Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 March 23

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 based on the vast improvements in the article, the inherent notability of an airline company, the adoption by the Aviation wikiproject, and the much improved sourcing in the article. Great example of the WP:HEY standard. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Salt Spring Air

Salt Spring Air (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable company. Brianga (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Article consists mostly of original research. The sole source cited contains only a passing mention of the company. There is currently no independent, signficant coverage to demonstrate notability. Nick Graves (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Small airline is not notable, its company website is a blog on worldpress. AlbinoFerret (talk) 05:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable and almost not sources Think outside the box 20:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Very insulting that they didn't even try to Wikify it. House of Scandal (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Failure to wikify is not a criterion for deletion, but a reason for improvement. I don't think insult was intended by this failure to wikify--it's a likely result of just being new and not being familiar with how the markup works. Do you care to cite another rationale for deletion--one that's based on a policy or guideline? Like, say, lack of notability? Nick Graves (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: In response to the above points, firstly sorry I am new to wiki be assured no insult was meant, and thank you to whom ever it was that helped by wikifying my page. I have added some more references and will continue to do so, the company is set to be in the news again this week. Salt Spring Air is pretty notable, maybe it is just that I have not added enough data, I will work on that. Any tips are welcome and will be acted on. the company has a full web site at www.saltspringair.com i used the blog site as it is growing in content quicker and has some cool photos on it. So can I stay, for now? --Flymebc (talk) 04:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Response: I recommend taking a look at the following policies or guidelines: Reliable sources, Conflict of interest, Original research and Notability (organizations and companies). There are currently two "References" sections in the article. The first consists of links to Wikipedia articles, which are not reliable sources for an article. The second References section lists an IMDb page, which is also not a reliable source. The other two articles are reliable sources, but they do not provide significant coverage of the subject. They're not enough to establish notability by Wikipedia standards. "Notability" in general is very relative, and your company might very well be notable within a certain locality and in certain people's minds, but "notability" within the Wikipedia context has a very specific definition, and the company does not yet meet that definition. I presume you are the proprieter of this company, or at least work for it, so you should review Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest. It's usually not a good idea to edit or start an article about a company you own or work for, since this can lead to articles becoming advertisements, violations of neutrality policy, or a temptation to view the subject as more notable than it actually is (by Wikipedia standards), thus creating an article that doesn't really belong here. Finally, the article contains information that is not confirmed by the two reliable sources cited. Perhaps you know this information personally, but without a reputably published source to back it up, it shouldn't be included in the article. That's original research, which is prohibited on Wikipedia. More data and pictures won't save this article--proof that it is notable (significant coverage in multiple, reliable, secondary sources) is the only thing that can do that. As for the wikification issue, you can learn by clicking "edit" on certain articles just to take a look at what the markup looks like (do not use real articles, however, to test things out). You can then go to the sandbox and do some experiments to get familiar with how editing using this markup works. Nick Graves (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

      Comment - I hope you don't bite with too many assumptions by saying "your company". --Deryck C. 15:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

    • Comment: thank you for the feedback, I have read through your response, and I am currently playing around in the sand box to pick up some wiki skills. I am not the proprietor or an employee of the company, my interest started because I can see the float planes landing form my window, I have (it’s a small island) got to know the owner and the company. Hence the pet project. I can see that being an acquantance of the owner may be on the fringe of the wiki conflict rule, but on an island this size the most knowledgeable about any island subject is probably somebody form the community. I understand more pictures and data won’t be the saving grace, but new/more articles may be. Salt Spring Air is being honoured with a life savers award this Friday and that is to be picked up by TV and Print media, Salt spring Air’s planes are pretty famous they have each been involved in block buster movies starring Nicholas Cage and Al Pacino (not both in the same movie) I am digging out the reference to those now. In the interest of trying to improve the article enough, could anybody point out the difference between it and say other companies in the same field i.e. Harbour Air--Flymebc (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Response: Certainly, members of the community will have a lot of knowledge about such a company, but again, all information in a Wikipedia article must be supported with reliable, published sources to avoid crossing into Original research. Even if you personally know something to be true, you must be able to point to an article in a reliable newspaper, magazine, book, website, etc. to put such information in an article. You would get a long way toward proving notability for the company if you could find at least one reliable, secondary source that has an article specifically dedicated to covering it. While you search for that, you might consider "userfying" the article you created in case it gets deleted. Check out this article to see how that can be done. That way, you can restore the article once you've proven notability (though I would consult with the closing admin before doing that). As for Harbour Air, I'm of the opinion that notability has not been proven for that company either. It cites 3 sources, 1 of which doesn't have anything to do with the company, and two of which are actually the company's own website. You'll find that a lot of articles "slip through the cracks" and aren't up to policy or guidelines. That still doesn't excuse other articles when an editor brings up a legitimate criticism and asks for either proof of notability or article deletion. I would note, however, that Harbour Air is (according to its own website) the "World's Largest All-Seaplane Airline," which, if supported by independent coverage, would be a fact supporting its notability. Nick Graves (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• • • • • i have added more data and links in the reference section, including an article that appeared yesterday. i have more coming from the vancouver press hopefully this weekend--Flymebc (talk) 01:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment, tends towards provisional keep - This case is a marginal one. Notability should be credited given that the company is an airline. Everyone can start a random company but unless they get rich enough there couldn't be an airline. (The airline code system tells us that the number of airlines in the world shouldn't exceed far beyond 1000.) And consider fleet sizes - Oasis Hong Kong Airlines had only 2 planes at launch and was yet notably big news. (at least its article stayed.) This airline has 4. Considering that the article is also in its infancy (less than 10 days) and the principal contributor is a newbie, failure to wikify is not at all a reason for deletion. I think we should give some time for this article to develop, maybe a month, before we rethink deletion. I suggest that this case should be concluded as "kept no consensus". --Deryck C. 15:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

  Further information - Two out of the three other airlines that operate parallel to Salt Spring Air - West Coast Air and Harbour Air, both operating primarily seaplanes, have their articles. I suppose a bit of parallel ruling should apply here? --Deryck C. 16:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

  Comment: The primary concern here has not been lack of wikification (which has since been corrected), but whether this company is notable or not. Notability is established by signficant coverage of the subject in multiple, independent and reliable sources. None of the sources cited give anything close to significant coverage of the subject. It does not matter that other, similar companies also have articles on Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Other stuff exists)--notability must be decided on the merits of the coverage in the sources cited for the article. Also, whether or not one calls this company an "airline" has no bearing on its level of notability--again, that depends entirely on what sort of coverage is found in reliable sources. I agree that it is important not to bite newcomers, which is why I've strongly suggested userfying the article to preserve this editor's work, have given suggestions for improvement and sourcing, have helped wikify, and have reproduced the article at Wikinfo. However, the need to be welcoming does not mean that notability guidelines ought to be disregarded. There is ample opportunity for restoration of this article if its creator is able to prove notability at a later date. At present, however, this is a clear-cut case of an article's subject failing WP:CORP. Finally, I would like to point out that the fact that this company has a fleet of only 4 planes is pretty strong support for a presumption of non-notability. Nick Graves (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

  Reply - Please point out how the website of the transport department of Canada (footnote 3) and an independent tourism review website about Salt Spring Island (footnote 2) fail to serve as independent reliable sources. In addition, I appreciate your skepticism that a fleet of only four planes supports a presumption of non-notability (and therefore I appreciate the presence of this debate); however, that cannot disprove notability. (again refer to Oasis Hong Kong as a counterexample) --Deryck C. 04:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

  Reply: Sure, that source is independent and reliable. But it is not significant coverage--it does not go into any depth about the company. So far, all the sources cited just have bits and pieces about the company. Signficant coverage is needed to prove notability. As I've said to Fly before, a trade magazine that dedicates a whole article to this company would go a long way toward demonstrating notability--that would be signficant coverage. The burden of proof is on those who seek to demonstrate notability, not on those who challenge the claim of notability. Nick Graves (talk) 11:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - Look at the article now. It has been adopted by WP:AVIATION as an Airlines article and much improved in the past week. Let the infant grow. -Canglesea (talk) 15:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --jonny-mt 14:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My December (song)

My December (song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, non-charting song with little or no media coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC#Songs. Previous attempts to redirect to Linkin Park have been reverted. Precious Roy (talk) 23:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:Music#Songs. The sole source cited is a fansite--no significant coverage in reliable sources is referenced. Nick Graves (talk) 02:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I do remember this song getting regular airplay on my local alternative station. Some of these articles -especially the first- should establish notability. Zagalejo^^^ 05:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Airplay is not enough—it has to chart nationally. And except for the first (short) article, the rest seem to be just trivial mentions of the song (mostly just listing the title). Precious Roy (talk) 09:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Roy is correct. Zagelejo has found some very minimal coverage, which is not enough to establish notability. The verifiable information found in those sources is not enough to warrant an article separate from Linkin Park discography or an individual album article. Songs should chart nationally, win a significant award, or be covered by several notable artists to be notable. And, to quote the relevant policy: "A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; permanent stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Nick Graves (talk) 12:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep it's nothing wrong with the article if you ask me --Wellwater Conspiracy (talk) 11:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Roy and I have pointed out a specific policy [guideline] that indicates that there is something wrong with having the article. Can you explain how you think this policy [guideline] is not applicable in this case, or point to a different policy [guideline or policy] that trumps this argument? Nick Graves (talk) 12:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    • WP:Music is not a policy, it's a guideline. In any case, I think the song passes that guideline: it has "been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups." Linkin Park and Josh Groban are hugely notable, plus there have been a couple of remixes which have brought in other artists. Zagalejo^^^ 17:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Granted, it is a guideline, and does not have the same weight as an official policy. However, this guideline does have widespread consensus behind it, which is weightier than a "keep" recommendation that goes no further than "I don't think there's anything wrong with this article." Of course the song has been performed by Linkin Park--it's their song. Beyond that, we have confirmation that Josh Groban made a remix. I'd say that falls far short of the "several notable artists" performing the song independently that is required to establish notability. You mention that others have made remixes. Who are they? Are they notable? Can this be confirmed in reliable sources? I will note also that the article still does not cite any reliable sources to back up any of its claims (a fansite doesn't qualify). You've found two articles (from the Denver Post and the LA Times) that get us closer to establishing notability, but it's still not enough. What else is out there, and is it enough information to justify a separate article? Nick Graves (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Well, I've looked where I can, and I can't find much else. It's possible that a music magazine has written something about this song, but only a handful of magazines are electronically archived in the same manner as newspapers, so I can't say anything for sure at the moment. As for the remixes, it seems that the one I had in mind has never actually been released, so I'll just drop that line of argument.
        • I still think we could cull a couple of paragraphs out of the sources that do exist, so I'm still in favor of keeping this article. At the very least, we should merge this information somewhere - and that precludes deletion, since we'd still use this as a redirect. Zagalejo^^^ 22:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete A good but otherwise non-notable song. Not a major single, barely charting on some local stations. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep (no consensus) - Nabla (talk) 12:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Script (the band)

The Script (the band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I declined an A7 speedy on this because there is an assertion of notability ("The recent hit 'We Cry' received single of the week on Today FM and on BBC Radio 1"), however without references this completely fails WP:MUSIC. Recommend deletion. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep—The page is one day old. I suggest inserting a notability template instead and give the editors time to build a proper page.—RJH (talk) 16:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - A reference has been added, making it pass WP:MUSIC. Save-Me-Oprah^(talk) 21:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Generally, if a band hasn't released a single record, they have no shot of passing WP:BAND. The source cited is the band's record label; of course, to establish notability a source must be independent of the subject, which isn't the case here. This band simply isn't notable by Wikipedia's standards, at least not yet. faithless (^speak) 07:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• weak keep The claim of notability which is now sourced appears to be a good reason to keep although I don't think it technically meets the requirements of WP:BAND. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep – A very new band that does not need an article yet, but it has one. –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete The article appears to be notable; however, it fails WP:BAND. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --jonny-mt 14:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vlad (musician)

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

Non-notable artist Momusufan (talk) 23:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Appears to have released two albums on a notable indie label, Orpheus Music, per WP:MUSIC. I note also that the nom nominated this for deletion within FOUR minutes of the article being created[1], which is way too quick imo. Tag it up and give it longer. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep If sources can be found. Maybe I jumped the gun a little bit, but I'd keep and find sources. Momusufan (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Question - Does that mean you are withdrawing the nomination for deletion? -- Whpq (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment I take it to be a conditional withdraw pending addition of RS. SingCal 07:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --jonny-mt 14:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wiij

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

Speedy delete. No assertion of notability. Much of the information isn't sourced. It just seems to be about a way to hack Wiis, and a lot of it comes off as NPOV (such as "WiiJ-ing, apart from being an innovative and entertaining new form of DJ, is being heralded for its wholly wireless usage.." CyberGhostface (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Better attempt than many, however. - House of Scandal (talk) 17:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 05:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Ba Sing Se

The result was Merge. (Please note article was closed by nominator due to suggestion by User:Hobit.) — Parent5446 ^{(t n c e m l)} 02:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ba Sing Se (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article is all plot summary. It treats the place as if it was a real location. There is no actual point to the article but to speculate about what the place was like in the show. In other words, it is all in-universe, and there is no possible way to come up with out-of-universe info. The best way to go for this article is to trim it down and merge it into Earth Kingdom. It does not deserve its own multi-sectioned article. — Parent5446 ^{(t n c e m l)} 23:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —— Parent5446 ^{(t n c e m l)} 23:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment if you think it should be merged, it probably isn't for AfD. Be bold and merge. Hobit (talk) 01:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. faithless (^speak) 07:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Portal (band)

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

Mostly redlinks, no notable songs or albums, article reads like an advertisement. There are no references, and I have done a search and can not find anything online about this band Izzy007 Talk 22:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Based on their own MySpace page they have no label and market their own albums. Nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't meet WP:BAND. The article claims they won an college battle of the bands. That doesn't help WP:BAND either. IrishGuy ^talk 23:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable band that fails WP:MUSIC Lugnuts (talk) 09:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 18:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shoes.co.uk

Shoes.co.uk (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to be advertising for a recently established non-notable web retailer. A query on Alexa [2] indicates that the website shoes.co.uk has extremely low traffic and it is not among the top 100,000. Cambrasa (talk) 22:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, nothing substantial in Google News Archive (some hits for vegetarian-shoes.co.uk, just to confuse things). Hilariously, despite that it's their brand fpetesake, shoes.co.uk isn't even configured (www.shoes.co.uk is). Not promising. --Dhartung | Talk 00:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete' as advertisement and nothing more. House of Scandal (talk) 13:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - as advert Think outside the box 20:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. If someone wants to transwiki the content, please let me know and I will provide the text and history. --jonny-mt 14:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dawn of War Units, Buildings, Upgrades, and Abilities

Dawn of War Units, Buildings, Upgrades, and Abilities (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a gamefaq, similar pages have already been deleted in the past (pretty much for every popular videogame out there), also there is already a Dawn of War wiki: [3] Kessingler (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT#MANUAL Cambrasa (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as a game guide -- Whpq (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fancruft. Also, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Age of Empires III military units & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buildings of Age of Empires III, 2 similiar debates, have had as a result "delete"; so I suppose that the result should be the same here. ♠TomasBat 21:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 05:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: Not a game guide, and "fancruft" is never an appropriate reason for deleting an article. MalikCarr (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - No assertion of notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and tag for cleanup The article's brand new. Give it a little time-- we don't have deadlines around here. Assertions of cruft violate WP:AGF and should be discounted. Jtrainor (talk) 03:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Transwiki and delete in-depth list which gives undue weight to individual minor aspects of gameplay, WP is not GameFAQs [4]. Belongs on strategywiki, encyclopedia gamia or a Warhammer wiki where it can continue to be developed. Someoneanother 10:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 01:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Indt2.sys

Indt2.sys (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable malward file. Original research, violation of WP:NOT. J Milburn (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, seems to be WP:OR. The file does appear to be malware but so are a lot of programs. Fails WP:SOFTWARE. --Dhartung | Talk 00:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete by me, A7, again. J Milburn (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BLADEWiki

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

been speedy deleted a few times now under CSD A7 (Web) ninety:one 22:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bypin

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

In its first version this was a dicdef and given a PROD as such. It has now expanded to be a story about a song by Niall Quinn, and its performance in Trafalgar Square on St Patrick's day, and a word arising from it. The problem is that the source given is about St Patrick's day but does not mention Mr Quinn's performance, and a search for "Niall Quinn bypin" produces nothing. Delete as not notable because no sources. JohnCD (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, per nominator. (note: that search currently shows.... WP's article and this discussion. Only.) - Nabla (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete It is highly debatable that the article's content is factual. –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pokemon Diamond And Pearl Cards

Pokemon Diamond And Pearl Cards (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a list, directory, source of original research or a crystal ball. This article covers all of these, and also contains unnecessary information (as such information can be found in the right places, such as Bulbapedia, and much better quality). Cipher ^(Talk) 21:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: This is a hugely popular subject, as can been seen by the large number of edits to the article in recent months, as well as the thousands of Google hits it gets. Surely these two factors make the subject a notable topic for Wikipedia? Having said that, it could really do with a very good clean up. --Seahamlass (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Not a Pokemon person, but there seem to be plenty of relevant sources
  • http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/27/business/27pokemon.html?pagewanted=all
  • http://www.playthings.com/article/CA6449264.html
  • http://www.gazette.com/articles/pok%C3%A9mon_22169___article.html/game_blue.html
  • http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=Pokemon+Diamond+And+Pearl+Cards&um=1&sa=N&start=10 Hobit (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - given the huge number of articles on minor anime and so forth, this hugely popular game deserves articles. Cinnamon colbert (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Sigh; as much as I dislike the game, it is hugely popular and should have an article. King Pickle (talk) 00:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • It already has two which are much more in-depth and necessary, here and here. Cipher ^(Talk) 18:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Yep, but given the sales of each set, not to mention the (apparent) details and references, I think each set is more than notable enough for an article. Hobit (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as said above, but clean the article up some. Izzy007 Talk 17:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. Wizardman 01:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Takam-Chi (film)

Takam-Chi (film) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

tagged for speedy delete, creator removed tag. title returns no google results. ninety:one 21:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: Seems rather like nonsense to me, as absolutely NOTHING comes up on Google, Ask, Yahoo or DogPile. Note: There is a second similar article on Wikipedia, Takam-Chi, which mentions the film. However, this page was only created recently too.--Seahamlass (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Google brings forth very little on Yadollah Samadi (the director). Yahoo claims he did a film in 1986 entitled The Bus and MSN has The Bus and The Man Who Knew More from 1985. A search for "Yadollah Samadi" and "Takam-Chi" brings forth Wikipedia and nothing else. IrishGuy ^talk 23:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: As I wrote elsewhere, it is a sad day when Google is considered to be source of knowledge. What I do not understand is: why should I have initiated the entry Takam-Chi (film) if this film did not exist? After all, I did not join Wikipedia today of yesterday? Moreover, there is no history suggesting that I might have perpetrated hoaxs here or elsewhere. Why do some people think that if something does not exist according to Google, that thing must not exist at all? Have we become robots? In this particular case, the film at issue was release only two days ago! How could Google possibly have a record of it? Why such a haste? --BF 23:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete; Google will turn up films that won't be released for years; films aren't made in a day, you know. Even after we put aside any question of a hoax, what about the standards for WP:NF? The fact that there's no source on the net, no matter how brief or unreliable, is not a good sign that this film has reliable sources.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Keep; okay, we have at least one cite in the article. If it had been there from the start, this all would have been a lot easier.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Google Persian turns up a lot of hits [[5]]. Sometimes, some things might not be well known in the English speaking world and I think Wikipedia is a good way to introduce it. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Then add some appropriate cites to that article. That'll make it at least possible to try and discuss the cites and whether it's notable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay I added one. There are more, but I guess one is enough to show the film exists :) --alidoostzadeh (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: Its a real movie as you can see here [6].Nokhodi (talk) 01:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • If you can read thatand tell what it says, why do you add it to the article as a cite?--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Redmarkviolinist's passionate defense of the article notwithstanding, this person does not come close to meeting our notability guideline for athletes. Only in the rarest of circumstances are high school athletes notable enough for Wikipedia; examples would be LeBron James and O.J. Mayo, who had their high school games nationally televised, were regularly featured in magazines such as Sports Illustrated and programs such as SportsCenter, Around the Horn and Pardon the Interruption. Ms. Clay should be commended for her achievement, but let's be honest about what she did: she set an obscure high school record in a fairly unpopular sport (relatively speaking, no offense intended). When she competes at the Olympics or whatever the world championship is for her sport, then she'll be deserving of an article, but breaking a high school record, while it's something to be proud of, does not merit an encyclopedia entry. faithless (^speak) 07:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Emily Clay

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

High school athlete, from what I can tell probably not notable due to a lack of significant coverage by reliable, independent sources. Guest9999 (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

See some of my responses below, but considering that she has not vaulted in any IHSA meets, she has not been recorded under their records. Redmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 16:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete - A quick google check or Emily Clay, pole vault shows some mention in local periodicals and that she has broken some county records but only in a few sentences here and there and localised blogs. I seriously doubt if she has any national or world significance, she is still a high schooler. She might be a prospect in a few years but at present I see a distinct lack of reasoning why she should constitute a world encyclopedic article. Covering high schoolers I think sets a bad example unless they have national significance. Fails WP:BIO. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply - First of all, you can not decide on if an article is notable or not solely by Googling the subject. Next, she does have national significance, or did you just not read the article? She also has world significance for her age. See my responses below. All in all, this article does NOT fail WP:BIO. Redmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 16:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete: Lots of ghits, but mainly just listings for competitions. She might hold a junior high school record, but other people are jumping higher than her now, as this link shows:[7] --Seahamlass (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. She is not in College, and considering that you didn't even get that part of the information right, how can you be trusted to have even read anything up? By the way, it is not only county records she has broken. She has broken the Illinois record for girl's pole vault, and she is expected to break the national record in the next to years. (Even though expected usually does not count for anything.) Redmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 14:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - coverage consists of local high school results. As an athlete, doesn't meet WP:BIO as she is not competing at the top level of her sport, and there is no significant reliable coverage to establish any notability -- Whpq (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

So you are stating that the first freshman in the country to pole vault 12 feet is not notable? She also set the Illinois state record for Junior High. Also, you can't judge to see if a person is notable solely by Googling them. I was there when she did that jump, and I saw her receive that record. You can take a look at the school homepage. [8] She is indeed notable. Redmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 14:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply - yes I am saying that it is not notabble. Where is the coverage from reliable sources to support the notability? Personal observation is not considered a reliable source, nor is the home page of the school that she attends. If you can provide reliable sources, then I'll happily change my vote. but I don't see any, nor can I find any.-- Whpq (talk) 15:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• My final vote - Keep. Emily Clay is a freshman in High School, and she has not participated in any IHSA (Illinois High School Association) meets, such as Regionals, Sectionals, or State. Therefore, when she vaulted 12 feet at a local meet, no 'authorities' heard about this. I can give references to Junior High meets when she broke both the Illinois and National Records for Girls pole vault, but until the IHSA hosts any of the meets stated by myself above, she will not be recorded on the internet. In about mid to late April, plenty of references will be up that I will be happy to share. Currently, Emily Clay is tied for the World Record for her age, she has broken both the Illinois and National records. All of this was found out in about 2 minutes of research after the meet. So, I vote that this article should be kept and it will be over-suitably referenced by mid to late August. Redmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 02:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply - I'm not sure I understand what you are stating. If she vaulted at an unsanctioned event, then there's no record to be had as there has not been verified oversight of the conditions and measurements. And as for world record for her age , can you explain? According to the IAAF, the world record for girl's pole vault for youth is 4.4 metres (IAAF World record listing for girls youth) which is over 14 feet. -- Whpq (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply - The meet was not unsanctioned. It consisted of 5 teams, and the height was indeed verified, but it was just not posted on the internet. The world record for her age (14-15 years old, freshmen) is 12 foot also. She is expected to break this height by the next meet, on Tuesday. The world record that you posted for youth is under 18. She still has four more years to break this. By mid-April as I stated above, she will be recorded as the Illinois state record holder. Considering that she has not vaulted in any IHSA meets yet, her height has not be recorded in any site other than local records. Redmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 16:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any references for the current world record for 14-15? The IAAF does not appear to have any such age categorisation. As for the sanctioning, what was the sanctioning body? As you can see, reliable sources remain a problem. -- Whpq (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have a reference, but it is not online. It is in a book/pamphlet/magazine that states the records. The sanctioning body was Illinois Wesleyan University; they held the meet for the 5 or 6 local high schools. Redmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 18:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I would expect that the Illinois Wesleyan University woiuld be the host, but an organisation such as the NCAA would be the sanctioning body, except the NCAA covers college sports. And you stated it wasn't IHSA which I would assume would be the sanctioning body. -- Whpq (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The only times that the IHSA sanctions during track is during Regionals, Sectionals, or State. IWU chose to hold an indoor track meet for the relatively local high schools. The majority of High School track meets are run by high schools. Redmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 20:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. There are no reliable secondary sources, and, based on the discussion above, it appears that the notability of the subject was established only by original research. Ketsuekigata (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply. Incorrect. The nobility of the subject was NOT established only by individual research, or did you not read the discussion above? There is a meet at IWU this Saturday-it is like finals for the series of events held there. There will be results posted after that, and I will put them up here. ṜέđṃάяķvίʘĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 03:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Discussion below indicates that the article violates WP:SYN and WP:NPOV. --jonny-mt 14:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline of the future

Timeline of the future (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a textbook example of an indiscriminate collection of information. It isn't that it is crystal balling, because we can document predictions, it is that placing a number of calender events, with sporting plans, and environmental predictions constitutes an original synthesis. None of this is sourced, but even if sourced, why should we use one scientists prediction of the effects of global warming over another's (that's POV). Basically this is going nowhere encyclopedic. Doc^g 21:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, per nominator. As it stands this page is ridiculous: an amalgam of near-term sporting events, far-distant cosmic and geological forecasts, and entirely speculative predictions of natural disasters and economic trends. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete A real fringe theory WP:FRINGE, would have to be proved, and covered to be notable. AlbinoFerret (talk) 05:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete As per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Unfortunately. Lawrence § t/e 17:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep This is a useful article, and it could be more useful if people would contribute to it instead of trying to delete it. I've heard of original sin, but I didn't know that there was a sin of original synthesis! What does "Doc glasgow" mean by "None of this is sourced?" All the things in the table are links, and those links provide the source material! It sounds to me like my article is becoming the victim of sceptics about global warming. As to what Christopher Parham says, the reason that it is an amalgam of near-term, fairly trivial things, and far-term events is that it is a logarithmic scale which gives more weight to the near future. This is entirely natural, since the density of events we can predict (events per unit time) decreases with distance into the future (see logarithmic timeline). As for the far-term predictions being speculative, they are not! I'm willing to debate you on any one of them. And what theory is AlbinoFerret referring to when he says "A real fringe theory"? Which prediction? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 10:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep content merged to Corinne Bailey Rae and redirect. Notability for own article is not clear from the discussion but notability by association is. (I did a brute force merge, I ask editors with more knowledge of the subject to please help with the cleanup) - Nabla (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Rae (musician)

Jason Rae (musician) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable musician- fails WP:BLP1E as famous for one thing- dying. Member of a redlink band; may warrant a mention on his wife's page, but certainly not his own. Prod removed without explanation. J Milburn (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Due to convincing evidence and a good rewrite, I am convinced that the subject warrants an article. I am not withdrawing my nomination due to the large number of people favouring deletion, but I now feel it should be kept. J Milburn (talk) 12:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete or A case may be able to be made for a brief mention on the article about the band, if the page existed or a new section within Corinne Bailey Rae. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 20:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Famous relative, not notable himself.Be best (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge into the Corinne Bailey Rae but keep on the Recent Deaths section. Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, more than just a relative of a notable person, Rae was a noted saxophonist and a member of the band The Haggis Horns. His death, sadly, also adds to his notability. --Philip Stevens (talk) 21:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Do you have any references suggesting his notability as a saxophonist? J Milburn (talk) 21:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
    • According to this BBC report on his death. --Philip Stevens (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
      • that was reporting on his death, not a proper report about the actual band. Unless someone can find an article/review about him (not just the band which some people have been referring to), then this should be deleted. Some famous bands don't even have separate pages for their band members, so I don't see why he should. I'm guessing the sympathy factor is playing a big card here. Feudonym (talk) 12:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete redlink band, delete unless someone can find references per above. Izzy007 Talk 21:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge I agree with Chandlerjoeyross, add this death to his wife's article. Death does not make someone notable. Raphie (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Philip Stevens. He is notable and his death only adds to his media coverage. Death might not make someone notable, but national (and possibly international) media coverage of his death, in addition to the press attention that he has already received, does. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 22:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • This press coverage that no one is showing us... J Milburn (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I did consider the notability of this person before creating the article and I believe that he meets the standards of a wikipedia article because of three good reasons: 1) The story of his death made national news 2) His band, despite not having a page on wiki, are fairly well known and 3) He was the spouse of Corinne Bailey Rae, a reasonably big musician in both the UK and abroad at the moment.—Jkaharper (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect and compact this information into his wife's article. There's nothing to suggest, beyond current news reports which just repeat the same information, that he has any long term notability standalone, and his group that he is a member of seems NN at the moment unless anyone can prove otherwise. If it came down to it though, I'd go for a weak keep over a delete, but merging seems like the best option.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to wife's article. When the BBC headline is "Bailey Rae's husband dies", that suggests much. --Dhartung | Talk 00:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep if his notability can be established and referenced. Otherwise, Merge into his wife's article, and redirect the page there. Paul20070 (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete notable as spouse of celebrity.- Gilliam (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete/Redirect - keeping an article just because he died, is very silly indeed. His band isn't even considered notable so neither should he. Feudonym (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Corinne Bailey Rae (wife)'s page. No brainer. Pluswhich (talk) 03:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• KeepI think it should stay. It meets standards and it was in the news. And the band was know too. Royalrec
  • Sources about the band? Why is everyone so terrified of providing sources? J Milburn (talk) 10:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as spouse of celebrity, notability does not transfer. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 09:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable person before he died, even less notable now. Lugnuts (talk) 09:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep He did some work with The New Mastersounds[9] and I'm a sucker for lesser known saxophonists. That plus marriage might be enough. See Eric Rosse (not a spouse, lover), Janis Gaye, Claude Williams (musician), and a few others. Still those others might be more notable so I'd be okay with a redirect to his wife, hence weakness.--T. Anthony (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, clearly fails WP:MUSIC. If we must then merge and redirect to Corinne Bailey Rae. Jdcooper (talk) 17:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, worked with some known bands,wife notable. My criteria is if someone comes looking, they ought to find it on wikipedia.Disk space is cheap. If non-notable, then no processing time will be used.Chickenboner (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Generally, we stick to the established notability guidelines rather than to the criteria of someone with a grand total of seven edits. J Milburn (talk) 10:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, and generally we try not to bite the newcomers either. --Canley (talk) 05:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Apologies, I was somewhat enraged when I made that comment. J Milburn (talk) 13:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, in typical wikipedian fashion, I hear about this musician's death on Sirius Radio and I find the article tagged for deletion. 76.226.204.233 (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • So, you're saying that you think it should stay because you've heard of it? Wikipedia is not a news service, we're an encyclopedia. J Milburn (talk) 10:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Create a Haggis Horns article, merge with this one. Haggis Horns are currently part of Mark Ronson's band. Ronson is quoted as saying they're the "best horn section in the world". They've played at the Brit Awards. links http://www.futureboogie.com/agency/haggis-horns http://www.brits.co.uk/features/articles/764/ User:joy.discovery.invention
• Merge and redirect to 'Corinne Bailey Rae' and 'Haggis Horns' should the latter appear. If he had married an ordinary lass from Aberdeen I doubt he would be notable in his own right. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 08:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep He's notable! End of story.
  • Got any evidence of that? That argument is generally not respected, and for good reason... J Milburn (talk) 10:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Please note that the above user is the same one who decided that, rather than actually working to improve the article or arguing in its favour, decided to attack myself and others on the article talk page. J Milburn (talk) 11:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
      • J Milburn, again I ask that you refrain from your personal attacks against me. You must have a vendetta against me and I find that detrimental to the discussion. The fact that this debate has been continuing shows the notability of Jason Rae. Notability is not solely based on mainstream media attention. James1906
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Leithp 20:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Normally we encourage articles on the recently dead (see Deaths in 2008 and there are multiple verifiable sources. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The story was on the cover of several newspapers, and in almost all of them yesterday. I live in aberdeen and have met Jason's brother(?) in the past. mrkpwnz (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep So apart from his widely reported death, his marriage, and his band he's not notable. If Rae's notability was asserted by one of those, I'd agree the article should probably be merged or deleted, but three? I agree with the nominator that he fails WP:BLP1E though – but that's because he's dead! We can wikilawyer all day about inherited notability and "one event fame" but where there's seven references for a stub I'm all for erring on the side of keep. (PS. I've added a reference from the BRIT awards and an MSN Music list of albums he has played on). --Canley (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Corinne Bailey Rae. Other than his notable widow, he wasn't notable before he died, and there wasn't anything notable about his death. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per Jauerback, not notable on his own. Gran² 22:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep He was a successful studio musician before his death, and had recorded and performed with notable artists. His death has received considerable international coverage, and he's had an extensive obituary written about his life in the Daily Mail. I agree with Canley - successful musician, married to a famous singer, and a widely reported death (with some interesting stories starting to emerge, such as in regard to Amy Winehouse) combine to establish notability. If nothing else, Wikipedia is a logical place for people to look for information about him now that he has died. - Bilby (talk) 04:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Not only does this more references than most articles not under review for deletion, this is clearly a notable topic and person. Considering we want, and continue to have people coming to Wikipedia to be fully informed, this page needs to stay.Asdfaeou. (talk) 01:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep seriously, compared some of the rubbish that merits an entry on this so-called encyclopaedia, this notable musician is of interest to plenty of people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.177.219 (talk) 11:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete (redirecting is at editor's discretion. I did it) - Nabla (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Harvard Shop

The Harvard Shop (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:ORG. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

This page provides information about one of several prominent retail businesses that compete to provide quality Harvard merchandise. The Harvard University campus is a tourist hotspot, and as such, competition for tourism is quite a notable subject. In addition, the Harvard Shop's membership in Harvard Student Agencies, Inc., a storied organization with a 50-year history that boasts the title of world's largest student-run corporation, makes the Shop an inherent subject of interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djlee512 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 23 March 2008

• Comment this isn't an article, its a redirect. If you wanna delete the article please nominate that article for deletion. I don't think a redirect itself would be worthwhile to delete. Chimeric Glider (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a redirect now, not previously. The article in which it is redirecting seems to be well-sourced, but when I AfD'd this, there were no source. I will not nominate the other becuase the other has sources. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to Harvard Student Agencies, per WP:V. I will note I reverted the redirect; articles up for AfD should not be redirected, since it confuses the issues.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. --jonny-mt 14:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ingrid Andersen

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

Apparent autobiography of an author. Article was deleted via WP:PROD in November, but the deletion was contested later. Hence it goes here for wider discussion. B. Wolterding (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep but cleanup. From a quick Google search, Ingrid Andersen meets the notability guideline. POV should be removed but the article shouldn't be deleted. PeterSymonds | talk 20:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Since the article was written by the subject, is inherently POV and entirely unsourced, would it not be better to take a fresh start? --B. Wolterding (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The article already had sources, but they weren't in a references section. I fixed that. --Eastmain (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to The Colbert Report. --jonny-mt 14:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Colbert it

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

This is a non-notable idiom. The article is heavily biased (plenty of weasel-words), lacks in-line citations, and is irrelevant overall -- notability has not been established. Wikipedia is not a repository of neologisms or quotes from TV shows -- and this is one step worse, it's something said by fans ABOUT a personality on a TV show; it's not even from the show itself. Poorly-written stub articles about things like this classify as fancruft. There is no point is merging this into the Colbert Report article, as all the same flaws would still exist there, and it wouldn't be contributing to that article (especially since the goal is, as with all articles, for it to be professional). Mr. P. S. Phillips (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect Shouldn't warrant an article, but I think a redirect to The Colbert Report is okay. PeterSymonds | talk 20:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, non-notable idiom. TJ Spyke 20:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as a notable indiom, but just improve citations and wording. Consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on idioms. Also, keep per the WP:ITSCRUFT style non-argument. Happy Easter! --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as NN WP:NEO. I hear the population of Colbert-related idioms has tripled since the debut of his show. --Dhartung | Talk 22:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. needs more sources. Dwilso 04:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Redrect no value in this article. Nothing to merge into Colbert Report either.--Rtphokie (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect - to The Colbert Report Think outside the box 20:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect as above DJLayton4 (talk) 04:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect. This is precisely what Urban Dictionary was created for. (In response to Le Grand Roi's vote above, I submit that there's a huge difference between idiom and slang, and between popular slang and unpopular slang.) --zenohockey (talk) 22:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 01:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jan Olav Reither

Jan Olav Reither (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article clearly asserts notability, and by the looks of it the subject's merits are impressive. However, googling this individual yields very little to substantiate the bold claims. I'm really unsure about this one, since I hesitate to think that this is false, however, with a merit list like his, shouldn't there be at least a newspaper article somewhere? meco (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete From what little I can find, I don't think the information is false; but failing the inclusion of secondary sources, the information is completely unverifiable. I'll change my !vote if secondary sources are included. PeterSymonds | talk 20:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:V Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment, I added the one English language citation that I found, and selected one Norwegian language external link. There are several other Norwegian-language links that don't appear to have English language translation. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The two links you added are marginally useful. One confirms that he was a member of the Norwegian Architect Association, the second that he has written about the architecture of a particular kindergarten (if I understand the German correctly), which doesn't even confirm that he was its architect. __meco (talk) 08:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Rename per new sources found during AfD. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] KQPW-FM

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

No KQPW-FM exists in FCC database, nor does a KQPW-LP. The article mentions WQPW which is a station in Georgia not Illinois. Rtphokie (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete There is no West Quincy, Illinois or West Quincy, Iowa (but there is a West Quincy, Missouri, which is unincorporated), and a search of the MIT radio station directory does not show any station on the 102.5 frequency anywhere near Quincy or equivalent call letters. Nate • (chatter) 21:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I've done a bit of cleanup on this article and while I've found evidence that this station was broadcasting in 2003 [10] and 2005 [11] as well as one secondary source reference (which, of course, I've added to the article) but I suspect that this LPFM station is no longer broadcasting or has changed callsigns and frequencies. In any case, the article should be at KQPW-LP and not KQPW-FM, even if the station is (potentially) now defunct. - Dravecky (talk) 23:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Follow-up The station was granted a license to cover on 2002-09-17 as KQPW-LP, licensed to "School of Christ", community West Quincy, Missouri, on 102.5 MHz. The facility ID is 131727. Here's the FCC page. - Dravecky (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I would be willing to change over to weak keep if there are more sources to tell us this station is on the air or not, or that it has a history beyond broadcasting "techno preaching". The sourcing you've added is excellent at least. Nate • (chatter) 06:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Thanks for finding that information, is this still an active station? It's still not coming up in the FCC database so I suspect it's off the air. My meter is still in the delete range and it's going to take finding that the station is active and improving the sources a bit more to move me into anywhere near a keep.--Rtphokie (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Reply You might have noticed that I have been uncharacteristically quiet on the whole "keep or delete" question. My meter is no longer in the delete range after I was able to find that the station at least used to exist, was FCC-licensed, and had at least an amount of coverage in secondary sources. If pushed, I'll say Weak Keep and suggest we tag it as a defunct radio station and stash it in Category:Defunct radio stations in the United States until we can find more info. - Dravecky (talk) 00:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to KQPW-LP. This station is indeed defunct, as its license was canceled in 2006 [12], but it was certainly licensed and broadcasting from 2002 to at least 2005. DHowell (talk) 03:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —147.21.16.3 (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Deleted by DGG (talk · contribs) per WP:CSD#G7 (Non-admin closure).. PeterSymonds | talk 21:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Army of God against Jews, Jihad and Atheists

Army of God against Jews, Jihad and Atheists (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC) Delete. I can't find anything at all under that name. Commment Why was the page blanked? Hobit (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete and move to speedy close. Author has blanked the page. Looking at the history, the article was probably nonsense. PeterSymonds | talk 20:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Domain Registry Support

Domain Registry Support (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is about a company with doubtable business practices, and I can understand the interest of users to warn others of their methods. However, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Maybe a journalist should look into the matter, and might find a good story. However, currently it seems that no journalist has done so. As long as the entry is sourced entirely to blogs, and not to reliable sources, there's no place for this information in an encyclopaedia. Note to conspiracy theorists: I am not affiliated with the said company in any way. B. Wolterding (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - While this company's alleged business practices may in fact be deplorable, the fact is they simply have not been covered in reliable sources. The only source listed that could be considered reliable is the BetterBusinessBureau page, which is essentially a directory listing, and not enough to hang a potentially controversial encyclopedia article on. Jfire (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - I believe this company has been covered in reliable sources, including the BBB and the FTC. The article needs a lot of work, but reliable sources is not an issue IMO. I also disagree that a BBB report is essentially a directory listing. For a BBB report to exist at least one case was opened by a consumer and investigated by a BBB representative. The report is posted and maintained online for all complaints filed, so the document does not represent a single situation but a collection of all as maintained in the "Complaint Outcome Statistics" section of the report.
  • BBB.org
  • FTC.gov
  • NetworkWorld.com
  • NetRaising.com Domain Scam Alert PDF

Perhaps we just need to clean up and integrate the FTC source into the article. Corey Salzano (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply - The FTC and NetRaising.com sources are in reference to a different company entirely -- "Domain Registry of America, Inc." based in Markham, Ontario with a mail drop in Buffalo, New York, whose renewal notices feature "a red, white, and blue American flag billowing over the company’s name, Domain Registry of America" [13] (compare to Domain Registry Support, address in New York, NY, and the DRS renewal notice). The NetworkWold.com article is a post to "Gibbsblog" and, like the other blog posts, cannot be considered a reliable source. Jfire (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You are right about that being a different company in the FTC source. I'm sorry for any confusion I have caused. Corey Salzano (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, per nominator. - Nabla (talk) 12:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• To summarize: The sources "FTC" and "Netrasing.com" are about a different company. "Networkworld" is a blog post. There remains a short listing by a customer watchdog organization, which apparently received 3 complaints. Additionally, that "Domain Registry Support" and "Domain Support Group" (as listed on BBB.org) are the same company seems to be original research. For me, this does not suffice. I stand by my nomination rationale. --B. Wolterding (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Laurenţiu Rotaru

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

This article does not meet the notability requirements for a wikipedia article. It is also based entirely from the individual's own website and may be an attempt at self promotion. Nrswanson (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. An article by the same name was deleted from the Romanian wikipedia, probably as a copyvio. 26 noiembrie 2007 11:47 Radufan (discuţie | contribuţii) a şters Laurenţiu Rotaru ‎ (conţinutul era: „Template:Ajutor ==Legături externe== *Situl personal al lui Laurenţiu Rotaru en:Laurenţiu Rotaru”) --Eastmain (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I added some references. Note that he reportedly toured internationally (but as part of a group of singers, rather than as a solo artist), and that he has performed at Carnegie Hall. These claims are not referenced, but sound plausible. I was able to confirm that he performed with various groups and that he was a winner of the Connecticut Opera Guild's 50th Annual Young Artist Scholarship Competition. --Eastmain (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete Most of the information in this article is taken from the artists own website. I can not find any reviews of any perfromances this artist has done and i have done a fairly exhaustive internet search. The repetoire list given seems to be mostly roles learned as opposed to roles actually performed on the stage professionally. His work with the Connecticut opera also appears to be through a Young Artist program which really would not make him notable yet. Also the NATS competition he won was for the Connecticut chapter and not on the national level. That's not really a major competition win then. Also he must have been part of an ensemble for the Carnegie hall performance or otherwise the New York Times or Village Voice etc. would have reviewed him which they haven't in doing a database search. Also, the ensembles he was touring with are not highly notable groups. One was a seminary choir. That is not exactly notable work. This artist has not sung anything but minor roles in professional productions and the productions through the Young Artist program at Connecticut Opera. He is an opera singer in training basically. Not really the stuff of a wikipedia article.Nrswanson (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable and the page is a copy and paste job anyway. -- Kleinzach (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Zero non-trivial independent coverage combined with a lack of leading roles with notable companies and a failure to win any prizes in significant competitions at national level. Having fulfilled one of these criteria might have made up for lack of the others, but this is not the case here. His performances so far have all been via student productions or young artists' programmes (and not even in major roles) and as a member of a seminary or university choir. The competitions he 'won', weren't exactly 'won'. In the case of the NATS, he came in second in a preliminary round for the regionals and progressed no further. The Connecticut Guild Opera Competition is set up to award scholarship money to local singing students, and again he came in second. In the other two competitions mentioned (also minor), he was only a finalist, i.e., not a winner. As for Carnegie Hall, even if he were the featured soloist, which he apparently wasn't, anyone can rent the Hall for the evening. It looks like that particular evening was a fundraiser for the Connecticut Lyric Opera (a very minor company, using mainly students for their productions). He might become notable one day, but he definitely isn't notable now. Voceditenore (talk) 08:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Needs to at least have some reliable sources to prove notability; otherwise it fails WP:CORP, WP:V, etc. As DGG mentioned, it isn't technically a speedy since there is assertion of notability, though given the barren state of sources I'll delete for now. If they pop up in the future, feel free to recreate the article. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 23:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zeitgeist Project

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

Hmmm... what to say about this one? According to its website the Zeitgeist Project is "a bold and historic initiative that seeks to bring together under one roof a society’s most influential leaders, thinkers, and artists not only to celebrate the Zeitgeist but also to address viral ideologies." Apparently it will be led by a panel of "royalty, heads of state, UN representatives, international business leaders and Nobel Laureates." Oddly though, for such a lofty organisation, its website offers no information whatsoever about who is behind the project, or who these world leaders and Nobel Laureates are. And given its crucial importance, it seems strange that Google finds only 82 hits for the phrase "Zeitgeist Project", few or none of which appear to relate to this organisation. And it's odder still that an organisation of global importance seems to use linkspamming across on Wikipedia as its main method of publicising itself (see the revision histories of Zeitgeist and Zeitgeist the Movie - the latter particularly inappropriate as the website declares loudly that it has nothing to do with the movie). I can only conclude that this is one of three things: a shadowy, secretive and therefore unverifiable organisation; something just invented by a person whose ambitions are far greater than his connections; or an outright fabrication. Whichever of the three it is, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 19:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Fractionally more substance than a typical MADEUP article but nowhere near enough to justify inclusion. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - no evidence of notability, only source is their own website. JohnCD (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• See Talk:Zeitgeist Project for the article author's response to this. I'm not convinced; I concur with Iain99 and recommend deletion. -- The Anome (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per above. It's not made up but it easily fails the notability guideline. PeterSymonds | talk 20:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• RELY In response to the request for deletion of "Zeitgeist Project":

1. The reason sited for deletion is: "non-notable organisation. A glance at their website will show that it does not exist yet Speedy concern: non-notable organisation. A glance at their website will show that it does not exist yet." THIS IS FALSE. The site does exist (www.zeitgeistproject.org)

2. It is claimed: "it seems strange that Google finds only 82 hits for the phrase "Zeitgeist Project", few or none of which appear to relate to this organisation" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zeitgeist_Project). THIS IS CORRECT, but this is only because the Zeitgeist Project only went live a few days ago. Therefore, the above reason for deletion is not justifiable.

3. It is claimed: "Oddly though, for such a lofty organisation, its website offers no information whatsoever about who is behind the project, or who these world leaders and Nobel Laureates are." As stated on the Zeitgeist Project website, the project is ONLY in its infancy stages. The website NO where claims that the advisory board exists. The website's intend "is" to explain the vision and scope of what the Zeitgeist Project CAN be.

4. It is claimed: "And it's odder still that an organisation of global importance seems to use linkspamming across Wikipedia as its main method of publicising itself." To use the word "across" is hyperbolic. The author of this criticism only offers two examples one of which is the article "Zeitgeist". Since the Zeitgeist Project directly pertains to the Zeitgeist then how is adding an external and internal link to the "Zeitgeist" Wikipedia article a form of "linkspamming"?I wonder if the author of this criticism is the same author of the Zeitgeist article entry.

5. It is claimed: "I can only conclude that this is one of three things: a shadowy, secretive and therefore unverifiable organisation; something just invented by a person whose ambitions are far greater than his connections; or an outright fabrication. Whichever of the three it is, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia." None of these claims have any substance, in fact these remarks border on being incendiary. This person's entire case for deletion is a non sequitur. For example, to claim that Zeitgeist Project is an "ambitious" project and THEREFORE should be deleted is simply nonsensical and should not even require a response. However, a response is required or the Zeitgeist Project entry will be deleted. Second, there is nothing "shadowy" and/or "secretive" about the Zeitgeist Project. Did the author of this criticism actually read what the Zeitgeist Project hopes to accomplish? What it is promoting is anything but "shadowy" - ambitious yes, but surely NOT secretive. Finally, what is meant by "outright fabrication"? Clearly this is another example of a type of ignoratio elenchi fallacy. --Charles vanier (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as an hypothetical organisation with no real evidence of even existence, but I do nto see how it is really fits the dfefinition of speedy, since it does assert importance.DGG (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

---

• Dear DGG, thank you for your remarks. You are correct the criticism against the Zeitgeist Project does not fall under the definition of "speedy". Please define as to what constitutes a "hypothetical organization" and what would constitute, in your own words, "real evidence"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles vanier (talk • contribs)

---

• Comment Charles, I suggest you read our policies and guidelines on notability, verifiability, reliable sources and speculation. If, as you say, this is a nascent organisation with no coverage in reliable sources (such as newspapers) then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia yet. Being ambitious is good, but at the moment there is no way for the rest of us to tell whether your ability to carry the project through matches your ambitions, and therefore whether anything will come of it. As such an article at this time would be premature. If you do manage to recruit world leaders and Nobel laureates to your group though, you will get plenty of coverage and an article would be guaranteed. Until then though, the mere fact that you desire to recruit them is not by itself enough. Sorry for suggesting the organisation was a fabrication but - here's some friendly advice - by making so many claims about how important the Zeitgeist Project is going to be and providing so little support for them (even contact details are missing), your site does look like some of the hoax websites I've seen. We get a lot of them here. As for the linking, see Wikipedia:External links; Wikipedia articles are not places to collect any and all links with a tangential relevance to the subject of the article. The correct place for a link to zeitgeistproject would be the organisation's article itself - if it survives this AfD. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 22:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

---

• Dear Iain99, thank you for your insightful remarks. As I am new to Wikipedia I am in the process of learning all the various "rules." I have read carefully the "Notability" article [14], however, I am not claiming the "notability criterion" as a means of authenticity. You correctly mention that there is "no way" of knowing "whether anything will come of it (Zeitgeist Project)". You are correct. As in most things in life there are no certainties. I will do everything in my power to make this vision a reality. If you recognize the value of appropriating "Unity in diversity for the purpose of cultivating peace" then I humbly submit this article on the Zeitgeist Project as a MEANS of moving the project along. As you are well aware Wikipedia is a powerful tool of communication, hence my reason in submitting the "Zeitgeist Project" article. Second, "contact details are (not) missing" (please see [15]). To your credit, the Contact link may have been dead when you checked. I must confess, I do not understand when you say that "your site does look like some of the hoax website." I can assure you it is not. Please read my bio [16]

---

--Charles vanier (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable based on author's description here. Klausness (talk) 01:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Per obvious COI issue as Charles vanier claims to be the founder of said group! Also, despite its grand ideas, the group doesn't meet them yet. Perhaps one day, if it can ever achieve such a status it might be worthy of an article, but as the group just went live a few days ago (and did so without heads of state/nobel laureates) then it is currently not notable.Balloonman (talk) 06:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep.

- What the common denominator amongst those who are requesting deletion is the consistent lack of sustained argument.

- Notice that no one actually quotes from Wikipedia deletion policy. This is very telling. For example, Balloonman states that his ‘reason’ for deletion is COI. A cursory reading of Wikipedia’s official policy about deletion clearly does NOT state that COI is one of its criteria.

- Given the lack of cogent arguments, it is also suspect why people even “feel” compelled to submit a request for deletion, especially given the fact that they make vague and incorrect assertions about Wikipedia’s official policy.

- In other words, it makes sense to submit a request for deletion when there is justifiable warrant after explicitly citing from Wikipedia’s official policy pertaining to causes for deletion. --Charles vanier (talk) 14:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

---

• Delete. Waffly article about a plan or scheme which apparently lacks reliable sources indicating notability at the moment. If this becomes notable, another Bilderberg Group, Bohemian Club, or Council on Foreign Relations, we'll know that the Illuminati are behind it, but at least it will be notable. But not yet. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Nabla (talk) 02:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speed limits in Washington

Speed limits in Washington (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article has been left incomplete, and has been touched sparingly since its creation. The information that is there is entirely uncited, and possibly incorrect. (Being from the area, I can tell you that most of the counties colored "Other" in the map should probably be colored for 60 mph.) Furthermore, the topic is just too darn specific to be notable/encyclopedic. (No other U.S. state has such an article.) Kéiryn ^talk 19:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. There's nothing in this article that's significantly different from the speed limits of any other state. Add to that the hand-waving peacock word "usually" and there's no practical content at all. --Dhartung | Talk 20:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Too much about specifics. There is nothing remarkable about these speed limits, from what I can see, and therefore fails WP:NOTE. Plus the table is, with the exception of one cell, empty. PeterSymonds | talk 21:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- Eóin (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing notable in the very limited content of the article. Eóin (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. But needs to add more sources. Dwilso 04:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - far to specific. Are we going to have an article for every state? Think outside the box 20:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Wizardman 02:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Savannah State University College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences

Savannah State University College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Google searches reveal little coverage of this topic. It fails to satisfy notability guidelines because it provides no reliable sources that have significant coverage of the college itself (accreditation databases are not significant coverage). It has little potential to become notable in the future. Noetic Sage 19:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —Noetic Sage 19:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, but improve the article by giving it an appropriate lead, reference citations, etc. This is a fork off from Savannah State University, although the article fails to mention its parentage. Notability derives from the main article. It looks to me like it was split off without bringing along the reference citations or writing a lead. I would suggest merging it back into the parent article, but Savannah State University is long enough without including this content. --Orlady (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: In fact, notability is not inherited from a parent article. Just because Savannah State University is notable does not mean that all of its constituent colleges are notable. Each subarticle still has to satisfy general notability guidelines on its own.—Noetic Sage 20:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I think the important sections are:
      • "In addition, notability of a parent entity or topic (of a parent-child "tree") does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities." And
      • "Often, a separate article is created for formatting and display purposes. However, this does not imply an "inherited notability" per se"

Hobit (talk) 02:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. This is information that should be pared to fit into the parent article. Wikipedia is not a directory of every academic program within a school. The American definition of college is not sufficiently independent from the university to merit a separate article. --Dhartung | Talk 20:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep but, wiki should have some policy on schools - clearly, every accredited Ph.D. granting institution, all landgrant colleges etc are worthy, but is there a line ? many local schools have a wiki aritcle, so I don't see why a whole college can't have one.Cinnamon colbert (talk) 23:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - This article was created because the Savannah State University article was tagged as {{verylong}}. This article was created to retain the information in Wikipedia. As previously stated with the recommending editor I do not agree with deletion recommendation, however, I am the origianal editor. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 00:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Classic breakout article per WP:SIZE. Hobit (talk) 01:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The major divisions of a university are notable, because enough important things can be said and sourced about them. It would be notable if free-standing, and it's no less notable though it is part of a larger unit. DGG (talk) 05:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Bundle Merge Savannah State University College of Business Administration, Savannah State University College of Sciences and Technology, and Savannah State University College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences into Savannah State University Academics. Although I agree with Noetic Sage in citing WP:ITSA, merging all subsequent colleges into one article should definitely demonstrate proper notability (I mean it's the academics part of the university...:D). Note recent move I made from List of Florida Institute of Technology Colleges and Laboratories -> Florida Institute of Technology Academics. This has been done to other university articles as well and it's worked out quite well. (Off-topic Side-note: we might need to bundle merge subsequent colleges belonging to University of Florida.) - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, this administrative division of the school is not notable. Although it has many students, faculty and buildings, it really consists of little more than a few rules and a few bureaucrats that function in the background of the university's real functions. An example of a notable administrative subunit of a university is the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, which might have a bit too many listed profs, but has oodles of sources for its top ten rankings; in BusinessWeek, The Economist, Financial Times, Forbes, USA Today, US News & World Report, and the Wall Street Journal. AnteaterZot (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - These 3 Savannah State University articles proposed for deletion are not about school administration. Rather, they comprise most of Wikipedia's content about this university's academic programs. --Orlady (talk) 02:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Wizardman 02:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Savannah State University College of Sciences and Technology

Savannah State University College of Sciences and Technology (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Google searches reveal little coverage of this topic. It fails to satisfy notability guidelines because it provides no reliable sources that have significant coverage of the college itself (accreditation databases are not significant coverage). It has little potential to become notable in the future. Noetic Sage 19:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —Noetic Sage 19:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, but improve the article by giving it an appropriate lead, reference citations, etc. This is a fork off from Savannah State University, although the article fails to mention its parentage. Notability derives from the main article. It looks to me like it was split off without bringing along the reference citations or writing a lead. I would suggest merging it back into the parent article, but Savannah State University is long enough without including this content. --Orlady (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: In fact, notability is not inherited from a parent article. Just because Savannah State University is notable does not mean that all of its constituent colleges are notable. Each subarticle still has to satisfy general notability guidelines on its own.—Noetic Sage 20:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. This is information that should be pared to fit into the parent article. Wikipedia is not a directory of every academic program within a school. The American definition of college is not sufficiently independent from the university to merit a separate article. --Dhartung | Talk 20:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - This article was created because the Savannah State University article was tagged as {{verylong}}. This article was created to retain the information in Wikipedia. As previously stated with the recommending editor I do not agree with deletion recommendation, however, I am the origianal editor. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 00:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Classic breakout article per WP:SIZE. These probably should have been bundled. Hobit (talk) 02:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The major divisions of a university are notable, because enough important things can be said and sourced about them. It would be notable if free-standing, and it's no less notable though it is part of a larger unit. DGG (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Bundle Merge Savannah State University College of Business Administration, Savannah State University College of Sciences and Technology, and Savannah State University College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences into Savannah State University Academics. Although I agree with Noetic Sage in citing WP:ITSA, merging all subsequent colleges into one article should definitely demonstrate proper notability (I mean it's the academics part of the university...:D). Note recent move I made from List of Florida Institute of Technology Colleges and Laboratories -> Florida Institute of Technology Academics. This has been done to other university articles as well and it's worked out quite well. (Off-topic Side-note: we might need to bundle merge subsequent colleges belonging to University of Florida.) - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, this administrative division of the school is not notable. Although it has many students, faculty and buildings, it really consists of little more than a few rules and a few bureaucrats that function in the background of the university's real functions. An example of a notable administrative subunit of a university is the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, which might have a bit too many listed profs, but has oodles of sources for its top ten rankings; in BusinessWeek, The Economist, Financial Times, Forbes, USA Today, US News & World Report, and the Wall Street Journal. AnteaterZot (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - These 3 Savannah State University articles proposed for deletion are not about school administration. Rather, they comprise most of Wikipedia's content about this university's academic programs. --Orlady (talk) 02:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Wizardman 02:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Savannah State University College of Business Administration

Savannah State University College of Business Administration (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Google searches reveal little coverage of this topic. It fails to satisfy notability guidelines because it provides no reliable sources that have significant coverage of the college itself (accreditation databases are not significant coverage). Noetic Sage 19:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —Noetic Sage 19:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, but improve the article by giving it an appropriate lead, reference citations, etc. This is a fork off from Savannah State University, although the article fails to mention its parentage. Notability derives from the main article. It looks to me like it was split off without bringing along the reference citations or writing a lead. I would suggest merging it back into the parent article, but Savannah State University is long enough without including this content. --Orlady (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: In fact, notability is not inherited from a parent article. Just because Savannah State University is notable does not mean that all of its constituent colleges are notable. Each subarticle still has to satisfy general notability guidelines on its own.—Noetic Sage 20:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. This is information that should be pared to fit into the parent article. Wikipedia is not a directory of every academic program within a school. The American definition of college is not sufficiently independent from the university to merit a separate article. --Dhartung | Talk 20:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - This article was created because the Savannah State University article was tagged as {{verylong}}. This article was created to retain the information in Wikipedia. As previously stated with the recommending editor I do not agree with deletion recommendation, however, I am the origianal editor. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 00:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Classic breakout article per WP:SIZE. This really should have been bundled.... Hobit (talk) 02:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and expand The major divisions of a university are notable, because enough important things can be said and sourced about them. It would be notable if free-standing, and it's no less notable though it is part of a larger unit. DGG (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Bundle Merge Savannah State University College of Business Administration, Savannah State University College of Sciences and Technology, and Savannah State University College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences into Savannah State University Academics. Although I agree with Noetic Sage in citing WP:ITSA, merging all subsequent colleges into one article should definitely demonstrate proper notability (I mean it's the academics part of the university...:D). Note recent move I made from List of Florida Institute of Technology Colleges and Laboratories -> Florida Institute of Technology Academics. This has been done to other university articles as well and it's worked out quite well. (Off-topic Side-note: we might need to bundle merge subsequent colleges belonging to University of Florida.) - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 22:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, this administrative division of the school is not notable. Although it has many students, faculty and buildings, it really consists of little more than a few rules and a few bureaucrats that function in the background of the university's real functions. An example of a notable administrative subunit of a university is the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, which might have a bit too many listed profs, but has oodles of sources for its top ten rankings; in BusinessWeek, The Economist, Financial Times, Forbes, USA Today, US News & World Report, and the Wall Street Journal. AnteaterZot (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - These 3 Savannah State University articles proposed for deletion are not about school administration. Rather, they comprise most of Wikipedia's content about this university's academic programs. --Orlady (talk) 02:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 23:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] University of Georgia College of Environment & Design

University of Georgia College of Environment & Design (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

There appears to be little information on this university college anywhere. It fails to satisfy notability guidelines because it provides no reliable sources that have significant coverage of the college itself (rather than simply ranking one program in the college). Even with the best architecture program in the country, the college itself is not notable. Noetic Sage 18:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —Noetic Sage 18:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: (Disclaimer - I created this article) I believe this article meets notability guidelines. The third party sources quoted are reliable sources ("Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable"). Granted the undergrad/grad rankings are short in size, but they are non-trivial - this is a primary organization in that field and they put much work and thought into the rankings. The sources quoted show a continued presence in those rankings by the school. Also, the College's only undergraduate degree is a Bachelor of Landscape Architecture and the Master of Landscape Architecture is one of two graduate degrees, so the rankings are for the vast majority of college not just a program as mentioned above. It should be noted that the school changed it's name in 2001 so that can pose some difficulty when finding references to the school before that time. There are numerous articles about the school available (they obviously need to be put in the article itself). For example: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]. George Hargreaves is a notable alumni. Finally, this article already contains more third-party citations than any other school in Category:Landscape architecture schools. --Roswell native (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy keep - This is one of many forks from University of Georgia, which would be a huge article if it included detailed content about all sixteen of its constituent schools and colleges. It would not make much sense to delete this one article, while keeping the other fifteen separate articles for individual schools and colleges within the university. --Orlady (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - If you look at any of the other featured university articles, none of them include detailed content about all of their constituent colleges. Furthermore, many of these schools do not have subarticles for these constituent colleges. I would argue that the University of Georgia article should not have this detailed information. Wikipedia is not a guide to education or all the different academic programs in each university. I also agree that it would not make much sense to delete this while keeping the other 15 articles, which is why they should be deleted as well.—Noetic Sage 20:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - Well, if that's your perspective, please don't simply delete the articles. Instead, merge the content back into the parent article. When contributors heed the guidance at Wikipedia:Article size by splitting off article components that appear to them to have stand-alone notability, only to have the split-off articles deleted, articles like University of Georgia end up with content about peripheral topics like the history of individual campus buildings, but without content about the university's academic programs. --Orlady (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Classic breakout article per WP:SIZE. Fairly well sourced all by itself though, enough for a weak keep. Hobit (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Up-Merge and Delete I sympathize with User:Roswell native and understand where User:Orlady's rebuttal on article size, but I've read through the article, and it really doesn't seem like there's enough notability. Name change's been noted, alumni noted, but this is almost (if not exactly) like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florida Institute of Technology/College of Engineering, which was deleted without redirect after I moved it into a new list of every single college at Florida Tech. I'm not saying that since my article was deleted this one should be too, just saying that the circumstances are similar enough to bring them into comparison. Advice about bickering the reason behind an editor nominating an article for deletion is to be proactive about the deletion process and seek a way to save/salvage the information yourself. If you really want this information to be merged, copy this article into your personal user sandbox, and if/when the article is deleted, merge it into the main university article yourself. It's really that simple. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and expand The major divisions of a university are notable, because enough important things can be said and sourced about them. It would be notable if free-standing, and it's no less notable though it is part of a larger unit. There is major potential for growth, and if a merge is proposed I will surely oppose it. It seems something was done inappropriately on another article, and that should be reconsidered, not used as a precedent. DGG (talk) 05:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and expand Schools and colleges that comprise major research universities, of which UGA is one, are generally notable considering the far reaching impact in scientific understanding within the school's particular scope, as well as the $10s to 100s of millions in annual budgets and economic impact they typically encompass. This is a stub level article, however, but there is plenty of precedent for its inclusion in wikipedia. cp101p (talk) 08:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep or merge, this administrative division of the school is notable, because it has sources that say it is notable--number one in the US for landscape architecture, it seems. AnteaterZot (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep and expand This is a College within a Major Research University. Jccort (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 01:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Middle School Attached to Nanjing University

Middle School Attached to Nanjing University (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contains no reliable sources or references. Does not appear to have potential to become notable, as internet searches reveal practically no reference to this institution. Noetic Sage 18:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —Noetic Sage 18:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —KTC (talk) 18:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. KTC (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. PeterSymonds | talk 20:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to High School Affiliated to Nanjing Normal University: I did a google search on the school's Chinese name. Since in Chinese, (Chinese) 中學 (pronounced zhong xue) can mean junior high or senior high school, this article is basically reiterating the same information as High School Affiliated to Nanjing Normal University. This redirect article has minor notability (mainly from notable alumni), currently rated as a stub. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - thanks for this. The problem, that I see, is that the middle school was founded in 1896 and the high school in 1902 which indicates separate establishments. TerriersFan (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Ketsuekigata (talk) 02:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Kubigula (talk) 02:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prisoner of Conscious (album)

Prisoner of Conscious (album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreleased album (crystal ballism) with little or no media coverage and no references. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums and WP:V. Prod removed without comment. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 18:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 18:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No assertion of notability and no sources. Perhaps recreate when the album is released, providing more info can be added. PeterSymonds | talk 20:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Not encyclopedic enough. Dwilso 04:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete along with many, many other self-published and quasi-self-published albums. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Nabla (talk) 02:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Terrier Nation

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

Nonnotable show on student TV station; no external sources cited. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete due to lack of notability, or redirect to butv10. ... discospinster _talk 18:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable at present. Couldn't find any third party sources or independent media coverage. Think outside the box 20:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NOTABILITY by a long shot. Possible redirect to butv10. Undeath (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 01:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] VbPortal

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

Non notable vBulletin addon. No references are cited at all and the article is primarily written by the addon developers themselves. Save-Me-Oprah^(talk) 18:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete or, if it can be done with reliable sources, merge with vBulletin. Otherwise, a basic synopsis of VbPortal could be added to vBulletin, and a redirect created. PeterSymonds | talk 21:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

12 months after the article is published you both just happen by and want it deleted. Why delete this article in particular and are all the other articles on every single wiki page that does not have references cited also going to be recommended by you for deletion ? It can not be merged with vBulletin's page because it would cause a riot on that page (read over the vBulletin discussion page and you will understand). The article was not primarily written by the add-on developers themselves, it was a combination of contributions by members then drafted and improved by same members. Its just coincidence I am the only one developer who has or is interested in having a wiki account and posted the article. No where does it say who can or can not submit an article to wiki and no where does it say that an article like this can not be submitted. What references do you want cited ? Scotsmist (talk) 17:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

By having a close affiliation to the subject of the article and being the primary contributor to the article (You've made 16 out of the total of 30 edits), you have a conflict of interest. Please see WP:CONFLICT for more info. Also, the article does not pass the criteria for notability, outlined in WP:WEB. I suggest you read up in those two essays. Save-Me-Oprah^(talk) 02:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Since you have such a good grasp on Wiki, you decide as I have no further interest here. I try not to associate with elitest nerds or bottom feeders, instead I try to build and give back to others. Its too easy destroying other peoples work, anyone can do that and doesn't take much effort. The people I know and associate with work together. IF you don't have something good to say about yourself, look for something bad to say about something else, huh ! So long and thanks for all the fish. Scotsmist (talk) 12:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 04:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History by region

History by region (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Totally useles article in view of Category:History by region. It was created long time ago when the ystem of categories was not crystallized for good. `'Míkka>t 17:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No comment. Lady Galaxy 17:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Article contains nothing but links. This is what categories are for. PeterSymonds | talk 20:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete no content. Covered by Category:History by region. Think outside the box 20:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. This page contains absolutely no content other than a list of names. Categories cover these pretty well. Rjd0060 (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of female basketball players

List of female basketball players (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an unmaintainable list that adds nothing to categories. I have googled all four red links on the list and three of the four of them have no business ever being articles. B (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No comment. Lady Galaxy 17:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. This is what Category:Women's basketball players is for. The article is just a bare list of names and adds nothing to what the category provides. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: This is what categories are for. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above comments. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone. Basically this list would include every player in one whole professional league. It's too unmaintainable and is made redundant by a category Doc Strange^{Mailbox Orbitting Black Hole}Strange Frequencies 18:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. KTC (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Already covered by a category, and there's nothing particularly notable (at least not anymore) about listing female basketball players. The list could have hundreds of names. 23skidoo (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per everyone. Maxamegalon2000 19:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Completely unmaintainable. This list could also include every player at every NCAA or NAIA school that fields a women's team, not to mention international colleges and universities. not practical. DarkAudit (talk) 22:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep This article does NOT meet the criteria for deletion. The content of this article is valuable to the WikiProject Countering systemic bias. And clearly, Editors have continued to contribute to it. The article should be kept and improved, and perhaps targeted to become one of the Wikipedia:Featured lists. It is just as maintainable as the List of Eagle Scouts or the List of basketball players from small colleges.

As Admins and Editors, we should be focused on improving the content of Wikipedia, not diminishing it, and assisting any Editors who grow Wikipedia. Placing an AfD tag, rather than a {{Prod}} or {{Cleanup}} tag, could be misconstrued an abuse of leadership, if not Admin powers. I would encourage those of you who have followed the pack in "delete" voting, to think collaboratively. Consider contacting and assisting Editors who might be interested in improving this article... perhaps even become a mentor and make this your project with the mentee. Deebki 10:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete As likely redundancy and very incomplete. I guess the category/sub categories are more then enough as there are tons of female basketball players. --JForget 23:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tommy Brandt

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

Does not meet WP:PORNBIO criteria; unsourced AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I agree. Lady Galaxy 17:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Not Encyclopedic. Dwilso 04:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Aleta ^Sing 11:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable Think outside the box 20:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Some info may be useful some somewhere, not clear from the discussion. So I'll move it under Star Fleet Universe/Lyran and keep it there for a week or so before actuallly deleting. (similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstellar Concordium (2nd nomination)) - Nabla (talk) 13:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lyran

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

This is technically the second nomination, as there was a vfd in october 2004. The result of that debate was "keep, or maybe merge somewhere". The article is about a fictional felinoid race in the Star Fleet Universe, which in turn is some sort of offshoot from the Star Trek fictional universe. This race is in control of the "Lyran Star Empire", which was deleted in another afd, and an offshoot of this Star Empire called the "Lyran Democratic Republic", which too was deleted in yet another afd. I think that while Star Fleet Universe may be notable, a race within it is certainly not - and unsurprisingly, there are no significant coverage in reliable third party sources that are independent of the subject to be found. If it has to exist, it would probably be better off with a deletion anyways. Jobjörn (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I nominated another similar article in the same fictional universe: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstellar Concordium (2nd nomination) Jobjörn (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Merge it and it's fellow SFB races into one article. Use in both SFB and Starfleet Command probably makes it notable. A number of fairly trivial mentions here and 11,000 Ghits here imply notability, but not enough for a single article on the race IMO (unless someone can find something more). Hobit (talk) 20:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge OR redirect to Alpha Octant which contains information on the races/factions in the Star Fleet universe. -- saberwyn 22:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • No, Alpha Octant contains information on the races/factions in the Alpha Octant. I'd rather see the creation of List of races and factions in the Star Fleet Universe and the deletion of both Alpha Octant and Omega Octant (but I will wait with proposing the deletion of these two until this afd and this one are closed (and of course I'll only proceed if the result is delete/merge/redirect)). Jobjörn (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Cool. I know nothing about the Star Fleet Universe (Star Trek yes, Star Fleet no) and don't actually care what happens to this. I just thought Alpha Octant was a suitable redirect target. -- saberwyn 22:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 10:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as this article's content is almost exclusively made up of in universe plot summary, and has no primary or reliable secondary sources to demonstrate the notability outside the role playing game from which this fictional confederation is derived. This article belongs on a fansite, not Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete; no secondary sources, so fails to meet WP:N. Indeed, there are sources at all, so it's not verifiable and as such the content is not even suitable for a spinout. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Please recall that _topics_ need to meet WP:N, not articles. There seem to be sources (see above), just not very good ones. But probably enough between all the different races.... Hobit (talk) 03:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I do recall that. The topic of this article is "Lyrans", and that fails WP:N and so the article on that topic should be deleted. There are no sources in the article, so the content all fails WP:V and shouldn't be merged. Percy Snoodle (talk) 06:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete — do not merge; even a merge would necessitate some degree of notability which has not been demonstrated. Maybe include in a List of fictional felinoid races in fictional Star Trek-derived universes. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete We don't need an article on fictional Star Fleet Universe! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)