, and blanking the page, is merited. It's childish, and it's easily reverted. Somehow, we can figure out that it's now 2008 without your help, thank you anyway. Mandsford (talk) 13:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete as per WP:CRYSTAL. If the album does materialize in the future an article will certainly be created then. DanielEng (talk) 01:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete. How many times must we point out: compilations are not per se notable. Please find proof from good sources to show otherwise. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 02:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete- this isn't notable enough to have its own article, but it could be included in Madonna's main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rigby27 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 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 delete. DS (talk) 04:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tsoja

I could not verify the existence of this belief. Suspected hoax. A quick search brings up nothing of relevance. MER-C 10:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

delete I can't find anything either... Fosnez (talk) 12:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete as bogonic nonsense. Mangoe (talk) 12:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete religioncruft. JuJube (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete What? Hoax? Nonsense? — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 04:54, 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, CSD A7 by AndonicO. Non-admin close. Redfarmer (talk) 13:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Poop (band)

Non notable band, no independent sources Cenarium (talk) 10:58, 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 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Rettew

Non-notable media/politics guy; seems to be WP:AUTO. Fails WP:BIO. Precious Roy (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Weak Keep would this guy be considered an "expert" in his field ? Corpx (talk) 10:37, 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, Tikiwont (talk) 10:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete as the listed sources tend to suggest that he is a minor personality. Mangoe (talk) 12:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Sc straker (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nederwiet

Article does not assert notability -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 09:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Weak Keep. A Google search indicates notability, however the article should be properly sourced. Rsazevedo ^msg 00:15, 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, and in case you wonder what the article is about: a type of marijuana. Tikiwont (talk) 10:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep I have added references and flagged for rescue. Fosnez (talk) 12:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep References now properly sourced with {{cite web}} and {{cite journal}}. Fully functional stub now. -- RoninBK _{T C} 18:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy keep with plenty of great sources. This article is in a totally different condition from when it was nominated. нмŵוτн τ 18:36, 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 speedy deleted by TimVickers under WP:CSD#G11. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MoneyBar

Non-notable company. I could not find any third party resources beyond directory entries in the 28 ghits. MER-C 09:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete, agree. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete, hardly asserts notability and most Ghits seem to ref to a software tool. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete therefore I tagged it as spam. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Withdrawn with only !votes for keeping placed. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ice Age 3

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ice Age 3

Articles for deletion/Ice Age 3: A New Beginning

Articles for deletion/Ice Age 3 (2nd nomination)

This film, which was previously deleted due to lack of verifiable coverage, has been recreated. While there is some verifiable coverage now, the film still has not begun production, so its existence is not yet appropriate per the notability guidelines for future films. The most recent bit of news is this interview in which one of the actor mentions going to LA to join the project, which indicates a lack of production activity. If production really does begin, which is more doubtful nowadays in Hollywood with the writers' strike, the article can be recreated. Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ Comment - The notability guidelines for future films stipulate that a stand-alone article for a film should not be created until a project enters production. This is because many factors such as budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with the project. The article can be recreated when production is confirmed to have begun. Steve ^{T • C} 16:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - as an aside, couldn't this have been speedied as per CSD criteria G4? Steve ^{T • C} 16:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  - I put up a {{db-repost}} when I saw that the first nomination existed. However, admin Jon513 said the article was different from when it first underwent the AFD in actually having a IMDb page and other sources. (WP:NFF wasn't around at that time, so that couldn't apply.) Thus, a fresh AFD is necessary. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    - Well, that seems a bit nit-picky to me, as WP:NFF does encompass the spirit of WP:CRYSTAL (to a small extent), but hey-ho, I can't see this AfD being particularly controversial, so there'll be something for CSD next time around. Steve ^{T • C} 16:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
      - The difference is that WP:CRYSTAL applied fully to the article in the previous two AFDs in not having verifiable coverage. This article, though, has some verifiable coverage, differentiating it from previous incarnations. Per WP:CRYSTAL, it's acceptable to have verifiable coverage of an announced project, so it didn't serve as the strongest argument in AFDs of such projects' articles. That's why WP:FUTFILM encourages the relocation of such information whenever possible. I've perceived WP:NFF as an application of WP:SS since articles on announced projects have a high chance of being perpetually stubby and never become fleshed-out film articles. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- (Reply to Steve) - A source in the article states: "Denis Leary has told MTV News that production is starting for a third film in Fox’s blockbuster animated franchise, Ice Age." So do you support keeping this? Torc2 (talk) 10:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  - I'm nothing if not consistent. I've struck out my delete vote for now due to this report, which states Leary has "begun working" on Ice Age 3, and this, which states that Blue Sky Studios is currently "in production" on the film. Neither is bona fide confirmation; "in production" can be vague (the imdb classifies many which are merely announced, but not filming, as such, for example) and Leary may merely be in rehearsals. However, it's enough to withdraw my vote pending discussion of these issues on this AfD page. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 10:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  - I would not necessarily rely on an actor saying that production will begin soon -- see coverage for Untitled X-Files sequel, when Duchovny assured the impending start of production for almost every year between 201 and 2007. Just a suggestion. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - Reliable source says it has begun production. Torc2 (talk) 10:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
keep sources seem to indicate that the movie will be produced... But you can bet it will just be the same jokes again... Fosnez (talk) 12:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Based on Steve's information, I'll withdraw the nomination. It seems that animated films are trickier than live-action films in determining when they actually start. Probably should have a closer look to see how they differ in terms of starting production. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:50, 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 speedied by another admin, procedural close. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Supplemental Application

Nonencyclopedic content Benandorsqueaks (talk) 09:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete An article about an application form used at SUNY.DGG (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Application not approved, insufficient ~~funds~~ ... everything. --Dhartung | Talk 21:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete as insufficiently notable. — Satori Son 21:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete:i made this?oh my god...i dont remember this, just delete the article please, i dont ever rememnber doing such an articleEdwinCasadoBaez (talk) 18:40, 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 keep. John254 01:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Break a Leg (sitcom)

Very few articles link to this one.
Adheres to WP:DEL#REASON - Advertising
Fails WP:WEB - Notability, 1, 2, and 3 (to an extent).
Most sources are either broken or subscription based.
Google test shows under 500 unique results.
Seems to almost fit into WP:BIO as the creator of the article (Jargonovsky) 'seems' to match the creators in the series (Yuri Baranovsky and Vlad Baranovsky). Mkdw ^talk 08:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep but cleanup. Coverage in Wall Street Journal, Huffington Times, LA Times. I see no evidence this is WP:COI as the page creator's name does not resemble except faintly the name of the person who created the show. Redfarmer (talk) 08:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Then I find it a very unusual coincidence that the creator of the article, User:Jargonovsky (possibly a combination of Jargon and Novsky) and the creators of the series, Yuri Baranovsky and Vlad Baranovsky (whom are also the directors) last names end in 'novsky'. As for the online Wall Street Journal review, thousands of art content are reviewed by that newspaper including features about high school students doing neat things in the community, etc. etc. but that does not mean they meet any special notability. Also the LA Times is a subscription site which makes its reference void as per Wikipedia policy. I should also note that the 'Huffing Post' link does not work. Mkdw^talk 09:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  - Coincidences happen. It's very common in Russian surnames. At this point it's only possible WP:COI. Redfarmer (talk) 09:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    - Very well discrediting the fact that User:Jargonovsky is a single purpose editor on Wikipedia that has only made edits to the article Break a Leg (sitcom) and shares the last 6 letters in sequence to the creators of the series on the evidence that many Russians have last names that end in Novsky, come to Wikipedia to edit articles by people of the same last name or endings, the sources do not provide enough support as only one of them remains creditable of which alone would not make the series satisfy the WP:WEB as it must have more than one source. Also a google test (though not officially creditable either) shows fairly low results. Mkdw ^talk 09:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

More coverage [23] here, including an article in Forbes. Redfarmer (talk) 09:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Impossible to know if the article was of some substance or simply a reference as the page is now defunt like most of its sources, "Something's gone awry! The page you requested could not be found". Mkdw ^talk 09:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep Coverage in multiple reliable sources. Catchpole (talk) 09:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
keep I have added fact templates to help with teh afd process, but it does seem to be verifiable. Fosnez (talk) 12:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep. Most TV shows tend to be notable anyway and this one seems to be no exception. It is a bit thin on reliable sources, but a couple have been shown to exist. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep, revisitable in the future. While it's a web show with limited coverage, the one bit of coverage referenced in the article is from the Wall Street Journal. For the Journal to cover a web show, it's not your run of the mill show. If it peters out and never makes it to episode five, it may be time to rethink it, I think it can stay for now. —C.Fred (talk) 18:20, 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 Keep, with a reminder to include some of the found sources into the article itself. Tikiwont (talk) 09:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This Will Destroy You

Also included in this nomination:

Young Mountain
S/T

Prod disputed with message, "This is a real band I'm listening to them right now." Non-notable band. The closest they come to secondary sources are when the Austin Chronicle and Pitchfork Media reviewed their first EP in 2005. Their notability has not increased and I can find no other reliable secondary sources. They just released a new CD but there's no evidence it's charted or even been reviewed by any major outlets. Besides the two articles mentioned above, Ghits are all networking sites and sites selling the band's CDs. Fails WP:BAND, WP:MUSIC. Redfarmer (talk) 08:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep sources exist, use them. Catchpole (talk) 09:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I was not able to find sources outside the two mentioned from 2005 (two sources is not enough to establish notability, especially when they're just album reviews) and the creator was not forthcoming. Would you enlighten me? Redfarmer (talk) 09:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The sources this editor was referring to is a Google News search [24], which turns up one additional review from a small newspaper of the reviewer saying their new album is crap, two listings for the band playing a particular city soon (trivial coverage), and one interview with a completely different non-notable band mentioning they had played a show with this band before (trivial). Redfarmer (talk) 09:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep I would dispute this. Apart from a second Pitchfork Media review that you may not have noticed, the web comic Questionable Content mentioned them today. This usually causes websites to eat their monthly bandwidth allowance in several hours, and you can expect the Google hits to multiply overnight. Anticogot (talk) 10:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Other sources after a brief search reveal a feature on the band in January's Rock Sound magazine and a forthcoming European tour. Anticogot (talk) 10:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll need to see the magazine and the lineup of the tour to gauge the notability of those but a mention in a web comic hardly can be construed as notability. Redfarmer (talk) 12:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you're referring to this article (posting it here for full disclosure). I'm iffy about this establishing notability with this magazine alone. I'll wait and see what others think. Redfarmer (talk) 12:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the article in the print version. There is also this review in the same publication. Anticogot (talk) 13:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally I agree about the web comic thing, I thought it might be worth mentioning however. Anticogot (talk) 01:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

They have also been name-checked in Rolling Stone. Anticogot (talk) 10:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment—Here is a review of one of their albums from Exclaim! magazine. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Strong keep. Sources in Rolling Stone, Austin Chronicle & band of the week and 9/10 album review in Rock Sound more than enough to pass WP:BAND. Oh and look! A European tour including the UK. More research pls. tomasz. 16:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh and S/T needs moving to This Will Destroy You (album) if kept. tomasz. 16:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Band has toured country and there albums are for sale on Amazon.com which is a major outlet. They are also listed on allmusic.com. The Metro (talk) 17:24, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Standard Music Venue

Local music venue; no sources or indication of anything beyond WP:LOCAL interest. Jfire (talk) 08:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Article seems to have no notability outside London. Redfarmer (talk) 09:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete. No evidence of non-trivial coverage of subject by reliable, third-party published sources. — Satori Son 21:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete: no reliable sources, no verifiability, no article. - Chardish (talk) 00:00, 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 as failing WP:RS, and therefore WP:V and WP:N. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UnSpoken Secrets

Conested speedy, which was placed on "Unspoken secrets" (note capitalization differences; that article, a duplicate of this one, was changed to a redirect later. This article seeks largely to promote the website, which does not appear to meet the requirements of WP:WEB. Only independent sources are a YouTube interview and an article in a college newspaper, not substantial enough to prove notability. Google search for this phrase turns up only a handful of relevant hits, most directed to the site itself or this WP article. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: Just noticed that the original author is User:MrUnSpoken. User name indicates there might be COI and/or self-promotion issues here. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete No significant independent sources per WP:WEB. "Gained attention from" a large newspaper without giving references sounds like they called the paper themselves, but never got the call returned. DarkAudit (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Comfirmable content. Needs NPOV. --Funper (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Only one is a remotely reliable source. The rest are self-provided. A single source is not sufficient. DarkAudit (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --VS ^talk 07:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete, not enough reliable sources to establish notability. Jfire (talk) 07:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. It is poorly written, and needs cleanup of its cites, but it has become notable per WP:WEB, getting media attention. Bearian (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The article may claim some publicity, almost all local, but doesn't provide much evidence. No references, and only one of the external links is to media coverage, and it does not look like a reliable source. Jfire (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"Getting media attention" without sources to back it up means nothing. There is no proof that this has actually happened, just links to other articles about the papers, TV stations, and schools. Cite references or it didn't happen. DarkAudit (talk) 13:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The YouTube link has been fixed, and it turns out that it is an edited version of the story provided by the web site's owners. YouTube is already not a very reliable source, and even with video originally coming from the TV station, the editing has made the video completely unreliable as a source. DarkAudit (talk) 14:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The other dead link has been fixed. Since it is a scan of a newspaper page, and not provided by the paper itself but the site in question, it is not coming from a reliable or independent source. So we are left with one source that is even remotely reliable and independent, and claims of other "media attention" that have no basis in fact. Back up the claims or be seen as spam in the eyes of editors. DarkAudit (talk) 21:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the "media attention" out of Orlando is because the site is based in Orlando. DarkAudit (talk) 16:55, 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 keep. Article improved, nom withdrawn Mr.Z-man 01:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Beatles Concert Puzzle

~~No sources, no evidence of notability.~~ Oren0 (talk) 06:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. This is a well-known mathematical puzzle but it has no inherent connection to the Beatles or a concert; that's just what someone named it for a single variant version. "Beatles Concert Puzzle" is not even a well-known name for it; it garners no Google hits outside Wikipedia and its mirrors. I could conceive of the mathematical content (with the Beatle-related content removed) going into an article about logic puzzles, but the current version should be deleted. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as rewritten and renamed. Good work by Soxred. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Move to Bridge and torch problem, source, and expand. The general version of this (N crossers) is studied as a routing problem, while the version in the article is just the most well-known example (modulo the Beatles setting). I'm working on sources at the moment. In particular, there is a 2002 survey article by Rote, and I could've sworn I ran across the problem in EWD. Michael Slone (talk) 15:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment - I have just moved, expanded, sourced, removed Beatles entry, essentialy rewrote it. Please relook over it, to see if it is still should be deleted. Soxred93 | talk count bot 16:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
As original nom, change to Keep based on work done by User:Soxred93. Now that it has sources and seems to be written in a way that's reasonable, I think it can stay. Oren0 (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Is that a withdrawal? Soxred93 | talk count bot 19:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC

Yes. Does that end the AfD given that there's still a delete vote? I don't know what happens at this point. Oren0 (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep, probably speedy keep as it is now a redirect to a different sourced article. Best if Metropolitan90 agrees before closure per WP:SK. --Dhartung | Talk 21:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Yes, it is a redirect, but the article we are talking about is the redirect target. It was moved in an effort to keep it. Soxred93 | talk count bot 23:01, 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. John254 01:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] River crossing puzzle

No sources, no evidence of notability. Oren0 (talk) 06:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep. These puzzles have been recognized in mathematical scholarly literature and are indeed known as river crossing puzzles. The concept goes back over 1,200 years to Alcuin. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep These are famous logic puzzles. As I remember the trick is to take the chicken back with you and swap him with the fox after you've dropped the grain off. Nick mallory (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Don't confuse this page with Fox, goose and bag of beans puzzle or the missionaries and cannibals problem, both of which are well known and well studied. Perhaps this page should be merged into one of thise. This page attempts to create some overreaching arch between these and the other puzzles it links to, but contains no substance itself. Perhaps an alternate solution is to Merge all of the river crossing puzzles into this page. Oren0 (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep Manages to establish that it is a separate topic, but it does need come real sources. DGG (talk) 03:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep—I've added some references and attempted to improve the article. Spacepotato (talk) 01:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep While I had considered the suggested merge to have merit, the current version of this article is well-sourced, and in a manner which is strongly suggestive that "crossings" are a notable variety of puzzle (ie. the "overreaching arch" is in secondary sources, and is not merely a subtle attempt at original research). Moreover, the list aspect of the article provides a useful navigational aid between specific instances. --Sturm 10:41, 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] StoneHill International School

Article was tagged for speedy deletion as being blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article. (CSD G11). Procedural nomination after hang-on was placed. --VS ^talk 06:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete as spam. KurtRaschke (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete as Advert. The school doesn't exist yet. Article is pretty much a cut/paste of a job advertisement for a primary principal. While the claim that it will be "the first school in Bangalore to offer all 3 programmes of the IB namely PYP, MYP and Diploma" may confer some degree of notability when the school does exist, the job advert simply states that the school "will seek PYP, MYP and DP authorization by the International Baccalaureate Organization during its first three years of existence". --Daddy.twins (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete without prejudice to recreation after the school opens. We only keep articles on prospective schools when their establishment is beset by controversy. However, if the claim in the lead can be stood up when the school has opened then notability is almost certainly there. TerriersFan (talk) 23:46, 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 (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wine/Water mixing problem

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Wine/Water mixing problem

No sources, no evidence of notability. Oren0 (talk) 06:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Weak Delete I did a quick Google and didn't really see anything so I agree with nom, reason for weak is cause I gladly admit I skimmed the Google results so I could have missed something. --Sin Harvest (talk) 10:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- You did. They're called books. This puzzle has been discussed in books on mathematics written by authors such as Martin Gardner, Ravi Vakil, James Roy Newman, Albert Geoffrey Howson, Jean-Pierre Kahane, Brian Clegg, Paul Birch, Charles Stanley Ogilvy, and Edward De Bono, amongst others. There's one book, by I. Grattan-Guinness and Roger Cooke, that tells us that this was one of Lewis Carroll's favourite brainteasers. This problem is also in Grolier's Encyclopedia International. "No sources" is the claim here? Pull the other one! It's got bells on. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 12:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  - If there are sources, please cite them. There are a million popular riddles, I don't think each one merits a wikipedia article with no info other than the problem and its solution. Perhaps the article should talk about the history, why it's relevant or interesting mathematically, etc. All I see right now is a riddle and answer, which itself don't constitute encyclopedic information in my opinion. Oren0 (talk) 18:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    - I did say it was a weak one for a reason didn't I? Well if you've got the sources put them in and add in the Lewis Carroll thing as well it will add to the article. --Sin Harvest (talk) 10:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. RogueNinja_talk 11:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep I'm sure sources for this could be found. User:Jonathan de Boyne Pollard gave some useful leads on sources. The article certainly doesn't claim notability, but I don't think it would be difficult to include such notice. --Rkitko ^(talk) 13:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Unless notability is demonmstrated. Paul August ☎ 02:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC) Keep Changed my mind based on additional referencing. Paul August ☎ 01:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep I personally came across this puzzle for the first time in the spring of 1985. It was given by some invited speaker in a problem-solving and creativity seminar at IBM, Austin, Texas. My mentor, who was in the seminar, showed it to me afterwards. I solved it in a few seconds, and showed him the logical steps on a whiteboard. He told me no one solved it in the seminar. It was called something like "Coke and Pepsi puzzle" at that time. Giftlite (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Strong keep. Well-known problem; also, article is sourced. Spacepotato (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep although I have also heard this problem by a different name. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 00:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - notable problem; article now well sourced (good job, Spacepotato). Gandalf61 (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep A standard bit of folklore. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. As the other comments above already state, this is a very standard problem, and is now appropriately sourced. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep per the comments above. John254 01:15, 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 Keep --JForget 01:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathon Sharkey

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jonathon Sharkey

Articles for deletion/Jonathon Sharkey (2nd nomination)

There was one prior "keep" result early last year, but since then there is no indication that this person developed any real notability; if anything, the 15 minutes of fame appeared to be up. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep 15 minutes of fame is enough. Catchpole (talk) 09:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete There is an utter lack of reliable primary and secondary sourcing. Newspapers, books, essays? anything? Non-notable individual. (Mind meal (talk) 10:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC))
Strong keep On the contrary, FEC reccords and court records must be reliable sources, and we also have local news coverage. Notablity is fulfilled: [WP:NOTABILITY|"significant coverage in reliable sources indepedent of the subject"]. The subject has been covered by major newspapers and TV networks over a long period with multiple aspects being examined. While the subject of the article is fringy, that doesn't trump any piece of notabilty. --Stlemur (talk) 11:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep Notability is not temporary. 15 minutes is enough. Fosnez (talk) 12:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - once again, notability is not temporary. Your argument for deletion is counter to policy. matt91486 (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- But for the fact that Mary Carey had independent notability, I doubt that her article would be still standing. Sharkey doesn't have independent notability besides his "campaign," which is not itself a substantial campaign, nor is it getting any more publicity by this point. WP:N's quote, "A short burst of news reports about a topic does not necessarily constitute evidence of long-term notability[,]" is directly applicable in this case, I think. I doubt that he received more coverage than Azia Kim, for example. --Nlu (talk) 11:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep Appeared in WeirdNJ, is recognized political figure. AnnDenn (talk) 07:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.152.6 (talk)
Keep as per everyone above. Editorofthewiki (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep per Fosnez. Raymond Giggs 11:07, 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, as it can be properly verified by any American or detailed enough world atlas. Although the "significance" of coverage could be debated, the verfibility is certain, and there are also no questions about the reliability of the source. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 07:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Round Top (Oregon)

Non-notable mountain peak with no sources and an orphan. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete - No WP:RS given to assert notability per WP:NOTE. Single external link does not provide significant coverage of the topic. Without more this is not notable. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep per WP:GEOG, there it is. Jfire (talk) 07:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Probable keep, but may need work. The GNIS gives 127 summits by this name (excluding variants such as Little Round Top) in the US. We only seem to have about four. In Oregon alone there are seven summits by this name; in Jackson County, Oregon there are three, all of which are taller than the one in Washington Co., and the tallest is in Grant Co. This may be better off as a disambiguation page. --Dhartung | Talk 08:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:GEOG is not any sort of policy, just common outcomes. Nothing in WP:NOTE (an official guideline) says things on a map get a free pass. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge to Northern Oregon Coast Range. Katr67 (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep Its the common outcome--the invariable one, actually-- and the right one. All mountains and similar major geographic features always turn out to have references and be notable. DGG (talk) 02:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Citing common outcomes is nothing more than saying other stuff exists, and further the common outcomes even says: Precedents defined here should be used with caution — using this essay as the sole argument in an AFD is disputed at best, as there can be conflicts with extant policies or guidelines. WP:NOTE says nothing about maps being the sole arbiter of inclusion. And that makes since. If you look at a map you will see hundreds of things listed whether they be a short intermittent stream or a small gulch that nobody but a person looking at a map would ever know existed or had a name, and that means it is not worthy of note. That’s why independent WP:RS that provide substantial coverage are required. Maps meet parts 1 and 2, but do not provide substantial coverage in most instances. In the article at hand, a map will give you location and height, that’s about it. And that brings us to the other reason for substantial coverage, so the article is not simply two sentences. Substantial coverage allows for an article that is not a Stub, one that is useful to a wide variety of people. Substantial coverage in WP:RS allows for this to occur, and only articles that provide for this should be kept. Honestly, if we allow maps, why not allow census records to show notability for people, I’ve always wanted my own entry. Aboutmovies (talk) 02:56, 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 redirect/merge. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 07:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] South Hall High School

Normally, high schools are afforded the presumption of notability, but this one has been closed for some time and doesn't otherwise establish notability. Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 05:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I'd find a redirect to the school district preferable to deletion. matt91486 (talk) 06:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Redirect - To North Hall High School#About North Hall it mentions it in passing and I'll just merge in the closing date now. --Sin Harvest (talk) 10:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
keep It has been established time and again that all highschools are inheritently notable and notability is not temporary - therefore notability is asserted here. Fosnez (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge Although I think it reasonable to regard all high schools as notable, the information here is so sparse that it could better be merged with one of the related schools.DGG (talk) 15:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete or merge as appropriate. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge The sister school seems sufficiently notable for its entry. I think it would be reasonable to put the South Hall entry as a separate section in the sister's schools article. --Daddy.twins (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge/redirect to North Hall High School#About North Hall. TerriersFan (talk) 18:38, 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AdJuggler

Fails WP:WEB. It is not published outside of non-trivial sites, plus, the sites that mention it do only that, they do not elaborate on it so notability is not asserted. The refimprove tag has been on this article since 2006. Also, this seems to be tied in with Thruport. Delete Undeath (talk) 05:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom, not to mention WP:PRODUCT. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 05:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete, yet another tech product using Wikipedia to call attention to itself. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:47, 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 No consensus', which defaults to keep, based on the discussion here and the age (20 days old) of the debate. No prejudice against a re-nomination at a later date. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Carmelo Papotto

See nomination note below, bad wiki formatting broke the nomination. Travellingcari (talk) 03:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Note because I broke the nomination. See also UFO sightings in Libya, which I nominated below. 23 | ghits, slightly more without quotes, none of which are reliable. There are some copyvio issues see answers.com which is verbatim, although there's no way to see which one is the violation. I can read the Portuguese source and that's not reliable either. }} Travellingcari (talk) 03:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Not a reliable source? Sorry, but we're talking about a UFO report here, not some contentious political or civil issues. The threshold for reliability for a UFO story is basically "can be trusted not to make the whole thing up themselves". See Verifiability, not truth, editors need to prove that they are not personally making this up, not that the story is true. Even if the story was faked by the newspaper, it can still be a notable and reliable example of the contents of a fake story. - perfectblue (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment While you're right that there's nothing specifically against UFO sightings in Wikipedia:SOURCES#Sources, I think it's a highly questionable source. That's my personal opinion, hence the nomination. I don't think it was a notable UFO sighting, otherwise it would have garnered attention in mainstream press, like this incident which was later explained. So yes I think it fails notability and reliability, hence my comment for deletion. Travellingcari (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

We're still talking about a UFO sighting here, aren't we? The Mainstream press typically only pick up on UFO sightings on slow news days or when something particularly weird happens. This goes double when it's a foreign news story. Besides, have oyu actually checked the foreign press? Remember that Europeans newspapers don't post online as mch as American news papers and they often don't have English language editions. Have you tried looking this story up in the UFO press to see which news sources they cite? Personally, I don't consider CNN any more or less reliable than smaller press when covering UFOs. What we need to demonstrate here is that there was coverage of a claim, not to demonstrate that there is any reliability to the claim. Notability is built on coverage, not credibility. Some things are in fact primarily notable for their complete lack of credibility. - perfectblue (talk) 12:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment well now that UFO sightings in Libya failed its own AfD, which was barely a re-direct to this article.... I still go back to WP:RS and the guideline that "'Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made.'" Now while you may be right according to the "sources should be appropriate..." aspect, I still think the fact checking is an issue. How do you fact check this? Did anyone interview him? Were there any corroborating reports? There's where my issue of reliability is. This was a flash in the pan news story, not a long lasting tale of an unsolved UFO so on that grounds, no I still don't think it's notable but we'll see what happens as the outcome of this. That's why I like these discussions. And to comment in one place, yes I read the Italian and Portuguese articles and none appeared to source anything other than a report that he saw something. There don't appear to be any primary interviews with the source. Now while those may have been covered in radio or something, how much coverage would an alleged UFO sighting have received then? I don't know, I wasn't alive to know. Travellingcari (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, WP:RS is only a guideline, you may disregard elements that are not appropriate, secondly, when you are judging WP:RS you need to consider what reliability actually means in context. For example, in science reliability means that the source must have scientific credentials or at the very least be quoting somebody who does. For UFOs reliability basically means 'can be trusted not to be making things up'. You say "none appeared to source anything other than a report that he saw something", actually, this is right in line with policy. Verifiability, not truth. These sources verify that he claimed to have seen something, which is all that is needed. Seriously, we're talking little green space men here, there's no way that this article can be mistaken for a serious piece requiring a high levels of sourcing. - perfectblue (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, we disagree. We'll see what happens. I don't think it meets the guidelines, you do. We'll see what happens because whatever it is, it is. Travellingcari (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep This incident received some attention from Italian media (It actually happened in Libya, but the guy and the company are Italian.), on 1954 (being not notable outside a Italian-speaking nation is not a criteria for deletion at the English Wikipedia). Also, about the copyvio issues, I think its obvious who's violating, first because there's a Wikipedia logo above the page you listed above, and second because I wrote the article, using the Portuguese source as the main reference. And finally, I hope you didn't rely on your Spanish to read and judge the Portuguese source (a não ser que você realmente entenda português). Victao lopes (talk) 15:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment, no I can read Portuguese but not enough to warrant listing it on my user page since I don't feel comfortable translating or proofing. Can you point me to the Italian coverage, because Google doesn't have much of anything. The issue that I saw with the Portuguese article was not that it exists but whethther it qualifies under the reliable sources guidelines. Travellingcari (talk) 18:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment No problem if you don't feel comfortable, you can just list it with WP:Babel. However, no, Goggle really can't find anything about it, I'm just repeating what is said at the article and at the source. Also, the the reliable sources guidelines says "In general, the most reliable sources are [...] magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses;". The problem is that Revista Vigília is an electronic magazine, it is net-based, so it might not be a reliable source for some readers. I, particularly saying, trust it, because it has pages about famous incidents (such as Roswell, Mantell, Betty & Barney Hill, etc.), and those pages are well-written and don't say anything wrong. But others may not. If you want my opinion, here it goes: Carmelo may not be notable for some, but may be for others. He is an example of (alleged) contact with extraterrestrials. How many articles like that do we have, and how many articles about songs who fail WP:Notability for songs are here at Wiki? There are so many crap articles here at Wikipedia, and you had to AfD-nominate this one. Not that I'm mad at you, I'm just saying what I think (besides, that's what this debate is for). Well, but that's my opinion, if you want my reasons, see the first half of this post. Victao lopes (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC

Comment: If you want to blame someone for this AfD, blame Special:Random, which is how I found it :-D. Actually, not true. That's where I found UFO sightings in Libya, which linked to this article. Whether Revista Vigília will meet the standards for reputability, I'm not certain. That's why I brought it here, for discussion. Let's see what others have to say about it. Travellingcari (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment I see you also nominated UFO sightings in Libya for deletion, and it seems that it will be deleted, in fact. Well, but this article wasn't created by me, anyway. OK, let's wait to the others. I only hope they won't consider what I created "nonsense", that really disturbs me, you know? Victao lopes (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Weak Keep. I'm not sure what counts as 'reliable sourcing' for articles on UFO sightings, but this one seems like it might be notable. I'd rather the decision be made by someone who can read Portuguese, though. Terraxos (talk) 02:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep: While not notable in America, this is notable overseas due to press coverage and presence in local/regional media. There is nothing in Wiki-regs saying that notability has to be Anglophone. - perfectblue (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment agreed, however there wasn't significant coverage in Italian or Portuguese of this that wasn't a rehashing of the same info and nothing at all in the news archives.

Rehashing? You mean that the different media all told the same story? That doesn't mean anything when it comes to a UFO report. what matters is that they covered it. It's not as if this is a serious political or social story. - perfectblue (talk) 12:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

'Delete unless there are exact references cited in reliable sources in any language. Then it can be rewritten in an appropriate paragraph.DGG (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete as per DGG, with caveat that sources must evidence reliability of subject. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 03:33, 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 Delete. Since the material comes from University of Central Missouri, there is no need no need to merge or redirect in case a small list of fraternities will be kept there. Tikiwont (talk) 10:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Greek Life at Central Missouri

A much-too-long treatise on a subject of miniscule notability at best. (It's longer than the main article about the school.) No sources at all, unable to verify, not encyclopedic in tone, and it simply doesn't belong at Wikipedia. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete. As per sound arguments in nomination. WWGB (talk) 06:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete/merge per WP:IINFO and WP:SPLIT. Doesn't even resemble a Wikipedia article in its current form, and there's no reason it should ever have been split off from the school's article. Any info that may be salvaged can be placed back at University of Central Missouri. Oren0 (talk) 07:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOT#DIR. Keeping a directory of Greek houses on campus is the job of the university. --Dhartung | Talk 08:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I am the creator of the article. I simply separated it from University of Central Missouri article for the same reasons you have given. It is too long. The POV is less than professional.

I simply got it out of the way and figured the author of the original content could deal with it. I have done a lot of work on the Central Missouri pages and follow their edits closely. BUT I am not one the wikipedians who knows every rule ever created on here....I am simply a guy trying to help out.

You said there is no reason it should ever be split off from the school's main article, but then you say it is too long. Which one is it? You can't have it both ways here. Either the content needs to be deleted -- regardless of location-- or it needs a professional edit. For something that long to be on the article for a university is atrocious. For that same reason I did a separate article for UCM Athletics.NeelyCrenshaw (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

At most, a simple list of Greek organizations should be included in the main school article. At least, delete entirely. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I can add a list of greek organizations under 'Greek Life', and that should appease the original content supplier and us. - NeelyCrenshaw (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. Do it, let us know when you're through, and we can set up the redirect from this article and close the AfD. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:23, 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 nomination withdrawn. Canley (talk) 04:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Owen (director)

Unverifiable. The National Film Institute of Australia does not seem to exist, and searches for Chris Owen together with Churcher's return nothing but mirrors of the article. Perhaps it's this Chris Owen, in which case the article is just completely factually incorrect, and we still have notability issues to contend with. Jfire (talk) 05:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep Chris Owen is mentioned in this New York Times article [25]. Catchpole (talk) 09:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

So that's a mention (not a feature) in one source, of someone who is not obviously the same as the Chris Owen of this article. Given the geographic proximity of Australia and Papua New Guinea, it seems somewhat likely that they are one and the same, and I'm fine with rewriting the article to reflect that, but I'd like to see a little bit more substantial coverage first. Jfire (talk) 09:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Unsure I created this stub (as it was the only redlink in a particular section) expecting it to be expanded by others, but this has not happened. I don't know enough about him to say either way I'm afraid. Grunners (talk) 10:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutral I found an interview when he was with the Film Inst. in PNG and there's some in connection With the Australian Film Inst. which certainly seems to exist. I'm not sure whether it's enough to warrant inclusion Travellingcari (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Weak delete. Be aware it is the National Film Institute of Papua New Guinea[26], which certainly exists and receives some government funding[27]. I think an article on the institute is more likely to be sourceable, and Owen could be mentioned in it, but I just don't see enough source material online. Still, WP:CSB is worth keeping in mind. --Dhartung | Talk 21:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 00:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep and expand - has made a significant contribution to documentary making in PNG as per IMDB entry (see article for link).--Matilda ^talk 00:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep I've added his IMDB link, and some of his films (Bridewealth For a Goddess, Man Without Pigs) have won various festival awards [28][29]. Seems very well known in the field of ethnographic documentary film, and heavily involved in the PNG film industry. --Canley (talk) 01:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Addendum A search for "chris owen papua new guinea" in Google Books brings up dozens of references in film books, and a book about him: Expressive Culture in Papua New Guinea: A guide to three films produced by Chris Owen (1986) by Toby Alice Volkman. I'll add some references and do an expansion and cleanup shortly. --Canley (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice find, but he appears to be a coauthor on Expressive Culture, so not an independent source. On second though maybe Google just has bad data. Jfire (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn after excellent article rewrite by Canley and Matilda. Kudos! Jfire (talk) 03:14, 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/No consensus to delete --JForget 02:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Erotic capital

Looks like a neologism without much mileage. It was invented by Adam Isaiah Green, and the article was created by Adamisaiahgreen (talk · contribs), so there may be a conflict of interest present. I couldn't find any use on Google or online journal databases. Wafulz (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete based on current content. Google Books and Google Scholar indicate use of this phrase going back to the 1950s and 1960s; consequently, Adam Isaiah Green could not have invented the phrase recently, and the references to his works are probably not needed due to the conflict of interest involved. It might be possible to create a worthwhile article on this topic, though, so a rewrite which establishes this phrase as a notable concept might be worth keeping. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep based on 16 GScholar hits, 43 Google Books hits and 13 Google News hits - this shows the concept is established not only within academia but in broader culture also. Metropolitan90's objections strike me as WP:PROBLEMatic; areas in which the article could be improved rather than reasons why the topic is non-notable. It seems very likely that there is conflict of interest, but I think this is fundamentally irrelevant to deletion debates - we wouldn't delete the A.C. Grayling article if it turned out he wrote it, we would base our arguments on the notability of the topic. Skomorokh ^confer 21:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Use in academic journals: [30], [31] Skomorokh ^confer 21:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that a completely different topic though? These journals are from 1995 and 1967, and this term "builds on" work from 1980 and (I think) claims its origin in 2005. Is there any evidence any of these uses are the same?-Wafulz (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The concept of capital is rather discretely defined, i.e. social capital so much so that it would be difficult for Mr. Green to try and attach an esoteric meaning to the phrase. I think if you study the usage of the phrase across the range of above listed sources you will concur that it is broadly consistent with Mr. Green's definition of "the quality and quantity of attributes that an individual possesses which elicit an erotic response in another." So what we have here is a case of WP:COI and more than likely WP:WEIGHT, as well as perhaps disingenuous claims of originality by Mr. Green, all unfortunately attached to a notable topic. Skomorokh ^confer 22:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Green claims to "develop" not "originate" the concept.

Prior iterations of the phrase "erotic capital" do not by themselves represent the development of a concept. As an example, in sociology, Arlie Hochschild is credited with the development of the concept "emotional labor", even as this phrase had appeared countless times in various and sundry literatures prior to its publication in her work. Similarly, Dr. Green offers the first systematic attempt to define and develop the concept-i.e., the casual, diffuse appearance of the words of a concept in previous literatures does not represent the advent of a concept--the latter which requires an explicit degree of formalization. Moreover, the entry provides two citations to scholarly articles, including the journal Sociological Theory-- the American Sociological Association's premier theory journal, thus discounting the charge of "neologism". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.89.115 (talk) 11:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Weak Keep. This does seem to be a phrase which has been in use for some time, rather than a neologism; it would be better to have sources which are actually about the phrase, but overall I think there's enough here to justify a keep. Terraxos (talk) 04:02, 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, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep This "neologism" is winning me a business pitch, made to a social marketing company. Highly useful in terms of understanding the sociology of sexuality, and shows enough potential to grow into a formidable article in time. And, it also meets WP:NOTE fine. Yep, this seems to be more notable than half of the floatsome-jetsome Wikipedia has collected over time. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 08:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment I'm not sure if that's sarcasm or not, but it isn't helpful. --Dhartung | Talk 21:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Weak Keep Probably well used enough by now. DGG (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep but needs better sourcing and balance. This is definitely a term with some history beyond Green. --Dhartung | Talk 21:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment There appear to be a lof of "feelings" in this discussion about whether or not the term has been used in the past, but NO evidence. My own search reveals varied use of the phrase "erotic capital" (in some cases as a descriptor of Las Vegas or Amsterdam!) but no systematic development as a social scientific concept. Very few concepts drop from the stork to the dictionary, and why would we expect them to? In short, if there is another operationalization of the term in a reputable book / journal that is consistent with the current, then let it be added to this entry. Otherwise, casual use of the term in the absence of terminological development is not relevant for Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.100.92.140 (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep, as the references provided in Erotic_capital#References indicate sufficient coverage of this term in third-party reliable sources to establish a presumption of its notability per the general notability guideline. John254 00:40, 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 Delete. consensus can change. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher O'Kane

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Christopher O'Kane

Articles for deletion/Christopher O'Kane (2nd nomination)

Another homicide victim whose story does not rise to the level of notability required by WP:BIO. Previous AfD did not establish any notability beyond the event of his death; WP:NOT#NEWS. Jfire (talk) 05:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I accept these arguments and the article should be deleted. Stevenmc (talk) 09:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete see recent discussions for Meredith Emerson, no notability apart from having been killed. Travellingcari (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
delete per Traveling and JFire. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hut 8.5 07:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arthur Muntz

Confederate soldier unofficially shot for desertion, hence no sources. Non-notable in any case. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NOT#MEMORIAL Clarityfiend (talk) 04:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Weak Keep I really hate to see it go, because I'm a sucker for anything historical, especially Civil War era and relating to the lives of the soldiers, but he wasn't really a notable figure. If more biographical information could be added, I might give a stronger keep, but the way it is now I guess I'd have to say weak keep...I hate to see the article go. Jlrich (talk) 05:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable and non-notable. WP:ILIKEIT is an argument to avoid, even for week keeps. Jfire (talk) 06:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete, desertion -- and executions for doing so -- were common during the Civil War. --Dhartung | Talk 00:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable figure; Google doesn't show any evidence that he made any major contributions. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 04:51, 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 as failing WP:RS, thereby failing WP:V] and WP:N. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Valeria Hicks Nelson

"Author" however Google Books, Amazon and LOC aren't aware of her. Travellingcari (talk) 04:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Very Weak Keep She's not very notable, and a Yahoo search yielded only a handful of results. I'm sure she's good in her own right, but still, not overly notable. Jlrich (talk) 05:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete couldn't find anything online about her, with or without the middle name. Jfire (talk) 06:41, 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, according to the debate, seems to be a dicdef, at best. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dônk

Disputed prod, prod reason was "Appears to be a hoax. For example, following up the reference "Fatal accidents and suicide among reindeer herding Sami in Sweden", available online here (PDF), there are no mentions of anything that could be construed as providing a reference for this article. The other references seem questionable as well, and the term gets no relevant Google hits besides Wikipedia mirrors.". There's a lot of sources, but they look suspect to me. ~~I'm pushing for a Delete here~~. UsaSatsui (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete Looks like either a hoax, or original research. Sources are very suspect. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- A large number of refs have been added, however, none of those seem to be reliable sources per WP:RS, or they don't have significant coverage. For now I will stick with delete. My first comment that it may be a hoax was poorly chosen, but I have yet to see a strong indication of notability. A merge & redirect into Moonshine#Sweden might be the best option. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martijn Hoekstra (talk • contribs) 12:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
~~Strong~~ Keep This is not a hoax. [32] It may be a slang term but if the sources are correct then it meets notability. --neonwhite user page talk 19:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- I see the word "Dônk" on that page, but I don't know the language, so I don't know what context it is in. For all I know, it could be the name of a color. It's a start, but I need more than that before I change my mind. --UsaSatsui (talk) 02:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

They're instructions for a drinking game, which i believe this is commonly used in. Ultimately the book sources need checking. --neonwhite user page talk 03:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

So it's referring to what you drink at the time...hmm. I'm not sure. I also think that the fact the author of the page is "Master Donk" doesn't help things. ~~Still, enough to make it a Neutral for me by now.~~ We'll see what comes up in the sources. --UsaSatsui (talk) 05:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm convinced. Delete. --UsaSatsui (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete, I can verify that almost all the sources exist but not that they provide verification of Dônk (which in any case uses non-standard orthography for both Sweden and Norway). Perhaps it does exist, but it does not seem notable, unless it is also known by another name. --Dhartung | Talk 23:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

~~weak keep~~- Keep-google search is not the be all and end all, and I think deletion needs more than the smell test of "this looks suss"... has anyone really looked at these sources? It doesn't seem so, in which case I think this page would be better served by staying around for now and getting the option of additional sources, preferably online ones, and more time to be developed. This AfD is ultimately going to be futile guesswork unless someone actually has checked any of the claimed sources. Is the above guy in favour of keep the author?JJJ999 (talk) 00:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The guy above who verifies it appears to be a serious and credible wiki user, with several factual pages created at least, so for now I feel that's enough to justify a keep, in the absence of any actual evidence not consisting of smell tests. The fact that we haven't heard of it ourselves, and can't find much on google, doesn't necessarily mean much.JJJ999 (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete, fabricated references. I've followed up two so far (one of which you can check for yourself via the PDF link in the nomination above) and neither are about the subject. --Delirium (talk) 09:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- I will take a look at the PDF later... what of the corroberated evidence offered above? It could be one made up/erroneous source out of a large number...JJJ999 (talk) 10:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  - The PDF, from what I read, doesn't even mention drinking. And the article doesn't mention reindeer. I pulled it from the sources. As for the other link, well so far, all it does is mention a word that happens to be the title and supposedly uses it in the context of alcoholic beverages. Hardly stellar proof it exists, let alone of notability. --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Donk, dönk or dônk is indeed a generic slang tern for moonshine or any kind of home-distilled alcohol in Sweden (I do not know about Norway, but probably there too). As someone from northern Sweden where this is most common, I do not recognize the decription, the ingredients nor the game. Most likely this is written by a group of friends describing their practices. henrik•talk 20:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- If it is real, surely it's a fixer upper, which needs to be rewritten, not a hoax.122.148.218.27 (talk) 04:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  - The threshold for inclusion isn't "It's real" (see this article), but "It's notable". Which means multiple reliable sources. If proven to not be a hoax (which it hasn't), it's still probably deletable under What Wikipedia is Not, either as a dictionary definition or a "made up in one day" thing, or as original research. At most, unless some sources really start popping in (real ones), a redirect to moonshine, but I don't like that solution. --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    - In addition neither the Norway or Sweeden sections of the moonshine article currently mention "Donk". --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Civics lesson, but I have a good idea of this stuff already. My point is fairly simple, if this is real, and given it is in another language, it may well be notable, especially if others here have heard of it. This means that given time sources could be found. I'm not convinced 5 days for a hanful of us to find sources in another language is appropriate, if veracity is not an issue. If it's notable enough that some of you know about it, then it should be kept for now, and handed over to a group of Sweedish wikians who might know enough to find sources online or otherwise.JJJ999 (talk) 07:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that more of a job for Sweedish Wikipedia? --UsaSatsui (talk) 08:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

- Notability is world based, something may be notable in Sweeden, and thus notable full stop for wikipedias purposes, without necessarily being notable anywhere else (though the fact people here have heard of it suggests it may well be). Just as I am doubtless ignorant of many notable things. If it is real, as many of you allude to, it seems to me it should be kept, and some wiki users who know more about it, assumedly ones with some sort of Sweedish background, should improve it.JJJ999 (talk) 10:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  - Again, real does not mean notable. And thus far, the only person here who has admitted to a Sweedish background is pushing for delete. I would also like to point out that the term does not show up on Sweedish Wikipedia at all. Or Sweedish Wictionary. I'm sorry, but I'm holding my Swedish words to the same standard as my English ones. --UsaSatsui (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
A sweedish town nobody has heard of is real, it is also presumed notable. A sweedish drink could be too, notability doesn't have to be in English speaking countries you know. I ask that this be handed over to people who can provide the notability it seems likely to have, albeit not everything in this article as necessarily noteworthy...JJJ999 (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Bad example. Towns are inheritly notable, drinks are not. And I'm not using WP:IDONTKNOWIT here. I've tried to find sources in three languages now, and nothing comes up. Attempts to verify the sources in the article have shown that they have nothing to do with the subject. Here's what we have so far:
  1. A source (since removed) that doesn't mention Dônk at all.
  2. A page that mentions Dônk in the context of a drinking game, written by someone calling themselves "MasterDonk" (I don't see how that can qualify as an independent source)
  3. No Google hits.
  4. A user from Sweeden that verifies that the term can refer to homemade alcohol in his area, but says that the article in question doesn't describe what he's familiar with, and in addition has voted for a delete.
  5. No entry on either the Swedish or Norwegian Wikipedia or Wictionary. Presubably, if this were notable, it would at least have a stub on one of them.
- Given this information, and the fact that I really can't trust the sources given in the article, I can't see how a keep can be justified. Yes, someone might come along eventually and provide some source to prove it's real, but even then, I don't see how it passes based on it just being a dictionary definition, or it being original research. --UsaSatsui (talk) 09:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not convinced and nor do I agree. I think more time should be given for now, and it should merely be tagged.JJJ999 (talk) 13:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Gave sources for the provided information. Experts in Scandinavian youth culture are needed. Unclear why this article was proposed for deletion. Enough sources easy to access on-line. ~~There is no source for the recipe given.~~Bejapolice (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- What just happened is a good example of why Usagi and others should reverse their votes, and why this process should be far more cautious, as I urged above. Gosh, it's noteable, referenced reliably and real, what a shock. It should have been kept provisionally and tagged in the first place.JJJ999 (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment. Is there anything this article could possibly contain that wouldn't be better covered at Moonshine#Sweden? I don't think we need a separate article for every single slang term for Swedish moonshine, and this doesn't appear to be the most common term for it, so isn't an obvious location for an article. --Delirium (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete. A slang word for home-brewn alcoholic beverage that I am probably happy never to have tried (not consciously, at least). Most Google hits are forum posts by teenagers and the like. The combination of alcohol-related content and at least partly fake but correctly-looking references makes it likely to be the an expression of student humour. Indeed, many of the earliest contributions are traceable to a student-housing organisation in Copenhagen. (A guess: A Swedish engineering student on an exchange year in Denmark?) Olaus (talk) 09:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- As a word it could perhaps be included in the Wiktionary? Olaus (talk) 09:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Note to an admin: Instead of closing, could you please relist this for another 5 days to extend the discussion? I (and I'm sure others) would like a chance to look at the new added sources and discuss this some more. Thanks. --UsaSatsui (talk) 14:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

cheers. I was about to do the same things.JJJ999 (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

KeepI am sorry to only enter this discussion now, as I have created the first stub article. I wonder how Olaus has traced this to a student-housing organisation in Copenhagen, as this is incorrect. I am living in Denmark though, and created the stub after having been in Southern Sweden where I encountered 'dônk' for the first time - and it was an important part of the local youth culture there. It is different from Moonshine, since this seems to be hard liquor, made from potatoes, whereas this is 'wine' made from fruit juice. The reason for creating the stub was that I looked up dônk on Wikipedia to find out more about it, and to my surprise there was no article. I made the stub and hoped that, in the wikipedian spirit, the article would grow and become more reliable over time. And thanks to this discussion it seems that sources that were deemed dubious are removed, and additional sources are provided. Looking at these sources though, it might well be a Southern-Swedish word and tradition, and not so popular in the rest of Scandinavia as I (wrongfully?) assumed. I suggest keeping the article (since the drink, the word, the recipe, the song and the practice definitely exist, i.e. this is not a hoax, nor a description of me and my friends drinking practice) with a notice for visitors to help improve the article. And thanks to all of you for having this discussion and taking this serious enough, I think it has improved the quality of the article already. Thedonk (talk) 08:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I get the strong feeling nobody can be bothered reading the new sources and changing their vote... if this is the case, it should be kept. the reasons used are just no longer correct.JJJ999 (talk) 12:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Reaffirm delete, even with the new sources. For the following reasons:

Most of the new sources are very low quality: blogs, forums or student organization homepages. For example this one, in which the only mention of the word "donk" is a nickname of one of the posters - completely irrelevant, in other words.
The Swedes that have commented have voted to delete.
It is just a slang term for home-made alcohol, mainly used among youths and students.

The Swedish wiktionary, or a sentence in Moonshine#Sweden would be a more appropriate place for this. henrik•talk 12:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

But most of this stuff is in another language, and I am unmoved by the "Sweedish" votes, which do not seem to have even read the new sources. Neither you nor I can speak Sweedish, if it is real, then I think it should put sent to actual Sweedish experts to fix it.JJJ999 (talk) 16:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm really still not buying the "It's in another language, so we can't delete it" argument. Still. Let's look at these sources and see what we can learn with just a simple Swedish/English translator:
  1. looks like a definition. It's a start, but it only tells us what we already know: It's homebrewed alcohol.
  2. is also a definition. Looks sort of like a Swedish Urban Dictitonary.
  3. is the same page as 1, and seems to refer to...puking? Translation error, maybe.
  4. is about two guys who have been arrested for selling alcohol to underage people. Not about the sale of Dônk in Southern Sweden, as the source says. There is something about how he was suspecting of making his own alcohol, however.
  5. is a wiki (not a RS). It seems to be about a film, there's a script there. The source is probably referring to the line "Han håller upp en dônk-dunk.", which translated to "He is holding up a dônk-tin". Still doesn't tell us more than we know already, and doesn't prove what it's sourced to (the origin of the term).
  6. is a forum post, not even worth translating.
  7. is a forum gallery, and I'm not even sure what it's trying to prove.
  8. is another forum post.
  9. is a...picture? Of a guy holding the stuff? Okay.
  10. ...are profiles where they list their favorite booze.
  11. ......refers to one person as "DonkMaster", but there's a master for everything else, including sex. This is getting silly.
  12. is another picture
  13. is a blog entry. It has the drinking song in it, but so what?
  14. is more pictures. Pictures aren't sources.
  15. is the exact same as 5.
- So what do we have at the end of the very long list? Dictionary definitions and a few instances of the word being used in context. 15 sources later, and all we have is "Donk is a Swedish term for home brewed alcohol, which is illegal in Sweden and popular with youngsters". I'm sorry, but if you put these sources, in English, into any English article, the thing would have been quickly deleted. I'm all for a merge to Moonshine#Sweden, but this is a dicdef, and Wikipedia is not a Dictionary, regardless of language. --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

JJJ999, for your information: I'm a native Swedish speaker, living in Sweden. henrik•talk 19:20, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathan Neville

Zero evidence of notability; webmaster of 3 nn websites. Travellingcari (talk) 04:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete Pretty bland, not notable. Jlrich (talk) 05:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete nn Achromatic (talk) 05:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Unless third-party reliable sources are found, delete. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete. I run four web sites, and I'm not notable either. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:41, 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 per lack of reliable sources or other indication of notability. Tikiwont (talk) 10:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Norbert Kaiser

Zero evidence of notability Travellingcari (talk) 04:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment—In a search of news databases, I was able to find one (and only one) article that mentioned Norbert Kaiser. The full reference is: Steven E Ritter. "Brahms, Kahn: Clarinet Trios; Juon: 3 Trio Miniatures", American Record Guide. Washington: Jul/Aug 2005. Vol. 68, Iss. 4; pg. 82. It's a 622-word review, and the only sentence that mentions him reads as follows: "Fortunately, the exacting demands of all this music are in capable hands. The Trio Bornalie is composed of Saoli Saito, piano, Norbert Kaiser, clarinet, and Francis Gouton, cello." --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I notice that he was appointed to a conservatory in China. Perhaps he has received some coverage in Chinese-language outlets that a normal search does not catch. Unfortunately, I can't check on this. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 13:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per Paul Erik's (lack of) findings. Jfire (talk) 06:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:21, 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Norlyn Donato

Google hasn't a clue in any language and from the article it's impossible to tell. Travellingcari (talk) 04:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

DELETE What???? Jlrich (talk) 05:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete. She's not listed in IMDb's cast listing for Rounin. Since her alleged role in the show is her main claim to fame, she fails WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete, unless some third-party reliable sources turn up. I have not found any. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete Completely non-notable; clearly fails WP:BIO. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 04:50, 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. Substantive rationale: No compelling assertion of notability to merit an individual article independent of the related Aplus.net. Probable WP:AUTOBIO and/or WP:COI, per discussion. Relevant material already exists within the aforementioned related article. SoLando (Talk) 22:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gabriel Murphy

This article was clearly written by the subject who is non-notable and serves as an advertisement for them. It contains an unnecessary amount of depth. The IP address resolves to the subject's home town. Alterego (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep. Article does read a bit spammy, but at least a couple of the references seem to validate significant coverage about Murphy proper. Between that and being named top entrepeneur in his area, I think there might just be enough for him to meet WP:BIO. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Neutral per Alterego's concerns; awaiting further comment first. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The coverage is trivial. He is a not even a Kansas City native; the company headquarters was moved to Overland Park, Kansas and he joined a best entrepreneur competition. In a city with less than 150,000 citizens and a field of only 23 people he was first place. Big deal. Does second place also get an article? --Alterego (talk) 04:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Vanity, vanity, all is vanity. Not notable, too. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Redirect – To Aplus.Net a short biography is already listed on the page. If it grows, than possibly a separate article. Shoessss | Chat 18:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Not notable enough for own article, running a business or ranking in a few local competitions that probably only a few dozen people entered doesn't quite cut it, move any relevant information into Aplus.net and delete. Even Aplus.net is marginal.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 18:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Another bizarre thing, according to my google toolbar, this article has a google ranking of zero, nothing links to it, not even within the wikipedia, except aplus.net, but no article links to that either, except this article! Even the home page of aplus.net currently has a google ranking of zero, which probably means google think they're link spamming or something; which they historically are known to have done before.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 18:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - as Bearian, I tried very hard to fix the worst flaws in this article. I have given up! Bearian'sBooties (talk) 02:24, 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 Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 10:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Second Stage Turbine Blade (song)

Non-notable, does not meet WP:MUSIC; mostly made up of original research in the form of trying to interperate the lyrics. No video made - non-notable song. ≈ The Haunted Angel 03:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC) ≈ The Haunted Angel 03:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Strong delete once again. The song is not notable in and of itself, and besides, no effort to establish notability is made. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 22:41, 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nu Lambda Phi

NN org limited to one chapter, creator acknowledges a lack of sources and solely oral tradition Travellingcari (talk) 03:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete, not a notable fraternity, author even admits lack of sources which isn't a good sign. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete, it's a one-campus wonder. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom and WP:ORG. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Completely non-notable; Google reveals nothing convincing. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 04:48, 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 redirected to Thirty-three (song), this one isn't notable. Black Kite 12:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 33 (song)

Non-notable, does not meet WP:MUSIC; mostly made up of original research in the form of trying to interperate the lyrics. No video made - non-notable song. ≈ The Haunted Angel 03:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to the Smashing Pumpkins song, Thirty-three (song). Torc2 (talk) 08:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Strong delete. Interpretation consists of OR, notability not established; we can't have articles for every random song a band puts out. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Redirect per Torc2 --Rtphokie (talk) 13:00, 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 to Scouting in Surrey per discussion at Talk:Scouting in Surrey. Please note, I am not a subject expert and I will not be performing the merge as the scouting project would do better at this than an uninvolved, uninformed AfD closer. The title D-unit will be a redirect to scouting in Surrey in a moment. Use the redirect's page history to perform the merge. Please ask for assistance if you need it. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] D-unit

Article about a local Boy Scouts group. No sources, no evidence for Wikipedia:notability, basic facts such as the year of foundation and the number of member are missing. A large part of the text is not about the article's subject, but about the Explorer Scouts. High on a tree (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment. This article has been noticed by the Scouting Project and it has been proposed that it be merged into Scouting in Surrey. Discussion at Talk:Scouting in Surrey is looking like consensus, so that merge is likely to happen. For clarity this is not a "Boy Scouts group". The term in the UK is just "Scout" and "Group" has a technical meaning (with a capital G, however). It is an Explorer Scout Unit. The view of the Scouting Project is that individual Explorer Scout Units, individual Scout Troops and individual Scout Groups are very unlikely to be notable and generally they get merged (usually a very small part of the article) into a State or County article. I am going to copy the contents to Talk:Scouting in Surrey as even a merge is not going to happen until sources that this unit exists are found. We are assuming good faith and that it does exist, but it is not mentioned on the County and District web sites. I am happy about either a delete or redirect conclusion from this discussion. --Bduke (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
merge to Scouting in Surrey per existing discussion. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 16:21, 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 as a clearly notable concept, moved to List of plants in the Bible as a better title (the plants for botabical gardens are plants mentioned in the bible anyway). I have deleted the clone version that existed at List of plants in the Bible earlier, since the history of this page had to be preserved. The page does need cleanup, better sourcing (secondary sources for the actual identification of the plants), and so on, but that is beyond the scope of this AfD. Fram (talk) 14:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of plants for Biblical gardens

The article consists of purely original reasearch, as it's a list of plants that was mentioned in the bible. Delete Secret ^account 04:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Per the above and ... what's a Biblical garden? eaolson (talk) 04:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Reply: Apparently, “A Bible Garden is any garden that has plants that are mentioned in the Bible.” This seems to be (metaphorically speaking) something that someone made up in school one day. It would be considerably more impressive if a BG had all the plants that are mentioned in the Bible, but that would still be something made up in school one day. —SlamDiego_←T 05:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete. This may just be “something someone made up in school one day”, or it may be an attempt to promote BiblicalGardens.org by creating a social infrastructure with smoke and mirrors. Either way, it fails WP:NOTE. —SlamDiego_←T 05:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Amend to keep, in response to some of the arguments presented by Tameeria below, especially from the search for the phrase “biblical botanical garden”. —SlamDiego_←T 14:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:N, seems like an advert/spam for the BiblicalGardens website SlamDiego mentioned. Doc Strange (talk) 06:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep and rename. The only problem is the title, a retitling to something like List of plants mentioned in the Bible is needed. The content is easily notable, have a look at the thousands of entries on Google Scholar and Google Books for starters. Melburnian (talk) 07:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: I, for one, could accept such a move. —SlamDiego_←T 08:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep - a search on Google books indicates that this is actually a notable subject - at least one the titles is from Cambridge University Press. Gatoclass (talk) 08:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Reply: No, what the Google book search reveals is that plants mentioned in the Bible is a notable subject. The article in question is about a sort of botanical garden. Possibly replacing the article with one on Plants mentioned in the Bible (or converting the present article thereto) would be approved by consensus. —SlamDiego_←T 08:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  - - Sorry, but that just isn't correct. The phrase "Biblical garden" itself gets over 2000 hits on Google books. So this is clearly a notable subject, suprising though that is to me and, I'm sure, to others. Gatoclass (talk) 12:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
      - No, the phrase does not. You'll get that same number of hits by entering “garden biblical”, because you're not entering a phrase. —SlamDiego_←T 12:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
      - Further, I note that when one does enter the phrase, the results are misleading because it picks up such things as “Biblical Garden of Eden”, which is plainly something else. —SlamDiego_←T 12:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
        
        The first two listings are named "A Biblical Garden" and "Your Biblical Garden", the second describing itself as "a discussion of extant biblical gardens and the flowers, herbs, vegetables, fruit, and trees mentioned in the Bible". So that indicates to me that this is an established and notable concept, albeit perhaps not a particular well known one. Gatoclass (talk) 12:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
        
        And on the first page alone I can find at least four books mentioning "Biblical gardens in the United States" that one can visit. So obviously growing Biblical gardens is something that people do, and something that plenty of people have written about - including at least one book from a University press. So it seems pretty clear to me that this is a notable subject. Gatoclass (talk) 12:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
        
        So your standard of notability is met by four books? How widely read are these books? —SlamDiego_←T 12:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
        
        There are more than just four books. A search for the phrase excluding the term Eden still brings up 332 hits on Google books. I don't understand how the question how widely read they are would impact notability. The top three most on-topic books regarding this page are probably "Your Biblical Garden: Plants of the Bible and How to Grow Them" by Allan Swenson, "Plants of the Biblical Garden" by Robert Whitsell and "The Biblical Garden: List of Plants" published by N.Y. Cathedral of St. John the Divine. - tameeria (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
        
        One needs to exclude not only the Garden of Eden, but that of Gethsemane, of Solomon, &c. Lots of works will mention gardens in the bible without being about the same sort of garden as this article.
        
        Not all books are notable. Books that are widely read are ipso facto notable. That's not the only way in which a book might be notable, but Gatoclass gave us inadequate reason to believe that he'd found four notable books. Now, you specifically name some books. What makes these books notable? —SlamDiego_←T 14:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
        
        That's still 312 hits, plus any way you look at it, the vast majority of the first few pages of hits in any of these searches do not refer to any of the gardens mentioned in the bible.
        
        A specialty book would certainly not be "widely read" but it would still be notable for that particular specialty. Some of these books are referenced elsewhere as having been used in the selection of plants for a biblical garden (e.g. [33]) and therefore I would think they are notable for the topic. - tameeria (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
        
        But do those 312 hits (a much diminished number from the original “over 2000”) suffer from problems that are similar in principle? And you shouldn't expect editors here to pore over evidence that doesn't work under its submitter's interpretation, on the possibility that it might work under some other interpretation, especially if the submitter him- or herself has twice failed to produce interpretations that survive even cursory scrutiny.
        
        Yes, I already acknowledged that wide readership is “not the only way in which a book might be notable”, and asked how the books in question were notable. —SlamDiego_←T 17:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  - Comment. The article doesn't need replacing, it just needs renaming. It's not about gardens at all, it's a list of plants. --Melburnian (talk) 08:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
    - Reply: I agree that a move could make the present body of the article acceptable. However, until it is moved, it is about a sort of garden. (If someone listed all the members of, say, the Trilateral Commission as People who should be killed, the article wouldn't be just a list of the members of the Trilateral Commission, until it was moved. Under its title, it would be about assassination.) —SlamDiego_←T 09:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
      - Comment. So let's move/rename it, no point throwing out the baby with the bathwater. --Melburnian (talk) 09:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
        
        As per WP:BOLD-and-all-that, a clone, purged of reference to “Bible gardens” and to “Biblical gardens”, now exists at Plants mentioned in the Bible. If someone wishes to subject that to a separate AfD, that will be another matter. —SlamDiego_←T 10:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
        
        While I acknowledge you've done that in good faith, actions resulting from this AfD should be determined and carried out by the closing admin. If the consenus was "Keep and rename/redirect" then the article should be moved to preserve page history (in this case 2 years of edits) Melburnian (talk) 11:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
        
        This is really no different from what is happening with respect to AfD/Rat excitation, and if the admin concludes that the article should instead simply be deleted (by consensus), then he or she can just delete both; likewise, if the vote is for simply keeping, then the admin could speedy delete the clone. (I'd tag it myself, if no one else did.) The original article needed more that just renaming to overcome the arguments for deletion. —SlamDiego_←T 11:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
        
        What does it need more than just renaming? Melburnian (talk) 11:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
        
        As stated, it needed reference to “Bible gardens” and to “Biblical gardens” purged. The “External links” section of the original article is mostly such reference. A consensus of simple keep, however, would argue for its preservation, so purging the original article is not presently acceptable. And AfD is not supposed to burden the closing admin with picking through the article. We needed the choices disentangled. —SlamDiego_←T 11:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
        
        No, according to Google Books, "Biblical gardens" itself is a notable subject, as I posted above. Gatoclass (talk) 12:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
        
        No, as explained in immediate reply, your search merely proved the notability of Biblical plants. If a “Biblical Garden” were merely a garden some of whose plants are mentioned in the Bible, then anything with a crocus or a lily in it would be a “Biblical Garden”. Nothing indicates that the books turned-up by your search is about gardens dominated by Biblical plants, or containing only Biblical plants. You are begging the very question. EoS.
        
        You are proving my point that some editors will vote for a simple keep. —SlamDiego_←T 12:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
        
        BTW, whenever you read the word “needed”, identify the “for what”. Your “No” says that you lost the context: “needed … to overcome the arguments for deletion”. —SlamDiego_←T 13:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdenting) Google books indicates that "Biblical garden" is a notable subject and so is "Biblical plants". What you now appear to be wanting to debate is whether the content of this article accurately reflects the meaning of "Biblical garden". But that's a content issue, not an issue for AFD. Gatoclass (talk) 12:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You have yet to establish that “Biblical Garden” denotes a notable subject. As noted above, you confused a mere pairing of keywords with a phrase. —SlamDiego_←T 12:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

And, when one does enter the phrase, the results are misleading because it picks up such things as “Biblical Garden of Eden”, which is plainly something else. —SlamDiego_←T 12:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Just looking at Google, including books and scholar and excluding the term "Eden" while searching for the phrase "biblical garden," I would conclude that biblical gardens are indeed a notable subject. E.g. there are 2,830 Google hits for the phrase "biblical botanical garden" and at least one such garden is clearly notable (plenty of books and articles about it) and has a page on Wikipedia: Rodef Shalom Biblical Botanical Garden. A Google scholar search brings up e.g. this paper: Wodarczyk, Z. (2004): "Biblical gardens in dissemination of ideas of the Holy Scripture." Folia Horticulturae Vol. 16, 141-147), which is a research publication on 13 biblical gardens throughout the world. However, biblical gardens is not the topic of the article in question; its just a list of plants used in such gardens. - tameeria (talk) 13:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Your “biblical botanical garden” is good search, with what I regard as a telling result. I am therefore amending my opinion. —SlamDiego_←T 14:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I notice that the original article and the clone both list such things as “pine” and “flowers”. This suggests the problematic nature of the list as its contributors have conceptualized it. Consider

Genesis 2:5: And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

That picks up every cultivar that the author(s) would have believed existed in that first week-or-so. —SlamDiego_←T 13:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep (and probably rename). The subject of plants mentioned in the bible is notable. The whole thing about "gardens" seems kind of nit-picky to me (although I guess I prefer the title without that word, and whether an article on biblical gardens would be notable isn't the issue right now although I will note that there are plenty of such gardens, for example at the San Antonio Botanical Gardens[34] and Strybing Arboretum[35]). As for the Wikipedia:content fork between Plants mentioned in the Bible and List of plants for Biblical gardens, I see that SlamDiego (talk · contribs) has just today created the former with the edit summary "Clone and purge from List of plants for Biblical gardens". A content fork is not the way to solve these problems. If we want a rename, we should rename (rather than cloning), and any purging should be done in place. The article needs a lot of work (in particular, inline citations, probably even with page numbers, would help track down entries which confuse one plant for another, and the like, which is a constant problem for lists like these). But that's not a reason to delete it. (For an example of a related article which is in somewhat better shape, see Rose of Sharon). Kingdon (talk) 13:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- I will act to have the clone deleted (or made a redirection) if it results in parallel (or nearly parallel) articles. —SlamDiego_←T 13:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep there are a number of such gardens world wide maintained by Botanical societies, there are books covering the topic (even scholarly ones covering the plants of the Bible), and normel every day gardeners attempt to produce such collections of plants. Just because the nominating person has never heard of the concept, does not mean the page should be deleted - just means he/she never bothered to look for info on the topic. Hardyplants (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Adding a google link for interested parties to look at:http://www.google.com/search?q=creating+a+biblical+garden&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a Hardyplants (talk) 14:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep or rename to something like "list of plants used in biblical botanical gardens" - The subject seems notable to me as several books exist that could be used as references. There are a number of these gardens worldwide, some notable in literature searches. I don't think this list would be merely a list of plants mentioned in the bible (although the two lists would certainly overlap a lot). One of the conclusions of research on biblical gardens reads: "In the climatic conditions of Europe and the USA, where the cultivation of hot climate plants is not possible, some biblical plants are replaced with related species of similar appearance or original species grown in containers." Therefore, a list of plants for biblical gardens (from a practical gardening standpoint) might actually include plants not specifically mentioned in the bible but merely look-alikes. - tameeria (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It can be a little more complicated than this, and the title of the page ((plants for Biblical gardens)) is a good one if taken to represent the entire spectrum of the concept of biblical plants. In the narrowest sense we have plants of the bible, in other regions there can be plants related to bibilacal figures and events ( most common in Europe I belie- but don't hold me to it) So for instance a plant that is not in the Bible might be in a biblical gardened because of some tie in with the bible by mythology or folklore or because it was used as a theological teaching tool, an example is Pulmonaria or dogwood. Hardyplants (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Apparently, it is OR and does not meet standards of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larno Man (talk • contribs) 17:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I'll withdraw this AFD if someone writes an article on Biblical garden and merge some content there Secret ^account 19:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete this article, but if anyone wants to write an article on Biblical gardens, feel free, as it seems like that is an encyclopaedic topic. A list of plants that can be found in one is probably not. Terraxos (talk) 02:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- What is a Biblical garden if not a garden made up of plants mentioned in the Bible? The article gives a source, a book published by Cambridge University Press. And the Google book search shows there are plenty of other books listing such plants. So there is no reason I can see why there shouldn't be a list of plants for a Biblical garden here. Gatoclass (talk) 04:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  - If that answer were obviously correct, then gardens in which substitutions were openly made (because of climate) would not be represented as Biblical gardens. And, as I have noted, Genesis 2:5 makes exclusion of almost any plant problematic. The term needs to have its various definitions discussed. —SlamDiego_←T 17:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  - What are Girl Scout Cookies if not cookies made from Girl Scouts? Torc2 (talk) 02:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete: pure original research and not notable. Mh29255 (talk) 04:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

A Biblical Garden by Carol Lerner, published by Morrow: "Descriptions and pictures of twenty plants mentioned in the Old Testament, including fig, lentil, olive, papyrus, and pomegranate."
Your Biblical Garden: Plants of the Bible and How to Grow Them By Allan A. Swenson Published 1981 by Doubleday: "Practical information on gardening combines with a discussion of extant biblical gardens and the flowers, herbs, vegetables, fruit, and trees mentioned in the Bible."
Plants of the Bible: And How to Grow Them By Allan A. Swenson, Citadel Press 1995: " The book's emphasis is on flowers, vegetables, and herbs, but trees and fruit are not neglected. In addition, Mr. Swenson describes biblical gardens in both North America and Israel which interested readers can visit."
Plants of the Biblical Garden By Robert H. Whitsell, published 1976
The Biblical Garden on the Grounds of the Cathedral of St. John the Divine by Sarah Larkin Loening, 1990
California and Las Vegas, 1990 By Mary Rakauskas, published by Prentice Hall 1990: Contains mention of two Biblical gardens one can visit in these states.
The Biblical Garden of the Church of the Wayfarer By Esther Simpson, Marie Farley, 1968
North American Horticulture, a Reference Guide By Jane S. Keough, Judy Judy Powell, Barbara W. Ellis, American Horticultural Society, 1985: Mentions 3 Biblical gardens one can visit.
Catholic Traditions in the Garden By Ann Ball, 1998: A chapter on the subject, entitled "Bible and Medieval Gardens", which begins Since about the turn of the century, many people have planted Biblical gardens. These are gardens in which the plants are selected in accordance with those referenced in Scripture....
An academic paper listing some of the famous Biblical Gardens one can visit around the world.

- These are just some of the titles I have selected from the first 3 or 4 pages of Google Books under the search string "Biblical Garden". If you do a Google book search on, say, Plants of the Bible, you get thousands of hits. Gatoclass (talk) 06:31, 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, JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to have this article when we have Biblical Gardens and Plants mentioned in the Bible. merge with one of them. --Asmodeus Samael (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to Plants mentioned in the Bible as it is nothing more than a copy of that article. In fact, can we speedy this? Mangoe (talk) 04:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge into List of plants in the Bible, the very same plants that would go into a Biblical garden. The Transhumanist 04:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Arrrgh! All three of the articles mentioned are copies! Support redirect of others into List of plants in the Bible. Mangoe (talk) 04:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep. The topic is clearly notable and not original research. The rest is a matter of content editing, not deletion. Relisting this when it was discussed at length before seems otiose. No consensus is better since we have no deadline and the material will benefit from further editing over the fullness of time. "Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin". Colonel Warden (talk) 10:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep While the subject bores me, it appears to be notable enough. However, I do feel an article on the idea of a "Biblical garden" should be authored soon. See [36], and [37]. There are a plethora of secondary sources to be found, also—the majority of which do not mean Biblical garden of Eden. Strange subject, to be sure. But I don't choose what is or is not notable, because published authors do that. In this case, there is too much evidence pointing to this being a real subject. (Mind meal (talk) 10:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC))

An article on Biblical gardens already exists! Mangoe (talk) 11:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

That article was created in response to this AFD. How this topic is covered is a matter of content editing and we should just leave it to the interested editors rather than deleting anything. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Strong Keep The concept is clearly notable, as shown by the books about the subject-- "Plants of the Bible" is actually a Library of Congress official subject heading--there are so many books primarily on that specific subject--(56 in their catalog) [38] DGG (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep as sufficient sources have been mentioned throughout this discussion to effectively assert notability and provide verifiability. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep per DGG. John254 00:37, 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 delete, as it fails WP:OR. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discworld reading order

Superfluous article, unsourced except to the fansite L-space, the roughly chronological order in the books is sufficient. In addition, this is largely a replica of the L-space page http://www.lspace.org/books/reading-order-guides/index.html and could be linked from the main Discworld page. -- nae'blis 02:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete as OR. --Asmodeus Samael (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete, OR, fancruft list Achromatic (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete, fancruft, OR. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep I would view L-space as a reliable source for Discworld articles, accordingly it is not original research. Catchpole (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

What makes L-space official, please? I'm not aware of Krzysztof Kietzman having any official connections to Mr. Pratchett or his agents, but would love to learn differently. -- nae'blis 20:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware it's not official. It's still in my opinion the number one resource for anyone wishing to investigate the Discworld universe, it has been going strong for at least ten years. Catchpole (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge - material has value but not enough as a separate article. Should be merged to Discworld and extra sources sought. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge - into Discworld - useful information --Tombomp (talk) 09:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge into Diskworld, informative, and verifiable (just read the books, i would suggest reading them anyway :-) Fosnez (talk) 12:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I do read the books, in fact, and hence maintain that the publication order is sufficiently close to chronological. But the point is, neither my opinion or yours is reliable in this case. Without an official statement, the entire article is fan opinion. -- nae'blis 20:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge into Discworld. Non-notable enough for a separate article. Bláthnaid 14:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep This was originally split off from the discworld article and it has been since improved, expanded and appreciated by many readers and authors. External sites are not subject to community editing and expansion as time moves forward as is this page. Each and every discworld story page has links to this page in their next in reading order, next in publication order template at the footer. Keep per WP:NOTPAPER Its a small article that is not hurting anyone and many people find it helpful. This afd is taking up more resources than just leaving it alone would have. --Tbmorgan74 (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Improved and expanded by whom? Unless you can point to Mr. Pratchett, an editor, publisher, or reviewer stating that this is the definitive 'reading order', it's original, unsourced research and thus subject to deletion at any time. The fact that it was split off originally is immaterial; it holds no encyclopedic value, and can be handled through an external link, if the Discworld project feels that is valuable. -- nae'blis 20:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep as a useful navigational article. DGG (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete. This is unreferenced and unencyclopedic, and those parts which are not simply a duplicate of the L-Space guide are original research. I don't even see much here that's worth merging - the main Discworld article contains a more than adequate (though similarly unreferenced) paragraph. That, along with the link to L-Space, is sufficient. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete as original research and nonencyclopedic. Whether a sequence of (fiction) books should be read in order of publication, composition, or internal chronology is a matter of individual taste, not an encyclopedic matter. Any well-sourced information about internal chronology can be placed in the appropriate more specific articles. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 03:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete, WP:OR. Doctorfluffy (talk) 02:37, 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. John254 01:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Mirror (UNC Newspaper)

Doesn't pass WP:LOCAL as all the sources and extended reading is tied to the university and a search turns up very little of note. Travellingcari (talk) 02:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep. It's supposedly the official newspaper of the school, but we could use some better verification. I'll admit this is borderline. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - Pardon my WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but tons of college newspapers have pages. The article could use a rewrite (why is noting which section the Sudoku is in encyclopedic?) but I see no reason to delete it. WP:LOCAL is an essay anyway, not a policy. Oren0 (talk) 07:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep student newspapers that are the main newspapers of important universities and colleges are generally considered notable enough for articles--(They are even, within limits, usually considered reliable sources for articles). probably Univ. of Northern Colorado is important enough,-- the title needs adjustment--before i saw the article, I thought we were going to be discussing one at the University of North Carolina. Better sources are however needed--there should be sources for student journalism. DGG (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - Student newspapers are encyclopedic. Improve the sourcing and the title, though. FCYTravis (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - not disagreeing, but can anyone tell me by what consensus they;re notable. I looked in Outcomes, etc. but didn't find anything otherwise I wouldn't have nominated this, obviously. I still think the article needs independent sourcing as well. Travellingcari (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Student newspapers are the publication of record for universities and colleges across the world, and are inextricably linked with the academics of journalism, a recognized professional field. The history of student journalism is of great interest, given the battles over free speech, prior restraint and publication control they have been involved in for more than 100 years. In short, there are encyclopedic stories to be told about them. FCYTravis (talk) 21:41, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tōon-ryū

Sorry, Twinkle exploded on me, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/T%25u014Don-ry%25u016B As posted on that page: "Non notable style, less than 1000 ghits RogueNinjatalk 02:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)"

Apparently User:RogueNinja tried to nominate this for deletion but the nom wasnt finished. Procedural completion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep ~~No reason given for the nomination. "Somebody tried to nominate this" doesn't quite get it, I'm afraid.~~ OK, reason for nomination has been added-- less than 1,000 ghits = non-notable style. I don't know if google hits is an appropriate count of notability on something as specialized as an Okinawan style of karate, particularly if it's a foreign word susceptible of other transliterations. Consider this, which may be a better indicator of notability; in four books on the subject of Okinawan karate, Kyoda Juhatsu and toon-ryu are referred to.

Mandsford (talk) 02:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep ~~As above, no reason given.~~ It seems to have historical significance and can be expanded upon. Tim meh ! 02:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment I have informed the nominator that the nomination wasn't finished. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep rare but historically important system. Ref.: The well-respected and carefully reviewed Dragon Times (now Classical Fighting Arts), in Dragon Times #17 [39], [40]. JJL (talk) 03:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment, maybe merge I have originally created the article as a quick stub while researching Higaonna. It was created for the reason mentioned just above by JJL - it's historically notable. However, it is indeed obscure and I certainly don't mind the content of the article being merged somewhere else. Except I can't figure out where - Higaonna's own article? --Cubbi (talk) 06:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment I'm rather suspicious, given the near-complete lack of GHits or GBooks hits at all in Japanese, rather surprising for something invented in Okinawa [41][42]. cab (talk) 08:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I compare this to the sinking of SS Kiche Maru, which, although very significant, gets very few ghits. Cab, I'm interested in seeing if you can locate Japanese articles about the sinking of that ship, which happened a few months after the Titanic went down, with a comparable loss of life... sometimes, significance can be judged on whether the article itself asserts notability, and the claim can be verified independently. Mandsford (talk) 12:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Significance is properly judged by whether reliable sources have themselves found the topic to be significant enough to write about, and I see a grand total of one: "Dragon Times". As for the Kiche Maru, see the comment I left at Talk:SS Kiche Maru; I was able to find reliable sources which seem to be talking about the same incident, even without knowing the proper Japanese orthography. In the case of Toon-ryu, we do know what the proper Japanese orthography is and it's clear that no one in its native country has bothered writing anything about it, which makes me suspicious of historical significance. cab (talk) 02:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 08:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep Small but historically significant. Second choices would be as a small biography of Kyoda Juhatsu or as a section in Higaonna. jmcw (talk) 09:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is its historical significance? RogueNinja_talk 09:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Kyoda Juhatsu (1887-1968) is historically significant. Karate went through many changes as it was transplanted from Okinawa to Japan. Born in Okinawa, Kyoda Juhatsu was a student of one of the more important Okinawan karateka Higaonna and was licensed by the Japanese Dai Nippon Butoku Kai. Tōon-ryū represents one man's interpretation of these transitions.

Or more simply, he and his style are mentioned in many history books. jmcw (talk) 10:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

And I didnt put him up for deletion. He is notable. This style is not. You even call it: "one man's interpretation of these transitions." That is not a singing endorsement of notability. Give it a brief mention in Juhatsu's article. RogueNinja_talk 10:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

His style has been nominated for deletion without provision for preserving the important information contained in the article. This is always my problem with deletionism vs inclusionism. Couldn't we spend our time on clearer-cut cases of McDojo? Are we going to have to have this discussion on every small Okinawan article?[43] jmcw (talk) 10:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I delete McDojos as I come across them, but WP:OTHER applies here. I am going through the template list, and trying to see which ones belong, and which ones do not. Anyway, Merge or Redirect is a common outcome of AfDs. RogueNinja_talk 10:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Hope this might help. Oda Mari (talk) 14:32, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shohei-ryu

non notable style, very few ghits RogueNinja_talk 02:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge to Uechi-ryū as a variant of. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 02:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —RogueNinja_talk 02:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep world wide vibrant community. Does not meet 'Reasons for deletion'. Eric235u (talk) 02:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment as creator: Large and notable offshoot of Uechi-ryu; this is the only major offshoot of one of the four major styles of Okinawan Karate (Isshin, Goju, Shorin, and Uechi). Some schools teaching Shohei-ryu still advertise as Uechi-ryu or as Uechi-Shohei ryu for the greater name recognition. Although the techniques and kata are similar the orgs. are different and there are stylistic differences. Many schools in many countries: [44]. Over 1400 ghits for "Shohei ryu". Frequently featured in Dragon Times (e.g., [45]; cf. [46] indicating his style at the time as Shohei-ryu, though he now heads his own Pangainoon org.). JJL (talk) 02:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep I just did a search on that topic on Yahoo Japan, ending up with over 60,000 results, with people documenting their trips going to Japan to learn this form. TheAsianGURU (talk) 05:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep I have cleaned up the article a bit, did some formatting referencing etc and added an image. I have also added {{fact}} templates to where i think more references are needed as a guide. Fosnez (talk) 10:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to Uechi-ryū - trivial coverage in reliable sources. Also, none of the keep reasons given above are valid. Having a large number of google results isn't especially relevant. Having a worldwide vibrant community doesn't count for much either. Also, lacking in notability obviously complies with requirements for deletion. Addhoc (talk) 15:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment - "size of membership" may be considered for notability. nevertheless notability is not policy. Eric235u (talk) 02:49, 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 delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] L. Wendell Licon

Zero assertion of notability beyond the university where he teaches. Travellingcari (talk) 01:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Kakofonous (talk) 02:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete If we had an article for every professor in every university, we would probably double the articles already on Wikipedia. Absolutely not notable. Tim meh ! 02:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

not that this assistant professor is notable, but WP could perfectly well grow to 4 million --or 6 or 8 or whatever number of articles is necessary.DGG (talk) 04:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Assistant professor whose vita is empty of research publications beyond his doctoral dissertation five years ago. Clear fail of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:PROF. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete I see no claim of notability, or evidence that he passes WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete Non notable; Google reveals only six results. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 04:47, 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. — Scientizzle 17:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mohammad Ja'ffar Mirza Farman Farmaian

Delete Not notable per wp:n abd wp:not an indiscriminate, etc. Nor does article assert any notability. Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete. People are not automatically notable even if they are related to someone that is. Kakofonous (talk) 02:18, 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 WP:SNOW; this is no reflection of my own !vote but rather a reflection of the clear consensus placed by other users. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Keating Five

We don't need articles for EVERY scandal that happens. --Jmccain (talk) 01:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC) — Jmccain (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. This was a notable scandal. --Eastmain (talk) 01:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
keep This was a national scandal that made headlines for weeks. This article is lacking citations, but I'm sure they could be found. And, judging by the noms username, there may be COI concerns about this nomination. Beeblbrox (talk) 01:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
speedy keep - Extremely notable. Torc2 (talk) 01:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - while I strongly doubt that User:Jmccain is John McCain, this nom is still a head-scratcher given the scandal's great importance. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep Very much a notable scandal per everyone else; the nominator may or may not be the actual John McCain, but either way, this nomination reeks of WP:POINT. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment. Will source when I have time, but if someone wants to get a head start, look at this, this, and this. Kakofonous (talk) 02:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. This was a historically significant scandal. I am puzzled as to why anyone would want it removed.--Sjrr124 (talk) 03:20, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Success of Kennedy's administration in its relations to the Soviet Union

Hello all. I can see why some my say that this is a POV, but i would disagree. It is intened to be an ANALYSIS of how he dealt with the communists during his time in office, and as is stated is a work in progress. I have also referenced from Stephen E Ambrose, rise to Globalism and Chompsky 'Dtereing Democrasy, but i have not had time to footnote correctly. It is certainly not meant to be an essay. Similary it is not designed to replace, or be an alternative to the pages on 'the bay of pigs', 'the perlin crisis' or the 'cuban missile crisis'. These articles do indeed deal with those issues in more depth, but they do not provide the overview of his dealigs with communism or much of an analysis. I felt the need to address those issues in a little depth so that the reader would not neccessarily need to visit those pages to gain an undertanding of the events, and then relate back to this. As it clearly states it is a work in progress and will be updated shortly. I am concerned regarding the comment about the lack of neutrality of the article. When creating an overview assessing the success of something one must surely come to a cnoclusion? E Clendennen 17:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by E Clendennen (talk • contribs)

Inherently POV subject, bad title, only one source, not proper article format Kevlar67 (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

delete - POV essay with a single source. Relevant information is already at JFK#Foreign_policy. Torc2 (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom Beeblbrox (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per above. Author is honest in showing that this is drawn from pages 847 and 848 of a history textbook called The Enduring Vision, but this is covered much better in articles about the Bay of Pigs, the Berlin Crisis, and the Cuban Missile Crisis, all of which rely on more than one source Mandsford (talk) 02:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per all above. Tim meh ! 02:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Obviously an essay, several POV issues here, and I don't think that it could be rewritten in a neutral fashion. Plus, what little verifiable info there is has already been covered in JFK's article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete, POV beyond salvage, poorly sourced. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 09:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per the above comments (no need to repeat their reasons). This is an essay, not an article, and looks to be unsalvageable. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete Clearly a POV essay, unsalvageable. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 04:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete. POV essay, only one source, material is covered elsewhere. --Dawn bard (talk) 20:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment. Note that the author has recreated the content in a new article: Foreign policy of the Kennedy administration, which has been PRODded. --Dawn bard (talk) 20:09, 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 Redirect to Chengdu J-10--JForget 01:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chengdu Super-10

Article is almost entirely speculative, based on material from internet forums. The only reliable source supporting the very existence of the programme is a single article in Jane's Defence Weekly two years ago. All that can be gleaned from this is that the aircraft is a J-10 "with a more powerful engine, thrust-vector control, stronger airframe and passive phased-array radar"; not exactly the basis for a separate article. The relevant facts are already contained in our article on the J-10 (including the direct quote from JDW above). Rlandmann (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Concur. - BillCJ (talk) 01:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect is fine with me also - either way, we'll need to watch for unsourced re-creations. - BillCJ (talk) 07:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ Redirect (per Nick Dowling). As I noted earlier on the article's talk page, this is just a modernized version of the J-10 and not an advanced 5th-gen aircraft. (Never mind that the JDW article is not entirely correct.) Askari Mark (Talk) 03:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete as per above. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 09:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Redirect as the term is actually found, such as in the JDW article. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- To the best of my knowledge, as far as reliable sources go, the term is only found in the solitary JDW article... (but I'd be delighted to be proved wrong!) --Rlandmann (talk) 23:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. MilborneOne (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to Chengdu J-10 - even if JDW is wrong (which it often is) a mention in it does make the term a possible search term. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to main Chengdu J-10 article - at the moment this seems to be a one of a host of nebulous proposals for future Chinese fighter aircraft. In the event of futher details surfacing from reliable sources then consideration can be given to re-creation.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:58, 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 g1 nonsense, WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Heringism

Non-notable term, borderline nonsense, prod removed by author Wildthing61476 (talk) 00:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete as hoax/joke. JJL (talk) 01:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
speedy delete "What people have to say. Everyone loves it" - yeah, obvious hoax. Torc2 (talk) 01:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Not surprisingly, there are no relevant Google hits outside Wikipedia. We don't get that many newly created and unsourced philosophies/religions on WP:AFD any more, but they are still going to be deleted when we find them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete. This would appear to qualify as a blatant hoax that isn't even funny enough to preserve elsewhere. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete religioncruft. JuJube (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete - Not borderline nonsense, but the full-blown real thing. ◄Zahakiel ► 20:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete as a definite hoax; Google reveals nothing. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 04:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:49, 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. — Scientizzle 17:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crucial Change (band)

Fails WP:MUSIC. No sources to establish notability, at least, not third party sources. No reviews. Nothing notable. Delete Undeath (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nomBeeblbrox (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Band is not on a major record label or major indie label (this is assumed since no label is listed). It also created no charting songs and therefore is not notable. Tim meh ! 02:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment—I searched for sources on Google News archives and also on a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, and nothing turned up. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:59, 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Apartment-style housing (University of Pittsburgh)

Lacks reliable sources that are secondary to the article material. Also does not appear to be notable. Noetic Sage 00:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge with University of Pittsburgh. --Asmodeus Samael (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. Noetic Sage 00:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete nn. No need for a rd. JJL (talk) 01:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete nothing to salvage here, del per nom. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete- Per nom. -Mastrchf91- 02:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete belongs in a brochure, not an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable; Wikipedia does not exist to provide students with housing information. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 04:44, 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 Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neopia

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Neopia

Articles for deletion/Neopia (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Neopian Times

Plot summary/game guide for Neopets, written in somewhat in-universe style; seems to contain absolutely no notability out of universe. There are a couple of book sources, but they don't seem to be in depth coverage; the rest is just primary sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete Non notable. No out of universe context what-so-ever.Undeath (talk) 00:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep Neopets is highly notable and this is a reasonable split of it for length. Article is mostly not in-universe; not lede and discussion of what happened in Year 6 of the site, etc. JJL (talk) 01:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Tell me how it is "not in universe". I see nothing out of universe in this article at all. It only deals with in-universe facts about neopets/neopia.Undeath (talk) 01:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  - Comment read the lede. In most sections it begins with an out-of-universe intro. (Neovia: "A new section that was added to the Haunted Woods during the...". Krawk Island: "Krawk Island is a pirate-themed "island". Here, players can visit...". These are clearly out-of-universe descriptions, referring to when things were added to the game and to the players of the game. That's how most sections are, followed by a more detailed description of what is available to players. This is a reasonable split of the lengthy Neopets article. JJL (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Three AfDs already and mostly in-universe. Tim meh ! 02:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete I'm getting hits in Google Books and Google Scholar but the useful refs found here are already used in the main article so there is no point in merging. Redirect is optional.--Lenticel ^(talk) 04:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment. recommend Transwiki to Neopets wikia as well since the wikia version isn't good and the article will be deleted anyway. note that transwiki is compatible with delete.--Lenticel ^(talk) 06:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep Unless firmly established on a Neopian Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michelle192837 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Neopets is certainly notable, but this is just a huge dump if trivia and game-guide info (sample sentence: "In Happy Valley, there is an Ice Cream Cart where users can use coupons to buy ice creams") masquerading as an article. The main article, Neopets has a nice 5-paragraph section on the Neopia world, and I don't see anything here that should even be merged. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Describes the most important element of an extremely popular (highly notable) game. Yes, it's too in-universe, but WP:AfDISNOTCLEANUP. It has also received significant external coverage in reliable sources. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 10:01, 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 keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Albert Hammond, Jr.'s second album

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Albert Hammond, Jr.'s second album

No original research, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Will ^(talk) 18:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete, too soon yet to contain any verifiable info, especially if the title of the album isn't even known yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment No one knows the exact title for Wipeout PS3 either but it still has its own article.

Keep, many albums have these pages before they have titles, and are used for fans to keep up on the album's status. Also, there is no "crystal-balling" on the pages. The songs that have been confirmed for the album are confirmed in interviews by Albert himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laynethebangs (talk • contribs) 22:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment The sources that do exist aren't very reliable; many are YouTube links and the rest don't appear reliable. Even if the artist has verified tracks, there is still too much crystal balling going on. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment the other sources are Rolling Stone Magazine, a major publication, Pitchfork Media one of the leading sources of internet music journalism, and NME, the leading british music magazine. These sources make up a majority of the sources used in the article (I believe they are 4/6 of the sources) so "many" of them aren't youtube and if you don't believe or have never heard of the others that doesn't make them "unreliable," they are major publications in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laynethebangs (talk • contribs) 02:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep but get rid of Possible Tracks section, as that is complete speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.34.217.222 (talk) 03:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Weak Keep The article has potential, but I fear it does boarder on WP:Crystal. Canyouhearmenow 02:51, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fall Out Boy's fifth studio album

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Fall Out Boy's fifth studio album

No original research, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Will ^(talk) 18:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete, too soon yet to contain any verifiable info, especially if the title of the album isn't even known yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Weak delete WP:OR doesn't really apply—the article's sourced from Billboard and MTV News. The crystal ballery currently outweighs media coverage at this point. Still, compared to most "such-and-so's forthcoming album" articles, this one is bearable. Precious Roy (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Precious Roy (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Not enough material to support an article at this point, and what's here is already covered in Fall Out Boy anyway. A duplicate article at Fall Out Boy's 5th Studio Album should also be included in this afd. PC78 (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I've redirected the other article to this one as the title is proper and it actually has references. Precious Roy (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep. There are two references that are arguably reliable. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Subject at this time is excessively inchoate for a verifiable article. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 03:49, 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 keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trium

Non-notable phone, article cites no sources, no assertion of notability. Simply being a product made by Mitsubishi does not grant notability, as notability is not inherited. Kesh (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy keep There are plenty of available sources, I have just found one with a very quick Google search. I would have thought that the nominator would have had a look themselves, before nominating, but this AFD seems to be driven by making a point after a rather heated discussion at DRV. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 01:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

To quote from the source (which I have added to the article) "Since that time, MWC has offered nine different types of cell phones to US customers, most notably its Trium series." Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid that source doesn't satisfy WP:V. The article isn't about the Trium, the Trium is only mentioned on that one line you quoted. We need multiple third-party sources that are primarily about the Trium to satisfy. Also, please WP:AGF. This is not a point, I honestly believe this phone does not satisfy our notability requirements. As for "Plenty of available sources," please feel free to add some. A google search turned up several press releases and trivial mentions, but zero articles about the phone itself. -- Kesh (talk) 03:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't imagine how you could believe that this doesn't meet the notability criteria, but OK. As for verifiability, I believe that the source I provided was fine. I can see nothing to say that the article has to be primarily about subject. Can you please clarify your objection. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Where does it say that the source has to be primarily about the subject? --Explodicle (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for Kesh, however s/he was possibly thinking of: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." I'm guessing that Kesh's interpretation of "article topic" is stricter than most. Addhoc (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep - I don't see anything wrong with a format of: introduction, followed by a section about Trium Mars, then another section about Trium Eclipse, and so on. Addhoc (talk) 18:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - I just reviewed WP:N, which states that if a source addresses a subject "directly in detail" it counts, which does not require that the source is primarily about the subject of the article. --Explodicle (talk) 01:41, 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.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Aldermaston Soke

[edit] Extreme underwater basket weaving

[edit] Kwik Way (Restaurant)

[edit] Chicken Farm

[edit] Epic snowboarding

[edit] Internet Superstar

[edit] Posh Paws

[edit] ENERGIA EOLICA - LA OTRA CARA

[edit] Todd Karr

[edit] Marcel Vezina

[edit] Spygate

[edit] 1996 in Australian television

[edit] Jenae Rubin

[edit] James McDermott

[edit] Tarnished Gold

[edit] Tenaga Sayaw

[edit] Fletcher Field Strength

[edit] Online skill-based game

[edit] Justo daract

[edit] Massimiliano Tagliani

[edit] Woodworking for Women

[edit] Salt Grammar School

[edit] Sidewalk superintendent

[edit] Shut Up Already

[edit] NBC Slogans

[edit] Norman David Roussell

[edit] Network of European Active Citizens

[edit] Tom Rannachan

[edit] Dylan Rice

[edit] Admission Possible

[edit] Dave Clarke (DJ)

[edit] Audioscape

[edit] Digital bra/bikini

[edit] Safeer-e-arsh

[edit] Sophia Danenberg

[edit] Pilot und Flugzeug

[edit] Phillip Silverstone

[edit] Cariad

[edit] Parker Vector

[edit] Neil Michalares

[edit] The faerie door

[edit] Sex economy (essay)

[edit] XIII. století

[edit] Aaron Goode

[edit] Jeremy Flint

[edit] True self

[edit] Dead Man Walking (Torchwood) and A Day in the Death

[edit] Bitch Music

[edit] South Pointe Middle School

[edit] India’s Contributions to Mankind and World Progress

[edit] Lemony cricket

[edit] Liam James Spencer

[edit] List of contemporary and crossover baritones

[edit] New York Zoo (film)

[edit] Little Wars (album)

[edit] Mark Moore (writer)

[edit] Thenginkalbetta

[edit] Lords of Fara

[edit] Place management

[edit] Tonislav Hristov

[edit] Techorate design

[edit] Madonna's upcoming Best of Remixes compilation

[edit] Tsoja

[edit] Poop (band)

[edit] Jim Rettew

[edit] Nederwiet

[edit] MoneyBar

[edit] Ice Age 3

[edit] Supplemental Application

[edit] Break a Leg (sitcom)

[edit] This Will Destroy You

[edit] The Standard Music Venue

[edit] UnSpoken Secrets

[edit] Beatles Concert Puzzle

[edit] River crossing puzzle

[edit] StoneHill International School

[edit] Wine/Water mixing problem