Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 June 5

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 crystal ball. Davewild (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Black Einstein

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

Particularly as the status of the album can't even be confirmed, I believe this should be deleted as per WP:NOTCRYSTAL Nazgul533 ^{talk contribs} 23:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete WP:MUSIC, WP:CRYSTAL & WP:RS.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 00:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Esradekan| Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 07:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Article reads like a small news flash. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 07:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete There's no references or links and no mentions on his website or on the Black Eyed Peas site. CRocka05 (talk) 03:40, 9 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.  Sandstein  18:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pyopengl

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

Non-notable software. There isn't a speedy deletion criterion for software. Corvus cornix_talk 23:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as uninformative spam. WillOakland (talk) 23:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Brief one-line description that provides no evidence of notability. TN‑X-Man 03:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - a combination of db-spam and db-nocontext. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 08:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above. Tabor (talk) 02:05, 9 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.--Kubigula (talk) 04:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Charismatic sound

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

Synthesis of sounds heard by characters in various religious texts. Googling "Charismatic sound" produces mostly album reviews in which artists' sounds are described as charismatic. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Also note that the major "source" for this article, greatwesternvehicle.org, is not only not a reliable source but seems to have some affiliation with the article's author, given that almost all of his edits in all articles are sourced to this site (he also created the now deleted Great Western Vehicle. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete per WP:OR. Even greatwesternvehicle.org does not directly mention the subject. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 08:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete without prejudice for recreation if someone can find some real sources that show this to be a genuine thing. Ford MF (talk) 22:16, 10 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 --JForget 23:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Personalized Noise Reduction

Personalized Noise Reduction (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

The technology is either a subset of Noise reduction or it is subset of Pattern recognition. Its name "Personalized Noise Reduction" should be more global (no "-ized") and should be completely rethought. It's less a technology about reducing noise and more about increasing desired signal focus. Binksternet (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, unreferenced junk. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Don't even get into spelling. That has no bearing on the subject at hand, and attempting to change the spelling to something "global", whatever that means, could lead to an edit war. Corvus cornix_talk 23:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete term in itself is not notable and the article has little to explain context. Also appears to be a trademark of sonic innovations.[1] --neon white talk 22:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Agree it appears to be a trademark. The general concept and associated patentable technologies could easily be inserted into Pattern recognition. Binksternet (talk) 17:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of context, sources (the only one offered doesn't even mention this phrase) and trademark concern above. Tried Google, but it offered no help. Ford MF (talk) 22:19, 10 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 16:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Diamond Joe Esposito

Diamond Joe Esposito (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

NN & spam, author has been spamming other articles with links to this rogerd (talk) 02:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. The spamming behaviour is inappropriate, but I have to say keep for the article on Diamond Joe, despite it's current poor quality. Putting aside the issue of whether his books make him notable or not, I would say he's a notable figure for the role he played in Elvis Presley's life, and there are certainly a bunch of third-party references I can find on the internet. However, I think it would not be inappropriate to consider moving the page, since he is really the namesake of the "real" Diamond Joe. I think this particular page should probably be a DAB page that links to both Diamond Joes.
• Comment. Incidentally, User:V0taire (the spammer) deleted the AfD template from the article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Notability is clearly demonstrated by the sources found by Google Books and Google News, including [2] [3] [4] [5]. Editor behaviour should be dealt with by discussion, warnings, blocks etc., not by deleting articles on notable subjects. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:02, 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 no consensus. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dee Luong

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

Non-notable poker player with no achievments of note. Notability seems to be derived from being the wife of Prahlad Friedman. As such the article fails WP:BIO. – –Lid^(Talk) 22:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, yes she is a mediocre poker player. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myheartinchile (talk • contribs) 22:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This AfD has been announced to Wikiproject Poker

• Delete fails BIO---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 02:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep - notable professional sportsman; regularly appears on nationally televised programs in the United States; nom is disruptive as we have well documented articles on many poker players of Luong's stature. Badagnani (talk) 03:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Instead of saying disruptive, please produce at least two articles in reliable sources. She just doesn't meet BIO. being on TV is not a criteria. 2005 (talk) 04:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Disruptive because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? I am not trying to be disruptive, and am only attempting to remove ones that fail the notability policy and have in other cases erred on the side of caution. – –Lid^(Talk) 05:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Badagnani is the creator of the article. He should familiarize himself with both WP:BIO particularly footnote 8 9 (just changed), which reads "Participation in and in most cases winning individual tournaments, except the most prestigious events, does not make non-athletic competitors notable. This includes, but is not limited to, poker, bridge, chess, Magic:The Gathering, Starcraft, etc." This footnote was added specifically to deal with these non-notable players. Nor does she meet the interpretation of BIO by by wikiproject poker.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
      • See Poker After Dark site. Pretending, or wishing that she were not a regular guest on a syndicated NBC poker television program that has aired every weekday evening for the past year, is not a substitute for actually proving that this individual is not a notable player of this game. Badagnani (talk) 06:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
        • And Tommy Wang (deleted) made several appearances during Poker Superstars 2, yes she made a single appearance on Poker After Dark but every other player that has appeared on Poker After Dark and has had an article has a pre-existing career or coverage. Ken Light, for example, was on Poker After Dark but we have no article on him because he is simply put a non-notable player. In addition to which claiming she's a "regular guest" is simply false, she appeared in one week. – –Lid^(Talk) 06:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Also: "is not a substitute for actually proving that this individual is not a notable player of this game." is a negative proof logical fallacy asking us to prove that she isn't notable. The proof needs to exist that she is notable through independent coverage or success, not the other way around. – –Lid^(Talk) 07:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
        • The source you provided had me dig deeper... of course, it's not really objective as it is trying to hype the show she is appearing on and it does call her a "rising star." Your contention is that since she appeared on 3 episodes of Poker After Dark. That she is by definition notable. Yet, BIO specifically indicates that poker players are not notable unless they can establish notability through independent sources or have won one of the major tournaments. Now, which is more prestigious, making it to the final table of a WPT event which is aired or paying 20g to participate in a non-notable tv tournament? I think the answer is obvious, making it to the final table of a WPT event which is aired and watched by many more people than Poker After Dark. Yet, WP:BIO, would not recognize a person who makes it to the final table of a WPT event---only the winner of said event. I did do a search on "Dee Luong" Poker on Google and got a few more hits than MrPrada did below... but after looking at 50 of them, I couldn't find any other source that made more than a passing non-notable reference to her.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: Making the final table in the 2003 World Series of Poker is scarcely "non-notable," and her career earnings represent about two years worth of a minor-league ballplayer's salary, where appearing in a single game makes that ballplayer notable by default. Mentioning her husband's name is de rigeur when a spouse is notable in his or her own right, but the article does more than that, and I'm curious as to what makes nom think that a fact mentioned a full three months after the article's creation is the reason for its existence.  RGTraynor  03:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It is precisely non notable to make a final table of a preliminary WSOP event. There will be about 300 500 such people this year alone. It means nothing at all in terms of notability. if it did, we would have about 3000 4000 more poker player articles. (Perhaps you mis read it to think it was meaning the main event of the WSOP in 2003; it does not.) 2005 (talk)
    • What 2005 said, if you wish to see just how many people make final tables at a WSOP in a given year take a look at 2007 World Series of Poker results. This is why note 8 was added to WP:BIO, to prevent excessive additions of any professional poker player for trivial reasons (i.e. made a WSOP final table). Being a pro is not the criteria alone for meeting notability, and it should never be used as such. – –Lid^(Talk) 05:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
    • As for "I'm curious as to what makes nom think that a fact mentioned a full three months after the article's creation is the reason for its existence" I place on that, in my opinion and WP:BIO, the article shouldn't have existed in the first place and has lasted this long because poker notability is a niche that can cause outside observers to view non-notable achievements to being notable. – –Lid^(Talk) 05:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• Week keep per above, a suggestion to the WP:Poker editors, instead of relying on pokerstars.net player bios, you might want to expand to a few other sources (see here, which includes ESPN, Bluff Magazine, Pokernews.com, and Cardplayer.com, all with nontrivial mentions of Luong), that might avert these articles being sent here in the futre. MrPrada (talk) 04:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • C'mon, all of those have very trivial mentions of her. Wiki Poker project editors do know the difference. The completely worthless mention in Google news would never be used to justify an article. 2005 (talk) 04:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Non-trivial is "moved in before the flop" "Huck Seed's girlfriend" and "Cyndy Violette is all-in with KK against Dee Luong's JJ"? Really? – –Lid^(Talk) 05:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • In an effort to establish notability, MrPrada has decided to attack the WP:Poker editors. Mr Prada suggests that the people who edit the poker articles should do more to instead of relying on pokerstars.net player bios, [WP:Poker editors] might want to expand to a few other sources ... that might avert these articles being sent here in the futre. {sic} Er project poker editors have no more control over vanity articles than any other segment of the wikipedia community---unfortunately, there are lot of non-notables who believe that mere participation in a tournament makes them notable. When a person is non-notable, the editors at WP:Poker do not have the power to delete them without coming here. So, MrPrada please explain exactly how people who have never edited the article can be held responsible for failing to include verifiable reliable sources for a player they do not deem to be notable in the first place?? For a person who fails both BIO and the unofficial standards established by wp:POKER. Of course, MrPrada contends that the link he provided to FOUR articles which reference her all with nontrivial mentions of Luong. One of those four sources is an magazine that you have to pay for. The other three sources, quoted the entirety, of the non-trivial references to Luong are:
    • such as "Cyndy Violette is all-in with KK against Dee Luong's JJ,---should be noted, Cindy is notable.
    • My buddy Huck Seed got his former girlfriend, Dee Luong, into poker, and she eventually rose through the ranks to play $50-$100 and higher limit hold'em. Dee is a well-known player at Bellagio today. Cardplayer magazine blog (not a reliable source) is merely mentioning the 1996 WSOP Main Event champion's girlfriend who plays at the 50-100 level.
    • A Ladies Night, of course, with Jennifer Harman, Dee Luong, Cyndy Violette, Clonie Gowen, Vanessa Rousso and Evelyn Ng.
  • That's it. Period. I would not consider ANY of those citations to be anything but trivial and failing to establish any sort of notable.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. She is marginal but given the very mistaken notions above, it's important we don't keep an article for obviously incorrect reasons. She doesn't have the coverage as the focus of an article in reliable sources. 2005 (talk) 04:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. $90K in tournament winnings (i.e. no wins) just doesn't cut it. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep; I concur with RGTraynor. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 05:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oops, I wasn't aware of this footnote. Probably doesn't have sufficient notability then. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 06:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: Ridiculous discussion that suits German wikipedia where a lot of people like me have stopped writing articles after articles like "Draw" and "Call" were deleted and a deletion of "Pokerstars" was seriously considered after some dork suspected they want to make money so that's "advertising". Dee Luong is not a great tournament player but she beat Men Ngueyn at heads-up and anyone with a Poker after Dark page is notable [6]

German.Knowitall (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

it seems like some of the Germen users made the site donkpedia.net as a reaction to that kind of thing, a great many of the English written articles on poker were by the former admin User:Essexmutant, who quit the project do to some of the same objections which can be read on his resignation letter found on his userpage. Dee Luong should be a known name for anyone who follows poker. at least NBC thought so. ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡ ^Talk 22:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• The PAD appearance has been brought up before but the line between "having a PAD page" and "being a notable player with sources" do not cross. Your argument that this is similar to the German wikipedias articles on call or draw being deleted is hyperbole and greatly overstates the "importance" of Luong. If the deletion discussion were be about trying to delete Chip Reese or Doyle Brunson then the comparison would be apt. – –Lid^(Talk) 22:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, having a bio on a game show does not make her anymore notable than the contestants on Survivor. And most of the contestants on Survivor don't get one---and they are seen by a great many more people than PAD! (It should be noted that game show contestants have routinely been deleted as a matter of practice here because they aren't notable---despite having a bio on their respective game show.)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes it's obvious that her importance isn't as great as Chip Reese or Doyle Brunson, she it still is a notable poker professional. ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡ ^Talk 22:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The Chip and Doyle wasn't a comparison to her, it was a comparison to trying to delete a core article on poker like calling: a foolish and impossible move. I wasn't saying "because she isn't as notable as Chip Reese she isn't notable", which would be ridiculous for me to say and assume. – –Lid^(Talk) 01:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Dee Luong is a recognized professional poker player and has been for years, her participation on NBC's Poker After Dark wasn't the result of lottery or that of a contest winner such as Ken Light who appeared on the show I would invite people to read her profile place on the Official website for the national broadcast show here, it is true that Dee Luong is more of a cash game professional then a tournament player but she gained notability prior the existed of PAD Competed in the NBC 2006 National Heads-Up Championship again invited on the show as a recognized professional and NOT the result of contest or lottery,[7] now there maybe people who may not care for either of these programs, but the fact is both Poker After Dark and the National Heads-Up Championship are the only two shows on any of the national 3 major broadcasters (e.g. ABC,CBS,NBC) that still air poker related content.▪◦▪≡SiREX≡ ^Talk 22:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I have read the profile, and it usesthe phrase "up and coming". The problem with this is that that PAD was over a year ago and her notability has not changed, at all. There are many "up and comers" on the poker circuit but they lack articles simply because the notability isn't there (see: nearly every internet pro). This case is no different, especially as the "cash game specialist" just means that she usually plays cash, it doesn't include something like "she crusbes the highest stakes cash games" or even that she beats her own cash games. The notability simply isn't there, just the name that seems to be due to "Huck Seed's girlfriend" and "Prahlad Friedman's" wife. – –Lid^(Talk) 01:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sirex, could you point to what part of BIO she fulfills? Or what part of the Wikiproject Poker guidelines, that you participated on, that she meets?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Relisting? There has certainly been a thorough discussion, and there obviously is no consensus, with opinions split in half. Close the discussion as no consensus. 2005 (talk) 23:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I asked Fabric about why he relisted it? I think if he doesn't like the idea of closing with no consensus, he should then !vote.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 23:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Reasoning is here for anyone who is interested.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete for not satisfying WP:Poker criteria. References above are only trivial mentions and not assertions of notability. Spell4yr (talk) 05:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability well demonstrated by the sources provided above. Ford MF (talk) 22:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I have read all of the above and followed the links therein as well as the citations in the article yet still I cannot see how Ms Luong meets either WP:BIO or the unofficial standards established by Wikiproject Poker nancy ^(talk) 10:11, 12 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.  Sandstein  16:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008 Florida Power blackout

2008 Florida Power blackout (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not seem especially notable. Lasted under 4 hours, with fairly minimal disruptions (no deaths, fires, lootings). At worst, planes were "backed up" for a little while. Made the local news for a day, as one might expect, but no lasting notability. (As WP:N says - "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability".) It hit 2.5 million people, true, but hey, South Florida's a densely populated place. Baghdad's an even bigger market, and the power's out there all the time, but we don't exactly see a glut of articles on power outages there. Biruitorul ^Talk 23:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Merge with Florida Power & Light. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 23:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, press coverage indicates notability. I tire of seeing the logic that things are not notable because they fail to meet a death and destruction quota. If people are paying attention to this in significant numbers and to a significant degree, it warrants an article regardless of the absence of a death toll or some kind of mayhem. Everyking (talk) 07:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • What kind of coverage? Are you talking about news coverage? There's nothing wrong with citing the news, but I think this one leans a little to much towards Wikipedia is not Wikinews. I'm not saying to delete this completely, I just don't think it warrants its own article; it would find itself right at home as a section in Florida Power & Light. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 14:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, these types of blackouts are talked about for years. like that one in new york.Myheartinchile (talk) 22:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete NewYork is different. The blackouts their shutdown the entire subway system, causing many to have to travel by foot due to over crowded buses. South Florida is not heavily dependent on public transit. Media coverage is not a direct qualifier of notability. --Samuel Pepys (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Power outages are rarely notable. They're sensational for a day or two, and then people forget. Pburka (talk) 23:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• Merge per GO-PCHS-NJROTC. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 04:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - This power outage affected a major tourist attraction and two major airports, along with 2.5 million other people. Even though the outage only lasted 3.5 hours, it may have cost the power company millions of dollars in lost revenue, the same for Disney World and the two airports. Honestly, if millions of dollars are lost in the economy in the already horrible economy, I think this meets WP:N.--DA PIE EATER (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Is that a delete or keep argument? Losing millions of dollars is hardly notable. If that were the case we'd need an article for every time the DJIA dropped a hundred points. That's billions of dollars lost from the economy and it happens nearly weekly. Pburka (talk) 12:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I made a typo. Its a keep arguement. Sorry. DA PIE EATER (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Seems to smack of recentism, and appears to fail WP:NOT#NEWS --ColorOfSuffering (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Samuel Pepys and ColorOfSuffering sum it up. Soxred 93 23:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge per GO-PCHS-NJROTC. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 23:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, this is not a newspaper. There was no lasting, permanent or significant damage or repercussions from this event. Corvus cornix_talk 23:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete or at very best Merge to somewhere. Power outage? IN THE NEWS? Clearly news coverage alone is a reason to keep an article - let us make this article a poster boy of that movement. ...Forgettable local news is still forgettable local news even if it happened to affect a few million people. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Under what circumstances would you deem this subject notable? If it caused a riot, would that suffice? What if the riot was fairly forgettable, as riots go? Everyking (talk) 10:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. A clear-cut case for WP:NOT#NEWS. If this had happened in, say, Poland in the late 1970s (I was living there at the time and there were major outages almost daily) would we condider having an article about it? Of course not, so let's apply the same standards to Florida in 2008. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, as one of only three keep voters in this discussion so far, I can tell you that I am completely in favor of having articles on any blackouts anywhere in the world that got significant press coverage. Everyking (talk) 10:11, 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 01:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Goodheart - Willcox Publishing Company

Goodheart - Willcox Publishing Company (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Couple reasons for the nomination: 1. The article reads too much like an advert, even after some removal of advert-type content in the history. 2. Not sure that the company satisfies WP:N/WP:CORP. #1 ghit is company webpage, #2 is the article here, #3-5 are related to the company webpage, and the rest I can see appear to be more like passing references. In addition, article is completely orphaned. (If consensus is "keep", would suggest stubbing article back down to bare bones to remove advert content.) umrguy42 22:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. I added some references. --Eastmain (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, I went through and removed advertisement-style content, obviously skimming down the content to the bone; half the page was contact info, the other main section blatant superlatives excessively describing fuzzy attributes of the products. As for the references, they seem to be alright, satisfying WP:CORP. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:51, 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.

Snowball keep. Non-admin closure. ¨victor falk 09:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity)

Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This individual is not notable per WP:N and WP:NOTNEWS, he is not a celebrity, he just has a few videos on you tube, he is not even in the Top 10. No historical context. Transwiki to Wikinews maybe. Also serious WP:OWN issues as it seems he is editing this article about himself. The article is full of bias and original research also. It is way too long and filled with way too much trivia. I say delete this self promotional mess. Myheartinchile (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep The article has 90 sources, many from major media; what more notability do you need? If an article is too long, has original research, etc. then it needs cleanup, not to be deleted entirely. He's received significant media coverage that it wouldn't make sense to transfer to Wikinews. I'd almost say this should be a speedy close. IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 21:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and address the article's WP:TRIVIA, WP:OR, WP:OWN and WP:NPOV issues separately. I see your point in regards to WP:NOTNEWS, but Crocker is just too prominent in popular culture to be ignored. I do think there is lasting historical value here, in that this is an iconic example of the YouTube phenomenon. When Time magazine named "You" as the PotY, they were talking about phenomena like this. (Speedy Keep is not out of the question here) --Jaysweet (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• comment, i do believe there is some notability here, but he should be used as an example of the "you tube phenomenon" at you tube or viral video. You should take into account what a splash Tricia Walsh-Smith made on you tube, but her article has long since been deleted too. 90 sources prove verifiability NOT notability. As for speedy keep, I believe there is a reason this has been listed for deletion twice before, including one without consensus; that fact makes it obvious that many people believe this article should in fact be deleted. I think a merge is possible as a compromise and would meet all the issues you have brought up. his very article title has inherent bias, he is not a celebrity by a longshot as he is not widely known or famous, even on the internet.Myheartinchile (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  No, 90 sources provide media coverage AND verafiability. The previous nod for deletion was right after the Britney video and the main issue was whether or not he was notable at that point. That was about nine months ago; he has since received more coverage. I don't even know who Tricia is, but WP:WAX states that just because one was deleted does not mean another should be. And, sorry to sound rude, but a compromise has nothing to do with the deletion criteria for articles (You also may want to see WP:IHATEIT).IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 22:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and attend to said issues per Jaysweet. It needs work, but the subject does not fail notability, as he has appeared in third-party, published sources and has been referenced in the media several times (and parodied in a couple instances, as well). Crocker is plently notable in YouTube phenomena. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 22:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep If it ever applied to any article at all, notability is not temporary absolutely applies here. Article meets WP:NOTE in abundance. The nom brings forth content issues which are innapproriate for AfD. This article needs cleanup, but is not WP:HOPELESS. Jim Miller (talk) 22:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• 'comment the sources are largely from you tube and odd news items that mention him in passing. what are those third party sources, point them out please.Myheartinchile (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

reply Here goes: from the current version of the page, and only of the ones in English, the ones that meet WP:RS and establish notability would be ref #'s 5, 8, 10, 12, 17, 21, 22, and 76. Multiple non-trivial mentions, and that jewelry fraud thing precludes WP:BLP1E from consideration. Jim Miller (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep WP:SNOW; like it or not, this guy is notable (with reliable secondary sources) and a celebrity in his own right. --ColorOfSuffering (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• SNOW Keep. The YouTube cites are of Crocker's own work and are used to illustrate his vlogging, relaible sourcing covers the rest. He may not be everyone's favorite person but notability has been established so I don't like it would seem to apply here. The article has been a vandal-magnet from the beginning and almost every concern raised on the talk pages had been civilly addressed, even the repeated questions and drive-by comments. The article isn't going away so you may want to make peace with that. Banjeboi 23:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Rightly or wrongly, he has become a legitimate celebrity, and as such is notable. Think what you will about Chris Crocker, but the guy is no dummy, he knows how to market himself. --Eastlaw (talk) 00:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per above Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} (R-OH) 01:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Loads of reliable sources to establish notability; case closed. — brighterorange (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep bad faith nom. JuJube (talk) 02:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep (taken from my post on the article's talk page) He did make headlines not just in the United State but also most of the Worlds News outlets (Not just the internet but newspapers and TV). Bidgee (talk) 03:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Snowball Keep per the article itself. Notable, sourced, etc. Third time this has been AfD'ed. 71.195.135.161 (talk) 03:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep Crocker is, for better or worse, clearly notable and has been the subject of multiple, substantial coverage in the mainstream media. There is not reasonable argument that he fails to meet WP:N. This should not have been nominated for deletion. Gwernol 07:21, 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 per WP:SNOW. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of anthropomorphism in film

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

A bit too broad in coverage. Should we really list every film ever released that has featured talking animals/objects? The topic is unclear too. Do we list films on the basis of having a single anthropomorphic character, or only if they are the main characters? Enok^talk 20:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT, essentially a listing of loosely related items. The vast majority of animated films will have some measure of anthropomorphism in them, as will a great many other films. Also, as stated above, the inclusion criteria are ill-defined. Not a good list. Arkyan 21:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete; There would be innumerable borderline cases clogging it up, too. Unmaintainable. A²Kafir (and...?) 21:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Even with strict inclusion criteria (ie main characters), it would be a vast and hopelessly heterogeneously portion of all movies that have ever been filmed.victor falk 23:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, impossible to complete. WillOakland (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete List of loosely associated films; most animated films will be in this list for sure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Not unlike making a list of films that have car chases, except that anthropomorphism is a story technique that existed long before film (Aesop's Fables and the Book of Genesis had "talking animals") Mandsford (talk) 02:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete There is too much subjective information in this stub. It is a 2 year old article with very little edits which suggests it is not notable either: [8] Artene50 (talk) 07:26, 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 per WP:SNOW. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alvin and the Chipmunks II

Alvin and the Chipmunks II (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Disputed prod. Films not yet in production don't meet WP:NFF or WP:NOT#CRYSTAL.

• Strong Delete; 1> the article is not referenced, 2> Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, 3> the article is probably total BS (aka a hoax). GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 20:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Nah, it's real, but it also has not entered production. Thus Accounting4Taste is exactly right, it fails the future films guideline. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Too far in the future for us to be writing about it now. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Xymax is dead on that it's confirmed, but I don't think we'll be seeing Jojo or Miley Cyrus in it, so let's wait until filming actually commences to create. Nate • (chatter) 21:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete– as per WP:CRYSTAL. It may be recreated closer to its release date. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 21:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and leave a mention of a sequel on the Alvin and the Chipmunks (film) page. IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 22:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete — per WP:CRYSTAL and no evidence of notability. macy^talk 22:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --ColorOfSuffering (talk) 22:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. No verifiable evidence of production. Mostly rumors at this point. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, there's evidence, but it's too far in the future for there to be enough to base an article on. With what's available, it would essentially be a "It's in production with a budget of so many million dollars", and that doesn't really appeal to me. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per all the above Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete echo all the above statements. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 00:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete As previously said. It can be recreated when it's actually in production, with sources and stuff. Also recommend salting it to prevent early recreation in the meantime, at least for the next few months. Or maybe a protected redirect to Alvin and the Chipmunks --Ebyabe (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: It is mentioned and referenced in the film article, so no worries there. --Ebyabe (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Wikipedia is also not based on fantasy or wishful thinking (if that were the case then most articles would probably be about sex ;) ).

• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I think that we should note it on the prequel, as irk said, but I would also like to point out that we have Pixar articles way ahead of this release date Cupy 52040 (talk) 16:16, 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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mindbend

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

All of the notable information in this article is already covered in Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology, Surat (which needs work itself). Merge and redirect. Jaysweet (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete non-NPOV piece about a not-so-notable student festival. No independent 3rd party sources to boot. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone can dig up sources that I couldn't. Ford MF (talk) 22:45, 10 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 insufficiently notable in its own right. I also note that the only incoming wikilink was for an unrelated game of the same name, suggesting a redirect is not the best course. Feel free to contact me if anyone decides to attempt a larger article where this content may be merged.--Kubigula (talk) 04:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crisis City

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

Not notable content. I can't see how there will be references to come for it either. Ged UK (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I don't see anything notable about it. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete — lacks of notability. macy^talk 22:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:N. No way will there be any secondary sources on this. --ColorOfSuffering (talk) 22:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NN, WP:OR, WP:RS & WP:V.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 00:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Better placed at sonic.wikia.com, which also has it in much more detail. --Izno (talk) 15:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as unoriginal research and verifiable per First pillar as consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on fiction. No reason for outright deletion here as could easily be merged and redirected without deletion in a worst case scenario. Anyway, element of notable series. Also, article was created a mere two days ago, so Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built and Wikipedia:Give an article a chance. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Zero assertion of real world notability from reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • It is notable to a real world audience as confirmed by reliable sources. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment And where would these sources be? ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 20:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
      • In magazines and strategy guides that cover Sonic the Hedgehog. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete; this is little better than Stage 7-2. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • What is Stage 7-2? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • A generic name for a single stage in a video game, about which nothing of consequence can be said. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, then I agree that this article is better.  :) Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
        • No, it's exactly what this is. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
          • It's a bit more specific. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. Content here could easily be preserved elsewhere and/or recreated for something like List of states in Sonic the Hedgehog. Ford MF (talk) 22:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Such an article would just be back at AFD in six months time, having developed the same problems. There's basically nothing you can say about the stages as a collective that wouldn't be better organized in the games' articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • If you agree that it could be at least organized in the games' articles, then we should merge and redirect without deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
      • As a list of paragraphs on each stage in each game? No. That nonsense gets deleted all the time. You're saying, "Merge, we must save this!" and the authors of the articles you'd merge it to are pretty much saying, "Fuck no, we're trying to improve these articles, not burden this with this crap." If you merged this into any article, whatever you merged would probably be deleted from the article within a week. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Then keep as a spinoff article or make a larger list as suggested above. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Sure! Go ahead and write that article as soon as you find some reliable sources that aren't themselves the subject to use. We're gonna delete this until then, though, but I'll be happy to undelete for you when you do that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
            • Much easier to just leave the article in mainspace and allow our volunteer editors to make these improvements over time as we do with all articles. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge into larger article when there's this little to say, that's appropriate. It is well established that the work itself is a RS for this sort of detail, and also that spinoff articles are acceptable without individual proof of notability for the portion that is conveniently separated. Perhaps suggesting that content of this sort will be pursued wherever found is not really appropriate. DGG (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

  "It is well established that the work itself is a RS for this sort of detail"

  No. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to Sonic the Hedgehog (2006 video game). Verifiable but appears a non-notable and minor concept of a video game. It's a valid search term nonetheless. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as unoriginal original research. No sources, nothing. There's no article -> delete the page. dorftrottel (talk) 09:07, 11 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.--Kubigula (talk) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Synaptogenomics

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

Google scholar gives three hits from the group that introduced the term (one of whom it appears wrote the article) and little evidence that the concept has received coverage elsewhere. A general Google search also does not indicate any widespread use of the term. I do not think that the concept (however valid) has received the kind of independent coverage from reliable secondary sources required to write a neutral encyclopaedia article. Guest9999 (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Tending towards delete or merge to....what I am not sure - unless something surprises me. I'll notify WP:MED. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• delete per WP:NEO: This is a "protologism"; it is not widely used and the page appears to have been created to promote usage of a term. If the term catches on such that there is a field of research to describe here then a page would be justified, but otherwise not notable and WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  :-) Madeleine ✉ ✍ 22:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Any neologism with "-omics" is suspect. It just indicates the type of science where you fire a shotgun at a problem in expectation of some results. Not quite like Ernest Rutherford and his helium atoms through. But I digress. JFW | T@lk 22:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, in PubMed two papers use this word, both from 2006 and both from the same authors. This is not a notable or widespread term. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete just because a group of genetic variations found, does not make it a branch of medicine (likewise no sub-branch of study of FlyBase for genetic variations affecting just the wings of Drosophila melanogaster - what I shall be the first and last to term "Drosophil-aero-genomics")
• Delete as neologism with no apparent outside support. Ford MF (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment

I've notified Daforerog (talk · contribs) of this AfD, also issues of WP:COI citing ones own sources.David Ruben ^Talk 20:18, 10 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 keep per WP:ATHLETE which establishes notability. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy5 (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Miltos Gkougkoulakis

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

Non-notable footballer. Anarxia (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. Subject has competed in a professional leagues (more than one actually), thus immediately satisfies the notability criterion per WP:ATHLETE. WilliamH (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Passes WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:21, 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. Davewild (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Willis

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

This article is merely disambiguation page full of redlinks. None of the redlinked persons appear to pass WP:BIO, and the page seems to serve no other purpose than to house a few inline external links. The first two on the list were both articles at one point, but were both deleted per separate AfDs (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Willis (personal trainer) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Willis (broadcaster)) with the former being redeleted post rem under CSD A7. The only redlinks in the list which aren't orphaned are Steve Willis (personal trainer) (mostly from articles related to The Biggest Loser) and Steve Willis (comix artist) (one link from List of minicomics creators). Delete on nine counts of non-notability. haz (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: There has been a previous AfD for this article (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Willis); however, I'm guessing that the deleted article bears no resemblance to the article in its current form, looking not only at the previous AfD discussion but also at this move log, therefore the article is not eligible for speedy deletion under CSD G4 as it was in previous instances. haz (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BEANS (we don't actually want most of these redlinks). If any of them, like the playwright, becomes notable then an article may be created, and if any OTHER does then disambiguation via hatnote is recommended anyway. I don't see us meeting the three-items rule of thumb anytime soon. This verges on WP:CSD#G6 (uncontroversial maintenance). --Dhartung | Talk 18:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as a sea of red links; very few if any are actually likely to have pages. I could see this going down as a G6 too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:MOSDAB.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 00:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete G6 Agree with Dhartung. This is just housekeeping, no point whatever so ever in this page existing. --neon white talk 22:17, 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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merlin (project management software)

Merlin (project management software) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No indication that this software package is notable; no independent sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, no attribution of notability to independent sources. --Dhartung | Talk 18:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, unreferenced article about a non-notable piece of non-consumer software. What is it about Wikipedia that makes us so attractive to the makers of minor management planning tools? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep or else, also delete Omniplan.Merlin has as much notoriety as Omniplan, if not more.
  David Latapie (✒ | @) — www 17:26, 9 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 PeterSymonds, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AcmePlan

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

Software package, no indication of notability, no independent sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:20, 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.--Kubigula (talk) 03:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zakaria Saeed

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

Non-notable actor Lars T. (talk) 12:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Notability not established, and from Google search I can't find any evidence of notability. Not sure if this is relevant, but not on IMdB, either. A cool picture and mention in a local newspaper isn't enough, I'm afraid. Danski14^(talk) 14:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Actors are simple. Any actor of note (with a unique name) comes right up on a google search. This one doesn't.Elan26 (talk) 01:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Elan26
• Delete. Not even a hint of demonstrable notability, unfortunately. Ford MF (talk) 23:22, 10 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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Castlemore Avenue (Markham, Ontario)

Castlemore Avenue (Markham, Ontario) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nonnotable. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Canada_Roads/Golden_Horseshoe#Issues to consider for the rationale. Johnny Au (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Completely non-notable. Wikipedia is not the place to list every street in Ontario, or Canada, or North America, or the World. There are Google Maps for that. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 22:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not Google Maps. GreenJoe 00:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. This is not about listing every street. It is, in fact, a thoroughfare in Markham. If I were to list every single street, why would I not proceed to making articles for all the minor streets before I move on to the major ones. I know Wikipedia is not Google Maps. This article actually list out its unique characteristics that is extremely rare across York Region, especially Markham. The road is designed as (from left to right) Bicycle Lane - Eastbound Traffic - Westbound Traffic - Bicycle Lane -Parking. Typically, this road would have been made into four lanes, for the road is wider than many others. But this was an interesting and unique design, and certainly notable. The Canadian Roadgeek (Road talk) 00:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete a road to relieve traffic congestion? There are probably thousands millions of those in Canada alone, and insufficient to make it notable in any way. What is more, the article is completely unsourced, and thus the importance/significance given to it by Roadgeek can only be described as original research for the moment. Anyway, WP is not a directory or streetmap. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, per nomination and referenced discussion. PKT (talk) 13:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. This article is essentially a list of places you'll find along the road, as well as roads that intersect this one. The accompanying list of roads parallel to this is odd and irrelevant. This road is nothing more than generic municipal infrastructure, with no definable historical or cultural characteristics beyond its mere existence. So, while it verifiably exists, it is an unencyclopedic topic. (Yes, this is the same comment I made about another road AfD.) Mindmatrix 18:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - fails to assert any notability. DigitalC (talk) 03:21, 11 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 under criterion G4 by User:Fvasconcellos. Non admin close. Guest9999 (talk) 18:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nuke the Fridge

Nuke the Fridge (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely unashamed neologism, unused by any sources of note whatsoever. Nandesuka (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• G4 Repost of deleted content, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuke the fridge. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:35, 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.

[edit] Status dynamic psychotherapy

The result was Keep. Triwbe (talk) 15:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Status dynamic psychotherapy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an essay full of WP:OR and fails on WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. WP:SYN is probably an issue. Triwbe (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. It seems like a legitimate term and certainly has received some coverage, however: the article desperately needs clean up and I agree that a significant proportion appears to be largely essayist commentary. I don't think deletion is the answer though. WilliamH (talk) 22:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both for your helpful comments and suggestions. A reworking of the entry is currently in progress to be less essay-like or textbook in format and more consistent with encyclopedic entries. Anabridges (talk) 01:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Definitely a legitimate term, a recognized system of psychotherapy like gestalt or existential. Should be kept while the author reworks the style to fit wiki standards. --Anscombe (talk) 03:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. I am author of this entry and am currently in process of revising it to a more encyclopedic style. Note rewrites of the introduction and first section. --[(User: Ray Bergner|Ray Bergner)] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ray Bergner (talk • contribs) 17:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Since your book is the main source of references for this article, this raises WP:OR, WP:SPS and WP:COI issues. --Triwbe (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2008 (U*TC)

Comment The references are not self-published sources: they are all published by reputable academic publishers, and the article conforms to the WP:NOR#Citing oneself policy. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Keep". Having observed my wife employing the methods of Status Dynamic Therapy over 40 years of successful practice, I can vouch that this Wikipedia entry does not represent original research, but instead describes what has been around for quite a while. I can understand the concern about the number of self-citations, but I would attribute it to the fact that although many have contributed to this discipline, Bergner has been the most prolific writer. I am aware that the article is currently being revised by people who are new to Wikipedia, and I am confident that replacements will be found for any passages that are overly instructive or lacking in neutrality. I certainly consider the topic to be worthy of an article, in appropriate Wikipedia style. Buffcreek (talk) 23:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

_{Comment the previous editor is new and has made no contributions so far. --Triwbe (talk) 05:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)}

• Keep. This is an important contribution. I had opportunity to be trained in this form of psychotherapy thirty years ago by Peter Ossorio, a professor at University of Colorado, Boulder. I found it immensely useful as a framework for understanding problems and intervening to resolve them, with an elegance I rarely saw manifested in other frameworks. I have long been frustrated that it had been insufficiently communicated to others, and specifically, that it was not presented in Wikipedia. It arises from the system of thought, or school of psychology, known as Descriptive Psychology, which I hope will also be presented in Wikipedia. Walte51 (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

_{Comment the previous editor is new and has made no contributions so far. --Triwbe (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)}

• Keep. We should be pleased when subject experts choose to contribute to Wikipedia, not trying to frighten them off with wikilawyering templates. Citing oneself is not original research as long as the sources have been published by reputable publishers, as these have. There are also several citations from other authors, and there are more sources available from Google Books and Google Scholar searches. I haven't looked through previous versions of the article, but as it now stands I don't see this reads like a text book - or at least there's enough there that doesn't read like a text book to sustain an article. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. I concur with the above positive comments. Status Dynamics therapy is a formal approach that deserves to be more widely recognized. I also trained with Peter Ossorio in the 1970s. His work provides an important basis for new therapy approaches and provides a conceptual framework for systematic comparisons across therapy approaches. It is supported by years of critical work by Ossorio and his students. As a previous commenter noted, although the author of this article is the person who has published most prolifically on this topic, the approach to therapy summarized in this article benefits from a broad and firm foundation of conceptual development, as well as by the clinical experience of its practitioners. I'd recommend that this article be kept.Nlkirsch (talk) 13:29, 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 Speedy delete a7, arguably a group with no assertion of notability, WP:NFT ("Squazzle™ is a drinking game first invented in Tim Thorpe's bedroom"), WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Squazzle

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

Contested PROD. Drinking game made up in March by some kids with nothing better to do. As if contesting the PROD wasn't enough they also decided to call me a c*nt on my user page. Nice. Delete. Roleplayer (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete for obvious reasons, but mainly WP:MADEUP. If you want to get into policy, there is no verification that this exists outside the circle of friends mention, which probably does not meet reliable sources. Yngvarr (c) 17:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:MADEUP. It's a load of bollocks, it is.evildeathmath 17:03, 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 withdrawn by nom after relisting with many thanks to those who commented and further clarified editor consensus on this article, which falls under WP:BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Joshua Gardner

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

While this topic is meaningful to Wikipedia's history it is not notable in the wider world and does not meet the proposed guidelines of Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts). Most of the notability stemmed from a single series of edits this individual made to Wikipedia to further an impersonation scheme over which no subsequent criminal conviction is noted in the article. Moreover, the article notes only one earlier criminal conviction, for a wholly un-notable and single crime. Biography of living person policy is meaningful here because here both because of the undue weight brought to bear by his Wikipedia edits along with the BLP warning: Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly (to put it more pithily, the "gotchya" side to this article is a bit glaring, even if this happened in good faith). Given this, the Wikipedia community might ponder the conflict of interest worries this article raises for Wikipedia, given the self-referential aspect at its root. Lastly, most of the independent coverage was limited to stories stemming from a short string of AP reports, which are more often than not cited by the other sources and I also find it a bit odd (and perhaps telling) that one of the references cited for this article is a Wikipedia project page. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep It's obviously notable that a sex-offender's hoax was exposed by a Wikipedia AfD. Further, the article is factual about its subject's actions, the fact those actions reflect poorly on the subject is the the subject's fault, not the article's. Edward321 (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, John254 01:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, as the references provided in Joshua_Gardner#References indicate sufficient coverage of Joshua Gardner in third-party reliable sources as to establish a presumption of his notability per the general notability guideline. Deletions of articles concerning otherwise notable individuals per our biographies of living persons policy are primarily designed to avoid providing publicity concerning people who have suffered a derogatory notability through no fault of their own, not to assist serious criminals in the avoidance of the well-deserved infamy for their crimes. John254 01:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I think there are sufficient secondary sources to indicate notability. The Wikipedia ref is a problem, however the info that it purports to verify is verified by one of the other refs. Kevin (talk) 04:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  Note - I have removed the Wikipedia ref, in case anyone is looking for it. Kevin (talk) 04:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep The secondary sources are rather impressive, including international coverage. I don't think the article serves primarily to mock or disparage its subject either. Maxamegalon2000 16:00, 10 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 per WP:SNOW. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suzy Elkins (writer)

Suzy Elkins (writer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails to assert notability under WP:CREATIVE. One novel (which turns out to be vanity-published [12] [13]); personal website has been down since 2007; and I can find no third-party sources supporting the claims that she's a "well-known" author or that the book had "critical acclaim". Appears to be a vanity creation anyway: compare creator name Alexstott (talk · contribs) and staff list of AA1 Media, Amesbury. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. This is a non-notable writer, and the article cites no external references to back up the claims of "critical acclaim" for her novels. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, No reliable sources available to establish notability, could find nothing via google or my access to EBSCO via library to pass WP:BIO--Captain-tucker (talk) 08:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Self-publishing confers no notability and the claim of being "well-known" doesn't match my Google search; also no reliable sources. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Amazon shows no reviews, the article itself was obviously a publicity exercise, and it is already out of print or at least not available on Amazon.co.uk new. Doug Weller (talk) 17:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• DELETE I'm a hardcore inclusionist, but I can't find any merit to this one. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete the paucity of hits and absence of independent reviews strongly suggests lack of notability. 4 unique Ghits for Suzy G. Elkins, and 8 Ghits for Suzy Elkins. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails to establish notability per WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 06:23, 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 that this AfD was overtaken by events. Consensus was to delete the huge list of schools, but the article has in the interim been completely rewritten and should now be properly called List of lists of schools in the United States. It would take another AfD (not that I would recommend starting one) to determine whether there is consensus to delete this new article.  Sandstein  17:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of schools in the United States

List of schools in the United States (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Note - The AfDs for this article are misleading. The first AfD represents three distinct AfDs from 2003-2004.

This should be a category, not an article. Jaysweet (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Additional comment: If it were sorted by state or some other criterion besides alphabetical order, that might change my mind. As it is now, this article doesn't offer anything that a Category page wouldn't. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: If consensus is to delete, please userfy the article to my userspace so it can be organized by state and district; it needs work, but I think there's a viable list here. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Technically this is a keep. Delete but preserve history and {{softredirect}} to Category:United_States_education_by_state and Lists of school districts in the United States. Preserve history to aide in expanding school district articles. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Essentially, this is a list of Wikipedia articles about high schools in the USA, which is also accomplished with a category (actually, it's a list of schools in the USA, which is even worse). There are thousands and thousands of high schools in the United States (i.e. more than 4,000), let alone all the middle schools and elementary schools; I suppose one could throw in colleges and business schools and preschools and beauty schools if one wanted to get technical, but assuming it was just a list of high schools, and I can't see what need would be served by listing all of them in alphabetical order. Perhaps someone would see that their school is a red link, and make it a blue link, although I think they would notice that their school lacks an article even before seeing the list. Perhaps someone would find an object that says "AHS" and look here for a clue about which high school the object came from, but that seems unlikely also. Perhaps someone would look to see where all the "Fremont High School" schools in America were located, but that would be accomplished by googling. If someone could show me that there was a need for this, I'd change my mind, but I don't see why you'd want an Aberdeen High to Zanesville High list of thousands of high schools. Inevitably, this useless list would be spun off into even more useless lists, such as "List of schools in the United States beginning with A". This isn't a good idea for an article. Mandsford (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete/Categorise as it stands I really don't see the advantage of this list over a category and there doesn't seem to be the impetus to change it significantly to make it more useful/useable. Guest9999 (talk) 18:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep, per redundancy between categories and lists not being a reason for deletion. I'm not really convinced that a category would serve the same function. Categories just aren't dynamic enough to allow for good presentation of information yet without creating separate subcategories. Until they are, I think it is a much better solution to have a human-readable list to accompany the given category; there's a lot of room for improvement, and the NOEFFORT argument doesn't really make sense to me in an environment where articles are in a constant state of flux. This could be separated by geographic region and then by state. Really, for things of this size, there should be a List of schools in Kansas, List of schools in New York, etc, and this list could link to all of those. Keeping in mind that our goal is to present information to people and not to computers, I think its best to keep this. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment There are already lists of school districts in each state. The individual school districts are the most obvious place to put schools in list form. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Those are districts themselves, not the schools within them. Useful for someone researching districts, but not schools themselves. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

There comes a point where things are ridiculous because things are too big, too unwieldy, too hard to maintain, or duplicate information found elsewhere in a way that becomes hard to maintain in sync. Somewhere between List of schools offering the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme and List of educational institutions on Planet Earth is the right place to draw the line. In a country where even the list of school districts is broken down by state, NOT breaking down the list of schools into states or individual school districts leads to a mega-sized list that is difficult to manage. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that the place to draw that line is at the schools; they need to be included in a hierarchal list. The appropriate place for them isn't here in one massive list, but importantly, that doesn't exclude listings higher up in the heirachy for navigational purposes. Remember that our navigational system is based on lists, not categories. We need List of schools, just like we need List of schools in the United States, because that's how people navigate. The actual list of schools doesn't have to be there, but it's the appropriate name to host the next level of content. Consensus seems to be that high schools are notable, so a decent system to should be in place to organize them, starting with individual listings like List of schools in district Y. I don't agree that we shouldn't have this page at all; this page should at least link to each List of school districts in state x, since that's how the United States operates its schools, and that's the most appropriate way to organize it based on our navigation system. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The hierarchy already exists for public schools, it is List of school districts in the United States->list of school districts in [state]->[School district article] which, if complete, would list the schools in that school district. The soft-redirect I propose above will serve as a navigational aide without unnecessarily duplicating existing information. Of course, many of these articles are woefully incomplete, but where they are complete, it is as easy to find as a hierarchical set of "List of public schools in the United States"->"List of public schools in New York State"->"List of public schools in Queens County" would be.

For private schools, a similar set of lists can be developed, only since most such schools are stand-alone, breaking down by state, county, or metropolitan area would make more sense, e.g. List of private schools in New York State.

In any case, the only advantage to a list, list-of-lists, or lists-of-lists over categories is they can include non-notable entities like Your Neighborhood Elementary School that categories cannot.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Lists can do many, many things that categories can't, or can but do badly. I can cross elements (i.e, Schools in New York can include both private and public schools), and add descriptions and formatting to make it more human-readable. Categories are ugly to look at, can't be edited for formatting, and need subcategories that you can't look at all at the same time. My main issue is that someone not familiar with the district system will get confused. Someone who is looking for a list of schools is looking for a list of schools. They're not going to type "List of school districts in the United States". A soft-redirect, I suppose, is a viable solution, but it doesn't incorporate what you suggest. I would say that each state should get accompanying private and public school lists and categories and those would get linked to from here; that way, all the information is centralized and accessible from one location; two separate lists aren't necessary, and we aren't favoring one school type over another; the private vs. public school thing brings up an interesting point that makes it more imperative that this page gets kept and adapted. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I love it how Wycombe High School is on the list and it is not even a US school. Seems to confirm the pointlessness of the page Sinisterial (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

So fix it. That's a content issue, and only means that there's improvement to be had. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as redundant with other categories and hopelessly too large to properly maintain and keep updated and accurate. --ElKevbo (talk) 03:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete This is a "useless" list and impossible to maintain. Reliance on category is infinitely preferable. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete this version, as lumping all the schools together on one page will be MASSIVE, unmaintainable, and so incomplete that it becomes useless. (It is basically a list of randomly(?) selected schools in US, which is not what the title promises.) I could see this working if this is the top of a list pyramid, with entries like "List of schools in Alabama" and so on, in that case it would be a good navigational tool which might be a bit more flexible than categories since we can list by district and not just in alphabetical order. So if anyone wants to recreate (or rewrite) in that form, that's fine. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Regarding Celarnor's remarks, I for one would consider a WP:HEY criteria that the article needs to be reorganized so that it is actually easier to navigate than the category page (right now, the *HS organization just makes it confusing) and ought to be as complete as the category page (within a few percent at least, allowing that new school could be created while doing the formatting). The apparent intentions of this article do not demonstrate value to me; but Celarnor's proposed article may have some value. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Camaron | Chris (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep per Celarnor and WP:HEY after I've heavily revised it to be more of a "list of lists" type article. I've condensed the format introduced by Celarnor to something which I hope you will agree is more useful. Please reconsider any "delete" arguments in light of the new format of the list. DHowell (talk) 04:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep per Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, organized, verfiable, notable, and encyclopedic list). Consistent per First pillar with an almanac on schools. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:31, 10 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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Techstep

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

Entirely unsourced article about what appears to me an extremely minor subgenre. neon white talk 16:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I have added a reference, the Google News results are dominated by subscription-only coverage but more sources exist whether available on the internet or not. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 17:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

reference doesn't address the subject in enough detail to assert any notability. Subject must have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, claiming they may exist is not enough. --neon white talk 21:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep In the late 1990s this was not a "minor" subgenre of drum and bass. I agree better sources need to be found, but keep the article and let people work on finding the sources. If you are going to delete this article, there are plenty of other articles about drum and bass subgenres that are smaller subgenres and should be deleted first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.65.128.6 (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Plenty notable musical subgenre. Even I know this one, and I mostly loathe electronic music. Ford MF (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The article asserts no notability and there are no sources. Use a valid arguements. Your personal opinion isn't really of any use. --neon white talk 01:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added what I think are more than sufficient sources to satisfy WP:RS. Amazing what ten seconds on Google can do these days, innit? Ford MF (talk) 03:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide excerpts that prove this is significant coverage. I still support the merging of many sub genres to the Drum and bass page or a seperate 'sub genres of Drum and bass' page. --neon white talk 13:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why you should be any less able to click the citation links and search than I am. Generation Ecstasy, published by an academic press contains an entire chapter on techstep. Ford MF (talk) 14:07, 11 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 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ladies Man(Singer). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The HITZ:Remix 09(album)

The HITZ:Remix 09(album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Possible (probable) hoax; at the very least, delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Note: this author has created a number of album, song pages for the artist Ladies Man(Singer), most of which are already up for AfD. Wolfer68 (talk) 16:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

The HITZ:Remix 08(album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Delete I'd consider adding all the afds concerning this artist to a single afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ladies Man(Singer). They all appear to be non notable. --neon white talk 17:33, 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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Phurnace

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

This article was originally nominated for CSDa7. While I don't feel that it proves notability, there is enough doubt in my mind that I wasn't comfortable deleting it. However, I feel an Afd is warranted as that there are significant problems with the article, notably WP:COI, WP:N and WP:CORP. Trusilver 15:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete cannot find any evidence in second or third party sources to suggest notability. --neon white talk 16:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete school project. I was also tempted to tag it db-spam. I agree that there are significant problems, first of all that the company does not appear notable. It was created and primarily edited by a single-purpose account. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:56, 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. — Scientizzle 16:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cookie Cutter Series

Cookie Cutter Series (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Disputed prod; a protologism with no references or sources to demonstrate notability or, indeed, any usage other than that of the article's creator. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No reliable sources seem to be given, and the most of the material present seems to be compilations of original research. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 02:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, short original essay. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as made-up neologism. Ford MF (talk) 23:51, 10 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. — Scientizzle 16:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution Lofts

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

"Evolution Lofts are two condo towers that could be located in Downtown Las Vegas. They are considered a stale proposal. If built..." These buildings are nonexistent, unlikely to be built, and therefore not deserving of a separate article. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL, I suppose. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete WP:CRYSTAL & WP:NN.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 00:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Article can easily be recreated if these are actually ever built. Ford MF (talk) 04:01, 11 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) 21:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kazuo Nishii

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

I would most likely tag this for SD, but I am unsure. Not every little magazine editor has a Wikipedia Page! Do they? StewieGriffin! • Talk 15:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep with a bullet. No, not every little magazine editor has a Wikipedia Page! And since [now for the Big Secret] Wikipedia is paper, this means that there is paper left over for big magazine editors, such as the rotund (if late) Nishii, a notable editor of Camera Mainichi (a magazine known well among everybody interested in Japanese photography who's above the Playstation generation). Moreover, Nishii's collections of opinionated criticism add up to one of the chronologies of the remarkable changes in Japanese photography from the aftermath of Provoke to the arrival of Hiromix prettiness. -- Hoary (talk) 15:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep While I tend to agree that editing even a big magazine is not in itself always an encyclopedic career, there seem to be many English language citations for Nishii and moreover, I was able to quickly find hundreds in Japanese. Easily meets WP:BIO. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The quantity and quality of Nishii's publications (that he wrote or edited) is easily more than sufficient to justify an article in Wikipedia. An important figure in Japanese photography in the second half of the 20th century. Pinkville (talk) 16:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Obvious Keep Major editor and critic, and a prolific, published author. What's going on at AfD? This rivals the well-known but unfinished Charles Laughton / Josef von Sternberg film, now fighting for its existence... or, if you've never heard of Laughton & von Sternberg, there are those three Pokemon nominations... Dekkappai (talk) 17:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Although I agree with the principle that not every little magazine editor deserves an article, I think Nishii's publication list places him above the description "little magazine editor." Fg2 (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Sufficient coverage he has. That should be enough to establish the notability, right?-- Taku (talk) 22:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 07:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 07:38, 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 G11 blatant advertising. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jendo

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

Previously speedied as a hoax. Nate1481(^t/_c) 14:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate1481(^t/_c) 14:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Nate1481(^t/_c) 14:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Every source I can find seems to have been written by the same person. Gr1st (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete was deleted before alongside the now recreated Traditional Arnis and the founder's page, which has also been recreated (Jonathan Makiling Abaya); I don't think it was a hoax, though, just not notable. JJL (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete it is not a hoax. However, it is not notable. Google Books and Google Scholar searches return empty handed. Google search provides some info but most are only passing TV appearances. There are no independent and reliable source regarding its use in Filipino Martial Arts tournaments.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete small-circle Philippine martial art. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. An offshoot school of Arnis that is yet to pass notability. Starczamora (talk) 15:39, 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. Consensus is that this falls under WP:NOTNEWS. May be restored for selective merging.  Sandstein  18:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008 measles outbreak in California

2008 measles outbreak in California (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

A dozen cases over two months and no deaths. Made the local news, and attracted the CDC's attention (it is their job to look after such things), but not really notable in a lasting way. Biruitorul ^Talk 23:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Per WP:N, notability does not expire or go away after a certain amount of time. Happyme22 (talk) 07:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Notability doesn't expire, but sensationalism does. This event was sensational, but never notable. Pburka (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, press coverage indicates notability. Everyking (talk) 07:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and merge to MMR_vaccine_controversy#Disease_outbreaks. This outbreak is just part of a pattern of undervaccination incidents. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 20:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Make that simply delete. At the risk of sounding slightly macabre, wait until we have an actual epidemic or some broader impact than just a flash in the pan. One article for 2008 all of the outbreaks might be interesting, but better would be a subarticle on frequency and distribution of outbreaks vs. vaccination and other public health initiatives. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 20:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep clearly of note historically, agree with everyking and happyme22Myheartinchile (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete unless we're also going to include the 2008 measles outbreak in Illinois, the 2008 measles outbreak in Arizona and the 2008 measles outbreak in Toronto. It appears that measles outbreaks are fairly common. Pburka (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Do they have significant press coverage like this one does? If so, you won't hear any objection from me. Everyking (talk) 06:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
    • They have as much or more press coverage than the California outbreak. That is to say, local news sources covered them for a few weeks and a couple of national sources pick it up. According to this there have been a dozen outbreaks in the US so far in 2008. It doesn't make sense to have an article about each one. It might make sense to have a single 2008 measles outbreaks in North America article as the number of outbreaks this year does seem to be unusual. Pburka (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
      • They could be written about as one article. If we want to do that, the proper outcome is to keep this article and then move or redirect it into a new article with a broader scope. Everyking (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Last I heard, we can't delete and merge. It destroys the page histories. Singly, the measles epidemics <<obsolete term showing my age. much more pc to call an epidemic an outbreak.>> are not sufficiently notable and would be better redirected and merged into a single article, like Measles Outbreaks of 2008. Collectively and historically, measles outbreaks are significant and notable. We are fortunate in the lack of fatalities-- that will change. Cheers, and happy editing.

Dlohcierekim 15:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete --24 cases is not even close to an epidemic. This no doubt also applies to other measles outbreak articles. 49 years ago when I had it, measles was a common childhood disease. Since vaccination it has become rare. It needs something much larger scale to warrnat an article. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Interesting point, Peter. Technically, it is an epidemic> outbreak, though. Perhaps there is a greater notability involved here. Perhaps it's notable that these things happen at a time when the disease could possibly be eradicated with more thorough vaccicnation. (Don't want to open that can of worms, though.) I'm not the one with the skills to argue in favor of it if it does exist. As a side note, I alomost died of measles, so I greeted the development of the vaccine with exclamations of joy. But that's neither here nor there in the great scheme of things. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wafulz (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per Peterkingiron and Pburka. Such outbreaks happen all the time. There is not sufficient evidence of this one being actually notable even if it was (sensationally) reported in the news. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - it is articles like this one that make me wish our notability guidelines were revamped. The notion that something popping up once or twice in the news means we should have an article on it is absurd. There are many events that occur routinely and are not of any particular note, but local news outlets are bound to have a blurb on them all the same. Arkyan 21:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I can't find a single blurb in any local news outlet about the 1347 bubonic outbreak in Genua in Google News Archives: [14]. Thus, non-notable. ¨23:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Smerge into MMR vaccine controversy. Corvus cornix_talk 23:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete a textbook example of the application of WP:NOTNEWS. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I think Phil, above, hit it on the nose. This is really a local news item. Such items can be notable, but I don't see a lot of evidence that this one is. Tim Ross (talk) 19:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete to my mind not notable and not encyclopedic. A short burst of media interest in an otherwise unimportant event that isn't really important or remotely unusual. RMHED (talk) 18:39, 10 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. Article needs lots of work, but consensus is that the sources are sufficient evidence of notability.--Kubigula (talk) 04:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thameside Radio

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

non-notable former pirate station, vanity Rapido (talk) 14:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Page was previously deleted in October 2007. Not sure if this is a G4 tho. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I personally think it's a G4, given that it was deleted on the basis of lack of notability. Rapido (talk) 14:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Has references to show notability. Just because they are not online it doesn't invalidate them. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Profusion of cites easily establish notability, although the article could use a real rewrite, and someone to convert all those ugly cites to refs. Ford MF (talk) 04:03, 11 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. — Scientizzle 16:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Storm 106

Storm 106 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable local pirate radio station Rapido (talk) 14:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete can't find any sources for this --neon white talk 17:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete ambiguous name makes it difficult to search for sources, but after looking for a bit I'm confident there aren't any to be had. I'll happily change my mind if someone introduces some secondary coverage into the article. Ford MF (talk) 04:06, 11 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 01:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rinse FM

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

non-notable local pirate radio station Rapido (talk) 14:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Article has multiple verfiable second party sources, including detailed coverage by Pitchfork Media and in New Statesman. --neon white talk 17:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Well sourced article that demonstrates its subject's notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:09, 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 speedily deleted as copyvio of http://www.board-crazy.co.uk/skateboarding-sponsorship.php. --MCB (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Skateboarding Sponsorship

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

Uncited opinion piece, essay and original research. Blowdart | ^talk 14:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Fine
have it deleted
see if I care
I just wanted to make the information more accessible to others and what better way than to Wikipedia it
I mean it's not an important aspect of skateboarding, I mean, I should know seeing as I am a Skateboarder and sponsorship is not what I skate for - it's just that I get asked alot about the subject at hand. People ask me about alot of things and usually just refer them to wikipedia and because I've been asked about this alot I decided to create this article.
PS this is the first time i have done anything on wikipedia except for viewing content so cut us some slack and make suggestions as to how the information should be presented because I've never done this before...it's a learning curve —Preceding unsigned comment added by Internal Terrorist (talk • contribs) 14:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I've always thought that there should be an article on skateboard sponsorships in the wikipedia database —Preceding unsigned comment added by Internal Terrorist (talk • contribs) 14:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

either communicate with me so i can actually understand what up or otherwise change the article so it fits your criteria —Preceding unsigned comment added by Internal Terrorist (talk • contribs) 14:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

if your just out to make me look stupid then your doing a great job, I must say, well done, no,no,you've really outdone yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Internal Terrorist (talk • contribs) 14:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

well i guess i'm just that incompetent huh? how bout i give you a game of skate for it - i win and the article stays, you win and you can toss it.
if you don't know what a "game of skate" is then you should wikipedia it, thats what i tell everyone else to do - but only because i know that it's there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Internal Terrorist (talk • contribs) 14:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

do some research and make the necessary changes - show me how it's done--Internal Terrorist (talk) 15:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, original essay, WP:NOT a how-to guide. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Entirely OR, essentially a how to guide which WP is not. To the suggestion that if it fails the policies we do research and improve it, I instead suggest to Internal Terrorist that he/she reads up on our policies and improves if if they want the article to stay. Personally I couldn't care less about the topic and so don't care if it goes. That's not me using WP:IDONTLIKEIT, merely why I'm not going to use my time to improve an article like it.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - original essay, not encyclopedic content. I'd suggest the author consider expanding this and submitting it as an article to his/her favorite skateboarding magazine; that's how a lot of us writers first get into the business. (It's not profitable, but it can be fun.) --Orange Mike | Talk 15:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above. To the author: We're not saying that what's in the article isn't good advice or that it's not worthwhile information, it's just that an encyclopedia isn't really the place for it. --Finngall ^talk 15:58, 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 delete by PeaceNT, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Adamopoulos

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

Possible hoax. Unreferenced. A Google search for "Peter Adamopoulos" Panathinaikos produces zero hits. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 13:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• G3 Clearly a hoax. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damjan Krajcic and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Garcia - same author. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 14:01, 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. — Scientizzle 16:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Nwokeji

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

Contested prod (no explanation). Fails WP:ATHLETE as has never played in a fully pro league. Article can easily be restored if/when he does. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE. Quite a lot of external links but all bar one seem to be non-independent, non-reliable or non-in-depth (??) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I may be incorrect but does playing in the FA Cup against a fully professional team count as being notable? Eddie6705 (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Nope. FA Cup matches only count for players at fully pro clubs. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 16:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE by a long shot. --Jimbo^[online] 18:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE as above. —97198 talk 12:59, 11 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 a blatant hoax. Spellcast (talk) 14:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Damjan Krajcic

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

Possible hoax. Unreferenced. A Google search for Damjan Krajcic provides only one relevant link - a Bebo profile for the subject of the article. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 13:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Adamopoulos and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Garcia - same author. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 14:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• G3 Blatant hoax by serial hoaxster. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:07, 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 delete as a hoax. Spellcast (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Garcia

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

Possible hoax. Sourceless article. No relevant hits for Googling "Andrew Garcia" "real madrid". ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 13:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damjan Krajcic and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Adamopoulos - same author. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 14:03, 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 Withdrawn. Article was rewritten by me as a page on the Rachel Proctor album. Consensus is that non-charting songs are usually not notable, and I have provided a hatnote pointing to the Beach Boys album that contains their "Where I Belong". Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Where I Belong

Where I Belong (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable song, didn't chart, didn't receive any awards. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:35, 5 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)} 13:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to The Beach Boys (album). Non-notable songs can usually be redirected to the album they were released on without need for a discussion. Deletion of a searchable term would not help. --neon white talk 17:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect back to The Beach Boys (album). The name is simple enough to be a viable search term. Fails WP:MUSIC & WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 00:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Since Rachel Proctor has an album by this name, would it be okay to make this a page about her album, as long as there's a hatnote pointing to the Beach Boys album? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Rewrite article as Rachel Proctor Where I Belong as per Mr TPH. Her album meets WP:MUSIC, there are references, and she's good looking.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 11:12, 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 as advertisement for non-notable technology.  Sandstein  18:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Tidal Irrigation and Electrical System

The Tidal Irrigation and Electrical System (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Advertisement Crowsnest (talk) 13:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The page has only links to own web-site, no reliable references, and had a prod nomination earlier today. Seems to promote some (patented) original research. Crowsnest (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Highly promotional piece for non-notable irrigation system thingy. Not everything that's patented is notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I am the originator of the page and have added links to all relevant sites and notations including the original patent. I can't see how the patent violates Wikipedia guidelines. The Tidal Irrigation and Electrical System is quantum leap in our ability to extract energy from the ocean and in my opinion should be represented here in Wikipedia. All of the information is true and verified in other parts of Wikipedia. I am new to this form of recording of information and was surprised to see in one "editors" comments that he felt that this patent did not represent something notable and therefore should be deleted. This is neither accurate nor in the spirit of an open encyclopedia. It's not as if by its inclusion other things must be left out. (AeguorAgricola (talk)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AeguorAgricola (talk • contribs) 14:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The patent in itself is not a problem, or violating WP guidelines. But, to my opinion, the main issues are: the fact that the article seems to advertise this patented concept by linking to the website for its promotion, has no reliable references (see WP:V and WP:OR, links to other Wikipedia articles don't count with respect to verifiability), and is not notable from an encyclopedic point of view, see WP:N. Further, you may have a look at WP:COI, to find out whether you have a possible conflict of interest. Crowsnest (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Additional comment I have now included a link to European Commission's Directorate-general for energy and transport in which the Tidal irrigation and Electrical System is an approved concept, that fulfills all scientific requirements. The link is however for a company "seavac" which is promoting the concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AeguorAgricola (talk • contribs) 16:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. No indication of where this system is currently in use. Therefore no hint of notability. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 19:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Additional comment The project is indeed in the experimental phase but there are several renewable energy systems which are not currently in use and yet they are included in Wikipedia for example blue energy. The individual components of the Tidal Irrigation and Electrical System are all well understood and verified. That they will work in conjunction is common sense and is in no doubt. Of course, there will be some interference by one system with another, and the degree to which this will occur is unknown, but that will only be able to be determined on a case by case basis and depends entirely on which resources the operator wishes to generate. AeguorAgricola (talk —Preceding comment was added at 20:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete' it is true that Tidal power systems have a long history - as proposals-- and are notable--and consequently have an article, along with particular articles for some specific systems in specific places that have been implemented. This particular proposal, however, has no sources for anything resembling notability. DGG (talk) 01:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Additional comment Except, of course, that it is patented. Patents are only granted if the science actually works and the idea is original and it is an improvement over existing designs which hope to exploit a principle. Are you saying that the US patent office isn't notable? Are you saying that you (DGG) know better about the science than the patent examiner or the scientists the European Commission's Directorate-general for energy and transport? AeguorAgricola (talk) 06:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Probably notable enough, but needs to be rewritten to remove advertising and to find neutral sources. Beagel (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Additional comment OK, I have rewritten the article to take out advertising. Other sources seem thin on the ground.AeguorAgricola (talk) 23:27, 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.