Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut: WP:AFD/Y

If the latest nominations appear to be missing from this page, please purge the cache.

Articles for Deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians decide what should be done with an article. Items sent here usually wait five days or so; afterward the following actions can be taken on an article as a result of community consensus:

• Kept
• Deleted per the deletion policy
• Sent to Cleanup
• Merged and/or redirected to an existing article
• Transwikied (moved to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikiquote, or Wiktionary)

More information.

Things to consider:

• It is important to read and understand the Wikipedia deletion policy which states which problems form valid grounds for deletion before adding comments to this page.
• Use the "what links here" link which appears in the sidebar of the actual article page, to get a sense how the page is being used and referenced within Wikipedia.
• Please familiarize yourself with some frequently cited guidelines, in particular WP:BIO, WP:FICT, WP:MUSIC and WP:COI.

AfD etiquette:

• Please be familiar with the policies of not biting the newcomers, Wikiquette, no personal attacks, and civility before adding a comment.
• Sign any listing or vote you add, by adding this after your comment: ~~~~.
• If you are the primary author or otherwise have a vested interest in the article, say so openly, clearly base your vote on the deletion policy, and vote only once, like everyone else.
• Your opinion will be given the most weight if you are logged in with an account that already existed when the nomination was made. Anonymous and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their votes may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith.
• Please vote only once. If there is evidence that someone is using sock puppets (multiple accounts belonging to the same person) to vote more than once, those votes will not be counted.

You can add each AFD subpage day to your watchlist by clicking this link: Add today's AFD to watchlist

See also

Guide to deletion | Alternative outlets | Undeletion policy | Deletion guidelines for admins | Deletion process Archived delete debates | Speedy deletion policy | Category:Pages for deletion

Deletion templates (policy · log)

{{copyvio}}Copyvios (howto · log) {{ifd}}Images (log) {{rfd}}Redirects (howto · log) {{md1}}Miscellaneous (howto · log) {{delrev}}Deletion review

Articles (howto · log)

{{relist}}   {{subst:prod|why}} {{subst:afd}}   {{subst:prod-nn}}

Templates (howto · log)

{{tfd|template}} {{tfd-inline|template}} {{subst:tfd2|template|why}} {{tfdnotice}}

Categories (howto · log)

{{cfdnotice}}   {{cfr-speedy}} {{subst:cfd1}}   {{subst:cfm1| }} {{subst:cfr1| }}

User categories

{{cfd-user}}   {{cfr-user}} {{cfm-user}}   {{cfr-user-speedy}}

Stub types

{{sfd-t}}   {{sfd-c}}   {{sfd-r}}

Mergers

{{merge}} {{mergeto}}   {{mergefrom}} {{merging}}   {{afd-mergeto}} {{afd-mergefrom}}

Page moves

{{move}}   {{moveoptions}}

Speedy

{{db-author}}  {{db-web}} {{db-nonsense}}   {{db-test}} {{db-nocontext}}   {{db-empty}} {{db-attack}}   {{db-catempty}} {{db-band}}   {{db-banned}} {{db-bio}}   {{db-notenglish}} {{db-copyvio}}   {{db-repost}} {{db-vandalism}}   {{db-talk}} {{db-spam}}   {{db-nocontent}} {{db-copypaste}}   {{db-r1}} {{db-imgcopyvio}} All speedy templates

Unfree images

{{PUIdisputed}}   {{Ifd}} {{subst:nsd}}   {{subst:nld}} {{subst:nrd}}   {{subst:rfu}} {{subst:orfud}}   {{subst:orfur}}

Transwiki (howto · log)

{{Copy to Wikibooks}} {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} {{Copy to Wikiquote}} {{Copy to Wikisource}} {{Copy to Wikispecies}} {{Copy to Wiktionary}} All transwiki templates This box: view • talk • edit

Purge server cache

Contents 1 Realm of the Dead 2 Digital Data Resource 3 Hageby 4 CAJOLE 5 Bedroom Boom 6 Esateys 7 The Beautiful Losers 8 Even Kern 9 Custom Integrated Circuit Conference 10 Kendall Jenner 11 Student lounge 12 Kviar 13 Kirk McEwen 14 Christian Pickup 15 Smart crystals 16 Britain's Got Talent (Series 1) 17 Shark Meat Records 18 Mysteria Film Group 19 List of Google Street View locations 20 List of Cash Money Records artists 21 Grace A. Dow Memorial Library 22 Grace A. Dow 23 David Firth 24 Molly Bea 25 Student lounge 26 STQ-3 (band) 27 Indonesia LIMA Top 50 Charts 28 Dafoh 29 Reach Every Dolla 30 Barack Obama presidential campaign, VP selection process 31 Gallery of current first-level administrative country subdivisions maps 32 The mark tom and travis story 33 Johnny Gamble 34 Antonio Peña 35 Pastor Tom Hobbes 36 America's Most Admired Companies 37 Halloween (demo) (2nd nomination) 38 Theory of criticality 39 David A. Wheeler 40 F.2.D. 41 Where the gravity is born 42 Matt Smith (illustrator) 43 Porter Barry 44 Shoes (Widget toolkit) 45 Give Me That 46 Lisbon Treaty - Irish Ratification 47 World civil war (concept) 48 Kitanoda Station 49 Mitch Malloy 50 List of Dragon Quest VIII characters 51 List of Valkyrie Profile characters 52 Rupert Hoogewerf 53 St andrews economic forum 54 Elizabeth Pargeter 55 English Film Awards 56 Wilfredo 57 Tout monitor 58 Chillay Productions 59 Nokia 1600 60 I15 61 Museum Mile, London 62 Dennis Collins 63 8-Legged Monsters 64 Advertorial Infotainment 65 Narayanalayam 66 Sanmayananda Saraswathi 67 Karl-Heinz Blomann 68 Triat (World of Darkness) 69 Reach for the Sun Bottle Hunt 70 Recycling in schools 71 Talk to Me (NYC) 72 Yasuo Fukuda 73 Tek-Tips 74 Solid Runner 75 Kuberulu 76 Zadù 77 Shadow Host 78 Clearhealth 79 Silver Springs Public School 80 Webbook 81 Blitz Tech 82 Miss Intercontinental 2008 83 Miss World Famous Beauties 2007 84 Mysterious Universe 85 FUNLIB 86 Chili cheese burrito 87 Sonic weaponry in popular culture 88 Between Raising Hell and Amazing Grace (song) 89 William Seaward 90 Schools 4 Schools 91 Christopher Lockhart 92 Nu Image 93 Project Blue Beam 94 List of Movies Made in Shreveport 95 Laurence_Kaptain 96 Alex Pillinger 97 Kevin DuPriest 98 Joshua Gardner 99 Amie Roosevelt 100 Punk Rock's Effect on Politics and Economy 101 David Yonan 102 List of compatible and incompatible programs for Windows Vista 64 103 World history japan-cold war 104 ForestWander Nature Photography 105 Walk the Walk (album) 106 One Piece side comics 107 List of Omnitrix aliens 108 AfD footer

[edit] Realm of the Dead

Realm of the Dead (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete nn videogame; no indication of its importance. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I find no staff reviews or news articles in both gamespot and ign, only generic entries.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Have you tried looking up magazine issues from around that time? It's usually hard for a commercial game release to get through without getting reviewed by *someone*. DocumentN (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't have access to American or European gaming magazines. The game was released on 2006, so I think that it should have more presence in the net. I may have downgraded my Delete to Weak had the game been released in the 90's as the majority of the sources for older games are still in magazines rather than online.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as a very small article providing little information to the reader, and there aren't many reliable sources to back even this little bit up. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 01:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete It's a budget game which is why nobody is falling over themselves to review it, it's very unlikely that there are sources in magazines and there's none emerging from google. Permastub which doesn't establish notability. Someoneanother 02:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of PlayStation 2 games as one of only 2 sources for the article in question. Not all games are notable and this one definitely isn't notable enough for its own article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Zef (talk) 15:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Digital Data Resource

Digital Data Resource (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a relatively obscure neologism. I couldn't find any sources that used this term in this way, and none are included in the articles.

Also included in this nomination:

• Structured Data Resource
• Unstructured Data Resource BradV 23:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete article is a muddled waffle of neologisms with little context. --neon white talk 00:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge all to Data Reference Model, since the information would only have any semblance of sense within that context. -- Whpq (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. No opinion on merger, but it seems obvious that some kind of context is needed to make this read like anything other than utterly vacuous and abstract tautology. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hageby

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

Delete basically a housing estate, not notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - my sweedish isn't that good, but best I can tell this is just an apartment complex --T-rex 03:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - This appears to be a real and distinct district [1] that even has it's own shopping center (called the "Hageby Centrum") and there seems to be plenty of reliable sources either about this area or references to it.[2]--Oakshade (talk) 05:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. As well as the Google News hits found by Oakshade there are plenty of book references also found by Google. I wish people would do simple searches like these before wasting eberyone's valuable editing time by nominating clearly notable articles for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CAJOLE

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

Is this article really notable enough for an article? I believe that more information (which I have been unable to find) is need to establish the notability required. Kivar2 (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• If deleted, recreate as soft redirect to wikt:cajole. No stance on actual deletion. -- saberwyn 05:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete article doesn't assert notability and the article hasn't been improved since the last AfD which seemed to be the the bulk of the keep arguments. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bedroom Boom

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

Not notable  Chzz  ►  00:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Weak Keep With 66,000 ghits, I'd say this is more than one of the countless unnotable hip-hop songs out there. Aardvarkvarkvark (talk) 01:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pascal.Tesson (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect, article fails WP:MUSIC & WP:RS. Redirect back to U.S.A. (United State of Atlanta).  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 02:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete article doesn't assert notability and has no reliable 3rd party sourcing for verfiability. Also Wiki is not an advertisement for "Such as YouTube, Myspace, Google video and various others". Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Koh Siak Peng. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was "delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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] Esateys

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

No reliable sources suggesting notability. A self-published book via Authorhouse and being a talk show host on the 'World Puja Network' doesn't seem enough. Doug Weller (talk) 14:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. There is nothing to back up the description as "international speaker", so scratch that. The book is self-published, so scratch that. That leaves the subject as an internet radio host on what I dare say is a non-notable website. Without audience figures or some other assertion of notability, she's YAP – yet another podcaster.9Nak (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability when searching through Google, and Google news. -- Whpq (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Beautiful Losers

The Beautiful Losers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails to assert notability per WP:MUSIC, Google doesn't find much that could be used to assert notability. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 22:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Fails the reliable sources test, and therefore WP:MUSIC as well. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - no references --T-rex 23:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per TPH. Fail RS and doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 23:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 02:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete The first paragraphy of the article is a Copyright Violation from this site: [3] Artene50 (talk) 09:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

If you had checked the talk page or the deletion log, you'd have known that we have permission to use the content from that other website. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment If deleted, a redirect to Beautiful Losers should be kept. 23skidoo (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment What are you saying Rjd0060--that Wikipedia article's can be copied and pasted word for word from web sites which promote them? That is not really acceptable. It might be deemed WP:SPAM. Artene50 (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Even Kern

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

Singer/songwriter/producer with single album. Declined speedy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shark Meat Records. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 02:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete The article fails WP:MUSIC. The only footnoted reference leads to this promotion site Artene50 (talk) 09:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Custom Integrated Circuit Conference

Custom Integrated Circuit Conference (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I consider this a bit of a test case - it's a yearly conference, but it's a scientific conference that's not likely to get much press attention. Only source is an external link to the conference. Lots of hits on google, but it's because of all the conference publications, doesn't seem to be extensive coverage from secondary sources. Wired (magazine) coverage of the conference would be adequate, but top hit after the conference page proper is wikipedia. Should it be deleted? I think so. I also would consider adding the conferences I found at Very-large-scale_integration#Conferences. They're stubby, sourceless and circular for the most part. WLU (talk) 22:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Also considering bundling the other pages but I'm not sure as I've never bundled - any suggestions from regulars would be welcome! WLU (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. All these conferences have many secondary sources. For one example, the main newspaper in the field is EE Times. A quick search on google (' "custom integrated circuits conference" site:eetimes.com' ) shows 42 references in this newspaper alone, including many conference overviews such as Custom Circuits . Design Automation Conference is the main conference for a five billion dollar industry. It has 1700 hits in EE Times articles alone. Similarly ICCAD ICCAD previews technical program, ISPD Future of chip design revealed at ISPD, etc. Note that these are overview articles, with named editors, and not copies of other descriptions. LouScheffer (talk) 03:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, were those references in the article, I wouldn't have AFD-ed it. That's actually enough for me to assert notability, though this may repeat if they're not included. WLU (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kendall Jenner

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

Deleted prod. Was: Does not appear in any way notable. Related to some notable people? yes, notable? no. NrDg 22:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as original proder. Notability is not hereditary. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 23:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. ukexpat (talk) 03:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete notability is not inherited. Article does not assert individual notability for the subject. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Unfortunately, notability is not carried in genes (unless your surname is Hilton). —97198 talk 13:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Student lounge

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

Was just deleted a few minutes ago. I'm not sure if this is a re-creation or not, but it's mostly a dicdef either way. Since I'm not sure it's a re-creation, I'm taking it to AfD instead of G4ing it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete given the first AfD was closed as speedy delete "without prejudice against future recreation", then its right we discuss this again. However this remains pure original research as it lack any verifiable sources. It also isn't clear, as TPH pointed out, how this is or could be anything more than a dictionary definition. Gwernol 22:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

well obviously it is a recreattion, but it is not a recreation of the original article, its a recreation of the same topic but written as an encyclopedia article instead of as a dictionary definition. i can find some sources if necessary.Myheartinchile (talk) 22:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I added some sources to the article, the concept is unique architecturally speaking and is an important part of the college experience, furthermore it gets 2.4 million ghits! so i say keep or at the very least merge with student union.Myheartinchile (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The sources are for a design competition, not for the contents of the article, which are still original research and as Carlossuarez46 says below, they don't rise above a dictionary definition. Gwernol 23:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete still basically a fluffed-up DICDEF. Does every room with a potential dedicated purpose get an article even if all it says is the obvious about the place? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

comment, no reason for this room to be treated any differently.Myheartinchile (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - we do have an article for Classroom --T-rex 23:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. It also appears to be a mainly American-centric idea since I don't know of any such rooms in UK students' unions. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 23:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - they do exist in the UK, we have one at Oxford Brookes for instance. I just don't see the point in having an article on it. Do we have one for student bar? No. -- role^player 23:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: In which case, they aren't that popular perhaps in the UK. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 23:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - Pretty sure a G4 would have been ok. If it gets rejected then go to afd. --neon white talk 01:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete -- it's really, really hard to elaborate in any meaningful sense on a concept like this, as the name itself contains almost everything you need to know. An environment characterized primarily by location and by cheap high-impact furniture and vending machines does not warrant much more than a dicdef. Haikupoet (talk) 04:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete a student lounge is a lounge for students. It isn't notable beyond that. Otherwise breakroom needs its own article as it is a lounge for employees. not to mention Employee Lounge, etc. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete This was just deleted and has gotten no better with recreation, DICDEF. L0b0t (talk) 14:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, I would almost G4 this but the author went to some trouble to try and make it substantially different - besides, the version I deleted was a one-liner. In spite of the effort, it's still just a dicdef with no real sourcing, and it's hard to see it going beyond that. Shereth 17:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to Common room, I don't see how the current article is a dictionary definition, it seem to largely deal with what the term describes not the term itself. Guest9999 (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kviar

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

Not notable? I can only see one news reference, not at major sources, and brief. Company does not seem significant enough for notability.  Chzz  ►  22:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep - The article does list sources, even though it is very peacock-ish. I would suggest keeping the article, but with a nice {{cleanup}} tag at the top. TN‑X-Man 03:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete It doesn't appear notable enough for inclusion. The only purpose this article seems to serve is as an advertisement and Wikipedia is not an advertisement. Qaddosh|_contribs^talk 22:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Notability is just on the wrong side of borderline, and the advertising-like approach pushes it over the edge. 9Nak (talk) 12:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kirk McEwen

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

This article fails WP:BIO. There are three claims made. One is that he's a radio personality. There is no reliable third party source that even confirms that fact so far. The second is that he had a bit part in a movie. That's not enough, else we'd be swimming in articles of those with bit parts, walk ons, and who acted as extras. The final claim is that he was nominated with others for a magazine's award. It's such an obscure award that the only Google results are literally versions of this article. In addition, the link to one year's award nominees does not even list him by name. Each independent claim, I submit, is not enough for notability. I would further say that the sum of all three claims doesn't get beyond the WP:BIO guideline, particularly given the dearth of reliable third party sources on display. Erechtheus (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

KEEP. The link at the bottom provides THE primary source for radio station dj awards. His KMS show is clearly there. The two other links show him on 105.7 and the imdb entry has his work at 98 Rock; IMDB is used often as third party sourcing on wikipedia. It easily passes the notability test; I made sure it did before making the entry. WillC (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Just being a radio host and having an IMDb page doesn't make you notable. What has he done that meets WP:BIO? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete None of the claims made are enough to meet WP:BIO. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and start over based on the current version. Clearly but barely meets notability requirements with several nominations for minor industry awards and more importantly a credited but non-speaking part in a wide-release movie. Current article is so poorly written that it's easier to start over. I expect that if I looked, I could find 3rd-party news articles about him in his area newspapers. Alternatively, keep on condition someone steps up to the plate and radically improves it before this AfD ends then you can disgregard my delete opinion. Userfication recommended if someone needs more than a few days to improve it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I was told the third party IMDB link does not work but it does. The awrds link does list his show (the KMS show) very clearly. The WP:BIO notability says they have to be award-worthy. I added another third party link talking about their ballyhooed switching from 98 Rock to 105.7. Lastly, I don't understand why Kirk is nominated for deletion yet Mark Ondayko, R. Edward Lopez, Josh Spiegel, Mickey and Amelia.....all local personalities Kirk has worked with, have had wiki entries for months yet KIrk does not make it and he has had more exposure and is more verified and notably than the rest of them put together. WillC (talk) 11:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment re: WillC's comment above: WillC, are you recommending deletion of those articles? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 12:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

A double standard is being applied. Keep them all or delete them all. I believe all should stay. They pass notability rules. WillC (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't look at the other articles closely, but I agree, this passes notability, but it utterly fails quality. It's so bad that deleting without prejudice now and starting over at some future editor's convenience or rewriting now are better than keeping what's here. Unless you or some other editor steps up to the plate soon, my vote is to delete no the grounds that it's WP:WORSETHANNOTHING. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you please suggest what would make it better? WillC (talk) 13:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I put a template up on the article talk page. I don't have enough information to complete it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Pickup

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

Devvo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Article lacks any semblance of notability for this person, with the only "references" being links to a website that he contributes to. Fails WP:N and WP:BIO. Same can be said for his fictional persona Devvo, so I'm nominating it here as well. Shereth 21:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Devvo was featured on E4 (channel)[4], so he has made it off of the web. Pburka (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - both lack notability. David Firth may be just about notable but his workd and individual characters are not. --neon white talk 01:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Smart crystals

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

Possible copyright violation -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete non notable, you'd expect hits on google scholar if this was of any note. --neon white talk 01:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Bad (and unrecognized) collective noun for certain crystal types. 9Nak (talk) 12:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Britain's Got Talent (Series 1)

Britain's Got Talent (Series 1) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Replicates information available in its entirity at Britain's Got Talent. Prod removed without explanation so nominating it for deletion. Mallocks (talk) 09:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Edited to add: There is a similar page at Britain's Got Talent (Series 2), and as of this message I have now added the afd notice to that page as well, following the relisting of this debate. Mallocks (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Additional Comment, the page is continuing to struggle to find enough encyclopedic verifiable information to justify a separate page; at time of writing the page mentions no less than 3 times the winner of the competition. The second season has this problem even more acutely. Mallocks (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Unnessacary topic, as with above reasons. The whole article copies the Britain's Got Talent page. Of course if the topic was expanded to include more in-depth detail and removed from the Britain's Got Talent page, then I might change my mind. Thenthornthing (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: The article has a lot of potential, but it is just not needed in its current state. –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. There are two series, and we need articles for both. You might want to consider reducing what's in the main article and leaving the rest of the detail for the series articles. Everyking (talk) 10:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Merge/Redirect I dont think there is enough in the main article to justify a fork. --neon white talk 01:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shark Meat Records

Shark Meat Records (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unremarkable "digital" record label, with a stable of questionably notable artists. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Even Kern and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Molly Bea. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:CORP. A bit of a red link farm don't ya think.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 02:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:CORP - it does seem their artists have won a few awards. Shimmerplanet were inducted into the Songwriters Hall Of Fame and won both Independent Music Awards and TIMMY Awards. Grace Garland won TIMMY Awards and has quite a big film and TV background. I think there is some merit here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Correctionsgalore (talk • contribs) 18:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Above user Correctionsgalore (talk · contribs) appears to be a Shark Meat Records SPA. See contributions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, the Songwriter's Hall of Fame has no entry for either Shimmerplanet or Soren Anders listed on their site. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mysteria Film Group

Mysteria Film Group (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. While a Myst will be notable if actually made (and the relevant info on that is already covered here), notability of the company at this time is not established. Majority of the references are primary sources, self-published or blogs - no major news coverage. Possible COI, as article creator's sole contributions have been to plug this company. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - True, a large number of the references are primary, but there are a fair few secondary sources, some of which are fairly verifiable. Seems to me that notability has clearly been established (and this negates any COI problems - if the user in question has a COI, then appropriate action must be taken, but it's no reason to delete a notable article). _TalkIslander 21:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment - while the third-party cites mention the "film" project, none of them actually mention the "Mysteria Film Group" - only the filmmakers and the film possibility. The references are borderline for an article on the film (and are used in the Myst (series) article), but the third-party references make no mention of the company, with the exception of Web Wire - and that is nothing more than the company's own press release. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Response - Not true: the 1up article mentions the company name in their interview. The Spokesman Review interview describes them as the "Mysteriacs", an alternate name for the company.

There are no conflicts of interest because I am not associated with MFG. I came across their web site just as other people have. I created my first Wikipedia article about them because there was no mention of their effort in the Myst franchise articles. I would love to create additional articles related to the Myst universe (e.g. Yeesha), but because it has been such a PITA to keep just one article alive I am reluctant to do anything further. So, please do not delete this article. Robert The Rebuilder (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, assuming that this is the same 'Robert the Rebuilder' that I know of from the MO:UL forums (and I'm guessing that his name is fairly unique...), I can confirm that there aren't any COIs - just a great deal of interest in all things URU :). Didn't look at the history before, hence didn't notice that it was RtR. _TalkIslander 19:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Google Street View locations

List of Google Street View locations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

With all the new Street View locations Google has released today, it became clear that nearly everywhere in the United States would be covered by Street View in a few months, therefore making this list totally useless. Also, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. --FlagFreak ^TALK 21:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - There has already been a thorough discussion of this at a previous AfD (no consensus). However, I feel this article should be deleted. The relevant info is listed at Google Street View. This article should be a section within that article. TN‑X-Man 21:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete This will eventually become "list of every city in the United States". And it looks like Google wants to cover the entire world too. Wikipedia is not a directory. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 22:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Google has not seen fit to give my area a good satellite map, but they have Street View activated for rural intersections with a single farmhouse otherwise surrounded by cornfields. This is no longer a list with even the slightest encyclopedic purpose. --Dhartung | Talk 22:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - or rename to List of locations --T-rex 23:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - I'm satisfied with Google Street View#Evolution and in the long run could even see trimming that list down when Google changes the Street View tag line to "billions and billions served..." Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 00:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep but simplify: Rather than making this an entire directory, limit this list to incorporated cities, county seats, national and state parks, and other locations with some type of importance.Sebwite (talk) 07:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Incorporated cities in Minnesota means that the list will include 22 "cities" around Minneapolis and Saint Paul, of which the suburban population count rivals major midwestern cities. And see Bay Area. .:DavuMaya:. 09:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Note:If the decision is to delete, the article should simply be merged into Google Street View so if need be, it can be pulled back out. Besides, this would allow people to view the archive in the event that one wishes to see the evolution. Sebwite (talk) 08:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - It's a ridiculous list with no guidelines by which to limit anything by. The differences of definitions of cities between states makes any task to list locations simply irrelevant to WP. I would rather simply say which States contain SV streets. I do not support merge. .:DavuMaya:. 09:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep but simplify. List relating to a notable innovation on the Internet which, in turn, has received considerable media coverage both pro and con. I agree it's a little too detailed and should be restricted to major incorporated places. It may be necessary to revisit this, however, if an when Google Streetview becomes ubiquitous and such a list becomes unmanageable. But at the moment that hasn't happened yet. 23skidoo (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Please define a "major" incorporated place. For example San Francisco may be the most well known city, but the Bay Area population far exceeds that and no one in Oakland is going to let you tell them they are part of San Francisco SV. If Consensus reaches we simplify then I suggest we use metropolitan areas or metropolitan statistical areas as the definition of simplicity than any one city or place. .:DavuMaya:. 17:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I think a good form of simplification would be to have one listing for each region covered by an icon (or not covered by one, since there are many areas now not clearly marked by an icon). For example, in Kentucky, Louisville, which has an icon, would be one area, and Lexington, which has no icon, would be another. But we would not go crazy here listing every little suburb. Still, this list is valuable for now in that it prevents the main GSV article from being unmanageable. Also, when this article is no longer needed, the appropriate action would be to merge or rename it, not to delete it, since it has an archive. Deletion is the course of action to take only when an article is not suitable for Wikipedia to begin with. Notability is not temporary. Once notable, always notable. Sebwite (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This is how the article was when it was first created. Its basically in the same format as it now and you can make the same case to delete it.--Coasttocoast (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That was only the first version. From this, the article was worked on to be a more manageable format. There is still plenty of more room for working on it. Sebwite (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it's going to be nearly impossible to list every single Street View location. And, above all, it is unencyclopedic. WP:NOTDIRECTORY. --FlagFreak ^TALK 20:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Additional Comment: I am presently working on trimming down the list. The types of places I am including are:
  • Cities that are labeled in print that is the same size as the main city
  • Cities that are in isolated areas covered in blue
  • National and some state parks
  • Note that not all areas have their own icons now. Though all these places are supposedly associated with a particular icon, it is not always clear which one, so it is best with certain places (such as Bakersfield) to label these as "no icon." Also, some places could like Omaha-Lincoln or Carson City-Reno theoretically could have their own icons, so these places could also be labeled "no icon."

What are we going to do when Google gets most of the United States on Street View? Are we going to rename this List of American locations? That's just plain crazy. If this article is kept, why not start List of hi-res Google Earth locations? --FlagFreak ^TALK 20:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator. Delete this, and include a very small list on Google Street View. If you want to list every single location, feel free to do so on your own website/blog. --FlagFreak ^TALK 20:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Cash Money Records artists

List of Cash Money Records artists (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced list of non-notable artists "currently and/or formerly signed to " a non-notable recording label. Damiens.rf 21:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as pointless listcruft, merge any bluelinks into label's own page. If the artists aren't notable (...enough to have WP pages of their own), they shouldn't be listed in a page such as this (doesn't aid readers or help WP organization). If there are only a handful (as it seems) that are notable, it's overkill to have a separate page just to list them. DMacks (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• So you think that it is WP:USELESS. Who are we to decide what is valuable content or not, and that should not be the reasoning for a deletion, Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 06:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I think that it is useless because it is WP:Listcruft and that I specifically was talking to its existence as a stand-alone article (note where say to merge content) because it makes WP navigation difficult. DMacks (talk) 06:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Merge' into article Cash Money Records, and redirect link. The article has a list of artists in it already. There's really no need to split it out, unless there were 100s of notable artists, past & present. Lugnuts (talk) 07:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Grace A. Dow Memorial Library

Grace A. Dow Memorial Library (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable library, with no sources whatsoever, no assertion of notability, no reliable sources, only one external link, only two edits since 2006, excluding this AfD, no substantive edits in a while, no room for growith, original research issues, only things that are at all interesting are that its old, founded in 1899 and that it happens to have TV stations (cable access) within the compound, although those claims are not backed up with any verifiable reliable sources. I say delete it. Myheartinchile (talk) 21:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. I think the interesting things noted by the nominator are probably enough to prove notability. I added a reference. I even saw a reference to the library's auditorium in a New York Times article at http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C05EFD71039F932A05750C0A965948260&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=all , although I didn't add that as a reference. --Eastmain (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Lots of verifiable information[5] can be found about this > 100 year old public library. Surely it's an important institution in the community. Pburka (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Is sourced and asserts notability, contrary to the nom's comments. This is another example of why its important that users do at least minimal research before nominating articles for deletion. Just because you don't currently see sources placed in the article, that doesn't mean they don't exist. --Oakshade (talk) 23:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per the sources found and added above. It's history brings it beyond a run-of-the-mill local library and the RS coverage meets WP:ORG _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 00:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't meet WP:N and WP:ORG. The NYT story is about this town and briefly mentions a news conference which was held in the library, and isn't about the library itself. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian Valley Public Library is a relevant previous AfD. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Just because an article of a library was deleted in the past means this library article must be deleted? Curious WP:ALLORNOTHING argument. There are more secondary sources on this library than the NYT article you mentioned. --Oakshade (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• and more here as well. The existence of event listings doesn't invalidate every other piece of RS coverage. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 16:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Grace A. Dow

Grace A. Dow (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable, although there are referenced sources, her accomplishments including giving a marble stone to a church and land for a hospital and bing the president and member of various charities is not notable, especially since none of those charities have articles of their own. Perhaps being a board member at the state level of daughters of the American revolution is her most notable achievement, but it doesn't pass the muster of the WP:N and WP:BIO guidelines. so delete it. and add a sentence or two at her husbands article. Myheartinchile (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep or merge with her husband's article. Pburka (talk) 22:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment subject has a library, foundation and college named after her as well as being married and mother to notable people. If it's decided that they shouldn't have an article, the information could almost certainly be merged somewhere. Guest9999 (talk) 22:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David Firth

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

This has been nominated for deletion in the past with mixed results, the last time being about two years ago. I can't help but notice how all the material to support this article is based on primary sources and it is my belief that this fails WP:BIO guidelines. (jarbarf) (talk) 20:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• STRONG DELETE, fails WP:BIO easily, is not WP:N too, not enough WP:RS either and is also at odds with WP:LIST and WP:TRIVIA.Myheartinchile (talk) 21:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, his being the creator of a semi-notable internet meme notwithstanding. At best this should be a redirect to Salad Fingers (although I'm not entirely convinced that is inclusion worthy either). There are no sources here to indicate notability. Shereth 21:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Salad Fingers per WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Molly Bea

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

Singer/songwriter/actor. Sole IMDB credit is for single episode of Law & Order:SVU. Speedily deleted previously as both Molly Bea and Molly bea. Apparent COI (record company is "Shark Meat Records", article author is User:Sharkmeatrecords). Declined speedy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

DELETE fails WP:BIO and WP:RS but, merge to the record company label.Myheartinchile (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shark Meat Records. A merge may not be possible. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as the admin declining speedy. Non-notable artist, I would need to be shown this subject meets WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC before reconsidering. NOTE: speedy was declined as the article does assert notability. Tan | 39 21:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] STQ-3 (band)

STQ-3 (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No real assertion of notability and since I can't find their album anywhere on major online music stores, I'm assuming it's self-produced. I suppose it could be speedied but I'm just giving the creator a chance to find non-trivial coverage. Also nominating the related Programming Mechanical Judgments: The STQ-3 Movie (short movie) which is equally (if not more) obscure. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete both as non-notable vanity articles. --neon white talk 01:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete both per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 01:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Indonesia LIMA Top 50 Charts

Indonesia LIMA Top 50 Charts (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

There are no reliable sources on the site! it should be deletedOlliyeah (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete no sources found. Non-notable. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• KEEP let's wait and see if there are sources, because if it can be verified it is clearly notable.Myheartinchile (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This article was written in Feb 2007. There are no sources. I looked and could not find any. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dafoh

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

Non-notable organization. Speedy was declined, however, this article contains large amounts of WP:OR and is unsourced. TN‑X-Man 20:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Weak delete. They have received some minor press mentions, but they aren't really looking notable to me. If it is kept, it is going to need some cleanup. J Milburn (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• leaning towards keep. I added some refs but the article needs work. Given it is 1.5 hours old lets see how it improves during the AFD. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment - No problem. I've corrected a couple of the internal links and fixed the external links so they display the URL instead of a number. TN‑X-Man 21:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep It's a bad article, but this isn't "clean up," it's deletion. They're notable, even China can't ignore them. --Blechnic (talk) 03:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barack Obama presidential campaign, VP selection process

Barack Obama presidential campaign, VP selection process (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This information would be better suited in prose in the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 page, rather than its own. So therefore, I suggest a merge. —  scetoaux (T|C) 20:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep This is a large list of information which would make the main article too unwieldy. Plus, let me cite precedent. John Kerry presidential campaign VP selection process.--Shikata Ganai (talk) 20:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep - There is a precedent for this, but I think this article needs to be closely monitored. For example, there are several people on this list without references to support their consideration as a nominee. Speculation needs to be kept to a minimum for this to be legit. TN‑X-Man 21:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, Wikipedia isn't a news aggregator, and without a public statement by the campaign that's all this will be. Be patient. WillOakland (talk) 00:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice. There is no need for this article at this point and there likely will not be until at least the end of June, perhaps not even until the DNC convention. Haikupoet (talk) 04:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • This subject will have to be discussed one way or another, and I think it will make the main Obama presidential campaign article too large.--Shikata Ganai (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep- I won't cry if this is deleted, but it does seem to me to be a topic of encyclopedic interest, as well as being a notable subject. The fact that its (aside from a few entries here and there) sourced also works in the favor. Part of the reason I'm only going weak keep though is that its in list form. If it could be worked on to write it in more paragraph form (if that makes any sense), then my vote would turn to a strong keep. Umbralcorax (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge with the main article on the campaign. I don't really see this as viable for a separate article, but certainly as part of the main campaign article. 23skidoo (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gallery of current first-level administrative country subdivisions maps

Gallery of current first-level administrative country subdivisions maps (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not an image gallery. If anyone wants to transwiki this to Commons, they can do so in the five days of this AfD.  Sandstein  20:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Trans and Delete per WP:NOTREPOSITORY. A good resource but it doesnt belong here. --neon white talk 01:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Are all of these images in fact Commons images? I haven't checked all of them. If all are Commons or Commons-eligible, then delete this once it is transwikied. If some images are not Commons eligible for whatever reason, then keep it, as the only way to preserve a useful index. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Johnny Gamble

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

Non-notable software developer/blogger. There is a lack of reliable sources to support the assertions made in the article. Mattinbgn\^talk 20:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: This is a disputed PROD. Some reasoning is supllied on the talk page. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 20:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 20:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Probably could have been speedied as a non-notable website founder. As it stands, article is unsourced, fansite material. TN‑X-Man 21:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Notability requirements are not met, also concur with Tnxman's view.--VS ^talk 22:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Disagree... sources were added. As this is a blogger no academic sources have been quoted; instead other independent sites have been quoted, all of which give the blogger and his efforts decent reviews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pondelion (talk • contribs) 01:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The sources were the subject's own website mentioned in the article. None of the sources added are either independent of the subject or have any sort of fact checking, both of which are required per Wikipedia:Verifiability. Try again. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete The sources in this article are either secondary or from the subject's own website. He lacks WP:N as of June 2008--no independent major references. Artene50 (talk) 10:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, would not appear to meet the notability criteria for biographies at this time; no secondary sources to vouch for the notability of this person. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Antonio Peña

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

A wrestling promoter of dubious notability. The one cited source does not give the impression of being particularly reliable or providing substantial coverage, and Google provides results about unrelated people.  Sandstein  19:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Per WP:ATHLETE if a person competed in a fully professional league they are notable. --Pinkkeith (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pastor Tom Hobbes

Pastor Tom Hobbes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced bio. I can't seem to verify any of this through searches of external resources. Supporting details like "Desmond Ngubani" and "African People's Church of the Progeny of Noah" also appear not to be found anywhere on the web but in Wikipedia articles. Possible hoax? (See author's deleted contributions here for recent problematic edits.) The Anome (talk) 19:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. ukexpat (talk) 19:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Lacks WP:V. Pburka (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] America's Most Admired Companies

America's Most Admired Companies (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete - does not appear to pass notability guidelines as it does not appear to be the subject of multiple reliable sources. Seems to be a vanity thing for companies so most of the Ghits are press releases; other sources mention it in passing. The lists themselves may need to be removed regardless as copyvios. Otto4711 (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep Is a "publication" of Fortune magazine, possibly notable. ukexpat (talk) 19:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• In the absence of reliable sources that this particular list/publication is independently notable, the notability of Fortune doesn't pass to this article. There is a section on the lists that Fortune publishes at Fortune (magazine) so perhaps an expanded mention of this list there would be appropriate. Not sure under GFDL if that means that this article would need to be redirected to preserve the history or not. I would tend to think not since we wouldn't really be merging anything for this article to the magazine article. Otto4711 (talk) 01:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Halloween (demo) (2nd nomination)

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

Non-notable demo album fails WP:MUSIC (previous PROD). Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - It was deleted in a prior AfD, but I don't know if this is substantially identical or not, so I didn't put it up for a speedy. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Previous AfD is here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Theory of criticality

Theory of criticality (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

A very extensive philosophical essay inherently unencyclopedic. Completely original research. Prod removed by author. BradV 18:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No sources, clear WP:OWN issues evinced by the email addy at the top. Townlake (talk) 19:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Gatoclass (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. OR essay. The comment on the talk page is priceless however. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as OR. Spell4yr (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Seems more WP:OWN\like something personal essay than an article. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 19:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete pn, Completely OR ukexpat (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy - pure OR --T-rex 23:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment A quick Google search produced [6], [7], and [8] describing a "Theory of criticality", I am not sure if this is the same theory described in those (reliable?) documents. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 01:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

  They all look unrelated to me. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per everyone. Time to break out the snowplow. JuJube (talk) 02:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not seem to be the same theory of criticality found online by NanohaA'sYuri. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David A. Wheeler

David A. Wheeler (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable biography. David is an editor in good standing and has been with the project for years; in addition, he's contributed some essays and tools which Wikipedians are prone to come into contact with. As a user page the content is fine. As an article, however, it's demonstrative of WP's systemic biases towards free software and Wikipedia personalities, as were these not factors the notable sources (primarily an essay well known in the Linux community seven years ago) would not be enough to warrant a biography. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: fails WP:N, self published sources don't provide any evidence of notability. Aujourd'hui, maman est morte (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  18:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. ukexpat (talk) 19:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - the odd thing is that he would seem to pass WP:PROF but not WP:NOTE, which suggests there is some inconsistency in the respective policies. If he isn't an academic, I would lean toward delete, as I don't think he's done enough to qualify under WP:NOTE. Gatoclass (talk) 20:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Where the gravity is born

Where the gravity is born (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Original research, barely comprehensible fringe physics. Note that most of the "content" cites only a book by multiply-banned sockpuppeteer W. Guglinski. Bm gub (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. The formatting also smacks of Guglinski, as does the rather poor English. AnturiaethwrTalk 18:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete not an article. Also, if he's a sockpuppet of said user, the creator needs to be indef blocked. JuJube (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Spell4yr (talk) 19:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:OR. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Seems to be original research. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 19:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and verging on WP:CB ukexpat (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - very obvious OR --T-rex 02:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Matt Smith (illustrator)

Matt Smith (illustrator) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Biographical article on an illustrator that still does not meet the notability criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people). Specifically, person has not been the subject of coverage by reliable, third-party published sources. Earlier AfD resulted in "No Consensus", and in the six months since then, no reliable sources have been found. The citations provided in the article are sufficient only to confirm non-controversial details, not to establish notability. Thank you. — Satori Son 18:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: I'll say the same thing I said last time: contributer to numerous children's magazines (including a cover), independent comic books, and album covers, plus winner of several small awards, most of them referenced. Wyatt Riot (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't appear to have the reliable second party coverage required. Having and doing a job is not criteria for notability. There are literally thousands of illustrators in the world who work on magazines etc. everyday. None of them are notable. --neon white talk 01:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Porter Barry

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

This person is not significant, the references are not reliable, and the content belongs in Fox News Channel controversies if anywhere. Bytebear (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Generally unreferenced - only references are a Youtube video and a link on Arianna Huffington's page - and last I checked, Ms. Huffington is mostly big on her editorial pieces. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• (ec)Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP1E. Appears to have no notability outside of the incident. EJF (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - A single recent news incident does not make Porter Barry notable and I didn't find much on the life and times of Porter Barry to justify a Wikipedia article. If the confrontation were notable, the information should be in an article The 2008 confrontation of Bill Moyers or something of that nature. -- Bebestbe (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WPBLP1E. Keep if evidence of his being involved in other public shenanigans is presented. Gamaliel (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The sources added in this edit are a start, but not yet enough to sustain an article. I suggest adding him to the Factor article, and a new article on Barry can be created if enough information on him is discovered. Gamaliel (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per BLP1E. This could be mentioned in The O'Reilly Factor article if need be or another relevant article. MrMurph101 (talk) 19:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, The O'Reilly Factor is one of the famous evening news shows in US with over 2 million viewers and Porter Barry is one of the producers of the show. In other words, Shouldnt a producer of a show watched by over 2 million Americans deserve a page in Wikipedia? Well, I agree that the article lacks info and in this regard everyone is welcome to contribute to make it a complete article.Docku (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Sources have been updated to include both Fox News and MSNBC. Per the valid suggestion of User:Gamaliel, "evidence of (Barry's) being involved in other public shenanigans" has been included. 128.227.1.133 (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Half of the references you added as evidence didn't even mention Barry. The others only referenced him as related to the show as staff (one was the IMDB entry for Fox News). Bytebear (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Hi Bytebear. There are two references added by the anonymous user which has info where Barry interviewing Syracuse University professor and the abortion doctor. I would suggest you not remove those citations until a decision about this issue is made. Thanks.Docku (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. A calculated media ambush of a mid-tier pundit is barely real news, let alone encyclopedic. Merge any referenced material to The O'Reilly Factor, the only place this has significance. --Dhartung | Talk 22:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Interestingly, the Wikipedia "biography" on Porter Barry would seem to qualify as "a calculated media ambush of a mid-tier pundit." The keep position seems to be "Let's use the media Wikipedia to get revenge on this guy Barry by listing 'evidence of (Barry's) being involved in other public shenanigans'." Great. Wikipedia's POV material on O'Reilly is in the Criticism of Bill O'Reilly article, so the material may fit there, if anywhere. -- Bebestbe (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• That qualifies to be called an attack. Would the delete then mean helping Porter Barry?? I agree though that the material could fit in Criticism of Bill O'Reilly as well.Docku (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Single purpose article meant only to disparage Porter. Someone would have to show that this incident is somehow more notable than similar type incidents done in the media industry. Think Michael Moore who does this kind of stuff frequently, yet it isn't the focal point of his article. Arzel (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shoes (Widget toolkit)

Shoes (Widget toolkit) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable software - fails WP:N, also no RS ukexpat (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Could conceivably become notable if widely enough used, but it ain't now. 9Nak (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lisbon Treaty - Irish Ratification

Lisbon Treaty - Irish Ratification (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article should be deleted on the grounds that is it wholly inappropriate. The creator of this article stated that: There is confusion in Ireland over whether this will be good for the country or otherwise, and an excess of information from many extreme points of view is adding to this. This article has been created in order to invite an impartial combination of sources into a brief summary to help the general public. This is the job of the Irish Referendum Commission not Wikipedia. Wikipedia is there to a factual articles on the Lisbon Treaty / Referendum / Ratification not help the general public make up their minds on which way to vote. Wikipedia in not a blog or a forum for discussion. Finally, the points in the article about the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty are not unique to Ireland and will affect the whole of the EU if the treaty is ratified. Snappy56 (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Snappy56 (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; Ireland's referendum is well covered in the Treaty of Lisbon article. ww2censor (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. This article is an essay on the pros and cons of the treaty, and is not an encyclopedic article in the conventional sense. It is better suited to a blog or similar, and is decidedly suspect in terms of the following Wikipedia principles: Soapbox-esque, Reads like a blog, Reads like a manual, guide or "how to" advice, Does not represent a global perspective, etc. Guliolopez (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Agreed, it's also almost exclusively edited by anons who have made almost no other contributions, not grounds for deletion but a little bit suspicious, I wonder would wikiscanner reveal anything?! Snappy56 (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland which covers it correctly. This seems to be a fork. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtstricky (talk • contribs) 17:53, 10 June 2008
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Bláthnaid 19:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with the nominator. This article falls under WP:NOTGUIDE. Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland covers Ireland's referendum on the Lisbon Treaty in an encyclopedic manner. Also, the article will be redundant after Thursday. Bláthnaid 19:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] World civil war (concept)

World civil war (concept) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability is not confirmed for this article Ecoleetage (talk) 02:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Hmmm...anyone want to chime in? (Five days after the article was listed and no takers...is it my breath?) :) Ecoleetage (talk) 01:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  17:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. A fascinating theory, but a google search turns up little that's relevant. Looks more like an essay. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Ditto the Tiger. I did the same search and didn't come up with much; the term doesn't exactly seem to be in common use. And the sources in the article aren't really sources, they're links to other Wikipedia articles. Townlake (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Dennisthe2. Spell4yr (talk) 18:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete with the WP:HEY criteria being that someone would have to verify and then properly cite the Oswald Spengler and Arthur Schlesinger Jr. references. Also please note the disambig page World civil war, whose existence is questionable already (only one bluelink, to this page; the other thing it "disambiguates" against is not a bluelink), would need to be deleted as well if this AfD results in delete. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  Clarify: After reading SWik78's comments below, I think I should clarify that by "verify"ing the sources in question, I also meant verifying that the article is accurately echoing these views, rather than synthesizing new concepts from their work. If SWik is correct, the WP:HEY criteria I suggested are unsatisfiable. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Besides the fact that the claims are not verified through reliable sources, the concepts presented by the different "historians" in the article are not universally the same, meaning that under the same moniker of "World civil war", they describe substantially different concepts. Basically, the article is mostly the author's own synthesis of previously published material in order to present a common bond which is not immediately apparent and the connection that does exist between the different concepts is very loose, bordering on tangential. As such, the author's synthesis of this material is a violation of WP:OR. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mitch Malloy

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

Non notable, was not an official recognized member of the band according to the official band or label website, never participated in an official recording, the article is poorly sourced; one source listed is an online fan site interview with the person in question Eatabullet (talk) 17:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep ref added. He was in the band. (linked to WP page) He also had some top 20 hits on his own [14]. The article seems to be a copy viol right now but it can be saved if someone will spend some time on it. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok I think I got a good ref in there now. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed the link to answers.com because the only mention of him is in their copy of our Van Halen article. DCEdwards¹⁹⁶⁶ 19:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel like I keep getting Rick Rolled. Every article on the Van Halen relationship is a WP mirror. Anyway... I can not find any sources that backup the Van Halen claim. He is notable on his own but the article should be rewritten with info on him and his career and the Van Halen info deleted. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep but remove the copyvio. He's charted in the Billboard Hot 100, and he has a decent length AMG bio and he's recorded for RCA -- wait, this is the same Malloy, right? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per TenPoundHammer. 2 charted songs and 2 albums with RCA passes WP:MUSIC. DCEdwards¹⁹⁶⁶ 18:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep since he's a notable individual and the VHND has reported extensively on him and it's a "trustable" fansite, if such a thing exists. And he has a myspace, so an official web presence proving he is a 'real' man. Someone removed the content about him I wrote on the VH page. I'm too busy, but someone put it back! (The Elfoid (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC))

• Keep per all the above ukexpat (talk) 20:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Dragon Quest VIII characters

List of Dragon Quest VIII characters (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is just a repetition of the character and plot sections of Dragon Quest VIII; it is therefore duplicative and should be deleted Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Kariteh (talk) 17:18, June 10, 2008 (UTC)

• Delete These characters only appeared in one episode, and the article fails WP:N and WP:VGSCOPE. Might be transwikied to a Dragon Quest wikia if such wikia exists. Kariteh (talk) 17:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Completely non-notable. Doubtful sources exist to establish notability. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Dragon Quest VIII is a notable game and this list is an extension of that notable article. The characters are referenced in the game itself and in the guides that came out for the game. --Pinkkeith (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Dragon Quest VIII is a notable game, but notability is not inherited. This list of characters should establish its own notability per WP:N and WP:VGSCOPE, but it currently doesn't and hasn't shown any sign of possible improvement for two years. Per WP:V, establishing notability is done through the usage of independent sources, not the game itself or guides published by the game's company (primary sources). Kariteh (talk) 07:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - no claim of notability. not a how-to but bordering on being a game guide --T-rex 23:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep but requires major cleanup, possibility moving the main characters section from the main DQ8 page to here (replacing the content presently), and making sure to treat the characters out-of-universe and avoiding plot repetition as much as possible. A list of characters from a game (without notability) is a reasonable supporting article to avoid main article SIZE problems, but it needs to avoid excessive rambling and plot reiteration as this one presently does, as well as issues with overuse of images. --MASEM 14:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Valkyrie Profile characters

List of Valkyrie Profile characters (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of the plot and character sections of the Valkyrie Profile video games. It is therefore duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Kariteh (talk) 17:18, June 10, 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Article fails WP:N and WP:VGSCOPE. Might be transwikied to a Valkyrie Profile wikia if such wikia exists. Kariteh (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Transwiki and delete --SkyWalker (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Transwiki as most of it seems to be a plot summary(?). BTW, the wiki can be found here. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 01:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. No notability shown, and appears to be just game guide content. Transwiki to a relevant Wiki if possible. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rupert Hoogewerf

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

Procedural listing for user:EBY3221, who was having trouble listing the article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

*delete Has this just been recreated? This is listed right next to a closed AFD for the same article, where the result was Speedy Delete. If it has been recreated, then salting might be appropriate. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Scrub that - looks like AFD nomination was going a bit awry and I was a bit premature. (Insert humerous observation here). StephenBuxton (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Is notable - found these sources: [15], [16] &[17]. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I found the same sources but then realized that 2 were published in 2003 - before the 2006 Speedy Deletion. Reading those both, they seem like uncited articles about the firing of Hoogewarf from Forbes. The third one appears to be a blurb about the annual Hurun Report, of which Hoogewarf is the editor. Although the publication may meet notability for a separate article (haven't researched enough to be sure), would then recommend the editor be a subheading of that article and not the other way around. EBY3221 17:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Egads, I forgot to add my original objections: the article seems to be an autobiography or a vanity piece, it's uncited, and I could not find enough objective references to feed a Wikifying rewrite.EBY3221 (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by EBY3221 (talk • contribs)

[edit] St andrews economic forum

St andrews economic forum (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable conference. No independent sources cited. Only one such conference held so far (last month). No assertion of notability shown. User name of original author indicates possible conflict of interest. (Contested PROD.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No assertion of notability, schools have forums all the time. Why is this one special? L0b0t (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete non notable at this point. Maybe down the road. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 18:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wilfredo

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

Possibly non-notable entertainer. Google doesn't provide any proof of a claim to childhood stardom or current rising popularity. No assertion of published albums or references. 9Nak (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tout monitor

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

Original author using this article to promote his service/industry, even though he did remove the direct link to his website. No independent sources to establish notability, not able to verify. Exists primarily to promote. Speedied once and re-created; another editor inexplicably removed the speedy tag on the second try. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Make this cruft go away. L0b0t (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete at the moment article is more of a dictdef than spam but, I can't get to the one reference to verify. If its a notable term it should be covered in lots of 3rd party reliable sources and it isn't. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - advertisement for non-notable product/service. --Damiens.rf 15:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete zero references that indicate that the subject is reliable, and insufficient context is given. I'm almost surprised this wasn't speedied again the second time.CrazyChemGuy _{(talk) (Contribs)} 15:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete More like an advertisement than an article. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 19:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Do any of you people know anything about the sports betting industry or this terminology? It's fairly well known, just hasn't been documented in a online encyclopedia to reference. It's a legitimate category and can reference numerous sites that are considered Tout Monitors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigguyceo (talk • contribs) 05:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm sure you'd be happy to educate us, if only we'd go to your web site. (He's the original author, folks.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't care if you go to my site or not. It's simply a reference for this category terminology. I thought this was a place for information? So what is wrong with what I wrote? Rather then just telling me off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigguyceo (talk • contribs) 06:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Because you used it for promotional purposes, which is specifically prohibited. You only listed your site and another site (apparently affiliated) as references. The purpose of the article seems pretty obvious. If you had included some other references from independent, reliable sources, this might not have happened. Wikipedia is constantly bombarded by those who seek to use it as a venue to promote themselves or their services, and numerous editors and administrators spend an extraordinary amount of time in an effort to keep that stuff out and keep Wikipedia true to its mission. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I already removed the external link to my site and added other references. The purpose of the article was to simply add to the gambling terminology section. Share the knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigguyceo (talk • contribs) 06:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment let's lay off Bigguyceo for being the author folks he seems to be trying to improve the article. The problem seems to be more with reliable 3rd party referencing. He obviously isn't trying to sell his services when he removed the link quite willingly. I still think it isn't notable enough for its own article but, it may be appropriate to mention it in a different article on sports betting/gambling. It may also help if Bigguyceo can contribute to some other articles in a constructive manner for those that don't automatically assume good faith to have something to help them. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • A paragraph or short section in Sports betting might be appropriate, but nothing more than that. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chillay Productions

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

The only assertion of notability seems to be removal of two videos from YouTube. 9Nak (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete These kids need to be knee-deep in an ELA class studying spelling and grammar, rather than playing video games or monkeying about with the encyclopedia. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable group Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable subject, no NPOV because author admires them and created page only for that reason (see rev) Shoombooly (talk) 17:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete There are 96 Google hits here but they come either from the company itself, blog sites or youtub. Doesn't seem very notable at present. Artene50 (talk) 08:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nokia 1600

Nokia 1600 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Previously nominated twice; no consensus was reached the first time, and after almost two years, the article remains unreferenced and establishes no claim to notability. The second nomination was about 8 months ago; no improvement since then. This is just another cellular phone. Wikipedia is not a cell phone guide and Wikipedia is not a Nokia catalog, so this material really doesn't belong here. Mikeblas (talk) 15:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect Strong Delete This seems to illustrate a problem with the Wiki process. People will fight like apes to keep an article but then once the AfD closes they go on their merry way; never trying to make any of the improvements they swore were imminent and were all that was needed to make an article great. This is an encyclopedia not a product guide. L0b0t (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Vote changed to redirect per Thetrick. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect Redirect to list of Nokia products as is the case with several other models. Thetrick (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect per the above if thelist already exists otherwise delete. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, not because I want this article so bad, but List of Nokia products lists them all with links to the product pages, which would mean that deleting them all results in a list without any context, other than numbers. I agree WP is not a product catalog, but that debate can go a long way, since every last combat tank, airplane, car, gameconsole and apple product (etc etc etc) is featured in its own article. Why shouldn't all (nokia) phones be? Or even all types of Coca Cola, or all types of Ferrari? Agreed, a lot of those phone articles need work, but that in itself is no reason for deletion. If the article was nominated twice and twice kept, that's a strong indication that there's some merit to it being kept. Sometimes you just have to wait for someone to eventually pick of the glove and expand this article. Otherwise we will have to AfD a lot more than just this cellphone. Shoombooly (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. WP:WAX doesn't help much. I nominate articles as fast as I can, and I do wish I could delete all the cataloging articles about unreferenced, non-notable products. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I understand where you're coming from, i have the same with non-notable songs and albums that can't easily be gotten rid of. But looking at the previous 2 AfD's for this article, there was a good bunch of people that wanted this kept, why not just accept the results of 2 other tries (in which you were involved) and move on, surely there's plenty of other things that need cleaning up? Apparently the other 2 times it wasn't deleted because people saw merit to this article. As i've learnt here, a badly written article can sometimes stay, indefinitely, as you know Wikipedia has no deadline. This means it has forever to get improved, when its given the chance. Shoombooly (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
      • CommentSeeing a large number of article of a given sort which deserve deletion, but perhaps don't fit well as a group nomination, could make one feel a bit as Caligula did when he said [19] that he "wished all Rome had one neck." Edison (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment. I did accept it. I accepted it, then waited several months and noticed no improvement in the article. I did that twice. Note that the first AfD didn't keep the article--it just didn't reach a consensus. The "no deadline" doctrine doesn't apply to articles that don't need to be here because of WP:NOT or WP:OR or WP:N, like this one. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No references to show that it satisfies notability requirements. Simply being a product offered for sale by a large company in no way provides inherent notability. Wikipedia is not a surrogate of the vendor's webpage. If being offered for sale by a large company was sufficient notability to justify an article, then since notability is not temporary, every product ever offered for sale by a large company would be notable. I would not oppose a redirect to a list of Nokia products, although even such a list will sometimes have questionable notability. Imagine a list of every product ever sold by Sears Roebuck in the last 115 years. Edison (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Why not? Wikipedia tries to list every Roman Emperor that ever lived, every invention, every town (2 million or so), every creature...why not every product? I'm sure more people noted the 1600 than one of the hundreds of species of amoebe listed on WP. Also, what about this for example? It's a remote, big deal, yet has a fully fledged article. I'm willing to bet more people had a nokia 1600 than a apple remote. But that's not the point, is it, it went through AfD twice, was kept twice, nothing has changed, so why the need to delete, nothing has changed and there's no deadline? Why the tenacity? Shoombooly (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. Please see WP:WAX. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to List of Nokia products. My initial instinct is to support Shoombooly, my WikiProject Orphanage partner-in-crime. However, my friend, I think that your arguments for keeping this article speak more towards the fact that there are a lot of other articles which deserve deletion (see Edison's Caligula quote, above). Doing a cursory Google search for this phone only reveals the specs for this phone, and not any other reason it's notable. The Apple remote is notable, in my opinion, simply because it can be used for so much, and is pretty unique as far as remotes go, in that it is a remote for a PC, which is not a common thing. But cell phones are common as mud these days, and there doesn't seem to be anything unique about this phone that is not already covered by the cellular phone article. If you can find something specifically unique about it, then I would switch to keep. Until then, I would merge all the specs into the Nokia product article. Sorry, pardner.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 19:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I must slap you Aervanath, with this link: PC Remotes. Not that unique, that Apple Remote (better design though). Anyway, i could argue the buttons are different (they are, quite unusable as well), or other things that are slightly different. Point is, i really believe that when people search for gadgets in google, they often end up checking WP. There's no real line when it comes to products. Look for example at BlackBerry#Phones with BlackBerry e-mail client. Are they all notable phones? Yet they all have an article. Randomly deleting the Nokia 1600 after it was already kept twice seems a weird thing to do. Just because it is a simple phone doesn't make it less noteworthy than say, a Nokia 3310. I would agree to delete, if there was a policy to do so. But given the list of nokia models had so many articles for so many models, and given that this article survived AfD twice, it seems against my Vulcan logic to delete it this time round. Shoombooly (talk) 19:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Reply Consider me slapped. :) Alright, so I'm obviously wrong on the "PC remote is unique" argument. However, I think my other arguments are still valid. I think there is other stuff like this, so we should keep this one, too, is not a valid argument, and I would probably vote "merge and redirect" for the Blackberry client phones you linked to, as well. As for "it was already kept twice", see WP:Consensus#Consensus Can Change. Especially since, as Wikipedia matures, and our number of articles grows, arguments for inclusion have been undergoing much more rigorous scrutiny than before. I think the other "redirect" votes above are evidence that, for some of us at least, the previous consensus is no longer valid. Also, I would point out that the result of the first discussion was in fact no consensus, which defaults to keep. I would point you to WP:PRODUCT, as well. As for searching for gadgets on google, google WILL still give the redirect as a search result, and since I am urging that we keep all the Nokia 1600 info in the Nokia products article, it is not as if we are therefore preventing users from finding information about the phone.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 20:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Reply Well all that being said, the link to your main point of argument is broken! Of course consensus can change, but still, the consensus does not seem to be outright deletion. Also, i think the steady growth of WP isn't necessarily automatically maturing, since there are many new people who post rubbish articles. Again, why bother with this article at all, it's here, it's been here 2 years, not enough people took offense. Again, what's the point of listing all inhabited places in the world, most never ever noted by any of us, but not to include a phone millions of people know from experience. That does not compute for me. And also, WP:OSE is NOT, I repeat, NOT policy! I could just as well write an essay outlining why OSE is a completely valid argument. OSE is used every day in WP, as an argument to create all sorts of stuff. Most of which never gets deleted. Using WP:OSE is just as invalid in this argument as me claiming OSE is. Shoombooly (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Reply to reply to reply to comment I have fixed the link above. I should point out that I did not vote for "outright deletion", either. And I agree with you that OSE is not policy. However, I tend to agree with it, especially, as I said before, because I think that the other articles you are citing probably don't deserve to be independent articles, either. Just because something's not policy doesn't mean it's not right.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 21:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
          • RRRRRRReply But with all the crap there is to delete, this one isn't so necessary. And that's basically my point. Shoombooly (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
            • They'rrrrrrrrreeeeee grrrrrrreat! So you're voting "keep" on the basis that we should delete the other stuff before we delete this one? Or am I mis-interpreting you?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 21:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
              • Final words on this one I'm voting keep because it is common practice on WP to have articles about consumer goods. Whether it be Big Mac's, Opel Astra, Gameboy Micro, Canon EOS 300, Twinkies, Palm Treo, Sandisk Sansa or whatever else is available. Mind you, I did not even need to check those pages, i just knew they would exist. Are they all revolutionary or notable? No. Perhaps the BigMac, but surely not the Sansa. The thing is, once something is common practice, what's the point of singling out this article and deleting it? Just to make an example? If you allow so many, why bother deleting a few? So yes, my point is that if we refuse to draw a clear line, we should allow the borderline cases as well. Not because the item is so notable, but because deleting a few sets a completely arbitrary precedent. Why delete this one but not that one? There's no strict rule on it. If an item was bought by millions of people, it is at least somehow notable, right? "Nokia 1600" on Google yielded more than 5 million hits (or 1 million depending on the method), surely that's notable? It's all a matter of definition. OSE doesn't help because of SO MUCH OSE. There's no end to what can be deleted under OSE rules, and therefor we should not even start. Other stuff does exist, and because we let it, and have no desire to have it cease existing, this may exist as well. As if the Whopper / Caramac is a notable product...still millions know it, and it gets an article. Same goes for this phone. Millions used it, so it gets an article. 1 million google hits can't be wrong. Just my 2 cents. Shoombooly (talk) 23:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
                • Final refutation One million Google hits prove nothing if none of them give enough information to make an article with more than just bare specs. Also, the problem with allowing borderline cases is the old "slippery slope" argument. If we allow all the "borderline" cases, then that means that effectively they are all inside the border, which means even less notable articles are now borderline, which by your argument should be allowed, and thus it keeps going. At some point we have to start knocking back the borderline cases.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 01:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Consumer products such as cell phones are like books or movies: they become "notable" when people write about them (for example, reviews). There are published reviews of this cellphone (one is already linked from the article). There are even a couple of articles mentioning this phone on Google scholar; the first one seems very interesting but I can't access it. --Itub (talk) 12:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I15

I15 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable rapper once played with Soulja. Damiens.rf 14:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Their 1st album has yet to be released, imminently non-notable. L0b0t (talk) 15:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Soulja Girl per precedent set with Arab (rapper), who was redirected to Yahhh!. Spell4yr (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Interstate 15, and put in a hatnote. 70.51.8.208 (talk) 07:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Museum Mile, London

Museum Mile, London (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article has been in existence since Dec 2006, without any statement of notability, or expansion. The term appears to have been applied only by the London Borough of Camden, and in fact appears to conflict with other uses to apply the term to museums around South Kensington. If this article were to be retained, I should like to see some evidence that it's used beyond LBC. Cheers Kbthompson (talk) 09:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep — promotional or not, this page provides a worthwhile list of important museums in this area of central London. The term is used by "Visit London", the official London tourist board website, and is thus used by others as well as the London Borough of Camden. I have added a reference. Jonathan Bowen (talk) 12:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment That link is to the opening page of 'Visit London' and doesn't appear to contain any reference to 'Museum Mile'. I can't find it on 'attractions/culture/' either - and a site search returns no results.

Museums in London are all listed in {{London museums and galleries}}. While the contents are notable, this article just seems an arbitrary list - and includes the Theatre Museum which closed and transferred its collection to the V&A. Kbthompson (talk) 12:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment — Try here. I think you clicked the wrong link! Jonathan Bowen (talk) 13:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Kbthompson (talk) 14:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment - the Percival David Foundation of Chinese Art was a research library (not open to the public), has now closed and its collection is being incorporated in the British Museum. The Petrie museum is also closing, to be incorporated into the UCL Institute for Cultural Heritage. The Huntarian Museum is in Glasgow - its the other brother that founded this collection, and there's no specific article. The Brunei Gallery is a redirect to a University college. Last time I was there, the Royal Opera House didn't have a gallery, or exhibition - although the building has intrinsic interest. Kbthompson (talk) 12:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete This list might be appropriate at Wikitravel but it has no place here. Thetrick (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as the one who originally suggested that this page needed drastic attention at WikiProject London. This is a failed tourist board initiative that is not signposted in any form in the area, is not labelled as such at the museums concerned, and the only circumstances in which I can see someone using the term "Museum Mile" in the context of London would be to refer to Exhibition Road. – iridescent 19:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment — I can't see a reference to the failure mentioned above. Is this just a personal opinion? If not, please provide documentary evidence. The London tourist board information seems to be up-to-date on their website. The term has been used for South Kensington museums too and I have added a note and reference for this (from Fodors) in the article. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 12:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    • "Failed" is a value judgement of mine based on the fact that not a one of these museums is actually using the term (because it's a personal opinion, I've not added it to the article). The visitlondon "source" is a red herring, as (aside from that one paragraph) it just leads to a pdf mirror of the LBC website. Incidentally, LBC relaunched the initiative about six months ago - again, from personal knowledge there's still not a single piece of signage either at street level or in the museums involved. The local paper doesn't contain a single usage of the term and the only hit on the London Tourist Board's website is to the mirror of LBC's leaflet. A google search excluding wiki mirrors and the official websites seems to show a roughly 3-1 usage in favour of South Kensington as opposed to Camden, including the only hit I'd consider a significant source. – iridescent 15:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks, I have added further references and done some reorganization. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dennis Collins

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

Declined speedy. Article created by single-use account. Only references are to subject's website and publisher's website. Notability not proven. Thetrick (talk) 14:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Advertorial Infotainment

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

Advertisement disguised as an article about a non-notable defunct local radio show Dravecky (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Non-notable local radio show with some advertising thrown in. TN‑X-Man 14:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment And, for the record, I had already deleted the link to Cafepress that the author has so throughfully included for people who might want to make a purchase. - Dravecky (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable self-promotion. L0b0t (talk) 14:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable college radio show. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Narayanalayam

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

Non notable organization. No reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 14:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable. Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sanmayananda Saraswathi

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

Non notable. No reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. Only 1 result for google search that is wikipedia itself.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Karl-Heinz Blomann

Karl-Heinz Blomann (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Article is unreferenced advert created by single-use account Special:Contributions/KarlBlomann almost certainly in violation of WP:COI. Delete Thetrick (talk) 14:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Delete Subject has an entry [21] on the German Wikipedia. This article seems to be a clunky translation of that page. So far I have been unable to turn up much in the way of sourcing in English other than directories that confirm: yes he does exist, he played the saxophone and mixed some tracks on some albums in the 1980s, and he co-founded the label that released those albums. Without more English language sources (that pass muster with RS), I think the German Wiki is the place for this article to stay. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 14:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, mainly, I admit, because the SPA accidentally removed the clean-up and CoI templates from the article when they removed the prod (never a good sign). But also because of WP:N and WP:RS issues, as L0b0t points out. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 20:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Triat (World of Darkness)

Triat (World of Darkness) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fictional gods used in a role-playing game. No independent sources seem to be turned up by a search on "triat world darkness" on Google or Google News (which, of course) doesn't cover everything. This is a non-notable part of a significantly notable game (which I'm *not* disputing). If there are any significant independent sources located I will glady withdraw my nomination. --Craw-daddy | T | 13:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 13:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Merge with Werewolf: The Apocalypse- While I agree with the nom that this certainly does not have enough real-world notability on its own, it did play a major part in the plot and game mechanics. It definitly needs re-written from an out of universe perspective however. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment I wouldn't be opposed to such a merger. Anyone who knows the importance of these fictional elements to the game is welcome to do such a merge. It should be noted that Werewolf: The Apocalypse is already bloated with lots of in-universe writing, and this article should be massively trimmed being doing any sort of merge there. --Craw-daddy | T | 15:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per years of precedent regarding all things fannish. The Triat exists in Werewolf and (under different names) in Mage and is one of the major unifying points of the old World of Darkness universe. Considering WoD is one of the most popular gaming franchises in existence, and considering we have every damn Pokemon ever organized into several Pokedexen, I think this is a definite keep. Haikupoet (talk) 04:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, I'm not arguing that the WoD isn't notable, I'm arguing that this part of it isn't, or at the very least the article as written does absolutely nothing to demonstrate this notability. As I stated above, my Google searches (which don't hit everything of course) didn't seem to turn up any independent resources. I fully expected this argument to be made, i.e. something like "WoD games are notable, hence every small part of it is notable", but I'm waiting for the evidence that I was unable to locate. --Craw-daddy | T | 10:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You are gravely misreading my point. It is not that it is notable because it's part of WoD, it's notable because it's one of the most significant plot elements underlying both Mage and Werewolf. Most of the cultures in the three biggest games have a three-way oppositional structure that relates directly to the Triat; I'm not overly familiar with Werewolf apart from the basics, but Pentex embodies the Wyrm while the Garou embody the Wild. In Mage, the Traditions represent the Wild, the Technocracy represents the Weaver, and the Nephandi represent the Wyrm. One could argue that a similar pattern exists in Vampire, though it's a little unclear as to whether the Sabbat or the Antediluvians represent the Wyrm, as the Vampire mythos predates the fully-developed Triat; however, the three-way oppositional structure still obtains. Haikupoet (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't invalidate my point. If it's notable (in th Wikipedia sense of the word) there should be other sources to back this up. In the current state of the article, there are no such sources and I was unable to locate any in my online searches. If it's "one of the unifying plot points" and is notable because of this (again in the WP sense of the word), there should be something other than your assurance (i.e. references that are independent of White Wolf) that can tell me this. --Craw-daddy | T | 17:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep because the alternative would be to merge contents into several articles that are already quite long, including at least Werewolf: The Apocalypse and Mage: The Ascension. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 07:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

They are quite long because they're already full on lots of in-universe material that should likely be trimmed down. What in this article, besides the first sentence, is non in-universe material that puts this into context? --Craw-daddy | T | 10:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reach for the Sun Bottle Hunt

Reach for the Sun Bottle Hunt (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

A one-shot marketing promotion, with no evidence of lasting notability Ecoleetage (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete ATTENTION all marketing majors, ad-men, public relations firms, et al. For the love of Pete please stop putting your work product into the encyclopedia. You lot will be first against the wall when the revolution comes anyway (just ask the Golgafrincham Ark B passengers and crew.) Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 12:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:N. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• DeleteWeek Delete - It just doesn't seem to be WP:NOTABLE. I couldn't find anything besides the manufacturers website which refers to the bottle hunt. Nk.sheridan   Talk 13:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment- Could possibly have some source for WP:V per Jkatzen's comments. Nk.sheridan   Talk 20:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - I'm not surprised people may not find it not notable, but the reason I added it here, is that it was an early-Internet-days meme, and there is sorely little available talking about some of the activities of the period. The year-long promotion was very well known among the few web-savvy individuals back in 1996-1997, but because it (admittedly) was only a marketing promotion, little remains of it. The promotion, though, introduced thousands of people to internet search engines when they were still a novelty. According to a book by author Daniel S. Janal (from Google Book Search), "Sunny Delight offered college-bound students an Internet scavenger hunt and a chance to win a $10000 scholarship. This ploy received nationwide attention . . . ." Also see an excerpt from another book discussing it. Alas, I'll probably be outvoted by people trying to trim down Wikipedia's listings, but I'd like to see the article stay. As a side note, if you search Google for sunny d "bottle hunt", there are some passing references to it on a number of sites. Jkatzen (talk) 14:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment -- re: the RFD, this wasn't a one-shot contest. It was repeated three times over an extended period. Jkatzen (talk) 06:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Provisional Neutral; if Jkatzen can add some references to document the event and its historical notability, then I have no problem with Keeping. The first, or an early, promotion of this kind is certainly a good claim to notability, and coverage of the event would cement that, I think. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Delete It may get a passing mention now and again but the criteria for notability is that multiple sources should address the subject in detail. --neon white talk 01:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recycling in schools

Recycling in schools (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be an original essay, not an encyclopedia article. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete OR essay. L0b0t (talk) 12:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete It is an original essay. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - currently an essay, but a legit article could be written on this topic --T-rex 14:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research written as essay, plus copyright violation. The entire Go Green section has been copied verbatim from here. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete An OR personal essay and possibly copyvio Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk to Me (NYC)

Talk to Me (NYC) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article falls into WP:NOT#NEWS category. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Keep Notoriety and notability are not the same thing, while this couple has had trivial mention in student newspapers, blogs, and tabloids (the only sources listed in the article other than their own website.) that is not enough coverage to warrant an entry in the encyclopedia. Here in NYC we talk to each other every day, no help from college drop-outs with cardstock signs required. L0b0t (talk) 13:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and L0b0t. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - no claim of notability. Sitting around in lawn chairs is not notable. --T-rex 14:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Darn, I wanted to go outside and sit a while, then write a Wikipedia page about myself. You're telling me that wouldn't be notable? :-( Spell4yr (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I see a good amount of RS coverage and last time I checked, the New York POst and Times were not "student newspapers, blogs". WP:IDONTLIKEIT was not a valid delete reason last time I noticed. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 18:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • No, but they are tabloids (technically NYT is not a tabloid but nobody has bothered to tell that to Sulzberger.) The sources at the link you provide for the most part just repeat a newswire release. The only sources listed in the article itself are to student papers, blogs, and tabloids. Again, notoriety and notability are not the same thing and WP:I'VEHEARDOFTHIS and WP:ILIKEIT are not reasons for inclusion. L0b0t (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment' The Seattle Times and San Francisco Chronicle both seem to be independent stories. Last time I checked any twp of the three big ones: NY Times, Seattle Times, SF Chron, NY Daily News.... would meet WP:N. I might have a go at re-writing it if I have a moment this afternoon. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 18:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete due to lack of notability, even with newspaper articles. I've been the subject of newspaper articles but don't plan on writing a page about myself. Spell4yr (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I've just re-written the article with a number of sources, none of which "repeat a newswire release". It has RS coverage and I suggest future commenters !vote on the current state, not the past !votes which related to a different article. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 18:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Well the rewrite, quite frankly, looks great. Would this be akin to a performance art piece? Do we have subject-specific inclusion criteria for events like this? Despite the mentions in the newspaper I'm just not convinced that this was a big enough "happening" or project to warrant inclusion. Every city has street crazies bohemian free-thinkers that hold up signs and talk to strangers. Tallahassee had King Love, New Orleans has that guy at Shell Plaza with the sandwich-board deploring the persecution of our "Psychic Prisoners", Brooklyn has the guy on the C train that's quite keen on Jesus. Talk to Me was a quirky human interest story but nothing more; I just don't think it merits an article. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • you forgot Provincetown's Lobster Guy ;) Thanks for the comments on the re-write. I don't know if we have subject-specific criteria. I try not to go along the lines of "well all x are (not) notable" (not saying that you are doing this) so I'm not sure what precedent there may be. It is human interest but the fact that interest lasted for ~ three years is a good sign that it had some substance. I tried to think of a possible larger article of which this could form part, but I can't think of anything. I will think more on it. In the mean time, this has time to run and we can think :) _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 20:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• • After giving the matter some consideration I'm going to have change my vote to a keep (vote changed above). The rewrite looks good, we have no specific reason to exclude it, and we have things like The Gates and Naked Cowboy. Although, King Love[22] should have his own page too. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Rewrite doesn't look much different, and still not remotely notable. This is akin to having the article President Bush chocked on a Pretzel, notability is different then "it got mentioned in a newspaper" --T-rex 23:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as article passed AFD only a few months ago and has been rewritten to address improvement issues. 23skidoo (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tek-Tips

Tek-Tips (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability does not appear to be confirmed in this article. Ecoleetage (talk) 11:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Spammy rubbish, reads like a press release or promotional brochure. L0b0t (talk) 12:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:N. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. More than a million members and all working on voluntary unpaid contributions. Isn't that of interest?--GwydionM (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Solid Runner

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

Obscure, non-notable video game. Next to nothing for Google hits [23], no reliable sources. Fails WP:N, WP:V.  RGTraynor  11:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete It is not a notable video game. We simply cannot have a Wikipedia articles on every video games. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia is supposed to be about learning new things (even about stuff that is completely unfamiliar to an English-speaking audience). If you go to Google Japan instead of the standard Google, you can find more information about the game. I often find that there's more information about Japanese video games on Google Japan than there is on the "regular Google." GVnayR (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - There is strong evidence reliable print sources exist for every super famicom game released. ~I cannot read Japanese, so it will be hard to search for myself, but I do know this trend. User:Krator (t c) 16:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep- I am the creator of this page. While this game may not be notable, neither are pages on many of the games listed on here. We don't try to delete those either. mattiator (talk) 20:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Actually, yes, oftentimes we do when we find that the articles lack reliable sources and the subjects lack notability.  RGTraynor  21:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. If we go by Google Japan, then only 1680 hits are yielded for "ソリッドランナー" (the title of the game). Of these, the majority (I dare say 1650+) are from blog, fan-, or commercial (shops) sites that easily fail WP:RS. Of the remaining potential sites, they are little more than profile pages. I failed to find sites that have information on development or reception. Unless reliable print sources are brought up, I fear looking for online sources is a dead end to keep this article. Jappalang (talk) 02:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kuberulu

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

Contested prod. Non-notable future film, fails WP:CRYSTAL. TN‑X-Man 11:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shadow Host

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

• Seemingly non-notable group. tomasz. 11:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - If you make an AfD for a band you may want to add their albums to the nomination.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Usually i just prod them as unnecessary-album-by-deleted-artist if the AfD !votes to delete. Same result either way really. tomasz. 13:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Shadow Host is a non-notable band. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Shadow Host is a notable band, because:

-It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable:
Metal-archives.com
Metaluniverse.net
Metrolyrics.com
Mastersland.com
and others.
-Has released two or more albums on a major label:
Twilight Legend
Curse Of The Angeleye
both on CD-Maximum, Russian major label.
-Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable:
Andrey Ischenko played in Catharsis.
-Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city:
It is a first and a most commonly mentioned band, playing Russian power metal.Ironguardian (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clearhealth

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

Contested PROD. PROD reason was "notability". Article about a piece of open source software in use in health organisations. Article does still read a bit like an advert. role^player 11:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. After reading the notability guidelines it seems that certainly "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." that threshold is established. A google search shows substantive coverage from ZDNet, OsNews, Slashdot, and many more as well as consistent coverage in the Open Source Healthcare site of record site LinuxMedNews.com . Furthermore many resources covering the topic in the medical field are not available online such as the leading magazine publications and things like VistA Healthcare News which this month features ClearHealth.

Secondly "deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources", it seems like any reasonable effort conducted reveal the results mentioned above which are clearly substantive and independent and meet the basic notability guideline. This article was also in response to an article request.

Finally the guideline of "When discussing whether to delete or merge an article due to non-notability, the discussion should focus not only on whether notability is established in the article, but on what the probability is that notability could be established" it seems that even if you feel notability is not now established there is a strong probability it can be.

How is this article not notable in the context of this one [24] ? Both are the largest open source systems for powering healthcare settings, VistA is for in-patient, ClearHealth is for outpatient. ClearHealth ranks higher on sourceforge and freshmeat than the VistA system? It powers the largest open source healthcare outpatient system in the country, Primary Care Coalition, as referenced in the article and in this months VistA Healthcare News. How can something be an advertisement for an open source project which is free in dollar terms and free under the GPL software license?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.36.248 (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Needs a lot of work to assert notability, but it's there. A rewrite, including some numbers, can make it wothy keeping. 9Nak (talk) 12:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Silver Springs Public School

Silver Springs Public School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

relatively unknown elementary school in Toronto. The article is just one sentence long. Yettipolitician123 (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete School hasn't been covered in any reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 11:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete It is not a notable elementary school. No sources. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom --T-rex 14:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Since when were schools not notable? This is a real school (I did a quick google search and added two refs to verify this, and the GPS coordinates given). No reason to delete something just because its a stub! CrazyChemGuy _{(talk) (Contribs)} 16:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  Nobody has claimed that the school is not real --T-rex 23:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Merge to Toronto District School Board, per precedent and WP:SCHOOLS. Existence!=notability _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 16:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• (ec)Merge and redirect to List of educational institutions in Scarborough, Ontario (the appropriate locality article) A viable verifiable encyclopaedic article is not currently possible, due to the lack of reliable sourcing; without this, the stub is merely a directory entry that fails WP:N. I'm not sure this needs an AfD though; common practice is just to merge and redirect to the locality article. EJF (talk) 16:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Or merge to Toronto District School Board as also suggested... either suits me. EJF (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —EJF (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —EJF (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to List of educational institutions in Scarborough, Ontario per usual practice. This could have just been done without coming here. Toronto District School Board isn't such a good merge since it doesn't detail any schools. TerriersFan (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect as per TerriersFan. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Webbook

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, the references provided verify that the term is used, not what it means exactly, a neologism that is for wikitionary not wikipedia. Move it across? SGGH ^speak! 10:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as a protologism, e-book and netbook are more widely used.--Michael White^T·C 11:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete This type of articles shouldn't exist on Wikipedia. Maybe it could be moved to wikitionary. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blitz Tech

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

Non-notable, no independent sources, no relevant Google or Google News hits except their own website. Was prodded, prod removed by author without improvement. Huon (talk) 09:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable corporate division. Do not merge, as the information is already covered in Blitz Games Studios.--Michael White^T·C 11:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:N. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Miss Intercontinental 2008

Miss Intercontinental 2008 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Few non-wiki and non-pageant fan site ghits. Almost no third party news sources can be found on Google. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 08:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No reliable sources. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Miss World Famous Beauties 2007

Miss World Famous Beauties 2007 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

"... is a fictif annual beauty contest". I think that says it all. No ghits whatsoever outside Wikipedia. Contested prod. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 08:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, unverifiable, probably hoax. Huon (talk) 09:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No sources. Fails WP:V. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mysterious Universe

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

I was about to try to clean up this page, but I am not sure that this article satisfies WP:WEB or WP:N. Specifically, it fails to be notable as there are not multiple, independent mentions of the subject in reliable sources. All the references currently in the article are to web forums, podcasts, or webpages except for two press releases (from Wizzard and SubscribeCast) which are not independent of the site itself as they indicate a business relationship. The only source that might qualify is the blog positing from news.com.au, but since even this would only make one mention, it fails the "multiple" aspect of WP:N. Therefore I suggest it be deleted. DestroHolmes (talk) 08:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Delete Tough call, this one. Article currently lacks reliable sources, the only source that could be useful is number 1, MSN Money, which is broken. No hits on google news. --neon white talk 01:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There is some important history on this page, but maybe that's not a good reason to keep the page on Wikipedia. I have copied the article to an offline file in case the show re-emerges and stirs more controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.30.208 (talk) 12:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The entries on this page, are all from the podcast creators mouth and/or web site. Everything is factual and no external sources were necessary. All information gathered on this specific podcast is all factual not opinion based and should not be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.112.113.146 (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why anyone feels this entry should be so heavily linked/sourced. The information presented is all factual, and it seems like this information should be preserved as a record of both MU's popularity and also of the major problems that ended in MU's downfall. If it IS deleted and Mr. Grundy begins another business venture that could have similar problems, people should know about this situation. I'm voting against deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.178.108.11 (talk) 21:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FUNLIB

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

Article was originally proposed for deletion as it did not cite any sources per WP:N and WP:V, and that searching didn't reveal any sources. Since then, the article has been blanked then stubified by the author but no sources have bee added. It's been about a month since the prod, so I'm bringing it here. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 07:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete for want of sources that aren't Wikipedia mirrors. WillOakland (talk) 00:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• The article is deleted already...  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  15:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chili cheese burrito

Chili cheese burrito (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about an action to get Chili Cheese Burritos back to Taco Bell [25], a joke about a comedian that it is Mexican slang for penis, and a 'reverse engineered' recipe [26]. This leans towards nonsense and advertisement, and is in any case unnotable. I prodded it yesterday giving the same reason, but as the creator contested (see talk page of the user and the article), the prod was removed, so here I am. Cheers, Face 07:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete wikipedia is not one of those things you stand on to shout your opinion at passers-by. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, no indication of notability, insufficient sources for verifiability, inappropriate subject for an article. Huon (talk) 09:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• weak keep Too much POV, but it does look like there is a certain amount of notability to warrant an article. The www.Chilicheese.org page lists news coverage such as Philidelphia Weekly, and on a nationally syndicated radio show [27] (although I have been unable to listen to that Mindows Media file). StephenBuxton (talk) 11:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Pure OR rubbish. L0b0t (talk) 13:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If you do a Google search, you'll find quite some forum/blog posts about it, and as Stephen showed, an RS even mentioned it. The article might be rubbish yes, but it's not OR. Cheers, Face 13:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:N. Huon is right. It is an inappropriate subject for an article. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Aside from the POV problem, I think I see a WP:COATRACK. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete ridiculous. JuJube (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete fails just about everything, CB ukexpat (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sonic weaponry in popular culture

Sonic weaponry in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This seems to be just a trivial dumping ground for anything related to Sonic Weaponry. Relevant content should be in the sonic weaponry article only, not in this subpage of clutter. RobJ1981 (talk) 07:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete article is just a trivia list. An attempt could be made to write an encyclopedic article on the subject and its real world impact but, this isn't it and probably isn't even the skeleton of it. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —Lenticel ^(talk) 09:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom --SkyWalker (talk) 10:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - I'd be surprised if there weren't some mention in some sci-fi magazine or film book, given gadgets like Dr Who's sonic screwdriver. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Indiscriminate list of very loosely associated bits of information. Plus, they forgot Earth vs. the Flying Saucers and Target Earth. Deor (talk) 11:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Crufty cesspit, they also forgot Banshee one of the early X-Men. L0b0t (talk) 13:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete It is a trivia list. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - While I think Casliber may have been on to something regarding Doctor Who's sonic screwdriver, but I'm not sure there's enough real world info out there to really warrant this list. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I guess almost every sci-fi movie or television series has sonic weapons, which would make this list indiscriminate (WP:NOT#IINFO). I wouldn't mind seeing a nice sourced paragraph or two about this topic at Sonic weaponry, but this list is just a bad idea. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This list is. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 01:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Merg to Sonic weaponry and could also have some references. --Pinkkeith (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Merge anything useful with Sonic Weaponry. And make sure Hawkwind's Sonic Attack gets a mention too. --Karenjc
  • Also, Noise Marines. L0b0t (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep a good place to bring the material together.If sssentially every game and what not has it, then frst,it shows that this feature is notable, and ,second, it makes the potential length too long for a merge. DGG (talk) 23:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge to Sonic Weaponry. there're Google Books refs, topic is popular within the society and Wikipedia needs to cover this popularity. I agree that rewriting as some sourced paragraph could be nice, but content must be kept now for that to happen later. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Zef (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] William Seaward

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

Abysmally fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Much of it, in fact, reads like WP:HOAX. Qworty (talk) 05:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Funny entry, but NN act. Associated redirects should be deleted as well, and a few associated edits reverted Thetrick (talk) 06:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and bounce out of the castle. A couple links are legit -- the Guardian article mentions Seaward by name -- but not notable enough outside of his backyard to be notable. Spell4yr (talk) 06:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• No delete Will add some more references (there are many) for verifiability and to prove notability. Please note this is my first article. What does "NN act" mean? Sprintakid (talk) 11:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment NN is wikipedia shorthand for 'Not-notable' see Wikipedia:Notability - I'm neutral on this for now. Article certainly isn't a Hoax - ref's to Guardian articles check out and he seems to have got other bits and pieces of news coverage[28] but I'm not sure if its enough to warrant an article -Hunting dog (talk) 11:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment "Abysmally fails WP:ENTERTAINER" - I disagree (certainly with the word 'abysmally' - isn't that a little too emotive?) as a person should have made contributions (to the arts in this case) that are "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." His contribution is unique, interesting and definitely unusual. I agree he fails on the other two criteria on WP:ENTERTAINER, but under the same heading it says "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards." i.e. not necessarily all.(Sprintakid talk) 13:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Just delete it! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I added a few references, but I'm still neutral about the article as things stand. William Seaward has been quoted in some reliable sources, including the ABC in Australia and in The Guardian, as well as being interviewed in The Scotsman. He's also had TV and radio appearances. So he isn't without note. It also makes me very happy to know that, somewhere in the world, Shakespearean plays have been performed in bouncy castles. I'm neutral still because of two concerns - one is that it seems like his career may have just started, and that he really hasn't done a lot yet (two productions at the fringe, and a third on the way); and the other is that I'd probably be happier saying that The Strolling Theatricals company is more notable than the director/founder. Once the unsourced content is discounted, we have a solid (short) piece about the company and some lines about William Seaward, so I'm thinking it might make more sense to have a Strolling Theatricals article and redirect to that. Anyway, I'll hold of on a !vote for a bit, in case anyone has any better thoughts. - Bilby (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Don't delete From a historian's point of view, I see no reason to delete this article. Like seemingly worthless internet blogs, the more pieces of information we have on people, their lives and their thoughts, the more we're contributing to an archive for the future. Unfortunately, only big names get into the books, but because cultural contributors like William are just below the surface of popular recognition (as of yet), databases like Wikipedia must be relied on to keep a record of them. We cannot wait for the possibility that he might become a celebrity. Anthony Arundel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.32.126.11 (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Schools 4 Schools

Schools 4 Schools (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Was nominated for speedy deletion and contested. I thought it claimed notability but can find no reliable sources to back up that claim. Selket ^Talk 05:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As best I can tell, it's still a Speedy candidate since it hasn't bothered to even assert notability. Either way, delete. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 06:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete no assertion of notability and advertising. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Fails WP:N. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete should have been speedied per original nomination ukexpat (talk) 20:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher Lockhart

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

Has published a handful of short stories but has apparently never published a book. Fails WP:BIO and WP:BK. Google throws up a lot of people with this name, but none of the notable ones appears to be this one. Possible WP:AUTO and WP:COI, given the username of this WP:single-purpose account. Qworty (talk) 05:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete the page, and someone better associated with this issue needs to explain WP:COI and WP:BOOK to Mr. Lockhart. I'm assuming good faith here, since he hasn't been a nuisance. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 06:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per the non-notable/non-verifiable bit - welcome user and point them in the right direction. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Christopher Lockhart is a non-notable science-fiction short story writer. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nu Image

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

Was nominated for CSD G11 by Realkyhick, I thought it had too many editors for that, but it might not be notable. Selket ^Talk 05:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Not CSDable, but still worthy of deletion. All self-reference and redlinked names. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 06:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Obviously, I prefer a speedy, but I'll settle for plain ol' delete. Not notable, self-referenced. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete It's blatant advertising. Maybe notable/maybe not but, still advertising. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:N. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Satisfies WP:COMPANY. [29] [30] [31]. Not to mention they have produced an Oscar-nominated film (The Black Dahlia). The blatant advertising can be removed by reverting to the pre-09 June version. --DStoykov (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Project Blue Beam

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

The article lacks any sources that meet Wikipedia's verifiability standard. Valhawk (talk) 04:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable, badly sourced conspiracy theory, also major parts are a copyvio from here. Huon (talk) 13:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete It is a stupid conspiracy theory. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Movies Made in Shreveport

List of Movies Made in Shreveport (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Listcruft; no sources, almost impossible to independently verify. An indiscriminate, unreliable list. (Contested PROD.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, indiscriminate, unverified list. JIP | Talk 05:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - this is fraggable on three separate levels: WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:LIST. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 06:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per reasons given by JIP and Bullzeye. RobJ1981 (talk) 07:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. also note that the majority of films listed have a release date in the future --T-rex 14:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete WP is not IMDB Shoombooly (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Laurence_Kaptain

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

Largely unverifiable, non-notable autobiography. Romanempire (talk) 04:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. This quick search shows plenty of sources that show notability, and that the article is verifiable. Kevin (talk) 04:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Is there a standard for concert musicians? They are much more likely to get press than the typical band/band member, but that doesn't mean every single soloist is notable (even if this one did play with Yo-Yo Ma). Thetrick (talk) 04:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Most professional orchestra musicians can say that they have played with Yo Yo Ma in one way or another. That doesn't in itself establish notability. It should also be noted that the non-fiction bibliography references have nothing to do with the content of the article. The article in itself reads as if it was lifted straight from a concert program, and is clearly on Wikipedia as a means of self-promotion. It should be deleted.willietanner (talk) 11:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment This page is clearly an autobiography; it's sole maintainer is User:LKaptain. Romanempire (talk) 04:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree that the article is dubious under WP:COI but nonetheless there might be enough notability for it to be kept under WP:MUSIC. However, that standard seems more geared towards bands than concert musicians. Can this nom be relisted under music-related discussions? --Thetrick (talk) 12:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Romanempire, you meant "its", not "it's". M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 05:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Blatant self-promotion. L0b0t (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Blatant autobiographical, non-npov self promotion Shoombooly (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin DuPriest

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

No references, individual does not seem notable enough. Article was severely vandalized when I found it. I repaired vandalism and disambiguated a link. He sounds like a cool guy and all, but I don't see need to keep this article. CosineKitty (talk) 01:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up ... guess who originally wrote this article about Kevin DuPriest? That's right, a user named... User:Kdupriest. Hmmm. CosineKitty (talk) 01:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Unreferenced and blatent WP:COI. Thetrick (talk) 02:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Developing a Microsoft SharePoint Web Portal is not notable --T-rex 14:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete or shall we give all WP admins their own articles as well? Gotta draw the line somewhere. Shoombooly (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Amie Roosevelt

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

I can't find any significant coverage to indicate that she is notable as a musician. --Michael White^T·C 01:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No reliable sources. Has notable relatives, but notability is not inherited. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Few GHits is generally sufficient to declare non-notability. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete The only notability is her familily relations, only royalty gets notability for that (ridiculous as that may be) Shoombooly (talk) 19:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, no significant coverage (even only mentioned in passing in an article on the accomplishments of Roosevelts in the present day). Mention in Roosevelt family is sufficient but could possibly be beefed up from sources to justify a redirect. --Dhartung | Talk 23:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David Yonan

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

IMHO this conflicts with the guidelines in WP:Autobiography, and it is written like an ad. See rev history and name of first author. But since it asserts notability, consensus must be reached. Shoombooly (talk) 01:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete It's written like an ad, indeed. I suspect it's a copy-and-paste from somewhere else. It is somewhat notable, though, so maybe with some cleaning up and referencing it would be worth keeping. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Notablity asserted but not proven. One new reference shows existence but not notability. Thetrick (talk) 01:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. The reviews in reliable sources (embedded in the article rather than listed under the references heading) such as Tagesspiegel Berlin are probably enough to demonstrate notability, but since the search function at http://www.tagesspiegel.de/suche/ only covers articles since 1996, I can't verify the 1988 review of his performance. I found two references to him at the Google News archive and none at various Chicago-area news sites such as Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times or PioneerLocal.com. I would expect to see more coverage of a professional concert violinist, but there may be a good reason for the relatively small number of references. --Eastmain (talk) 01:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Not yet notable. If he's as good as he says he is, he will yet deserve an article, written by another editor. As it stands, it seems a strong case of self-promotion via a single-purpose account. (By the way, I hope you don't mind that I fixed your link to WP:AUTO, Shoombooly.)--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Of course I don't mind, as long as this means you will from now on fix ALL my mistakes for me? :P Shoombooly (talk) 18:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of compatible and incompatible programs for Windows Vista 64

List of compatible and incompatible programs for Windows Vista 64 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced, unencyclopedic. KurtRaschke (talk) 00:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete unencyclopedic list/software guide. JJL (talk) 01:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, indiscriminate, unsourced list, too small to be of any use. Possibly written just to state a point. JIP | Talk 05:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Could end up being too long to be maintainable as well. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 05:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I started this page because this information is not centralized anywhere on the web. I hope that with time this could be added to by people who have experienced success or failure with Vista 64. I personally need this list. When I embarked on a quest to make Vista 64 work, I could not find a list like this anywhere. I am certainly not on a mission to make a point, especially not one negative to Microsoft. I personally hope Vista 64 works, so the assertion otherwise strikes me as ridiculous.

No one else has bothered to make a helpful list. Wounldn't you all like an encyclopedic reference on this matter?

It is unencyclopedic because I don't have time to write the whole dissertation myself. It is intended to be just a start.

It is too small because it is just a start.

Having said all that, wouldn't you all rather be writing something, and adding, instead of just being a bunch of deleters. Build it, don't break it down.

I can't believe you all would try to break it down before it is even started up. Or, you all would have me write a complete and cross referenced article in one fell swoop. I don't have time for that so go ahead and delete it if that floats your boat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcwiki9 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I am going to abandon this page for now, as the work will likely be deleted anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcwiki9 (talk • contribs) 06:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps some of you are unaware of the difference between Vista and Vista 64. If you were aware, then you would be aware of the need to know what works and what doesn't --Marcwiki9 (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Although it is laudable that you tried to spread knowledge, there's various ways to do so. An encyclopedia needs references, and when you post an article that's completely unreferenced and has little context, people read it nonetheless, and, apparently, AfD it. You don't have to write articles in one swoop, but you could easily do most of the work in Notepad first, it's all plain text and some simple commends here in wikiland. As the article stands now, it's hard to maintain, one could list every program ever made, and how would we check all this info? A list of 32 bit programs incompatible with v64 would have been better than including both options in one article. As it stands now, delete. Shoombooly (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• I put in some of the references. There is no way I am going to write the whole thing in notepad and then import a copy ready article. I was hoping other people would see the value and start adding to the article. I see this page as a very valuable support for the Windows Vista 64 article, which I also started at the same time. I still don't see how anybody can come upon an article on the day it was started and mark it for deletion. That just boggles my mind. Is there a competition to see who can mark it for deletion first? Whatever happened to the talk page? Just boom, come along and bang it out as worthless with two words. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• An article listing only the programs that don't work would be very biased, and would not be helpful to people who want to know what does work. If there was a list of software that didn't work, and someone wanted to know if a particular program works, and they didn't see it on the list, there would be no way to differentiate what works from what wasn't even tested.

• this article could get very large, similar to [32], however that list is NOT specific to Vista 64. As far as I can tell, the Vista 64 list does not exist yet. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • Comment Articles that long may not be appropriate for wikipedia, it's an encyclopedia, not an almanac. If there's a list of what doesn't work, the rest will probably work, not that biased i think. You don't have to write a feature ready article from scratch, but you don need to assert notability in the first draft of the article, otherwise it ends up here. The first thing to consider is how your article links up with the articles already on wikipedia. Lonely long articles with little context end up here much quicker than short stubs that have context, references and links from other articles. Before writing anything at all, that should be on your mind. Also, it's debatable whether or not a list like that is encyclopedic content, it will need a lot of convincing people, and what you provided so far, apparently, didn't convince everyone. Keep in mind that we all want a good wikipedia, but that not everyone goes about it the same way, but that when there's consensus about an issue, this is usually not anything personal, and you should not get angry if your ideas don't catch on. Better find ways to make them catch on than start an angry rant, because that will just alienate everyone from your point of view. Be patient, and be resourceful. Shoombooly (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • Comment I have used Vista 64 quite a bit. To assume that any given software works is a mistake. In my experience, getting 32 bit software to work is a moderate challenge. Anyone who has gone through the trouble that I have will appreciate having a resource to go to to find out what works and what doesn't. In todays day and age, it is likely that searchers will wind up at Wikipedia. Wikipedia has many lists and tables. I see no problem with another one. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment But how will you prove what works and what doesn't? It's probably all going to be original research? (WP:OR Shoombooly (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I am not a grizzled old hand at Wikipedia. I am just someone who likes Wikipedia and is trying my bit to make it better. If you check out the references you will see that none of them are OR. I have picked content straight from the software's web site (Microsoft, Apple) or from the consensus of software support boards. This does not seem to be OR to me. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment That's true. But they should ALL have a reference. And even then, it just doesn't feel like a proper article yet. How will you link to it from other wiki articles? Shouldn't all programs have hyperlinks to their WP page, and/or homepage? What's the context of the article? How do i get there from the mainpage? That all needs answered. And even then, not everyone may be convinced, be prepared to have discussions about it with people. Shoombooly (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Thank you Shoombooly for the constructive input. Those are excellent questions. I will have to eventually provide all the links you note that are neccessary. The genesis of this article is that I had real trouble getting Vista and old programs to run under Vista 64. I don't think that I am the only one who hoped that Wikipedia could provide some help, in an encyclopedia manner. However, it seems now, that there is no one here besides myself who thinks as I do. So, it is probably hopeless. I was hoping that others would see the potential here and run with it. Instead the opposite has happened and it seems likely the article will get deleted. That seems like a shame to me. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 04:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, as WP:NOT is pretty clear that Wikipedia is not a directory. A single page that intends to list every piece of software that is available, whether or not it is compatible with 64-bit editions of Windows Vista, is hopelessly unmaintainable. There are well over 100,000 pieces of software that have been written for Windows over the years; if someone wants to find out if a particular piece of software is compatible with 64-bit editions of one specific operating system, they aren't going to come to this article to find out -- they'll either go to the article in question, or to the software vendor's web site. -/- Warren 02:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I would not attempt to categorize so much software, just the big and interesting ones. There are a lot of lists and tables on Wikipedia, including some for Windows itself. [[33]], [[34]], [[35]], etc.
    • What counts as big and interesting ones? That will differ from someone's perspective. For example, none of the s/w listed sound interesting to me. Is there anything you can suggest that would remove the subjectiveness of the definition? --soum ^talk 04:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. An absolutely unmaintainable list. Aside from the points raised by Warren and others above, let's just assume that it somehow can be made into a comprehensive enough listing of (in)compatible software, nicely formatted and reffed and all that. But softwares are going to be updated all the time - who's going to keep the list updated to reflect present situation? And outdated list would be more useless than no list. Also, how much purpose will the list serve? Software compat is improving day by day. Just saying a software is compatible with Vista x64 isn't useful - most probably the user is looking for the patch/version that gives the compatibility. And those are best suited for the indiv. articles - thats where the user will first look. The goal of the author is commendable, but a list in an encyclopedia isn't the way to that end. --soum ^talk 05:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Fully agree with soum. Commendable goal, but as i said before, be resourceful and find another way to get the information across. Shoombooly (talk) 10:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, Nice idea, but encyclopedically a nightmare and legally a nightmare - every single detail would have to be 100% referenced else we could see a class action againt WP for defamatory statements, and the information would be changing hourly as new versions and new MS patches become available. --Triwbe (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Well that about clinches it. The consensus is clear. I vote to delete it. Delete. All of the above is noted, and the problems are surmountable. This list needs to be made somewhere, but not here. The solution to the legal problems could be to include only software programs that self declare compatibility or not. Microsoft and Apple do this, of course. Most other software does as well.

I apologise for wasting all of your time. I thought I had a great idea to improve Wikipedia. The original reasons for deletion were an assertion that had nothing to do with the need for this information, and I thought was an unfair knee jerk reaction. I imagined that KurtRaschke was on a hunt for pages to delete, and was pouncing before a real analysis of the issue. Assuming good faith was a challenge. For all the words that Wikipedia has written about not taking it personally, there is a real uncomforatble experience here, and it is not a great way to make friends. It is my opinion that Wikipedia needs to do something to be nicer to the newbies. There are a lot of people out there who could help, but if a persons experience is uncomfortable, then they won't want to come back.

Perhaps there could be something bigger than a sandbox for people to propose an article. People could fill in a form where they document the need for the article, and they could certify that the article can be made compliant with all of the "what wikipedia is not" items one by one.

My experience of rejection was uncomfortable to say the least. And it originally appeared that the rejection was for bad reasons. Eventually the analysis became complete.

Perhaps there is a better way. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Hey don't be so negative, you have generated a lot of discussion and hopefully we have all learnt something here (well most of us anyhow). The only way any of us find out is often by making attempts and getting rejected. Wikipedia has many many different policies, but one of the major ones is WP:CONSENSUS and it can be a bit of a kangaroo court, it's a pity some people have not read, or have forgotten civility, a core wp policy, and one I try to keep to and something others should read carefully and thoughtfully. You to can help yourself by reading as much as you can. Start with WP:ISNOT and WP:MOS, and others in you welcome message on your talk page. Don't be discouraged and Be bold. --Triwbe (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Taking the article at face value, it's something that's unmaintainable as, given the criteria, virtually any Windows program would qualify for listing, and that's thousands. An article on compatability issues with Vista is viable, but my main concern here is with maintainability. 23skidoo (talk) 17:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ForestWander Nature Photography

ForestWander Nature Photography (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

A father and son company that takes photos of rural West Virginia and that gives many of them away via the internet. They were once a finalist in one category of a competition, and I'm willing to believe that there was once an article about them in the Charleston Gazette (although either its server or my browser refuses to display this). And -- plastic at the ready? -- you may choose to purchase the prints too, via the links thoughtfully provided in the article.

However, Wikipedia is not a web directory, the company doesn't seem to have won any competitions, there's no mention of any exhibitions or substantial coverage in any magazines (let alone book-length publication), and it all seems of very minor note; unless of course you want free screensavers of rural West Virginia, in which case Google will no doubt locate them for you.

Moreover, the only contributor of substance to this article has been User:Forestwanderer. I start to suspect COI.

I prodded this article on 6 June. Forestwanderer proceeded to make a number of edits to the page, which to me indicated a desire to keep it; I therefore removed the prod notice myself.

The last of the edits by Forestwanderer has a summary pointing people to further justifications to be read on the talk page. Yes, do take a look: it's quite revealing. -- Hoary (talk) 00:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Seems to be blatent WP:ADVERT and WP:COI. Thetrick (talk) 00:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete there is some notability. A local newspaper article (the link worked when I tried it) And finalist in a Nature Conservancy photo competition is not nothing. But it is not enough to justify an article. It may be that this photographer will gain enough attention to merit an article at some future date.Elan26 (talk) 00:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Elan26
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 09:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 09:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I don't see notability here and this is blatant advertising and a conflict of interest to boot. freshacconcispeaktome 11:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per all. Johnbod (talk) 11:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Personally I would have db-spammed it at first review since it's blatant advertising, and the author is same as company name, so never NPOV. The democratic way will do too. Shoombooly (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete Should have been G11'd - blatant spam ukexpat (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Walk the Walk (album)

Walk the Walk (album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Duff has denied working on a debut album via an interview with JustJared.com. Xerz (talk) 00:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No reliable sources about this album yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Here's the link confirming her denial of the album: [36]. SKS2K6 (talk) 02:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The interview just shows the unreliability of the article source. Kevin (talk) 04:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Let's see if she can sing first, before devoting an article to it. (oh, and no reliable sources)Shoombooly (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] One Piece side comics

One Piece side comics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:FICT and WP:N completely. List of the side stories from included in the One Piece manga volumes, which are not notable and not anything generally mentioned within anime/manga articles unless they are relevant to he work itself. Failed PROD removed by an IP with no reason given. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete - possibly merge some of it to List of One Piece chapters, but probably largely just not notable. Doceirias (talk) 01:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge to List of One Piece chapters mentions of each side story into the list of chapters for the volume it's in. (Assuming you can parse that -- sleep deprevation does bad things to my clarity.) —Quasirandom (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge with List of One Piece chapters, and/or List of One Piece episodes for the side stories that have been animated. {{Justyn (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)}}

Merge Too long, but notable. Otherwise i concur with the 2 Merge-voters Shoombooly (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 00:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Omnitrix aliens

List of Omnitrix aliens (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Only pertains to the subject inside the fictional universe in the American animated cartoon show Ben 10. I do not believe this establishes notability. Dabby (talk) 00:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep lack of sources notwithstanding, this list is a primary character list and essential to the understanding of the series. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 00:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep not THAT notable, but apparently important to the series, and it's not going to be possible to merge this into the main Ben 10 article. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 05:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - the minute details of this tv show are not notable. --T-rex 14:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Sourced well enough, lists the voice actors, list makes sense as its own grouping, and the article exists on nine other wikipedias. Good enough for me. In the very worst case, this should be trimmed and merged into List of characters in Ben 10. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Sourced, has been frequently edited since 2006, might be too long but that's no ground for deletion. Being detailed about things isn't such a bad thing, as long as it is readable. Shoombooly (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep It is full of imformation that the fans of both series can enjoy.I also agree with Sgeureka, at the very worst it could be moved, not deleted.Pacboy94 21:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• keep I agree with The Rogue Penguin, it is well sourced and essential to the understanding of what the series is about, ben's aliens.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Understanding the aliens is integral to understanding the show. There is too much information to merge into other articles. Ged UK (talk) 15:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep People new to the series need an understanding of the characters. Deleting a page for major stuff like this is like, saying Sonic the Hedgehog doesn't deserve a page. Skeletal_SLJCOAAATR_Soul_Striker_of_Vengence (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD footer

This section describes how to list for deletion articles and their associated talk pages. See the related pages for templates, categories, redirects, stub types, pages in the Wikipedia namespace, user pages, or images and other media, or use copyright violation where applicable. As well, note that deletion may not be needed for problems such as pages written in foreign languages, duplicate pages, and other cases.

Note: Users must be logged in to complete steps II and III.

To list a single article for deletion for the first time, follow this three-step process:

I.	Put the deletion tag on the article. Insert the {{subst:afd1}} tag at the top of the article if it's the article's first AfD nomination, if the article has been nominated for deletion before use {{subst:afdx}} instead. Please do not mark the edit as minor. Please include in the edit summary the phrase AfD: Nominated for deletion; see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName]] replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion. You can check the "Watch this page" box to follow the page in your watchlist. This allows you to notice if the AfD tag is removed by a vandal or a new user unfamiliar with deletion policy. Save the page.
II.	Create the article's deletion discussion page. The resulting AfD box at the top of the article should contain a link to "Preloaded debate" in the AfD page. Click that link to open the article's deletion discussion page. Some preloaded text and some instructions will appear. Give a reason for the deletion and a category for the debate (instructions will be on the page). OR Click the link saying "this article's entry" to open the deletion-debate page. Insert this text: {{subst:afd2 | pg=PageName | cat=Category | text=Reason the page should be deleted}} ~~~~ replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion, Category with a letter indicating the category of the debate, and Reason... with the reasons you think the page should be deleted. If you used template {{subst:afdx}} instead of {{subst:afd1}}, use "PageName (2nd nomination)" instead of "PageName" for a second nomination, etc.). Consider adding an appropriate deletion sorting template to the nomination. Consider checking "Watch this page" to follow the progress of the debate. Please use an edit summary such as Creating deletion discussion page for [[PageName]] replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion. Save the page.
III.	Notify users who monitor AfD discussion. Open the articles for deletion log page. At the top of the list on the log page (there's a comment indicating the spot), insert: {{subst:afd3 | pg=PageName}} replacing PageName appropriately. Include the discussion page's name in your edit summary like Adding [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName]] replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion. If you used template {{subst:afdx}} instead of {{subst:afd1}}, use "PageName (2nd nomination)" instead of "PageName" for a second nomination, etc.). Save the page. Your insertion will be automatically expanded to the same form as the preceding lines in the file: {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}}.

To list multiple related pages for deletion see this page.

Once listed, deletion discussions can, optionally, also be transcluded into an appropriate deletion sorting category, such as the ones for actors, music, academics, or for specific countries; which helps attract people familiar with a particular topic area. Please see the list of categories.