Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 June 3

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons

List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This list has been tagged for WP:N since December 2007, I am not really sure if the community will think notability tag should come off or if the article should be deleted. As the topic of notablity has not been addressed I assume that it fails WP:N Jeepday (talk) 23:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Any real-world info relating to this topic belongs in Artifact (fantasy)#In Dungeons & Dragons, which already contains a fair bit of such information. This article contains very little real-world stuff to add. Furthermore, all these red links do nothing but encourage creation of further articles which will fail WP:N. BreathingMeat (talk) 00:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Merge into Artifact (fantasy)#In Dungeons & Dragons or Dungeons_&_Dragons items not notable in and of themselves. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the items listed here are not notable of themselves. I think their collective notability is addressed in Artifact (fantasy)#In Dungeons & Dragons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BreathingMeat (talk • contribs) 03:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - items are collectively notable, if not individually. Failing that, merge into Artifact (fantasy)#In Dungeons & Dragons. BOZ (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Lists like this are an excellent compromise between the zealots who hate seeing articles on non-real-world subjects and the fans who want to create hundreds of articles on every minute detail. Honestly, cataloging fandom is Wikipedia's strength, and it'd be a shame to see all this work go to waste. -- Poisonink (talk) 04:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd add that I wouldn't be sorry to see the red links go, however. -- Poisonink (talk) 04:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I can certainly agree on the redlinks, and for all the reasons stated above. BOZ (talk) 04:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, pure game guide material with no assertion and certainly no evidence of real-world notability; precedent is clear that such articles are unsuitable for Wikipedia. --Stormie (talk) 06:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as consistent with what Wikipedia is as well as per Wikipedia:Five pillars, i.e. notability to a real-world audience, verifiable, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning fictional topics with importance in the real world. Passes Wikipedia:Lists as well by being discriminate and organized. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Please note that the above vote has been canvassed: [1]. dorftrottel (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - AfDs should not be used to force notability checks, that is what the tags are for. The community has not ignored this article, they simple have been working on all the other articles as well. Would support a merge *if* it does not lead to page bloat. Web Warlock (talk) 11:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think that tags can be used as the ultimate tool to enforce notability, and I think this article is a case in point. The notability tag sat there for months with nobody doing anything about it. The time has to come when the tag must turn into action, and in the absence of any notability assertions, the applicable action is deletion. BreathingMeat (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - per BOZ, WebWarlock, et al.--Robbstrd (talk) 21:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - this list is a result of previous merges. Collectively I believe they are notable. They are a fairly prominent plot item of a prominent game. Agree with above and apologise for not prioritising searching for sources, but have been busy with other things. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as per Casliber, others. Edward321 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Poisonink, BOZ, WebWarlock, et al. I'm of the opinion that the list has collective notability. The list is there as a compromise already rather than having individual articles on each list item, the idea of which would have a small but vocal minority of deletion-minded editors going nuts. This sort of article allows information to remain useful and available without proliferating into a multitude of articles which probably on their own (outside of some major ones that have cross-polinated into popular culture in other forms) wouldn't meet the strictest notability guidelines.Shemeska (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Artifacts are commonly major plot elements. The list could even be expanded to include a brief description of each item. --Polaron | Talk 01:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The D&D monster lists could give some inspiration on how to work that. BOZ (talk) 03:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep this was the compromise intermediate way of doing it. The nom. should realise that if a tag remains on a article, that does not prove that the difficulty is real, let alone insuperable. A tag means it should have further attention, not that it will be suitable for deletion if it doesn't get any or if the tag remains. A tag of this sort is not like a Prod. DGG (talk) 05:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - That this article can be AfD'd shows a problem with our guidelines, not a problem with this article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 05:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep — Was too lazy for a thorough search for sources, but am confident there is more than enough even for an article, and certainly for a list in here and here. dorftrottel (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep --Mike Cline (talk) 11:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as a notable element of a fictional universe. Agree with Peregrine that the nom for this article indicates a broken guideline, not a broken article. Ford MF (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Per just about everyone else, and because no valid deletion reason has been given. (Being tagged for notability since December is not a valid reason to delete an article.) Rray (talk) 22:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. By User:Jeepday (G8). Malinaccier (talk) 00:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Nonoba

Talk:Nonoba (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Page deleted for being Nonsense, leaves discussion page redundant. Bit Lordy (talk) 23:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy deleted per G8. Jeepday (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Urban Soul (Erre XI album)

Urban Soul (Erre XI album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Add to this AfD nomination the non-notable single, Carita Bonita Corvus cornix_talk 23:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Unreleased album by non-notable band. The band is currently nominated for speedy deletion for failing to meet WP:MUSIC, but there is no provision for speedy deleting albums. Corvus cornix_talk 23:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, per WP:V and WP:N, the references are to myspace. Jeepday (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete not notable, references in myspace do not help notability. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No notable independent, verifiable sources Artene50 (talk) 09:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'd go with it being a hoax too, seeing that there are no Google hits for anyone by that name. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 01:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dexter "Chippy" Peeps

Dexter "Chippy" Peeps (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Apparent hoax article with no hits on google for a Rangers player called Dexter Peeps nor Worsley Wanderers and nothing for the book used as a source ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 23:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Clearly a hoax. Rockpocket 23:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Agree, hoax - would be bizarre if such a prolific goalscorer for Rangers had been left out by this leading stats website. Other "facts" in the article are distinctly unlikely too. Bencherlite^Talk

Delete looks like a hoax and WP:CB to me. ukexpat (talk) 00:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. - Dudesleeper / Talk 01:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merged to List of antivirus software by Ohconfucius. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison of antivirus software

Comparison of antivirus software (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Whilst this may be useful for some, Wikipedia is not a guide, this 'article' is not encyclopaedic. Россавиа ^Диалог 23:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep. So long as it only contains encyclopedic information culled from the linked articles then it seems legitimate. There are quite a lot of articles which are just tables of information from other articles presented for easy reference. This does not seem to be frowned upon as a general principle and I can't see anything specifically wrong with this one although whether it should be called a "comparison" is questionable. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as Wikipedia is not a how-to. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 03:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep. DanielRigal makes a good point about the questionableness of this article being called a comparison - if anything, it needs to be expanded before it (fully) qualifies as a comparison article. It's more than a simple list though. That said, I fail to see how this article qualifies as a how-to, and thus deserves deletion. Wrldwzrd89^talk 13:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep. I believe the information presented is relevant to the articles from which this page is linked --- that is, if the data were presented as part of the encyclopedic article, it would not merit deletion. Perhaps merge with the article, or add to the "List", in which case you have a list with descriptions. . . which is what this appears to be. Hmm. Maybe hearing from the author would be a good thing. Renaissongsman (talk) 14:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Merge to List of antivirus software. This information is useful, I just don't think it needs its own article. J.delanoy^gabsanalyze 14:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merged to List of antivirus software per WP:BOLD. No worthy of independent existence. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• I just undid the redirect because the AfD is still ongoing and we need to keep the AfD tag on the page. I have no objection to merge and redirect being the outcome of the AfD. As soon as it is official the redirect can go back on. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Podcasting And Its Use In Learning

Podcasting And Its Use In Learning (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a personal essay consisting of original research and opinions. It is not written in a neutral tone. It has the authors' names on it implying a claim of ownership. It does not look like it could be converted into a proper encyclopedia article. Speedy, Prod and other valid tags have been removed without explanation. DanielRigal (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Blatant original research. This should at best be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal, not an encyclopedia. Delete. —Cryptic 04:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Submit it to a magazine, please. WillOakland (talk) 04:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Maybe there's an possible article on this subject, but this is neither that article nor its title. Maxamegalon2000 06:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete it is all copy and pasted from the resources links. Admin removed the speedy tag.--Otterathome (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Susan Berkley

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

not notable; the ref links to a short news clip that does not feature Susan Berkley at all (it features Pat Fleet, who is mentioned briefly in this article)  Chzz  ►  22:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Arguably breaches WP:ATTACK in that the article seems to accuse her of misrepresenting herself. On top of this she is marginally notable at best. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - No reliable third-party sources given, living person of minor notability - that equals delete for me. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete ASAP The nasty tone of this article has been removed:here but I hardly think this article's creator Lexlex has Susan Berkley's best intentions at heart in making this article. This appears to be a character assassination Also much of the info is from her web site which cannot be considered a WP:RS. Artene50 (talk) 10:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of apex predators

List of apex predators (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page suffers from two related problems. First, it is impossible to demarcate what is an apex predator because the term is generic, not a strict category. Thus, second, it is riddled with OR. People take the definition of "apex predator," look at some animal page, and decide "ya, I'll add it to the list." It's almost completely unsourced because most of the entries were off-the-top-of-the-head additions by various editors applying the definition themselves. And it will remain unsourced because, again, it's a generic term that biologists don't often explicitly assign to species. The second section speaks for itself: Extinct predators that were likely apex predators. "Were likely" is self-evidently OR.

However, I hope this can be basically a merge rather than a delete. One scrupulous editor did add some academic sources a couple of years ago; I have moved them here. I intend to incorporate relevant info to the main apex predator page. As a list is inherently unmanageable on this topic, choice examples can be used on the main search target, with sources that explicitly mention species vis-a-vis the term. Marskell (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Weak delete, I actually have nothing against a list of this nature - however the current version is almost completely unsourced and, as the nominator mentioned, original research. Will gladly change my mind if an authoritative source for this kind of information can be found. Arkyan 21:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge due to the nebulous (and possibly OR) nature of a comprehensive list. The original article is pretty short, so selected material would be easy to incorporate with discussion and examples. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - A list of top-level (apex) predators is useful in the fields of ecology and Zoology. Beno1000 (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Lack of sources is grounds for improvement, not deletion. Edward321 (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Trim to those entries that have refs. On a side note, the diagram below is cute. Almost all predators have open jaws and the most dangerous predator is waving his hand.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Trim? Possibly. But the fundamental problem won't go away: this is not a scientific category but a generic term and people are going to continue to add their own interpretative additions. It's essentially unmanageable. It's a little like maintaining a "List of excellent baseball players"—there is no way to clearly draw a boundary. Marskell (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I think the sources show it is in fact a scientific ecological category. DGG (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. This is interesting, helpful and sourced list.Biophys (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Agree with all the Keep comments above. This list meets all the relevant WP guidelines from my point of view.--Mike Cline (talk) 11:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, the main article apex predator clearly shows it is a defined term. Any issue about lack of sourcing would be quite easily determinable with a yes/no decision, this is what citation needed tags and the talk page are for. Other keepers should note that 'interesting' and 'usefull' are not generally considered good reasons to keep an article, and might want to read he official wikipedia policy on what wikipedia is not, and this essay on the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. I agree that the likely to have section is probably original research, unless there are several sources for such claims. MickMacNee (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kate and Gin

Kate and Gin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Just someone who appeared on Britain's Got Talent and didn't win. Buc (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, WP:NN.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 21:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, meets criteria for inclusion (WP:BIO) per multiple dedicated non-trivial press appearances. Neıl 龱 22:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment, as the press appearances are all with regard to the appearance on Britain's Got Talent (excepting a pet food user profile(!)), wouldn't it be possible to dig up similar references for almost all of the acts in the show and therefore give them each their own page? Seems we're on that road already, I'm just seeking clarification. Mallocks (talk) 11:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: -- it's neither reliable nor notability-establishing, but this article is worth a read. (It definitely should not be added to the article). --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Hmm - any article, sppof or otherwise, that spells irreparable "irrepairable" is rubbish by default (okay, I still laughed a bit). Neıl 龱 11:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep -- a quick Google News search indicates several dozen hits in the last month. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - per A. B. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - meets basic criteria of WP:N/WP:BIO - multiple, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. - fchd (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, There are multiple reliable sources for this article to pass both WP:N and WP:BIO--Captain-tucker (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete one off event, WP:RECENT. Sources aren't that great either.--Otterathome (talk) 16:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Probably WP:N in terms of bringing an obscure sport to attention of a wide audience (millions) previously unaware of its existence, as evidenced by the comments in references & searches along lines of 'I've never seen anything like it'Drpeterbatesuk (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - No less notable that all of the other britains got talent losers and a lot of them have pages too. More unique and therefore notable than most of them aswell. Tresiden (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Qliktech

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

Non-notable company. Ziggy Sawdust 20:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep among the press releases is evidence of RS coverage. That said, this has been speedied 3x. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 20:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Not only is it non-notable, the page appears to be nothing but an advertisement. Here's what I mean: "...their patented in-memory associative technology, which to this day is the main competitive advantage in the market." Player 03 (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'll remove my vote. I'm no longer convinced that the company is non-notable, and the page seems to be getting better. I would tag it for cleanup, but I'm not sure if that is generally accepted in the middle of a deletion discussion. Player 03 (talk) 01:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. I added some references. I think that notability is now established. If this article survives AfD, it should be moved to QlikTech International --Eastmain (talk) 22:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 22:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. It needs references, cleanup and removal of advert-like clauses, but it is definitely notable enough for inclusion. Hymyly^T@C 19:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I must congratulate this company's marketing department on their industriousness - I've never seen quite so many press releases listed on a Google News search - but as Cari says there are reliable sources amongst them to demonstrate notability, e.g. [6] [7] as well as the ones added to the article by Eastmain. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 recreated material deleted through a previous discussion (WP:CSD#G4) PeterSymonds (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Princess Diaries 3

The Princess Diaries 3 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod for a movie that is "in production". WP:CRYSTAL and so on. And it appears, from the "2nd nom", that this is not a new discussion, prior discussion was delete; would a CSD apply in this case? Yngvarr (c) 20:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - I see nothing new compared to the last incarnation, and still no sources for anything substantial. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:RS, tagged as speeeeeeedy delete.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 21:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pie Box Enterprise Linux

Pie Box Enterprise Linux (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This fails WP:ORG, as there is no coverage in reliable third-party sources. It provides insufficient context for a reader, and _any_ information at all about it is sparse. No Google News hits at all. ffm 20:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Insufficient context, no reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. No indication as to why this is notable - and not all Linux distros are notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jerusalem syndrome (Computer games)

Jerusalem syndrome (Computer games) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No good sources to meet verifiability and notability...just a whole lot of original research. — Scientizzle 19:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. — Scientizzle 22:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Delete: As per nom. --SkyWalker (talk) 04:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Against Deletion It is a brand new phenomenon. Don't be in such a hurry to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.194.124.36 (talk) 06:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Looking through sources to try to assess notability or even come up with the idea of the "Jerusalem Syndrome" in games, I can't see anything that's not original research. Plenty of stuff for Jerusalem syndrome, but that's an entirely different subject. Delete, as Wikipedia is not a place for inventing terms. It can be recreated if it is covered by reliable sources in the future, who don't appear to cover it now. -- Sabre (talk) 10:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Against deletion - Wikipedia have right to have page about a recent phenomenom, and there is always an possibility of merge in case this phenomenom might get different official name (unlikely).
  Honestly, when an article Paris syndrome - psychopathology has right to be at wikipedia, this article has right to be at wikipedia as well. At worst it should be prefixed by tag "This article talks about recent phenomenon, thus citations from scientific articles from trusted sources like arstechnica.net are unavailable." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghar (talk • contribs) 13:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • No article has a "right" to exist, the topic must merit encyclopedic coverage. For this, a topic must be verifiable, properly using reliable sources, and of sufficient notability. Rather than arguing that some other article also exists, work should be done to present actual sources upon which to build this article. — Scientizzle 16:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete. I am uncomfortable with phrasing inclusion as something that an article must earn, rather than something that we decide together to be for Wikipedia's gain or detriment. The former can lead to the so-very-common phenomenon of RC patrollers flaying valid articles in need of attention instead of adding to them, and AfDs split into prosecution and defense (at which point we can just blow up the encyclopedia and go home.)
      Problem is, the latter approach does not improve the article's situation, either. Our basic principles are verifiability, no original research, and reliable sources because this environment cannot work without them. According to all these, a topic needs more proof than its own say-so. We can't publish original thought. If we did, we'd be up in our earlobes in EARTH HAS 4 CORNER SIMULTANEOUS 4-DAY TIME CUBE IN ONLY 1 EARTH ROTATION. [8] Okay, so that's objectionable for a whole lot of other reasons, but for another example there are a lot of fascinating, intuitive and utterly wrong home-made physics theories. Let those in without requiring proof and, barring everyone on the planet spontaneously developing great media criticism and wiki editing skills, the site's value goes straight down the toily. Judge on a case by case basis? How would we prove or disprove this article? We can't at the moment, and there seems to be no way to fix that, so it can't work on WP.
      
      Notability is a separate beast that I'd rather not invoke. With characteristic naivete, I hope that this makes sense to you, Raghar. --Kizor 19:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, this is a neologism. The article also has no real hope of growth because only a very small percentage of releases are incomplete or not fully cracked. Due to the nature of the subject matter there is also no hope of verifiable references to reliable sources. Garrett^Talk 04:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ghostwriter, Brent J. Cole

Ghostwriter, Brent J. Cole (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete. Non-notable. Article is written by the subject. A google search for "Brent J. Cole" turns up a whopping four hits: two of which are Wikipedia links, one of which is presumably the subject's own website and the last one being a ZoomInfo page. CyberGhostface (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Same as CyberGhostface. תחי מדינת ישראל (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete vain vanity in vain JuJube (talk) 00:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as NN, self-promotion article. If this is kept, it needs to be renamed "Brent J. Cole" to conform with article naming policy. 23skidoo (talk) 12:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO and WP:A. The subject is not notable, and none of the biography is referenced. How notable can a ghostwriter ever be, when all the books bear the moniker of someone else? Ohconfucius (talk) 04:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Non-notable writer who posted an article about himself and then proceeded to edit war by vandalizing all of the AUTO and COI and deletion tags. Oh, let's see: WP:single-purpose account, WP:EDITWAR, WP:BK, WP:BIO, WP:RS, WP:VSCA, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:AUTO, WP:COI, WP:SNOW. Qworty (talk) 09:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DJ Matter

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

Has been substantially edited by its subject, and pretty much reads like a vanity autobiography. No references to provide evidence of notability and does not seem to fulfil any criterion of WP:MUSIC - it has been tagged for notability since April. ~ mazca ^talk 18:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete Per nom. I'm really tired of seeing autobiographies and vanity pieces on Wikipedia.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - insufficiently referenced for inclusion in Wikipedia. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 21:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 00:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete both. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tajudeen bioku

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

Despite lots of over-the-top claims, the man has only produced one film, The Divine Emerald, which according to imdb, was only ever shown at the New York International Independent Film and Video Festival. Whether or not he is the rightful king of his tribe, and whether or not his work is as stupendous as the article says, there aren't any sources backing up these claims. There are also only 55 Google hits for the name, and it appears that there is more than one person with that name. Corvus cornix_talk 17:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

With permission of the nom, I am adding the following related page, as it does not seem to meet WP:FILM and the notability here is intrinsically related. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The Divine Emerald (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Delete both as non-notable unless reliable sourcing can be found to indicate otherwise. In the 34 distinct hits produced on google by combining the name of the film and its producer/actor/writer, I found nothing that meets our reliable source requirements to verify notability. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable Ged UK (talk) 10:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, withdrawn. Non-admin closure. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Better Get to Livin'

Better Get to Livin' (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable, low peaking single, doesn't deserve to an article Caldorwards4 (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I withdraw this AfD since plenty of sources have been added. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to Backwoods Barbie. Corvus cornix_talk 18:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Backwoods Barbie. I did this before but someone undid it without comment. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The article now has sufficient sources to establish notability outside of the album. It might be too much info to merge now. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep : the song was charted = it meets WP:N. In addition, the peak position is not the only criterion to establish notability. As the song was released by a notable artist, it seems reasonable to think that it was the subject of coverages in the media. Europe22 (talk) 23:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Not all charting songs are notable on their own. WP:MUSIC says only make a separate page if there's enough info for a separate page. This article is short enough that it can be merged to Backwoods Barbie. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment : The article was created just three days ago... It's logical that it is a stub. As a rule, we don't merge all stubs, but we let them much more time to be expanded. Europe22 (talk) 11:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Still, the song also needs to be notable, and since it did not reach the top 40 of the country charts -- typically we use Top 25 criteria unless there's a wealth of reliable sources -- this song fails WP:N. Spell4yr (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to Backwoods Barbie per nom. Spell4yr (talk) 03:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - I think it is notable because it is her first country single in years and even if it didn't chart too well, it was still like a "comeback single" and anyways, sry about undoing whatever 10pndHammer... I was trying to help CloversMallRat (talk) 06:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• What about When I Get Where I'm Going? That was (technically) a Dolly Parton single too. As for undoing my redirect, it would have been better if you had left a comment in your edit summary regarding the undo. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. This song was fairly notable. Got lots of airplay and video play when it came out. Was considered something of a "comeback single" as some other commentators have mentioned. I've added some more info and references to fill it out a bit. Kaldari (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - The song peaked at #48 on the country charts -- that hardly qualifies it as having "lots of airplay", and would reflect a lack of notability using current Wikipedia country music standards. As stated above, we typically only include Top 25 singles unless they achieve notability by other means (Not Ready to Make Nice is a good example). Which reminds me, I need to redirect Invisibly Shaken, as I assumed it would hit top 25 when it was released but it appears that it won't go above #43. Spell4yr (talk) 04:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • What are these "Wikipedia country music standards" you mention? On Wikipedia:Notability (music) it says that "songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts... are probably notable." Kaldari (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

They're unwritten rules that typically govern what songs we have pages for. "Never Mind Me", for example, was an article I created for Big & Rich's song, but it was later redirected to its album because it only peaked at #34. We typically redirect anything lower than #25 as hundreds of songs chart every year, and if we included pages on every one of them, there would be a lot of unnecessary kilobytes. Wikipedia is not a country music wiki.

Do I think it's a good song? Yes, I do. But I don't feel it satisfies the notability for country music articles that has evolved over the last few years. Spell4yr (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying we need to have articles for every country song, but surely we consider more than just chart position! Apparently the video for this song was pretty popular (according to the director), and the fact that it's the first (and highest charting) single from her "comeback" album should count for something. Just my two cents. Kaldari (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, her video currently has 250,000 views. Big & Rich's Between Raising Hell and Amazing Grace has 400,000 views, and Eric Church's Lightning has 180,000 (the latter in less time than Dolly's video), and neither of those has pages. Video popularity is still not a great indicator of notability. We'll have to agree to disagree on this point. I think some of the pertinent info from the page should be worked into either Backwoods Barbie or Dolly's article, incorporating the YouTube/"comeback single" information (if we can find a reliable source calling it a comeback). Spell4yr (talk) 04:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

There are lots of sources calling the album a "comeback", don't know about the single though. In the case of the Big & Rich and Eric Church songs, I think they lose points by virtue of the fact that those artists are not very historically significant. Look at our Beatles and Bob Dylan coverage for example. We have articles for virtually every song they ever created, even if they were completely ignored at the time. I'm not saying that Dolly Parton is as historically significant as Bob Dylan, but her career is certainly a lot more important than that of Big & Rich. For an artist of Parton's importance, I think it makes sense to try to have more than the baseline level of coverage. I'm sure in a few decades (or years even) there will be books about Dolly Parton's life and career that will mention this song, and thus provide even more material for a good article. I can't say the same for Eric Church's "Lightning". Kaldari (talk) 15:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I still think the material, even if more comes out in the future (which seems to be a little bit of a crystal-balling assumption), can be incorporated into either her page or the album's page, as typically country music legends haven't been given the Beatles/Dylan treatment with their songs. This may be something to undertake in the future, if there is consensus that artists like Parton, Johnny Cash, George Jones, and others should have more extensive information, but based on precedent I cannot change my vote. I am wondering if Caldorwards4 or TenPoundHammer, or anyone who hasn't voted would like to share any thoughts in this discussion, as I think Kaldari and I have had a really good discussion on this, but I would like some other viewpoints to see if maybe I'm being too narrow-minded here. Spell4yr (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that the page contains sufficient content for a standalone article now. Never mind that it didn't make Top 40; the song received enough coverage in reliable sources that it would be too much info to simply merge back into the main album page, which is fairly detailed in its own right (at least for a page on a country album). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

As I seem to be in the minority now, I withdraw my redirect vote and will instead abstain. Spell4yr (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for being so considerate and reasonable. BTW, I just found one more reason why the song is notable: It was the first single released by Parton's own record label, Dolly Records. Kaldari (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy5 (talk) 00:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jean Mayeur

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

Delete No WP:RS, does not assert WP:N, not notable Bstone (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. The article was created only a few hours ago. Article needs clean up and addition of sources, not deletion. I've already found one to start from [9] just doing a quick scan. Seraphim♥Whipp 18:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

  Found another. Seraphim♥Whipp 11:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable jewelery designer for large part of the late twentieth century. The sources are not on-line, but on the pages of fashion magazines and in books. --Blechnic (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  Off line sources can easily be cited. However there are none listed, thus no WP:RS and nothing in the article asserts notability. Bstone (talk) 23:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This is AfD, not pressure others to work it. I don't care if it's deleted. It's more work to create an article than to delete it, and I assume there's some hidden AfD contest. He wrote a chapter in a book, that's good enough for me. You've just cited the usual: it ain't on the web, therefore it ain't notable. Yawn. --Blechnic (talk) 23:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. First up, this is a textbook WP:INSPECTOR. Secondly, please read the first paragraph of WP:N: "If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable." Lack of reliable sources (often called "asserting notability") is not always a good criteria for deletion. An article is not required to assert notability, the subject just need to be notable. This artist appears to be a notable jewelry designer as you can see from even a cursory Google search, here, here, and here. --ColorOfSuffering (talk) 20:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:CSD#A3. Pedro :  Chat  20:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sophie Costa

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

Contested prod. The article makes no claim that the subject is notable and no references found online to support notability. Tagged as non-notable since November 2007. Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. This perhaps could have been speedy deleted. freshacconcispeaktome 17:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - no assertion of notability. Also, I have removed all the information that was directly copied from here [10]. Hal peridol (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - does not assert why the subject is notable. ~ mazca ^talk 19:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - no assertion of notability, no reliable 3rd party sources. xenocidic ( talk ¿ listen ) 19:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as a "no context" and WP:SNOW. Disruptive de-prodding, edit warring, and WP:POINT hardly constitute good reasons to drag out an AfD on a one-sentence article. All of the nominator's actions on this one, including the two prods and now the AfD, have been in good faith, so an early close would be appropriate here. Thank you! Qworty (talk) 19:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - not notable, but as there is only one line about who she is (a painter), I'm going with a no content CSD. So tagged. Person does not assert notability, I have no evidence thereof. That it's listed as a stub is probably moot. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was G12 by Gwen Gale , non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Panagiotis Emmanouil

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

The article fails to establish notability using qualified references. The only references listed are directed to a personal website that is created by and for the subject of the article. Additionally, the username of the creator of this page is the name of the subject, which is a likely indication that the article, referenced website, and user, all belong to this individual, who is evidently promoting themself. I have also removed the addition by the same user to the List of child prodigies article. Freqsh0 (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was G3 by Gwen Gale, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gnisnotch

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

A nice little story about an inside joke. No reliable sources provided, none found. Couldn't find a speedy category that fit. Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as patent nonsense. IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 17:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete nonsense bordering on gibberish, someone's having us on. Doug Weller (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: It doesn't meet the G1 definition of patent nonsense because it isn't incoherent. Walt Disney and Hitler's last spoken word is definitely blatant & obvious misinformation though, so G3 tagged accordingly. WilliamH (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete It's not notable, nor probably even real. If there's a speedy delete that covers it, so much the better. Ged UK (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Switch Communications

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

Nothing added in a week, I don't believe that this article makes any effort to show why it is notable and should stay in wikipedia. Ged UK (talk) 17:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep—The Vegas facility they are building is absolutely enormous, and it may be part of an important trend in IT infrastructure. Please expand the article. Thanks.—67.160.10.246 (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep because it has its own website, explaining its products. It has a relationship with Cisco, a huge IT company. Its very notable because of this, but the creator probably was too lazy to expand or didn't have enough time to expand. Whoever put the non-notable tag there should have searched Switch Communications before they put that there.
• Keep - this company has received substantial press attention, especially for its Las Vegas venture. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Between The Lines (band)

Between The Lines (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:Note; references are not reviews but simply mentions they were playing on a particular week in the wider context of bar reviews. Blowdart | ^talk 16:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Same as Blowdart. Plus, It doesn't seem that they published any CD, and if they did it doesn't seem notable enough. In conclusion, I hope that one day they will be successful and famous around the world, but this day is yet to come. תחי מדינת ישראל (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 21:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC. The article doesn't have any reliable sources.--RyRy5 (talk) 10:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] European Newspaper Publishers Association

European Newspaper Publishers Association (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

• Queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Not one single in-text reference, and if the number of employees is indeed true, I don't think it is notable enough. The current content of the article is quite confusing for me, and seems mostly unreliable. תחי מדינת ישראל (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Europe-wide international trade association. Lots of references at Google News archive, but the copyvio material should be cut down to a stub. --Eastmain (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep as I said on the talk page, there is some RS coverage about the Association to build an article. Current author has an admitted COI and this article is not encyclopedic but that doesn't mean there can't be one. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 16:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - I first ran across this as a copyvio speedy delete. The author was attempting to release the content through OTRS which I followed up on but they enver followed through. Appears to be a notable organization, but the article would need some work to fix POV issues from the COI. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep A notable organisation, with very well-known members (shout out to the Associação Portuguesa de Imprensa!). This needs a good rewrite and referencing. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 hoax. Remember that AfD is not a vote; consensus is most important. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Castle of Mirrors

Castle of Mirrors (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is unreferenced, topic seems unlikely, links (in Ukranian) do not seem to be related to the subject, sole editor* has recently started three other hoax articles. Unable to locate any sources, reliable or otherwise. (*One other edit of content is by an ISP in California, main editor has numerous edits related to Stanford University.) Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Deletion. If there are no sources to the entire article, I don't think it should be kept. Plus, the subject isn't notable enough in my opinion. תחי מדינת ישראל (talk) 16:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep for now--probably notable if accurate, but woefully undersourced. JJL (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - "for now"? What are you expecting to change? The second external link is to photos of the castle at Medzhibozh. That article is quite detailed and makes no mention of the supposed characteristic mirrors. Kamenets-Podolskiy, also in that link, was captured by the Ottoman empire the very year this structure was supposedly built and, again, the article fails to mention this very unusual structure. (The first external link seems to be photos of the same structure.) So, the editor posts numerous hoax articles and this one which defies all attempts at verification. What do you think is about to turn up?
• Delete as hoax. An extensive search of the net, under a variety of names, including Ukrainian tourist sources, turns up zippo. Debate 木 02:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per notability. I talked to my parents, who are from the Ukraine, and they attest to its existence. Handc (talk) 22:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC) — Handc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment: User:Handc was a co-contributing account to one of the deleted hoax articles of the creator of Castle of Mirrors. As full disclosure I marked that, and this, article as a hoax, along with several others by the same editor. T L Miles (talk) 01:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as fact. I'm also a student at Stanford University, and perhaps the reason for such a preponderance of Stanford ties is the popular Ukrainian history course offered here. This course frequently mentions the Castle of Mirrors. NewborneBaebe (talk) 22:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC) — NewborneBaebe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete and Salt Obvious hoax. The pictures are of Castle Medzhibozhe [11] [12], which appears to predate the claimed 1672 constuction and there are no claims about the mirrors. The article claims the Castle of Mirrors was built in 1672 and had most of the mirrors shattered in 1596, an obvious impossibility. It also claims that silvered mirrors were placed on the outside in 1684, but silvered mirrors weren't invented until 1835. Finally, the article claims the view of Castle of Mirrors is blocked by "the mirror maze and hedges surrounding the property", something obviously false from the linked photographs. Edward321 (talk) 05:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Keep Elmerfike (talk) 00:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC) — Elmerfike (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of guidebooks about the Sierra Nevada

List of guidebooks about the Sierra Nevada (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I have suggested to merge this article into Sierra Nevada (United States), but there where 2 objections. Although I disagree with the reasons, I don't think it would be appropriate to merge this to the main article.
I suggest to delete this article (or merge it, depending on the result of this AFD) because:
1.In my opinion, There is no real encyclopidic content here.
2. There is no "Further Reading" section in the main article, and I think this is a mistake.
P.S Please forgive me if I made any mistakes, because this is the first AFD I'm opening. תחי מדינת ישראל (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 17:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Nice list, but not encyclopaedic. Fails WP:NOTCATALOG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:ADVERT. There are plenty of places to host this online. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This is a reasonably comprehensive bibliography of references for material about the Sierra Nevada. The page was developed by many editors, not representing any particular company. This is not a list of web pages, but a list of books that complement several articles about the Sierra Nevada. The list article is linked to from those articles. Deleting this list would harm readers who want to find out more about the natural history of the Sierra Nevada.

Further, this afd seems to be in response to negative feedback about a proposed merge. Appealing to afd to generate a different opinion from the Talk Page is not helpful editing. We should continue to discuss at the Talk page. hike395 (talk) 04:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep This list satisfies Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Appropriate topics for lists since its focus is specific and useful to a broad range of potential readers. The #5 argument of WP:NOTDIRECTORY (Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations)) comes closest to refuting the list basis. But on close reading, #5 gives a fine intersection of cross-cultural categories for its reasoning, which is not the case for List of guidebooks about the Sierra Nevada. (The article ought to be renamed List of guidebooks about the Sierra Nevada (United States)). —EncMstr (talk) 04:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep This is an appropriate list. It meets the standards of Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Appropriate topics for lists, and doesn't intrude on WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Annotated bibilographies are very encyclopedic. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion about whether this should be kept or deleted, but I would like to note for the record that it in its current form it is not really annotated.Northwesterner1 (talk) 07:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep As one who has enjoyed the Sierra Nevada in California, this list contains very handy references not only to articles, but to memorable and beautiful places which are also notable. If lists of entertainment topics can remain in the encyclopedia without calls for their deletion, then so too can the List of guidebooks about the Sierra Nevada. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 08:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep – Of use to more than just the Sierra Nevada article. Thus merging would do more harm than good. --mav (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - Annotated bibliographies are a good supplement for a encyclopedia that purports to be based on external sources, and for WP I'd rather have them in separate articles instead of making the main articles longer and longer. I note that printed EB has biblios for many of its major articles. Stan (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hatchford Brook tram stop

Hatchford Brook tram stop (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

With a space or with full quotes there's no off-wiki indication that this proposed tram stop exists in discussion, let alone is a notable tram stop. There doesn't appear to be mention of it in the official discussion of the expansion.

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —_{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 15:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC) _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 15:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable in any way and I doubt the tram line will be built, certainly not in this decade. It seems to be all on hold. This is probably just taken from here Midland Metro route maps -- which in turn is taken from Midland Metro. The Midland Metro route maps article should also be deleted, is there a way to include it with this or do I or someone else just raise another AfD for it? Doug Weller (talk) 16:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment - The Midland Metro Line 1 is in operation, so that it is legitimate to have an article dealing with that, but articles on tramstops on other lines are inappropriate and should be deleted for the moment, being left as redirects to articles on the area where it is said they will be. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete The Midland Metro is a light railway, rather more than a traditional tram system, so that the use of the word "railway" in a tag is appropriate. It might conceivably be approporaite to have an article on the whole suggested line, but as far as I am aware all the lines except line 1 (which is in operation) are mere proposals. Line 2 (Tipton to Brierly Hill) has had a public enquiry, but has not been funded. The rest are mere ideas in planners' minds. This article thus fails WP:Crystal, as would any others on proposed Metro lines. Where the stops will be is something likely to be determined at the public enquiry. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G7 - Author Request. Article History shows that almost all substantive content was introduced by original author, who is also the nom here. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Terry Flynn

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

Although I created this article I now feel that I was in error. The November 9th Society and its current leader Kevin Quinn have both received third party coverage but Terry Flynn has not and indeed I created this article based on a profile on the N9S website that has long since been taken down. As such I do not feel this article is encyclopedic and accept that I was in error to create it. Keresaspa (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete article history shows nom is primary contributor and the above seems like a pretty obvious request for deletion. I've tagged it as such. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PNGlish

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

Accidentally used CSD A7, and got declined because the article is about software. I still think this page should be deleted because the subject does not seem to be notable, and in any case, it is apparently in the early stages of development. Probably because of this, there are no references anywhere on the internet about this software. J.delanoy^gabsanalyze 15:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. If A7 extended to software I'd certainly have deleted this as a speedy. No assertion of notability, none found on search. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Fails notability, not sourced and biased. AVand^talk_contribs 15:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per all the above Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as a delightful example of why A7 might be worth extending to software. No evidence or assertion of notability. ~ mazca ^talk 18:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - No evidence of any third-party reliable sources. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 having no sources. Alex Muller 21:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Addicted (Jamiroquai album)

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

Fails WP:MUSIC: not notable without substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. None provided, none found. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete without reliable sources. Even a Jamiroquai web forum ([13]) says it's crap. Corvus cornix_talk 18:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. A web forum isn't enough. It isn't even licensed to have unreleased and future works. (Phrasia (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC))
  • I don't understand your keep !vote. What sources are you relying on? Corvus cornix_talk 21:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:MUSIC and WP:RS.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 21:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep At least get rid of the release dates and stuff. This album has been confirmed with that title. (Pleasantview (talk) 05:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC))
  • Comment - The argument here is that there is not substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Have you found any such coverage? - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Indeed. where has it been confirmed? Corvus cornix_talk 23:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Akramicus Azimi

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

The sources on this page don't check out. The journals are real, but the articles don't exist. I suspect a hoax. Kafka Liz (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete for now - Google does not return anything and both words are part of a proper name. Very suspicious. Could be a personal attack. Best be safe. --Triwbe (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. There's an academic in Perth, Australia, named Akram Azimi. Joke page by a student seems a definite possibility. Deor (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. I checked the journals, and those articles have not been published in them. Can't find any mention anywhere of this supposed parasite. It definitely looks like a hoax. Good spider senses, Kafka Liz! --Bonadea (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete It's a fake, maybe an attack piece, sources are bogus, so I removed all information tied to faked source. Can't this just be speedied? --Blechnic (talk) 00:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:V. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: per nom and per above. Victor Lopes (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Neıl 龱 10:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Intruder 2: Fatal Intrusion (a.k.a. The Intruder 2: Intrude Harder - US title) 2003

The Intruder 2: Fatal Intrusion (a.k.a. The Intruder 2: Intrude Harder - US title) 2003 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seemingly a hoax, I can find absolutely no evidence this film exists. Supposed a sequel to The Intruder (1986 film). –– Lid^(Talk) 14:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Looking at the articles history it seems that two SPAs and an IP have been going around vandalising articles about The Intruder and this is one of the bi-products. –– Lid^(Talk) 14:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Intruder 2 - Fatal Intrusion same article. –– Lid^(Talk) 08:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 speedily as G11 blatant advertising. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Maxwell's House

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

Does not appear to meet notability; page is written like an advertisement; a similarly-titled page, Maxwells House, with identical content was speedied twice yesterday as a violation of G11 User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 13:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'm being bold here and redirecting it to CafePress.com as per Fred Durham. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Maheesh Jain

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

Is the cofounder of a company with Fred Durham, who's starting to look like a WP:SNOW at his own AfD[15]. It may seem reductive to say that if one goes, they should both go, but it's hard to see how Maheesh Jain is notable if Durham isn't, since Durham outranked Jain as CEO. Qworty (talk) 13:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. If the only claim is that he was VP Business Development at a small dot-com, pretty clearly fails WP:BIO. Antiselfpromotion —Preceding comment was added at 03:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, Fails WP:BIO, no reliable sources to establish notability. --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cellnotes

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

Contested proposed deletion. Notability of subject is not established, no third-party references. Khatru2 (talk) 11:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Can find no third party references, seems also to be a COI issue with article's creator. Gr1st (talk) 12:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete created by a user named User:Millermobile, the user page for said user confirms that he is the creator of Celltones, so that means this is a WP:COI. Its NN anyway. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 12:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete reads like a vanity piece. JuJube (talk) 00:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was wrong deletion forum. Redirect deletion discussion take place over there. KTC (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gorgoroth (band)

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

Redundant redirect, causing inconsistencies with search engines such as Google - which usually refers to this redirect rather than the article directly. Usually redirects to outdated version of an article - takes over a day to be fully consistent. Dark Prime (talk)

Redirects are dealt with at WP:RFD, not here ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete by User:Chrislk02 per CSD G11, blatant advertising. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] At-One

At-One (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Speedy tag was removed.Unsourced and no assertion of notability. Reads like Spam. NAHID 08:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Do not delete The article has been written by a business manager of AT-One who is responsible for all the copyrights. AT-One as well as the two mother organisations DLR and NLR are government owned companies without economic interests.
• Delete per Nom - also reads as WP:COPYVIO at moment as all text being added seems to be lifted from their website [20] -Hunting dog (talk) 09:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Spam and/or Copyvio (take your pick) Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Hard delete as pure unsourced advertising. Why bother keeping this copyright infringement? Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 10:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete The article is unsourced and there is no assertion of notability. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, a nice G11. FusionMix 14:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure), under WP:CSD#G7. Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 19:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Macedonian Genocide

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

Blatant POV text pushing the fringe idea (apparently peddled these days by some extreme nationalist sources) that there was a "genocide" against ethnic Macedonians (no concrete information is provided when and at whose hands). Sources are obviously not even remotely reliable. Note that the current text of the article is shamelessly stolen from the Armenian genocide article; the claim about death marches is taken from there and seems to be a total fabrication when applied to the Macedonian case. I can't read the alleged sources (both in Macedonian), but I'd bet these "death marches" aren't mentioned even in those. The same seems to be the case for the alleged numbers of victims. This article is a case not only for deletion, but in my view also for sanctions against the author (Makedonij (talk · contribs)) for blatant disruptive editing. I'd encourage uninvolved admins to check the author's previous record and consider WP:ARBMAC. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Block! Err... Delete! Unsourced. NikoSilver 10:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, oppose block, just warning.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Just to prevent a misunderstanding, I obviously didn't mean we should be voting about any blocks or similar sanctions here. That discussion goes better elsewhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Notability is not confirmed with this article. I should also note that any real or perceived problems with the Wikipedia editing history of the article's author is irrelevant to this discussion; there are other channels on this site for reporting disruptive editing. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• This article offends Wikipedia every second it remains there. I suggest speedy deletion per WP:IAR.--Yannismarou (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Just allow me to add that I can see this article only as a (failed) humoristic attempt by its creator, especially when the platform of a political party is used as a verifiable source. The referencing of the article gets indeed anecdotic dimensions.--Yannismarou (talk) 12:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: No comment! --Makedonij (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: You wont be able to delete it in real life !--Makedonij (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment:I just start to edit this article, references will come later.--Makedonij (talk) 13:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of reliable and verifiable sources. Wikipedia is neither a vehicle for propaganda nor a battleground. Aramgar (talk) 13:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment:New sources.--Makedonij (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • None of the "sources" is remotely reliable, and none of them even supports the claims made in the article (victim counts, "death marches", et cetera). It becomes clearer and clearer that this editor is simply lying. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    • This article flirts with the characterization of hoax, and its creator and sole editor flirts with the application of the remedies section of WP:ARBMAC IMO; Makedonij's attitude in our case is in an obvious disaccord with the principles set by the above-mentioned decision of the ARBCOM.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:V. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: as per nom; we aren't here to legitimize some fringe group ("see? Even Wikipedia knows the truth"-style arguments). Send this packing and target any new articles for quick analysis, keywording 'Macedonian' and 'genocide'. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete:I've made a mistake so delete it.--Makedonij (talk) 17:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • An editor should be praised for his bravery to recognize his wrongdoings; and it needs courage indeed to admit one's mistakes, as you did here. But the facts remain: You created an almost "hoax" article, you added some obviously non-verifiable sources, you firmly supported the necessity of this "article" continuing to add "sources" of yours, and suddenly, without further explanations you "erased" whatever you did and contradicted yourself, declaring that this was a "mistake"! Therefore, I may laud your courage in changing your initial stance, but I think you are still obliged to offer some explanations for your overall attitude. As far as the AfD is concerned, I think and repeat that, especially after Makedonij's statement, the only applicable solution is speedy deletion, something I would do myself, but, since I have voted, I want to be ok with the rules. But any adm watching our discussion would conclude that this "anecdote" should immediately end.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Give me a holiday

Give me a holiday (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable show ju66l3r (talk) 08:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per creators reason for keeping posted on talk page "....should not be deleted because all the page is is a promotion for my show Give Me a Holiday" (drastic COI and no evidence of notability)-Hunting dog (talk) 09:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. A "show" that exists only in some kid's mind—WP:MADEUP. Deor (talk) 12:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NOTE WP:RS WP:V and throw in WP:NOT as the creator's second note on the talk page seems to indicate that they are looking for a webhost for the info so people that missed the meetings can find out whats up. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 13:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete absolute idiocy. JuJube (talk) 00:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Note: Can someone please WP:SNOW this. Recent edits to the article indicate that this "TV series" hasn't even started yet and each series is supposed to "run" for 2 years at a time. User also posted on the article's talk page two "reasons" to keep the article which are in exact and direct conflict with WP:NOT, which demonstrates that they are either ignorant of the rules or acting in direct opposition intentionally. ju66l3r (talk) 05:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Night trackers

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

This reads like a hoax and has no sources. There is no clear evidence of it on Google and IMDb reference may be a hoax too. No evidence of notability is presented, Grahame (talk) 07:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 07:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - surely this is a speedy? - the actual usage of the term is either an American Movie of 87 or a game - clearly a hoax - thought speedies could be done on sudden full of red linked hoaxes like this? SatuSuro 07:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Certainly NN, most likely a hoax. The IMDb entry pre-dates this alleged TV show by two years, so they may not even refer to the same thing. Debate 木 08:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as hoax created by WP:SPA. Delete per WP:BOLLOCKS.--Sting Buzz Me... 11:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, seems hoaxy and inplausible. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC).

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Joshua Garcia

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

Another editor recently tagged this as WP:HOAX, which might well be the case [21]. But even if this person actually exists, he thoroughly fails WP:ATHLETE. Qworty (talk) 07:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as hoax. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - it's either a hoax, or hopelessly inaccurate (hoax being by far the most accurate of the two). There's no Joshua Garcia listed as playing for either the Buccaneers or the Saints, either now or in the past, and the 1992 draft pick number #122 was Gary Dandridge, who wasn't selected until round 5 anyway. - Bilby (talk) 10:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. To reiterate what I posted on the article's talk page, I can find no evidence of this player ever playing in the NFL. He certainly wasn't a fourth-round pick in the 1992 NFL Draft. His name isn't on the official PSU list of football lettermen, and he's not listed at databasefootball.com.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, as copyvio. Deiz talk 23:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yard-O-Led

Yard-O-Led (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Crufty / ad-like corporate history. Looks like a copyvio but unable to confirm, might just be the writing style. Contested speedy. Deiz talk 07:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• delete as COPYVIO [22] - that wending story bit produces that as sole ghit, only opening three sentences aren't direct copy and paste. -Hunting dog (talk) 07:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete WP:CSD#G12, WP:COPYVIO. Article tagged as such.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 07:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I speedied originally, and it was contested / reposted. Deiz talk 09:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Albany Light Rail

Albany Light Rail (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is about a non-existent subject, light rail in Albany, New York, and the only "source" thus far is an opinion piece that says Albany should have light rail. The supposed details of the future service are actually the recommendations of the writer, who appears to be an authority but says nothing about whether his opinions are part of any formal plans. Furthermore, the article appears to say that Albany has already decided to go a different way for the time being at least. Wikipedia is neither a soapbox or a crystal ball. Unless some reliable sources are found and cited to cover this subject properly, I recommend it be deleted. (If it does survive somehow, it should be moved to "Light rail in Albany, New York", because there appears to be no proper noun for this potentially future service, and Albany is ambiguous. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Future transit systems need to be at the planning stage before we can consider having an article on it, allowing articles on transit systems in the suggestion stage opens up for a whole host of articles on things which exist only in someone's dreams. A single letter opining that there should be a light rail somewhere is a flimsy foundation for an article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - per above. At least some degree of real planning must occur, I think. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ovidiu-Mihai Ionel

Ovidiu-Mihai Ionel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Several reasons for deletion. First, no convincing Google hits. Second, no assertion of particular notability - certainly nothing verifiable. Third, no valid references: the first link leads to a self-published forum, the second doesn't load, and the third isn't about him. As an aside, this is the author's only contribution, and certain phrases ("the nonsense teachers are teaching children these days", "how media is controlling our life") are amusingly inappropriate. In sum, though: no real references or assertion of notability; possible self-promotion. Biruitorul ^Talk 05:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable, unsourcable, self-promotion. The few sources used are unreliable (one is self-published, the other, as Biru says, are quoted for no apparent reason). The article is riddled with WP:PEACOCK and WP:OR, and it simply cannot be salvaged (given that the person simply does not appear in reliable sources). Dahn (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete: Why this is for AfD? I am puzzled to see an article which is a candidate for speedy deletion is brought in AfD discussion. What kind of nomination is this? WP:AfD claearly states before nominating any article for AfD, "confirm that the article does not meet the criteria for Wikipedia:speedy deletions". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Eh, the result's the same, only with a few days' delay - no need to get alarmed. Biruitorul ^Talk 17:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. Buckshot06(prof) 11:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete But I declined the speedy; it doesn't meet the criteria. There is nothing in the criteria to allow the subjects to request deletion of their own articles; notability is vaguely established. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Insufficient secondary sources to prove notability. Kevin (talk) 22:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Critical Times - Fishbone's Hen House Sessions

Critical Times - Fishbone's Hen House Sessions (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable recording, fails WP:MUSIC. Much material contributed by an account with the same name as the studio. Likely spamming. Contested speedy (another editor kept reverting the speedy as quickly as Twinkle could process it). - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep DVD album of live works by Fishbone (a major, long-lived band), its release was controversial and caused the band to distance itself from the publisher due to unflattering footage. It clearly passes WP:MUSIC. I've cut most of the fluff recently added by a promotional account and it is worth noting that this article was created by a neutral and experienced contributor back in 2006. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: The spammer account has been indef blocked, finally. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry it took so long, few admins venture into the realm of Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep in its current form. The version I'd tagged was pure spam, however, I'd failed to look at the article's edit history given the amount of spam the account in question was generating. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. I, the original nominator, withdraw my request. Article needs improvement, but the library is clearly notable after reading comments left by those involved in creation of the article. Britanica article also verifies notability. I urge those close to the subject matter to improve/expand wording of the article to keep people from mistaking this is a run of the mill town library again. Sorry for wasting anyone's time here. --Airtuna08 (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kent Free Library

Kent Free Library (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:NOTE; Town libraries not notable. Only famous libraries like the one in New York City for example are notable. What's next? Town supermarkets? Airtuna08 (talk) 05:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep This library is notable due to its status as an original 1903 Carnegie library (also see Category: Carnegie libraries), and was also partially the result of the first municipal tax in Ohio for a library. It is hardly is in the same category as a "town supermarket." Just because it's not largely well-known to you like the main New York City library doesn't mean it is completely non-notable. Further, it is part of the Wikipedia: WikiProject Ohio as part of their own Libraries in Ohio project.--JonRidinger (talk) 07:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - A century old Carnegie library up for deletion? Even Britannica has an article on this library. Contrary to the nom's comments, many town libraries are notable. And which library is the nom referring to as "the one in New York City"? The Brooklyn Public Library? The Donnell Library Center? The Queens Borough Public Library? The New York Public Library? --Oakshade (talk) 08:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

And Britannica even has a cropped form of the public-domain picture on the WP article :-) Nyttend (talk) 13:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think they're different. Look at the cloud patterns. In the Britanica one, you should see blue just above the roof line if it was the same one. And it's from a lower angle as you can tell by the foreground tree. Similar (bad) photo quality though. --Oakshade (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Gee thanks. Glad I made the effort. Anyway, the picture used in the Britannica article is the same picture that is used in the Kent, Ohio article, not the one used in the Kent Free Library article. Not the greatest pictures because of when they were taken (sun is behind the library), but far better than nothing. I do have plans to get better pictures when the sun is at a better angle. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to rag on the photo. A non-professional looking one is better than none. Your effort was worth while.--Oakshade (talk) 18:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep being a Carnegie Library confers notability. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 13:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment - The article just says it was donated by Carnegie, if the library has so much history how come the page is only a long paragraph. From reading it, I just get the impression its your run of the mill town library. If someone can expand it and show me its history of how it came to be and what not, I'll withdraw my request. --Airtuna08 (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Of course it can be expanded, but whether or not that happens will hardly determine whether your request is honored or not. As you can see, the simple fact that it was donated by Carnegie makes it notable and removes the main issue behind your request. You not being familiar with it doesn't make it non-notable. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Notability guidelines stipulate that an article is worthy of inclusion if secondary sources on the subject exist, not if an editor placed them in the article yet. What you want is article improvement which deletion is not. --Oakshade (talk) 18:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as per JonRidinger. Elan26 (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Elan26
• Keep Being a Carnegie library implies notability. The length of the article is not a consideration in deletion, it's a sourced stub, which is OK. Kate (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

  Withdraw - Article needs significant improvement/expansion to reflect the things I learned in this discussion. The way the article reads right now really gives the impression it is just a town library and nothing more. I urge the main contributors to brush up the article with a history section, etc to keep a mistake AfD from happening again. But from reading different comments here makes me believe the article should stay as well, so I withdraw my nomination. Goodluck to those involved in improving the article! --Airtuna08 (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G3 (pure vandalism/hoax). Malinaccier (talk) 00:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] World Congress for Justice and Human Rights

World Congress for Justice and Human Rights (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

As far as I can tell, this doesn't actually exist - couldn't find any references. I may be wrong though,so I brought it here. Chris (talk) 04:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. No Google hits at all outside Wikipedia. Probable hoax, but fails WP:N in any case. Gr1st (talk) 12:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Yes, it is a hoax. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:CSD#G4 and salted. Mattinbgn\^talk 04:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Josh Hoge

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

Fails notability criteria. Chris (talk) 04:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Just like the other times. Captain panda 04:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of laojiaos in Anhui

List of laojiaos in Anhui (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Without further verification of facts, I'm concerned about the controversial nature of this list. I cannot verify the credibility of the source, hence this nomination.  Chzz  ►  03:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. This list is not particularly useful -- after having to refer to the laojiao article, all it tells me is that there are prison labor camps in certain cities in a certain province of China (all of which have the unexplained abbreviation "RTL" in their names). While the Chinese prison/labor system is notable and needs to be covered in Wikipedia, this particular type of list is not the best way to cover it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if the article were perfectly sourced, just linking to the cities where these camps exist is of no use and makes this list worthless. If this were a list of articles about the camps, then I might reconsider. Corvus cornix_talk 18:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kirfrisbean

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

Made up in school one day Chris (talk) 03:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• delete - extremely obviously WP:MADEUP with no Google hits apart from this page and claim to notability "Kirfrisbean is played by many people in Hazlet, New Jersey"! -Hunting dog (talk) 07:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Obvious and blatant violation of WP:MADEUP. Trusilver 09:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete idiotic schoolkids doing idiotic things. JuJube (talk) 10:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Do not DeleteKirfrisbean is a game and is popular in Monmouth County, NJ. I am waiting on a news article so I can properly cite and document this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrFacchin (talk • contribs) 21:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC) — MrFacchin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete No assertion of notability. Edward321 (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy5 (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Seyyed Mosque

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

Xfd rather than speedy to give the user a shout - maybe it could be improved into a reasonable article; otherwise not worth too much bother about. See tags on article for reasoning.  Chzz  ►  03:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - I think we're jumping the gun on this one. In Farsi, there seems to be a lot of sources on this subject. [23] This article seems to be a rough copy from the Farsi Wikipedia one which obviously needs a better translation.--Oakshade (talk) 08:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Seems notable, and though confusing can be fixed. 9Nak (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep i have written this artice in both fawiki and enwiki i will try to add some source to this article.--Mardetanha ^talk 15:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Needs cleanup and improvement, not deletion. WilliamH (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

i have added one source.--Mardetanha ^talk 22:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per above comments; availability of sources. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tiptoety. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Muhando Billy Endusa

Muhando Billy Endusa (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not sure this meets notability guidelines Chris (talk) 03:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as I originally tagged. Not notable, no sources at all, cannot verify, possible vanispamcruft. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Update: Another editor speedy-deleted the article. Non-admin close requested. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Swissnym

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

non-notability Paxsimius (talk) 02:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Delete. Utterly fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Qworty (talk) 04:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable and non-verifiable without 3rd party reliable sourcing Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)