From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deletion discussions
Deletion today Deletion yesterday Articles (by category) Templates Images & media Categories (active) User categories Stub types Redirects Miscellany Deletion review
Deletion policy
Process - log - tools Guide - Admin guide

WIKIDELETION

YESTERDAY

22:43, Monday, June 9, 2008 (UTC)
(nominations are from June 8, 2008 (UTC))

WARNING! Due to the large size of AfD and the variable (but more modest) sizes of TfD, CfD, SfD, RfD, and WP:CP, this page is large! You have been warned.

Page out of date? PurgeIt!™

[edit] About this page

This page gives live feeds for yesterday's new AfD, TfD, IfD, CfD, SfD, and WP:CP nominations. (For technical and/or other reasons, feeds for UCfD, MfD, PROD, and speedy deletion are unavailable.)

See also: Wikideletion Today

Contents 1 About this page 2 Articles for deletion 2.1 Boogey Ball 2.2 Norchase 2.3 Rosemary Margaret Hobor 2.4 Lullaby Versions of Eminem 2.5 E (DVD) 2.6 Raw and Uncutt 2.7 2008 Southeastern/MidAtlantic US Heat Wave 2.8 Chuck It In 2.9 Chalkmaster 2.10 Jake Morgan 2.11 List of fiction set in Chicago 2.12 List of video games set in New York City 2.13 Jonathan dos Santos 2.14 H. Kramer & Company 2.15 MILOFM 2.16 Zaket 2.17 Hill 55 2.18 Nigger Head Island (Queensland) 2.19 Kimberley Anne Scott Mathers 2.20 List of Radiohead B-sides 2.21 Tour de Moose 2.22 Grihasree 2.23 Veera (actor) 2.24 Five Dollars a Day (film) 2.25 Gregory Alan Burhoe 2.26 David Madow 2.27 Trading Places International 2.28 Gremlins 3 2.29 Ramsetcube 2.30 Red Scare Industries 2.31 Fireworks photography 2.32 Creole (markup) 2.33 Eros-Film 2.34 POS parent over shoulder 2.35 The Team (band) 2.36 The Princes of the Golden Cage (novel) 2.37 Eric Junior 2.38 Beau dentro 2.39 Anime Punch! 2.40 Bucium, folk rock band 2.41 Ian 'H' Watkins 2.42 Tõnu Trubetsky 2.43 Cursor Hotspot (pixel on point of mouse cursor) 2.44 Nurburgring fastest lap times for comparison 2.45 Terry Nova 2.46 Jesse Dunford Wood 2.47 RHUL Bears Basketball 2.48 Amy Roloff 2.49 Miko Mido 2.50 Young CoSIDA 2.51 John Hallworth 2.52 Sacred Headwaters 2.53 Ali Faik Zaghloul 2.54 Delores Washington 2.55 Suresh Padmanabhan 2.56 College Prowler 2.57 Damián Manso 2.58 Decontrol 2.59 Parthian relations with the Armenians 2.60 Soul Reaver 2.61 Arthur Roznawski 2.62 The Mysterious Benedict Society and the Perilous Journey 2.63 List of characters in the Animal Crossing series 2.64 Cell (Dragon Ball) 2.65 Nikki Catsouras 2.66 Syrup wells 2.67 Sudanese goat marriage incident 2.68 Gone Like Solomon 2.69 Anthony Green (musician) 2.70 Police invasion of UCT campus 2.71 Rendezvous (political cartoon) 2.72 Angel the Bullet 2.73 More to Me Than Meat and Eyes 2.74 Spies Like Us / Winnetka Exit 2.75 GTA V 2.76 Charles Huang 2.77 List of Oklahoma State University buildings 2.78 Between the Walls 2.79 Joan E. Goody 2.80 Esham 2.81 Real Gone (Billy Ray Cyrus song) 2.82 Oh Jin Hwan 2.83 Greatest Times of All 2.84 Antonino Rizzuto 2.85 Some Things Never Change (disambiguation) 2.86 Martin Auz 2.87 Kavoshex 2.88 ExtremeDown! 2.89 2008 Georgia-Russia crisis 3 Templates for deletion 3.1 June 8 3.1.1 Template:Electionpeople 3.1.2 Template:Smile 3.1.3 Template:WikiProject Video Games 3.1.4 Template:Cvgproject 3.1.5 Template:Cvg-proj 3.1.6 Template:Infobox Province of Cameroon 3.1.7 Template:Infobox Mongolian Province 3.1.8 Template:Infobox Dominican municipality 3.1.9 Template:Detroit Tigers shortstops 3.1.10 Template:WP:gaming the system 3.1.11 Template:Female bio 4 Images and media for deletion 4.1 June 8 4.1.1 Image:Homosexual scene - 420 BCE, Dinos painter - Capua - GR 1772.3-20.154 F65 - British Museum.jpg 4.1.2 Image:Unicursalhex1.gif 5 Categories for discussion 5.1 June 8 5.1.1 NEW NOMINATIONS 5.1.2 Category:WikiProject Kansas City articles 5.1.3 Multiplication and Division 5.1.4 Category:Anarchism and culture 5.1.5 Category:Wikipedia articles to be split 5.1.6 Category:Organisations designated as terrorist by several governments 5.1.7 Category:Sewanee alumni 5.1.8 Category:British Occupations 5.1.9 Category:Photos by SimonEast 6 User categories for discussion 7 Stub types for deletion 8 Redirects for discussion 8.1 June 8 8.1.1 Circles of Reformist Initiative → Reformist Initiative Circles 8.1.2 List of shopping malls in New Hampshire → Category:Shopping malls in New Hampshire 9 Miscellany for deletion 10 Proposed deletion 11 Copyright problems 11.1 2008-06-08

[edit] Articles for deletion

Purge server cache

[edit] Boogey Ball

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

Non-notable -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, considering the article's current state. I think it's bordering on A1 speedy deletion based on the really scant amount of detail there now. I'll happily reconsider if the article is improved to the point that it holds some value to the project. Erechtheus (talk) 00:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Unless the Boogey Ball becomes a massive hit with consumers, there just isn't enough notability for this article. Artene50 (talk) 08:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. ukexpat (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - article is empty and a web-search doesn't give out much either. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Norchase

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

I can find no evidence for the use of "Norchase" as the name of a distinct region of the Platte Purchase. Every Google hit for Norchase +Missouri either is a clone of this article or contains a clone of Template:Missouri, to which "Norchase" was added by the author of this article. In the absence of any reliable sources confirming the use of this term, the article fails WP:V. Deor (talk) 23:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. —Deor (talk) 23:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, per nominator's rationale. At this point, it appears to be a likely WP:NFT case. Erechtheus (talk) 00:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Unverifiable at best. Edward321 (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I tagged this with a speedy when it was created, but was reprimanded. Grey Wanderer | Talk 17:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lullaby Versions of Eminem

Lullaby Versions of Eminem (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No sign of this actually being "official" as all engine searches of "Lullaby Versions of Eminem" lead to online stores, like most bootlegs do. No indication of it being released by any of Eminem's official labels, such as "Shady", Aftermath, Interscope or Universal. It clearly is another bootleg. Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 23:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Bootleg album, no reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per precedent on the similar Pokémon Chaos Black (AfD). -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 06:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete also made a search and came up with nothing which indicates it to be an actual Eminem release. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Raw and Uncutt

Raw and Uncutt (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Lack of reliable sources, plus it's not even an official album since it was not released by any of Interscope, Aftermath, Shady or Universal International that are Eminem's official distribution labels. As it can be seen here is was released by a probable bootleg label "AFE" Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 22:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Bootleg album, fails WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:MUSIC "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable" -- Coasttocoast (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008 Southeastern/MidAtlantic US Heat Wave

2008 Southeastern/MidAtlantic US Heat Wave (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic content JasonCNJ (talk) 22:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete this article about a so-called heat wave that began just one day before the article was created. If it really proves to be a lengthy heat wave, the article can be recreated later when proper info exists. Zaxem (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per above. Also appears to be non-notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, but not speedy. The same heat wave is existing in the Northeast as well. I't just hot temperatures, and this gives very little information to the reader. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 23:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Provides not very much info to the reader, and these heat waves occur often. Soxred 93 01:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I don't see a speedy criteria this falls under, but there certainly seems to be a CRYSTAL issue with it since we don't know yet whether this will be a notable heat wave. Plus, there's no possibility of there being sources about the lasting impact and notoriety of this weather pattern, as it is apparently ongoing. Townlake (talk) 05:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete not because its not notable but because its WP:CRYSTAL Artene50 (talk) 08:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete not a speedy candidate, but the article describes a non-notable weather phenomenon. There are probably 2-3 "heat waves" every summer in the Cleveland area where I live NewYork483 (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No records being set, and we don't need an article on each one. Funnyfarmofdoom (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. This isn't significant. --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chuck It In

Chuck It In (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Already covered in the Toasted TV article. Zaxem (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to the Toasted TV article as a valid search term given what Zaxem mentions above. Erechtheus (talk) 01:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep. That's probably a good idea. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chalkmaster

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

Non-notable -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. The lack of any non-local coverage and a relatively scant amount of local coverage given the links provided in the article leads me to the same conclusion as that of the nominator. Erechtheus (talk) 01:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. Artene50 (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete for not notable. Tabor (talk) 02:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 06:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above. As a Torontonian myself, his "legend" nevertheless seems to have escaped me. There are plenty of sidewalk chalk artists up here. He seems no more notable then the rest. freshacconcispeaktome 14:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable per nom ukexpat (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jake Morgan

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

This is a lengthy article about a baby from General Hospital. The article currently consists of unsourced plot summaries about what the adults surrounding him have done. After attempting to redirect it twice to General Hospital, an editor has reverted me twice. I have now brought it here for larger community input. AniMate 21:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC) AniMate 21:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable minor character, no out-of-universe info exists for him. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --Elonka 22:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. This page's history is incredibly tangled, as it looks like an anon did a copy/paste move in September 2007, and nobody caught it. The General Hospital character that is being discussed is also known as Jake Spencer, in case anyone is confused. --Elonka 23:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: "This is a lengthy article about a baby"—that sold it for me. –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable baby. Baby? Yes, a baby. Sigh. Gwernol 23:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect Technically, you want 30 or RfC, not Afd. But in practice, I suppose AfD does serve to force things like this--let us consider closing as Redirect-- it actually is in practice a variant of delete. DGG (talk) 04:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of General Hospital characters. The character himself is definitely notable within the universe of the series due to his parentage, but obviously is undeserving of his own article. Such redirects have become a common practice for fictional characters from soaps to Star Wars. AniMate's previous attempts to redirect were thwarted by an editor who has now been admonished and blocked for unacceptable behavior, I don't see why a redirect can't be attempted again. — TAnthony^Talk 05:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to stop the article from being recreated through reverts. The article is just a lot of plot (WP:NOT#PLOT) with little hope for improvement per lack of sources. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of fiction set in Chicago

List of fiction set in Chicago (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hopelessly indiscriminat elist of trivia. Full of red links and original research ("uses Chicago as a foil for a fictitious Iowa city"), not to mention a total lack of refs. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I respectfully disagree with the nominator's categorizing of this list. As I see it, this list is actually comprehensive (although I had to add "Robin and the 7 Hoods" to the Film section -- how could they forget that?). The OR can easily be cleaned up, but I don't see the point in completely erasing it. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep This is a useful list that could be cleaned up and improved, but shouldn't be deleted. BRMo (talk) 02:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up per above NewYork483 (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of video games set in New York City

List of video games set in New York City (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

List of loosely associated topics. As you can see, these games have nothing in common besides at least "somewhat" being based in NYC. Pure trivia, unsourced. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• I am also listing the following article for the same reason:

List of video games set in London (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. same also for the "London" version Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 23:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep This is a notable and reasonable way to do things. It is very much something someone might want to look up, and enough can be said about them to make it more than a category., There should be no problem at all putting in a source to show where each of them is set. DGG (talk) 04:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathan dos Santos

Jonathan dos Santos (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league --Jimbo^[online] 21:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. It's already been deleted three times via prod and CSD. Time to put it to bed for good. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Having two fairly well-known older brothers does not justify this individual having his own article. Zaxem (talk) 23:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• KEEP. Jonathan dos Santos is cool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.11.98.77 (talk) 11:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately "being cool" is a not a pre-requisite for a WP article, hence why I don't have one :-) ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 19:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MILOFM

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

Non-notable and unlicensed low-power radio station with no secondary sources proving notability, sans station's own website. JPG-GR (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep - Saying this station is not notable is a slap in the face for all other pirate radio stations on Wikipedia. Pirate radio can live because very few people know about it, only a small percent of people in a given community know about these type of stations. See Radio CPR for example. The best example is KBFR (pirate radio). What about Free Radio Santa Cruz? Just because you might not see any notability in unlicensed stations doesn't mean the people who listen to them think the same way. I can personally confirm that this station exists and can be heard some distance on several radios. (Side note - editor who nominated this article has vendetta against me and has repetitively deleted good faith edits of mine for some unknown reason.) --Milonica (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no vendetta - please assume good faith. Your argument seems fully based on WP:ILIKEIT and fails to provide any proof of notability. JPG-GR (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zaket

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

Not in the standard academic king lists, no sources on Google Scholar or Google books, perhaps an old hoax but reliable sources don't list him. Doug Weller (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - I can't find anything in Britannica or here (of course that doesn't mean he didn't exist as some king names are unknown).
• Delete per WP:VERIFY as not published by any known source. Anyway it's up to the editor really to find any reliable sources per WP:BURDEN. Nk.sheridan   Talk 21:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I've posted a message at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ancient_Egypt asking for sources regarding this supposed king. Not WP:CANVASS, I hope! As i've not mentioned the AfD debate. Nk.sheridan   Talk 21:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment I think you could have drawn it to people's attention so long as you didn't comment on it. Doug Weller (talk) 06:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. —Nk.sheridan   Talk 21:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of WP:RS Zaket is not mentioned as a king of the 16th dynasty by any reliable published sources or by an Egyptologist. Moreover this web (not reliable) source indicates that Zaket was possibly a fictional king: [1] while this reliable academic site by the University College of London names no such king: [2] (scroll down to the 16th dynasty). I checked Nicolas Grimal's book, A History of Ancient Egypt, and no Zaket appears either for the 16th dynasty. Leoboudv (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I consulted the most updated book on the topic by Brill in 2006 called "Ancient Egyptian Chronology (Handbook of Oriental Studies)" that was co-authored by Erik Hornung, Rolf Krauss and David Warburton. They provide a chronology table on page 492 and state the 16th and 17th dynasty were all Theban kings with names like Nebiriau, Sobekhotep VIII, Bebiankh, the 3 Intef kings, 2 Taoside rulers and Kamose. No Zaket, which is an Asiatic name, is listed. Leoboudv (talk) 23:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Likely, the "missing" name is due to a spelling problem combined with very uncertain chronology during the second intermediate period. Digital Egypt gives Sakir-har as a king of the 15th dynasty--perhaps one and the same with our Zaket. During the 2nd Intermediate period especially, dynasties and spelling of names is a huge mess. Often, it's not clear whether the king belonged to one dynasty or another, and the name is usually transliterated by several different choices. Add to this that some kings may not have been real, and the problems worsen. For the record, as of now there are no mainspace pages that link to the article. In theory, articles about second intermediate period kings are legit topics, but since we can't determine which king the article is supposed to be about, I wouldn't object to deleting. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 01:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I checked the Digital Egypt site and Zaket isn't there. In contrast, Sakir-Har was indeed a real Hyksos king; we already have an article with clear sources on him. Unless there is clear evidence for Zaket's existence, the best option is delete. We can't have phantom kings on Wikipedia. No one disputes the existence of king Sheshi or Yaqub-Har but no verifiable source confirms Zaket's existence at all. Zaket may be WP:OR Leoboudv (talk) 05:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Unverifiable at best. Edward321 (talk) 14:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hill 55

Hill 55 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This hill lacks notability since it has not been (and it does not appear likely that it will) be covered in 3rd party sources. The only reason this hill might even close to notable is because Carlos Hathcock once operated from there according to the article on him. However, this does not appear to make the location itself notable or likely to be covered by reliable sources. --Hydraton31 (talk) _{{Contributions}} 20:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete I agree with hydraton31 above.Also the article is extremely short and would be a canidate for csd-A1.Xp54321 ^{(Hello!,Contribs)} 20:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 23:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Buckshot06(prof) 00:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - Non-notable in this form considering the lack of any information to support the short stub. The stub itself is vague and presents nothing except for geographical location. If more information was provided in support of the battle and its participants it could be elaborated on. As it stands, my DELETE recommendation is actually longer than the article. - Trippz (talk) 01:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete This stub provides zero verifiable information on the precise location of Hill 55. Artene50 (talk) 02:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nigger Head Island (Queensland)

Nigger Head Island (Queensland) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Google doesn't seem to know anything about this small island other than WP scrapings. The only reference is now dead. Aside from verifiability, does having an offensive name make a small island encyclopaedic? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The existence of the island has been established, so please !vote based on the notability, not verifiability, of the article. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• G3 Appears to be a hoax, no info exists at all on this island. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete (possibly speedy) if this location cannot be confirmed in any atlas (whether paper or online). Note: It has been created by a user who has been around for more than two years with more than 1000 edits. Sebwite (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment It may not be a hoax, although it looks a lot like one. If it isn't a hoax, it still needs to meet the same notability guidelines as everything else. I suggest editors !vote on the notability, rather than the possibility that it is a hoax. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Google Maps shows uninhabited islands (probably coral reefs) at that location. Nothing interesting on Google Books. It may be true, but it's not notable enough. --h2g2bob (talk) 22:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete A hoax? Honestly, does anyone believe that a place with that name would exist? Ecoleetage (talk) 22:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Looks like the egg is on your face this time, Ecoleetage. Hesperian 23:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep .. a quick search of Queensland's official placenames here shows that this Island does exist, and the name is both approved and official. Bruceanthro (talk) 23:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep A search of Geoscience Australia's place name data base indicates that this exists. Given that sources can be found it is surely notable. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - it's a real geographic place—presumably named after a "Nigger Head", an obsolete term for a winch used on commercial fishing boats.(Dictionary of Prince Edward Island English, 1996) - Peripitus (Talk) 23:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Real place, as confirmed by the Gazetteer of Australia.[3] Hesperian 23:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. All gazetted geographic locations are notable. Hesperian 23:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Obviously a real place, as shown above and even mentioned, albeit briefly, in the news.[4] There is some notability in the fact that the name is allegedly racist. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: After a request from the nominator and further consideration, I have reopened this debate. Inhabited places are considered inherently notable; this island, however, is uninhabited, so notability must still be established. —Travis^talk 13:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Real named geographical feature recognized by the government of Queensland. I added it to the category uninhabited islands, which has over 300 entries. Edward321 (talk) 14:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Verified geographical locations are inherently notable. That includes towns, villages, lakes, mountains, and islands. 23skidoo (talk) 15:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Can someone point me toward the appropriate guideline? The closest thing I could find was Wikipedia:Notability (Places and transportation) which didn't help at all. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep the island in question clearly exists. All geographical locations are notable, including all islands (providing they are not just a very tiny lump of rock, then it becomes more difficult to assess) Wikipedia is not just a general encyclopaedia, but also a specialist encyclopaedia; and an encyclopaedia on Australia's coastline would surely mention such an island. I don't enjoy bringing OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to the table, but we have precedent for hosting hundreds (maybe thousands?) of articles on uninhabited islands. EJF (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment (I was caught in an edit conflict but) I understand that all formally named geological features including mountain tops, lakes, rivers, and islands are sufficiently notable in themselves to warrant an article on Wikipedia (whether remote, uninhabited or not) .. and I have not encountered any notability guidelines to suggest otherwise!? Bruceanthro (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kimberley Anne Scott Mathers

Kimberley Anne Scott Mathers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO. Everything in this article always relates to his former husband Eminem. It should almost be renamed Relationship of Eminem and Kimberly Anne Scott Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 19:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No independent achievements. Anything new here should be merged back into Eminem article. Thetrick (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep due to presence of reliable sources and relationship with notable person. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: According to Wikipedia:BIO#Invalid_criteria, a relationship with notable person does not constitute notability. Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 21:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• It's obviously a valid search term, so I don't see any reason why nothing could be merged and redirected without deletion in the worst case scenario here. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• No offense, but did you even bother to read the content under that link? "Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics" is right there too. Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 00:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Another thing to check is the article's history, which shows many editors working on the article for three years. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• So wait, the number of editors and when it was created now determines notability? Seriously????? Funny. Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 00:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• It shows that a large number of contributors believe it is notable and than a handful of posts in the AfD does not reflect the real opinion of our community. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• What?!?...well, you are just desperate here. Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 22:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. There's nothing in the article to hint at independent notability, and I don't think there ever has been. zadignose (talk) 22:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment As I understand it, the nominator seems to be proposing a rename. let's close this and let him do it. DGG (talk) 04:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Reply. No I'm not! Then why would I have put this on Afd?? I was being sarcastic...seriously, what a stupid name would Relationship of Eminem and Kimberly Anne Scott be anyways! Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 14:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable ex-wife, notability is not inherited. ukexpat (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • She is notable and notability is inherited. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    • An absolutely false statement. Click the link this time. --Thetrick (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, the claim that notability is not inherited is indeed false. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Comment: maybe in your version of reality it is false, but in Wikipedia it is not. Oh and by the way that was one editor's comment in a totally unrelated Afd discussion, the result of which was to delete. – ukexpat (talk) 20:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
          • An article that actually lacked any overwhelming consensus to be deleted. And in my version of reality, which is the Wikipedia version of reality, Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED is considered an "argument" to avoid in AfD discussions. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
            • The link you provided says the exact opposite of what you are arguing here. DCEdwards¹⁹⁶⁶ 20:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
              • The link provides "Delete UNESCO can not be notable because it's the UN which is notable, and notability is not inherited" as an example of a bad or weak argument. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
                • Dude, why don't you just give up? You brought three different ridiculous arguments to sustain your cause, used an essay and some random quote from an Afd to fight an official policy, and yet you ignore what everyone else is trying to tell you. Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 22:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to Eminem#Personal life. DCEdwards¹⁹⁶⁶ 17:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Radiohead B-sides

List of Radiohead B-sides (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable, ie, B-sides do not warrant page Tenacious D Fan (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as trivia, no reliable sources about the B-sides, and B-sides are rarely ever notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)}
• Delete per TPH. -- Jeandré, 2008-06-08t20:35z
• Delete as per previous comments. However, over the years some B-sides have been known to become hit tunes. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

yes, that is true, but none of these did. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• 2+2=AfD Delete as fancruft. Would look better on a fansite, with more details of the songs. On a related matter, was their cover of Nobody Does It Better ever released? Lugnuts (talk) 07:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:OR. Its all rather subjective article. Artene50 (talk) 08:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• In an interstella burst I am here to vote Delete. The B-sides already discussed in the seperate articles for each single. Its just a list where each title redirects to the single it appears as the B-side too, which makes it redundant to information elsewhere. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. It's well established that discographies are legitimate lists of works, and this is a legitimate subsidiary article of Radiohead discography per Wikipedia:Summary style. It could possibly be merged into Radiohead discography, but that doesn't require an AFD. EALacey (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tour de Moose

Tour de Moose (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable bike/bar crawl --Thetrick (talk) 19:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: unsourced and does not indicate encyclopedic notability. -- Jeandré, 2008-06-08t20:34z
• Delete. The event sounds like a lot of fun, but not encyclopedia material. Zaxem (talk) 23:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Grihasree

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

Seems to have been an effort at advertising. Website is dead. No notability proven. --Thetrick (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Veera (actor)

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

Unsourced and does not indicate notability. -- Jeandré, 2008-06-08t18:39z 18:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep he is playing opposite Trisha Krishnan in Chennaiyil Oru Mazhaikalam and I have added the source. Kipof (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete NN. One role in upcoming film of unknown quality. Not encyclopedia material. Thetrick (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • What's quality got to do with it? That's an opinion not a fact. Trisha Krishnan is notable in the film. What happens if people want to find out about this actor Veera? If you don't want to keep it, why don't you redirect it to the film article and keep the information there? Kipof (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Read WP:BIO and WP:NF. --Thetrick (talk) 22:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
      • The film is directed by Gautham Menon, who is well known. Also has music by A.R. Rahman which again makes it notable, and of worth. thauseef —Preceding comment was added at 22:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Even if the film has the potential in the future to be notable because the director is well known (for Tamil language films, not English or even Hindi films), the actor is clearly not. One upcoming role in one of the hundreds of Indian films released each year does not make an actor notable. Right now the actor might merit an entry in IMDB but not in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a place for up-and-coming actors to launch their careers. --Thetrick (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Yes that is true. But supposing people want to know more about this actor eventually, considering that interest is building up, and is always associated with any movie made by Gautham Menon, at least in Southern India, which a person from elsewhere might find hard to understand, it becomes essential to provide at least the basic information, which is what this page has attempted to provide. I guess the purpose of Wikipedia, is provide extensive information. What I suggest, as an alternative, is keeping the page..at least what has been confirmed, and adding on to it, if and when more content/information is available. --Thauseef —Preceding comment was added at 21:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
            • Wikipedia is not the place for everyone who potentially might be famous one day to build a following. Let the actor develop his own website and do link-farming on his own dime. When his career merits his inclusion in an encyclopedia then someone can re-create the article. --Thetrick (talk) 23:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gregory Alan Burhoe

Gregory Alan Burhoe (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fairly obvious as a self-posted vanity page. All 6 "references" are to the subject's personal webspace. Clearly fails WP:Notability. Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 18:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable. The wording of the intro reeks of autobio advertisement. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. fails WP:N Ben1283 (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No notability asserted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Most of the article is about a novel that is yet to be published. Appears to have published just a few short stories so far which have gained little attention. Zaxem (talk) 23:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable author; Google reveals virtually nothing. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 04:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per Wenli. No notability for this person. Artene50 (talk) 08:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David Madow

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

Fails WP:COI as author (Special:Contributions/Rundrdave) seems to be subject; not notable. --Thetrick (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Appears NN other than a g-book hit for his one book. Definitely looks like a COI; either an autobio or someone from his organization. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trading Places International

Trading Places International (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested WP:PROD; Appears to fail notability for corporations; is written like an ad; lack of secondary sources. slakr^\ talk / 18:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep The world's third largest timeshare company; plenty of google hits; the article follows the same structure as articles for Interval International & RCI which are also timeshare companies... In fact, all companies in Category:Timeshare seem to follow this pattern. The article does need to be tagged "Expand" though, as reviews of the individual properties would be helpful. Frog47 (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Significant company. (Rewriting to make it sound less like an ad would be good, though.) Zaxem (talk) 23:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gremlins 3

Gremlins 3 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can find no reliable sources with which to verify the information in the article, only rumours - mostly from blogs and forums - that have appeared over the last several years. Whether the film ever comes out or not the level of coverage it has received at this point appears to amount to little more than speculation and cannot be the basis of an article. Guest9999 (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No reliable sources exist, just speculation. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SOURCE. --Bonadea (talk) 18:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete this one's a no brainer. Delete as per above. --.:Alex:. 20:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; Google revealed nothing but speculation. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 04:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as above. The new British Telecom ad may have piqued people's interest in the franchise again, but there's nothing concrete. Not even the IMDb has a page for the film, and they normally put a page up when someone so much as whispers a film title! -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 15:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:CRYSTAL at best, hoax at worst. No announcement of such a film has been made and the external link is to an "add your own info"-style website. 23skidoo (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ramsetcube

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

This article was twice tagged CSD G11 (blatant advertising) and twice speedily deleted. The article creator strongly disagrees with this outcome so I am running it through here for input from other editors. Fails WP:CORP (software product). Gwen Gale (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Article shows no evidence of notability of product. Thetrick (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. SImple {{db-context}}: "an OLAP tool used to create metadata in Mondrian" is gobbledegook. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Red Scare Industries

Red Scare Industries (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Was speedily deleted A7 but an editor requested the page be restored, so I'm running it through here. Fails WP:Notability (music), WP:CORP. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The 'run from an apartment' obviously rings alarm bells, but 8 bands with their own pages on Wikipedia? (The band pages also appear to be barely notable at best) I've added a note to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Punk_music. Paulbrock (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Many of the bands may not be notable but when speedying this the other day, truth be told, I didn't want to stir that up on a fishing trip. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete The only source given in the article is their official website ( a Myspace page) and I can't find any more reliable sources from which to create a verifiable encyclopaedia article. Guest9999 (talk) 00:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fireworks photography

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

A 'How-to' guide - little/nothing left if the tips and recommended kit are removed, even the refs are all about how-to. Paulbrock (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Remove the how-to content and you have bupkis. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#HOWTO Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 17:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep Might be useful for people interested in this unique subject. It also has several verifiable references and seems well written. Artene50 (talk) 02:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• 'Delete' Per WP:not Tabor (talk) 02:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep There's a printed ref in addition "Eastman Kodak Company. (1976). Photographing fireworks displays with still and movie cameras. Rochester, N.Y.: Kodak, c1976." from worldcat. There are probably dozens of articles in appropriate magazines. The references being how to do it is no handicap to an article. Just needs a little editing. DGG (talk) 04:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

But if the articles (and from the title, the Kodak ref) are all 'how-to', what can be put in the article? I agree that there may be scope for discussing it as a discpline, (history of, notable fireworks photographers, etc) but there's nothing there that would be suitable for inclusion. Paulbrock (talk) 16:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Though the article needs work, it appears to be a notable subject. 75.128.230.11 (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Creole (markup)

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

Little known effort to produce a standardised form of wikitext, no 3rd party sources cited. The only thing of interest that Google turns up is an ACM paper, but it was written by the WikiCreole designers themselves so hardly counts as a "reliable 3rd party source." Apart from that, almost all the hits returned by a Google search seem to be in blogs, issue trackers and similar. Vquex (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eros-Film

Eros-Film (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unremarkable Russian film studio. Declined prod(!). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. It may be unremarkable for America with its monstrous porn industry, but searching google for russian terms for Эрос-Фильм and Армен Оганезов shows a reasonable number of hits besides film ads. Unfortunately the only things I can contribute from Russian sources is cut and paste cyrillic spellings of names. And by the way, I also noticed that the list of films produced is quite long. If you wish, I can cut and paste this list (untranslated) into the article as well, countering systemic bias in wikipedia  :-) Mukadderat (talk) 15:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POS parent over shoulder

POS parent over shoulder (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. wp:DICT Bit Lordy (talk) 15:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Will never evolve beyond a dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete a dicdef, can be explained better and shorter in the disambiguation page POS Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Per TenPoundHammer and WP:NOT. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable Internet neologism better suited for UrbanDictionary. JuJube (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Badly written dictionary definition with no context. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 04:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per all the above. ukexpat (talk) 16:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Team (band)

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

Their albums have charted on major charts, but they haven't charted any singles. Furthermore, none of their albums seem to be on major labels, and there seem to be no reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I don't see why charting an album is any less an indicator of widespread popularity as charting a single. This is an underground hip-hop group; they don't pay to get rotation on mainstream urban radio, and yet still managed to dent the U.S. charts. Passes WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• How do they pass WP:MUSIC? They haven't charted a single. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• But they have charted an album Ben1283 (talk) 19:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep passes WP:MUSIC Ben1283 (talk) 19:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, passes that policy aforementioned, specifically point 11. Granted this should be sourced. Also, The album helps their cause here. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Princes of the Golden Cage (novel)

The Princes of the Golden Cage (novel) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable forthcoming book from an unnotable author (deubtant). Possible motive for free advertising. Provides no secondary resources. Bit Lordy (talk) 14:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Author isn't notable, so book isn't notable. No reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment It was published last August in the UK, September, in the US, and has had several reviews, easy enough to find via Google plus the ones on Amazon.com(not the readers' ones) -- it's rating on Amazon.com doesn't seem bad, quite a bit better than that of one notable author who published his book just a few months earlier last year. However, the article itself, isn't there a problem with WP:Plot? Doug Weller (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Beau dentro

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

Non-notable, no sources, no non-Wikipedia Google hits for "Beau dentro" and his album "This Cruel World" (which is nominated for deletion here). The record label similarly gives next-to-no hits. Thus, the article's content is unverifiable. Was prodded, prod removed by author without improvement. Huon (talk) 14:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Seems to be advert or hoax Thetrick (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as above Duffbeerforme (talk) 09:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anime Punch!

Anime Punch! (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Student organization, fails WP:ORG. Probably recreation of deleted material, see previous nom; I can't verify that, though. B. Wolterding (talk) 14:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Note added: With "previous nominations", I was referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animate! OSU and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animate! OSU sub-articles. --B. Wolterding (talk) 22:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Sorry kids, but notability is not confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Notability can be easily be established to some degree, but even more important I believe you shall not use "Notability" as the sole reason for deleting an article. Fan's View, a fairly reliable review source for anime conventions, has even gone and covered anime punch.1. Wish I had time to find more, but seriously this is a horrible AfD suggestion. Kopf1988 (talk) 11:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • First, Fan's View seems to be a self-published source [5] and does not confer notability. Second, there is a rather wide consensus that lack of notability is a reason not to have an article about a topic; see the WP:N guideline. Actually, notability is probably the most frequent reason for article deletion on Wikipedia. --B. Wolterding (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep If anything, the article lacks focus. Most of the article is about the conventions Anime Punch! Armageddicon and Fieldcon. Anime Punch! Armageddicon was even featured in an article in the June 2007 issue of NewType USA. (Lillard, Kevin (June 2007). "Con Report: Anime Punch". Newtype USA 6 (6): 96. ). I'm sure if I did some more digging, I would find other times that NewType USA covered an Anime Punch convention. --Farix (Talk) 00:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bucium, folk rock band

Bucium, folk rock band (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I declined this speedy because it asserts vague notability (the talk page link for example), and therefore it can't be deleted via CSD. However the band does not appear to be notable, so I leave it up to the community. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Captain-tucker (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• DELETE, Band does fails WP:MUSIC, only one released album which fails WP:MUSIC#C5 and no other evidence provided or could be obtained through a quick google search. Note that the speedy delete was placed one minute after the article was created and the AfD placed 18 minutes later. The editor should be given some time to provide evidence of notability so as to not give the impression of WP:BITE. I placed a note on the editors talk page pointing to WP:MUSIC and others.... --Captain-tucker (talk) 15:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - rather triggy happy nomination, 19mins after creation. Would like to hear from the author, plus give them a chance to expand the article before !voting. Paulbrock (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: trigger happy or not, it fails WP:MUSIC. 19 minutes is not too fast for a speedy deletion nomination, why should this be different? -- Roleplayer (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

As per Captain-tucker, editor should be given some chance to provide evidence of notability. It would be nice if all articles were drafted first, fully referenced and checked, then moved to article space but that's not what happens, and speedying and/or AFDing before an editor has had adequate chance to finish what they were doing or respond to concerns is just going to put people off WP. Paulbrock (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 00:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Why don`t you wait for a few months and see if the notability increases, they will get reviews in the main sites in the next months, why hurry so much? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.76.131.76 (talk) 08:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Because you yourself admit in that statement that there is a chance that their notability may not increase. The best way to go about this is if their notability has increased after a few months and you can prove that using verifiable sources, then come back and start again. -- Roleplayer (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tõnu Trubetsky

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

This is the real name of an extremely prolific spammer User:Bloomfield. This article was written by him and his many socks (note that earlier history of the article is at Tony Blackplait and that page did not survive a deletion attempt at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Blackplait).

I have been trying to clean up Bloomfield's mess for a very long time. He posted rambling genealogical articles about early Lithuanian dukes. See, for example, this version before I cleaned up the article. Note how it corresponds with self-posted genealogy at his band's page at http://www.dcc.ttu.ee/Bands/english/get.asp?ident=909 (which dates from 1996).

His real life identity does not show any signs of notability. The article has many interwikis - all by him (possibly except lb:Tony Blackplait - translated from English?). Any external links are probably written by him. As I said, he's very prolific. He lists many books, films, bands, etc. but none of them check out. At first glance it looks ok (as it had three years to root in), but after more careful investigation it does not hold water. Renata (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I also list related articles:

• Father Jan Trubecki (reposted after deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Trubecki)
• Grandfather Władzimir Wałoc Trubetsky
• Great-grandfather Paweł Trubecki
• And other ancestors: Nester Trubecki, Grigory Troubetzkoy, Piotr Nikolaievich Troubetzkoy, Nikolay Troubetzkoy (others need checking)
• Band & related: Vennaskond, Sue Catwoman (The Flowers of Romance CDEP), Nick Rock'n'Roll & Trite Dushi, Pirates of Destiny, I Love America, Millennium (Vennaskond film)‎, Paris (The Flowers of Romance album)‎, Sue Catwoman (The Flowers of Romance album)
  • See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Flowers Of Romance and speedied The Flowers of Romance (band 2)
• Probably there are many more... Renata (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Don't knew about the Bloomfield's mess, but Tõnu Trubetsky and Vennaskond are even very notable in Estonia and in some extend in Finland. Some 20 years ago Tõnu Trubesky was one of the most famous representative of alternative culture (lyrics & musics) and around 15 years ago Vennaskond was the most popular band in Estonia with several superhits (Insener Garini hüperpoloid; Pille-Riin). Not so active nowadays and I personally can't understand all this story about using names The Flowers of Romance and Toni Blackplait instead of Vennaskond and Tõnu Trubetsky. However, it was only yesterday, when he claimed in Estonian daily SL Õhtuleht that Estonian punk is degenerated.[6] And you find more hits from Google http://www.google.ee/search?as_q=vennaskond&hl=et&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=ogM&num=10&btnG=Google+otsing&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=lang_en&cr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights= 90.190.192.206 (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC) — 90.190.192.206 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete all per nom BanRay 19:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Tõnu Trubetsky, I've just asked my younger brother, who is more familiar with Estonian culture and he says Trubetsky is indeed a rather notable personality over here (even gave me a book written by him), so I guess we can keep that one, as for the rest - I'm not sure, this is certainly not my area of expertise. BanRay 21:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep Tõnu Trubetsky; keep Vennaskond or merge with Tõnu Trubetsky. The conflict of interest is, indeed, annoying, and I've had to intermittently deal with it for more than three years (see here). The COI is a separate issue, but I would say block or ban the user(s) involved. We've previously been through this notability discussion regarding Trubetsky: See User:Andres' previous AfD comments, which IMHO should have been sufficeint criteria to keep the article. I verified the bibliography section myself (i.e. looking up Trubetsky's books in an online Estonian library catalog, and obtaining the ISBN codes). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• P.S. Note that Sue Catwoman (The Flowers of Romance album) is notable for (ostensibly) placing on the Estonian Latvian music charts, though this still awaits attribution. Note also that this presents a situation in which an album is notable but the band involved (by previous Wikipedia consensus) is not; suggest that the Estonian band called "Flowers of Romance" be rolled into the Vennaskond or Trubetsky articles. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Delete, per Renata's reasoning. Cleaning up this puppeteer's mess is hard enough without the rest of the community hampering those who do by finding excuses to keep his vanity article. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Tõnu Trubetsky is a famous personality in Estonia. He is primarily known as the leader and vocalist of the band Vennaskond. He also is known as a partisan of punk and anarchism. He is an outspring of the princely family of Trubetskoy (see also ru:Трубецкие). I can confirm what the anonymous contributor said above: Vennaskond is a famous band in Estonia ("Insener Garini hüperboloid" and "Pille-Riin" are indeed well-known songs in Estonia). The Flowers of Romance is less known. Its story is explained, for example, here (in Estonian). It involves almost the same people as Vennaskond but it is intended to be a different band. I am not sure if there should be a special article here about them. In any case, it is far more known in Estonia as the original band The Flowers of Romance, and the Estonian Wikipedia has an article about them (et:The Flowers of Romance). The Estonian article has probably been written by involved people and needs cleanup (it includes some mystification and glorification). Due to mystification by the members of the band it is difficult to find correct information about the band in English. But the article I referred to above should be trustworthy. The spamlike activities by Tõnu Trubetsky and possibly others should be kept apart from the notability issue. Andres (talk) 07:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Delete The article has been around for 2 1/2 years, yet it has absolutely no independant sources for any of the claims. And most of the claims are not notable - he's been doing redlinked songs for redlinked albums with redlinked people in redlinked bands one of which actually managed a whole 5 gig tour with another redlinked band. He's appeared in redlinked films, most of which are self-made or directed by redlinks. He's written articles for redlinked magazines, as well as relinked books with redlinked co-authors from redlinked publishers. If he's really as important as he's trying to make himself sound then there should be some independant sources - yet his only source is his own Myspace page. Edward321 (talk) 23:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cursor Hotspot (pixel on point of mouse cursor)

Cursor Hotspot (pixel on point of mouse cursor) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Prod was removed. NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 14:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, information is already present in cursor article, so nothing to merge; title is unlikely search term, so redirecting is unnecessary. Huon (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nurburgring fastest lap times for comparison

Nurburgring fastest lap times for comparison (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Sort of a POV fork from Nordschleife fastest lap times. A user doesn't like the idea that comparing lap times from different sources is a violation of WP:SYN so they created their own identical version without the caveat that the road car times are not intended for comparison. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 13:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete POV fork, unnecessary. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete POV fork. Huon (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Terry Nova

[edit] Jesse Dunford Wood

Jesse Dunford Wood (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

At the moment, this article is pure advertorial. Its subject appears to meet the notability criteria, and the article is not quite blatant enough for {{db-spam}} treatment, but it needs a substantial rewrite before it can meet the WP:NPOV and WP:V criteria. I'm listing it here in the hope that the original contributor, or someone else who cares deeply enough about the article's subject, will perform the necessary rewrite before this AfD expires. I've left them some hints on their talk page as to how they might improve the article. The Anome (talk) 12:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RHUL Bears Basketball

RHUL Bears Basketball (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article is about a college's basketball team. It's one of many sports clubs within the college, and its existence is already mentioned in the Royal Holloway, University of London article. Nothing in the article or the team's own website indicates that this basketball team is significant enough to justify its own page on Wikipedia. A PROD notice was placed on the page on 23 May and removed by the creator of the article 3 minutes later. Dorange (talk) 12:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable student basketball team. Zaxem (talk) 23:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Amy Roloff

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

Non-notable biography per WP:BLP1E. She's notable within the context of reality show Little People, Big World, but outside the show is essentially a low-profile individual. Seriously, she's a stay-at-home mother, even says the article. —97198 talk 11:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to Little People, Big World. Erechtheus (talk) 01:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect per Erectheus ukexpat (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Miko Mido

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

Non-notable anime character that fails WP:FICT. Unlikely search term and there is nothing here worth merging. Disputed prod. --Farix (Talk) 10:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Farix (Talk) 10:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect Contains nothing of weight that isn't already present in the main article. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to La Blue Girl. JuJube (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge Main character in a manga, anime, game and live action. Edward321 (talk) 23:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Hallworth

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

Non-Notable, and, cannot verify SQL^{Query me!} 08:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as apparent hoax. No references cited, and no relevant Google Books or Scholar hits for "John Hallworth", "John Mark Hallworth" or "Sunderland Library Protest". EALacey (talk) 10:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ali Faik Zaghloul

Ali Faik Zaghloul (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. A good faith search for references found nothing but Wikipedia for (Zaghloul "Egyptian Radio Magazine"), fails WP:N and WP:V. I came across the article while working Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles and as best as I can tell there is no evidence that anything in the article is true or accurate. I am not sure but I believe that even the Arabic version of the article [7] is unreferenced and tagged appropriately Jeepday (talk) 02:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep for now. Let's not jump the gun. Seek advice from Arabic-speaking Wikipedians, as topics such as this may not have easily located English-language sources. Give it a few days, and please use discussion before resorting to tactics such as this; the article certainly doesn't seem like any type of hoax and we don't discriminate in our subject matter against Arabic topics. Badagnani (talk) 02:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment No offense is intended, the article has been posted as unreferenced for nearly 2 years. I made a good faith search for references and came up empty. Please remember that The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Jeepday (talk) 02:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NN, WP:RS, WP:V.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 03:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, agree w/ rationale provided above by Jeepday (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 03:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete because it is not cited, and thus unable to verify the claims being made (WP:V). Happyme22 (talk) 05:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per number of ghits although I'm not sure how many of them may be wiki mirrors and such and I've only searched in english. The fact that the article has existed for 2 years without substantial improvement is worrying but, that in and of itself is not deletion criteria. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment "Ali Faik Zaghloul" -wikipedia = 7 hits with "any language" selected in the Advanced Search. Jeepday (talk) 21:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: the Arabic language does not use the roman script, so this is not surprising. Whether for better or worse, Arabic-language radio announcers of yesteryear do not have excellent coverage on websites using latin-based scripts. Let's defer to our Egypt-based editors on this and seek their input--we do have a lot of them. Badagnani (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur. --InDeBiz1 Review me! / Talk to me! 22:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Ghits for "علي فايق زغلول" -wikipedia = 136 results. I may be mistaken but most appear to be forums or blogs. Jeepday (talk) 12:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable (and) without sources. –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. —Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I'm relisting this and adding it to the more general Middle East deletion sorting list in the hopes that we get some more feedback from knowledgeable folks (at this point anyone who reads Arabic could provide some insight). I was on the verge of closing this as delete because we simply don't have sources right now so the article fails WP:V, but we're operating in the dark and it won't hurt to give this another 5-7 days to see if someone can shed some light on this gentleman.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Delores Washington

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

Soprano singer of gopel music. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, WP:NN, WP:RS.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 09:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, mostly for WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:BLP concerns. The spelling of "Deloris"/"Delores" isn't even consistent. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 09:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Changed my mind, Redirect to The Caravans. This is a better option, IMHO. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 09:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to The Caravans. Certainly a valid search term. The group is well noted by news and other sources, but Delores seems only talked about in terms of her being in The Caravans...not any interest otherwise I can find to support a standalone BIO - Peripitus (Talk) 12:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to The Caravans per above Ben1283 (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] College Prowler

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

This article is purely promotional and does not provide any relevant information Chernysh (talk) 06:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Based on results when pressing on find tag/link under its talk page. --Firefly322 (talk) 12:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete unless sourced. I'm willing to accept that this book is notable...if someone can actually demonstrate it. Following the talk page link that Firefly322 refers to only led me (on the first several google pages) to several links to the publisher's own site, and links to retailers' sites offering it for sale. All right, I accept these links as proof of the EXISTENCE of College Prowler. Now the burden on this article's editors is to assert and cite its notability for inclusion on Wikipedia's main namespace. Remember that multiple secondary sources are required. Links to amazon or other publishers are not secondary sources any more than a link to Staples' site is proof that a particular piece of paper is notable. -Markeer 15:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Damián Manso

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

Procedural nomination. This article asserts some notability (CSD contested by creator), so I am bringing this to AfD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Fan-ish page for an average player in a small league. Thetrick (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep If I'm understanding the Ecuadorian football system correctly, LDU plays in the highest level of competition in Ecuador. Manso plays for the team. Ergo, WP:ATHLETE satisfied. Am I missing something? It does happen. Townlake (talk) 05:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Also Speaking of procedure, doesn't this fall under WP:SK #1? No reason for deletion advanced by nom other than process. Townlake (talk) 15:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - he has played at the top level in four countries. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 08:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 08:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Meet WP:ATHLETE notability criteria: has played top level football in France.(Ligue 1, fully professional league): see this [8].--Latouffedisco (talk) 08:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Very clearly meets WP:ATHLETE criteria. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Player is clearly notable from playing in several fully professional leagues and has significant coverage in reliable sources. Jogurney (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per almost everyone above ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - clearly meets notability requirements. GiantSnowman 19:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Decontrol

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

Page does not establish notability. Original Research. No third party notability. Virek (talk) 06:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Almost an A7, and lacking necessary reliable sources. I'm generally an inclusionist, but this really ought not be kept. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 10:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:RS Article's only sources is its own web site which implies it lacks notability. Artene50 (talk) 01:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Parthian relations with the Armenians

Parthian relations with the Armenians (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article could be merged into history of Armenia as it lacks any unique content and does not deserve an article of its own Gülməmməd ^Talk 06:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The article's certainly rubbish, I'll give you that. "This great Parthian power had most intimate and friendly relations with the Armenians"...well, up to a point, Lord Copper. It's possible to write a page on this subject but there is nothing here worth saving. Merge for now. --Folantin (talk) 11:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep but cleanup this seems a valid topic, but the article isn't great. Gulmammad, if all you're after is a merge this isn't the right place to ask for it: you can either be bold and do this yourself or raise the matter at WP:PM if the merge is likely to be contentious (which doesn't seem likely to be the case here). WP:MERGE explains the process. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Soul Reaver

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

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just a repetition of the plot of the games in which the weapon is used. As such, it is pure duplication and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as consistent per First pillar with a specialized encyclopedia on fiction. More than sufficient reader interest. Plenty of editors actively working on it. Undeniable verifibility through reliable sources. Any time an article is repeated or duplicated, we merged and redirect without deletion. No reason therefore for outright deletion here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and DeleteZef (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Which is illegal per Wikipedia:Merge and delete, thus a "merge and delete" really means "merge and redirect wouthout deletion." Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with the nominator. DurinsBane87 (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • AfD is not a vote, however, per WP:PERNOMINATOR. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    • It is one thing to engage in discussion with the people who disagree with you, but it is quite another to harass them with this kind of stuff; the user does not act like he thinks it is only a vote, and there is also nothing "illegal" about merging some of this text and deleting the rest, that's what AFD is all about. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, there is something illegal about it, because according to the GFDL, if we merge anything from one article than we must keep the edit history public and therefore would have to redirect without deletion. "Per nom" has long been considered an argument to avoid and it adds nothing really to a discussion, thus pointing that out to editors is harmless as it encourages them to approach this as a discussion rather than just a list of bold faced stances with no arguments. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Fine, I support my vote by saying there is no proven notability, and that its just plot rehashing. Which is exactly what the nominator said, but I apparently must rewrite it. There it is. DurinsBane87 (talk) 04:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. There's a little bit of redundant, and a whole lot of speculation and excessive detail. Nothing here to save; it's all "I played the game and this is what I noticed." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Redundant; no reliable sources; seems rather fancrufty. Thetrick (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Redundant material is redirected without deletion, reliable sources exist, and WP:ITSCRUFT is never a valid reason for deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

That is completely false and you know it; no reliable sources have been demonstrated, you know this to be true, so you are choosing to ignore wikipedia policies and it must stop. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

These nominations of notable topics for deletion should stop if anything. Relable sources have demonstrated notability. Saying that a titular weapon is not notable is simply not accurate. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Unless someone can show otherwise, this weapon is not notable. That is, there are no reliable secondary sources about the weapons that are independent of the game series itself. Randomran (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • It is the titular weapon of a reconizable series, which means it is at least notable enough for a redirect. There is absolutely no reason here for an outright deletion, given Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, I'm one of the editors working off and on with the Legacy of Kain pages, but the weapon itself has no real-world notability, and while the games and the characters are still going to be cleaned up and such notability established, there is no such hope for this article in particular. As mentioned, notable within the series though it is, all the articles on the games list the same information. The Clawed One (talk) 06:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Which shows that there are merge and redirect locations, but not really any reason for an outright deletion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to the series article Legacy of Kain. The series article needs a rewite to remove unsourced material, as well as a heavy dose of citationing, but would probably benefit from the inclusion of some carefully selected material. I'd reccomend a redirect as Soul Reaver is a likely search term for the game series. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 23:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Mysterious Benedict Society and the Perilous Journey

The Mysterious Benedict Society and the Perilous Journey (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

New book with no notability Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep and close, there are so many book articles that don't have links to demonstate "notability" it is not even funny. We should still provide a useful source for somebody who wants to know about the book even if there (currently) aren't any links to demonstrate "notability". Same goes for many video games. Many book and video game articlex have links just to a few pages about it, and tha article stays. In fact, I'll get to that now... Thanks! (and I'll stop rambling now), ‽² (Talk²/Contributions²) 15:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of characters in the Animal Crossing series

List of characters in the Animal Crossing series (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is a repetition of the character sections of the two Animal crossing game articles and the film. As such, it is duplicative, has no real content, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Transwiki to an Animal Crossing wiki if needed. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Virek (talk) 06:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The characters are largely interchangeable ciphers, and share one of four pools of dialogue. I thought I AFDed this a long time ago. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete it used to be an alright article until information was repeatedly reduced to the point where there is barely anything left. It has also become a target for all kinds of crap. Delete, delete, delete. --.:Alex:. 20:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, I noticed that notability is hard to apply to lists as being discussed in the notability discussion guidelines. Spinout reasons alone suggest this is too big for Animal Crossing. Thus can't be taken on its own merits. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

  It's easy, however, to apply in this case. Most of these characters have five lines of dialogue or less, and are generic quest-givers or shopkeepers. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I like this page and don't delete it because it has use. Banana7070 825, 9 June 2008 — Banana7070 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

"I like it" isn't a valid keep reason. RobJ1981 (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cell (Dragon Ball)

Cell (Dragon Ball) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Don't think this one passes WP:FICT. The character doesn't play much of a role throughout the series, especially since he is killed. Suggest merging anything useful to List of Earthlings in Dragon Ball, or an outright deletion can do. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep was a major villain for a major arc in the series. Also death - even for a fictional character - does not mean that the subject is NN. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 06:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree with nom's reasoning that this character was unimportant in the story, but nevertheless keep to merge/redirect through a proper merge proposal like the other DB characters. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep You've got to be kidding. JuJube (talk) 11:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Do something with this that isn't delete. He, um, is the villain of a full story arc; it's even called the Cell Saga. That said, this article is ARGLBRGLPHRGLE awful, and likely won't improve. I'm sure we have an article about the Cell Saga or major villains or the manga volumes or SOMEWHERE this can be merged and redirected. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Cleanup - The reason given by nom is asinine and contradictory. He's a friggin antagonist for an entire story arc. Just because is killed off in the story doesn't reduce his importance. Jonny2x4 (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup. Main villain of Dragon Ball Z and he is "alive" in Dragon Ball GT (he is killed but back in action). Sometimes, people mistakes AfD for clean-up. If this article was problems, wikify it but deletion is not solution. Zero Kitsune (talk) 02:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nikki Catsouras

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

I created this article myself a few months ago. I believe some people here may know about this story - basically, a girl in California who died in a car crash, then photos of her fatal accident were leaked to the internet, resulting in a legal case, which may yet lead to a change in the law. It meets verifiability at the basic level, being covered by several U.S. news sources, although it doesn't seem to have reached an international level of coverage (for example, I have no evidence whatsoever that the story was ever covered in the U.K. media). Also, it may fail WP:BIO1E, and may also be a coatrack article for her accident, the photographs and the lawsuit, instead of about her (a non-notable teenage girl who died in a tragic accident). BLP may be taken into consideration given that it's an ongoing legal case involving the family etcetera, but if the case leads to a change in the law I believe it may be genuinely encyclopedic enough, but at the moment, I'm not totally sure and have different feelings now than to when I created the article. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete – Sorry to say. As the nominator points out, the individual, in and of themselves, is not notable for any other reason than the circumstances of one event. In that the one event cannot bestow Notability as outlined in both notable only for one event and and Wikipedia is not a news source, I regretfully say delete. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, definitely WP:NOT#NEWS, and precisely what WP:ONEEVENT was created for. The only possible justification for this article, aside from the brief media coverage, is that it provides a route to the real story and the tragic experience of the family for the 99% of people who only saw the gruesome photos (and I'm not looking now, but I think even Snopes omits the worst one). That's not encyclopedic, though, and itself leans on WP:SOAPBOX. --Dhartung | Talk 18:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Merge with California Highway Patrol. Unless I overlooked it on my quick skim, this case isn't even mentioned on the CHP page yet. Townlake (talk) 19:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I could endorse a merger, too, if consensus goes that way. It probably deserves no more than a sentence or two. Also, we don't have an article for the Alton Parkway, where it happened. --Dhartung | Talk 23:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Typically you are right, a merge under the heading {Controversy} would be appropriate. However, a Judge has already ruled that CHIP has no liability in the case. Yes, I understand the ruling is under appeal. However, if CHIP has no liability, than no {Controversy}. Call it a Catch 22. ShoesssS ^Talk 03:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment That might be a matter of perception. CHP has formally taken responsibility for the photos; the issue is whether legal liability flows from that. And even if CHP is totally vindicated, the written record of the debate over this will outlive us all. (This is the latest news story I was able to find about the proceedings - which is already a ref in the article.) Townlake (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment – I should have started out saying I see no problem with a redirect and a mentioning of the situation on the CHIP page. What I would be against is a full blown merge of this article into the CHIP article. I feel if that were the case, it would be undue weight, of the importance of the case. I think we are on the same side – saying the same thing but I am talking Philly and you are using proper English :-). ShoesssS ^Talk 20:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Haha... yes, it sounds like we are. I agree on the undue weight - a Cliffs-Notes of the article would certainly strike me as adequate. Townlake (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, at least in some form. I read an article mentioning the incident and did a google search on the victim's name. I was glad to find a Wikipedia article that answered my questions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.113.76 (talk) 22:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: If the author wants it and has some decent reasons, then so be it. –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep It seems to be at least two events, the death and the subsequent legal action on an Internet related litigation. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:57, 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Move to Nikki Catsouras photographs controversy per WP:BLP1E. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Dude, she is dead, BLP doesn't involve dead people, the "L" is for living. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Sir: mea maxima culpa. I can't believe I made such a huge mistake, linking to the correct guideline albeit using the technically incorrect alphabet. Move per WP:ONEEVENT (links to the same exact guideline, but alphabetically correct). --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep WP:ONEEVENT does not apply because there were three events - the crash, the pictures being taken, and the lawsuit. These events and the young woman are notable and many sources exist (as shown on the page itself) Ben1283 (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gone Like Solomon

Gone Like Solomon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to fail notability guidelines at WP:MOVIE. Just under 600 total Google hits, no hits in the Google News archive, no evidence of coverage in reliable third-party sources. No evidence that film has been screened and it does not even have an IMDB entry. In sum, an independent film that is not notable enough to warrant an article.

This film is not a box-office or straight to video film but it is an independent film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashleyjuddfan (talk • contribs) 11:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anthony Green (musician)

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

Does not meet WP:BAND. Top GHit is this article. Sources: AbsolutePunk is a user-driven site, not an independent news source. Youtube is not an acceptable source. No major charting, not signed to a label that asserts its notability, no stated radio play, no major tours. MSJapan (talk) 03:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral Not a solo artist. he's the singer for the band Circa Survive (who admittedly i've never heard of) and is a former member of Zolof the Rock & Roll Destroyer (who I have). Circa Survive seems to be notable due to being on a notable label and having a charting album (which IS sourced to confirm its #24 appearance on the Billboard Hot 200). However, I am unsure if notability is inherited or if he's notable on his own. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 07:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Circa Survive. Not notable on his own. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep He's not merely the lead singer of Circa Survive, a wildly popular post-hardcore band; he was also the lead singer of Saosin, and a member of Zolof the Rock and Roll Destroyer and The Sound of Animals Fighting. So redirecting there seems misleading. Pretty much everything he does gets a mention in Alternative Press or SPIN. Also, Absolute Punk has non-user generated content such as interviews, band bios, and vetted reviews. He has a solo album slated for release in August, so I guess this ends up being filed in the "things I'll have to get undone in the next few months" bin. Chubbles (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I only know him from Zolof the Rock and Roll Destroyer. Can you provide some reliable sources to his notability on his own? Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Police invasion of UCT campus

Police invasion of UCT campus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

A POV, poorly-referenced rant, written mostly in first-person or as a memoir, of student unrest. Tagged unreferenced for over 15 months. Stifle (talk) 11:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:NOTE. The resources on the article are not reliable. The article itself is poorly written and fails WP:NPOV.--RyRy5 (talk) 11:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete cannot find any evidence of notability through news, news archives, books and google searches (failing notability guidelines), it also has a serious lack of neutrality.  Atyndall93 | talk  12:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as a highly biased article. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 12:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete, there is some notability (there are other sources available including three more NYT articles, but the others are behind paywalls). This, however, is a POV rant telling only one perspective. --Dhartung | Talk 20:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Hangon: This article looks like it could certainly merit notability, and there is at least one source. The article does need an overhaul, though. But unless I see more compelling arguments I would favor keeping the article. The article may need a better name, though; this name may violate WP:NPOV.
  

Keep: per TerriersFan and improvements to the article. Also, I have concerns about systemic bias in the deletion of this article. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep or Merge/Redirect to University of Cape Town. This article could be salvaged with a drastic rewrite and significant improvement in sources, but as it stands, the article is problematic. The event is a notable one that should be included in the article for the University in a much shorter version, if the issues with the article cannot be addressed appropriately here. I am more than willing to consider my vote if the article's issues are addressed. Alansohn (talk) 20:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Vote has been modified to reflect improvements to article. Further work to make this a more thoroughly encyclopedic article is still needed. Alansohn (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Another instance where we should should be addressing the issues rather than throwing our hands up in horror and going for deletion. I have removed the section that recounts a student's recollection which is the worst of the POV. The Cape Times is a perfectly reliable source and the extract is informative, historic and confirms the accusations of censorship. The key claim to notability is that this (quoting from a reliable source here) "was the first time police had used gunfire to quell a student disturbance on a predominantly white campus." Additional reliable sources to verify, amongst other facts, the reasons for the protest can be found here. If, as I suggest, this clearly meets notability standards then I am happy to rewrite this as a sourced, encyclopedic page but noting the pile of delete !votes above, I am reluctant to put a lot of time into a page that will be wasted if it gets deleted. I await reactions. TerriersFan (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - OK; I have cleaned it up. I will add sources and additional content, as above, if deletion-commenting editors elect to change their views. TerriersFan (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I was asked to reconsider my !vote in light of some improvements. The article still has a long way to go. There is almost no discussion of events that predicated a police entry of the campus (the word "invasion" is POV; presumably the police had legal jurisdiction, whether or not they had previously exercised it). Riots? Student unrest? Peaceful protests? What were they protesting? What precipitated the police entry? What are our sources for the redactions and censorship? (I'm fully believing it, but we need sources.) Finally, there should be consideration of whether an overall context is a better focus, e.g. Student unrest in South Africa or 1982 apartheid protests (just general suggestions here). --Dhartung | Talk 00:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - the reason for the protest is contained here and the Cape Times, a reliable source, reports the censorship. Much of what you are seeking can be found in the sources here. TerriersFan (talk) 00:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• merge somewhere appropriate. This is not significant enough fora separate article.DGG (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: POV poorly-referenced article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: I think this should be re-listed, as most of the !votes were given before the revisions. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete per nom. This is my first pass of the article, and I feel that none of the issues/problems noted previously have been addressed. I feel that the article's title, and its highly emotive tone are unsuited to WP. The article needs to be rebuilt from the ground up with clearer context or a better documentation of the origins. As it stands, there is only the Cape Times as a source, and details are scant due to censorship. The Cape Times as a source makes a big deal about not being able to publish certain details and photos. However, after looking at the NYT article, I feel that at best this is just another storm in a students' teacup to protest a military cross-border raid. All the rest appears to be speculation. I propose that the incident be written about in the UCT article, and later expanded into a separate, neutrally titled article as and when appropriate. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC) (as edited)
• Weak Delete I rarely speak up for the deletion of any article. I believe this subject probably deserves an article, but this isn't it. Lack of WP:RS and POV problems abound, starting with the WP:NPOV title. We have a single source, admittedly unreliable by the virtue that it is censored. We have a complete lack of context where I can't even tell which students use the "upper campus." I would recommend somebody userfy this one and recreate it under a more appropriate title later. Jim Miller (talk) 02:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The event appears to have been notable, with significant coverage in at least two independant reliable sources. The title should be changed and the content improved, but those are not issues for AfD. There is a potential issue of systemic bias where information suppressed by a government is less well covered than it might have otherwise been, in which case the subject may be even more notable than the coverage might suggest, which is a further argument for keeping the article. If this event was part of a notable social phenomena in South Africa at the time then it could be merged into a more general article on that phenonema. But that merging can be done later outside of AfD once a suitable wider scope has been identified. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I lack enough knowledge of the subject to comfortably give an opinion of its viability, but if kept it most certainly must be retitled, as the current title is a violation of WP:NPOV as it indicates an opinion as to the event. Suggest an alternate word like "raid" be used instead. Also UCT means nothing outside a small region; the name should be spelled out in full. 23skidoo (talk) 12:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - certainly a rename is required. My suggestion is 1987 conflict at University of Cape Town but I am sure there are others. TerriersFan (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to 1987 in South Africa. Not noteworthy enough for a stand alone article, but deserves a mention here. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 22:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The subject meets the general notability criteria of having significant coverage in reliable independent sources. By what standard is it not noteworthy enough? Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rendezvous (political cartoon)

Rendezvous (political cartoon) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable cartoon. DonaldDuck (talk) 03:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep most famous cartoon by a notable cartoonist, featured by TIME, hardly non-notable. Chimeric Glider (talk) 03:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with David Low (cartoonist). Seems to be notable but may not deserve its own article.Virek (talk) 06:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to David Low (cartoonist) per Virek. The article has been created over three months ago and seems to have become a perma-stub, so it should be combined with a more notable article for now. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More to Me Than Meat and Eyes

More to Me Than Meat and Eyes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Totally non-notable song page. Gives no reason why the song is notable, cites no sources; fails WP:RS, WP:MUSIC. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Only most notable songs get own article. Alblums might, but not every single song. Star Garnet (talk) 04:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge (or at least Redirect) to Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film for Theaters Colon the Soundtrack. NN on its own Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 07:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film for Theaters Colon the Soundtrack.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 09:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film for Theaters Colon the Soundtrack per above. Ben1283 (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spies Like Us / Winnetka Exit

Spies Like Us / Winnetka Exit (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Promo only release fails WP:MUSIC. Contested PROD. Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 03:07, 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, Fabrictramp | talk to me 03:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Merge into 2000 Fold (album); no evidence that the EP charted on any major chart. Same should be done for Spies Like Us (Remix) / Winnetka Exit (Vinyl). Somno (talk) 06:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 09:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:MUSIC is clear: Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable. There's no indication on widespread notability to make this an exception to that. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 16:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GTA V

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

Pure speculation about a video game, fails WP:CRYSTAL. Previous game only came out within the last month. TN‑X-Man 02:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, no info exists yet. And why the heck is it semi-protected? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above, or redirect to Grand Theft Auto (series) for the time being. -- Comandante {Talk} 02:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. -- Comandante {Talk} 03:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to Grand Theft Auto (series) (ideally to a section about future games), fully protect this one. I suspect we'll otherwise fall into the create/delete cycle if there isn't something there, but nowhere close enough to justify an article at this point. --MASEM 03:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect - per Masem --T-rex 03:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete WP:CRYSTAL, too soon to call considering that Grand Theft Auto IV only came out on April 29. Wait a while, there is no deadline to Wikipedia Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 04:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect GTA 4 has just been released. There is no info regarding GTA 5. --SkyWalker (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete and protect from recreation. Do not redirect, there is no reasonable place to redirect this to as the game isn't even in production yet. JBsupreme (talk) 04:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect per Masem, knowing the frachises success, it'll come out eventually. MrMarkTaylor ^{What's that?/my contribs/e-mail me} 06:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect per Masem. No reliable information regarding this game exists... yet. Una Laguna^Talk 06:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No information regarding this game yet. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 06:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and protect from re-creation as per above. --.:Alex:. 16:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Oklahoma State University buildings

List of Oklahoma State University buildings (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

there is already a listing of buildings in the article for Oklahoma State University. in addition, this page does not provide enough information; I have a feeling it might just be a list that was copied from somewhere. Scottmso (talk) 02:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Between the Walls

Between the Walls (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

There's no assertion of notability for this album. Only content of the article is a "Track listing" and a "Personnel" sections. There's also an infobox with very little information. The page's been prodded, but prod was removed, so I've gone to AfD. Victor Lopes (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC) I have changed the page , but if you consider it for deleting it is up to everyone to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zagor4e (talk • contribs) 18:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep seems to be a notable album by a notable band. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:25, 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, Chetblong (talk) 02:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Doesn't seem a notable album CRocka05 (talk) 03:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Joan E. Goody

Joan E. Goody (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Subject is not-notable, article seems vanity or spam for her firm. Does not conform to any of the criteria proposed for notability as creative professional or academic Gorgonzola (talk) 19:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Gorgonzola (talk) 19:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, quite a bit about her in Google Books and Google News Archive including a listing in the Encyclopedia of 20th Century Architecture. Seems to have a national reputation in the field of urban (particularly residential) architecture. --Dhartung | Talk 22:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chetblong (talk) 02:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Merge/Redirect into Goody, Clancy & Associates, Inc. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The listing in the Encyclopedia of 20th C Arch. is just the kind of reliable source that indicates this article is worth keeping. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Well known, important, American architect. Blah blah blah. Obviously no research into the subject was done about this nomination. Amusing nomination, I expected to see a crappy article all about her firm. It just mentions it, and there's no vanity anywhere near the level this architect deserves and gets. --Blechnic (talk) 08:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as per above. 199 hits from various media sources shows her notablility. Artene50 (talk) 09:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Esham

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

Boomin' Words from Hell (OG Tape) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Boomin' Words from Hell (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Erotic Poetry (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Homey Don't Play (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Judgement Day, Vol. 1: Day (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Judgement Day, Vol. 2: Night (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Helter Skkkelter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

KKKill the Fetus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Closed Casket (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Dead Flowerz (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Bruce Wayne: Gothom City 1987 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Mail Dominance (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Tongues (Esham album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Repentance (album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

A1 Yola (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The Butcher Shop (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Sacrifical Lambz (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Life After Death (Natas album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

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

Wicket World Wide (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

A little tricky, but ultimately I don't believe this artist satisfies notability concerns per WP:MUSIC. Aside from a brief stint at Psychopathic Records, his other labels have been non-notable. In addition, the article is unreferenced and is written in a generally promotional style. Associated albums to follow. Recommend Delete. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 01:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete all The musician, as prolific as he is, isn't the subject of any reliable third party sources and thus fails WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep the musician's page; he has a decent length AMG bio, so I'm sure there are more sources, and two of his albums were on Psycopathic. Therefore, he meets at least one criterion of WP:MUSIC. Not sure about the albums; perhaps merge those into Esham discography? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I saw his AMG bio, but a google search didn't turn up any other reviews from reliable sources. If I'm missing something, I'd be happy to withdraw, although I would prefer to merge his albums into a discography page. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 15:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete albums and no opinion on the rapper. Too many album articles that are non-notable and wasteful. Chimeric Glider (talk) 04:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep all. I don't know where this is coming from: his albums have frequently charted on Billboard and he's got All Music Guide album reviews. It's inconceivable that further reliable sources don't exist on such a person or his albums. Everyking (talk) 10:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. A somewhat POPULAR artist who i've heard on Z100. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.145.15 (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep The deletion nomination appears to have been predicated more on the current state of the articles rather than the inherent notability of the subject, which demonstrably passes WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 18:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Real Gone (Billy Ray Cyrus song)

Real Gone (Billy Ray Cyrus song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nothing but primary sources and rumors. Song was just released last week; hasn't charted, et cetera. The Sheryl Crow version doesn't have a page either and doesn't seem notable enough either. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:22, 8 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)} 01:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete not notable at the time, if it reaches the top 20 it very will be notable --Caldorwards4 (talk) 03:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - Any Single by Billy Ray Cyrus would be notable, but at this point I have concerns via WP:CRYSTAL --T-rex 03:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete until such time as the song has both charted and there is something to say about it. Erechtheus (talk) 01:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oh Jin Hwan

Sorry if I did this wrong but I do not believe this person meets WP:MUSIC primarily not to mention WP:BLP due to the lack of available sources about the subject. It is entirely possible that I'm missing them as I do not know how to search for this person in Korean language. JBsupreme (talk) 09:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Merge to 1TYM per WP:MUSIC. I don't speak Korean either, but the band clearly meets WP:MUSIC, having charted in Korea, and having released several albums on mainstream (Korean) labels [9]. He doesn't however, appear to have any other significant activity outside the band. The other band members really should be bundled into this nom as well. Debate (talk) 09:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:16, 2 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) 00:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Merge to 1TYM.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 02:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Greatest Times of All

Greatest Times of All (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Absolutely no info on this album online. 8 hits on Google, no All Music Guide listing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:27, 1 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)} 12:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• comment - I have never heard of the singer Jason McCoy but he looks notable enough to warrant a bio. But then it is odd that his first album does not carry enough notability. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 17:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Because the album was released on a small indie label, and it wasn't reviewed, and it didn't produce any singles. Notable artist doesn't translate to notable album 100% of the time. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• The album produced three singles, and two of them charted on the Canadian country singles chart in 1989. Eric444 (talk) 10:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment I'll vote keep if you can provide a source for those charting achievements. Wolfer68 (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Although the artist's notability seems to have begun in 1995 with being signed to a major label, being a debut album by a Canadian country star that does contain a song that charted makes it worth keeping. Wolfer68 (talk) 23:11, 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, Malinaccier (talk) 00:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The three sources are fansites (one, being on Geocities, is especially verboten), and the third is an issue of RPM. Even if it did produce chart singles, the album is not the subject of any reliable third-party sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:58, 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, Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - per above. No indication of notability. Redirect at worst. Renata (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Antonino Rizzuto

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

Article does not meet criteria Wikipedia:BIO. Antonio Rizzuto is not a sufficiently notable person. His only feat is having been a family doctor of Totò Riina. Could be merged with the article about Riina, but not really necessary as it does not add anything substantial. Mafia Expert (talk) 14:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Article is of low quality, and importance. DeadmanUndertaker 19:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as a WP:BIO1E. Little evidence of sustained coverage. From the source cited, the main crime was providing services to a criminal's family. Low profile, low level, and not notable. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 6 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) 00:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Low quality is a reason to improve an article, not delete it, and importance is subjective. In terms of criteria though, I'd say this is a case of one event. WilliamH (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Auz

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

Autobiography, non-notable —G716 <^T·_C> 19:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Weak delete The subject could find a place on Wikipedia, perhaps as a stub, if the article didn't read like a vanity piece. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, No reliable sources to establish notability, in addition its probably in violation of WP:COPYVIO as it appears to be a duplicate of his bio on http://www.martinmauz.com/ --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 00:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - no claim of notablity --T-rex 03:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kavoshex

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

Non-notable software; a Google search finds no coverage in independent reliable sources. Article has previously been deleted via PROD. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 00:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete nn; 8 ghits, none for news. JJL (talk) 01:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - no publicity or independent sources at all. This deletion discussion is the top link on Google --T-rex 03:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:N MrMarkTaylor ^{What's that?/my contribs/e-mail me} 06:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom Virek (talk) 06:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable with no sources or context. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 04:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008 Georgia-Russia crisis

2008 Georgia-Russia crisis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

There is nothing in the article that signifies that a crisis is or has occurred. Basically 2008 is really not that different from 2004-2007 in terms of Georgian-Russian relations. The article just basically has things that happened in 2008.

• Delete- Per WP:NOT#NEWS Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia-related deletion discussions. —Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. There are numerous publications about this notable subject, as anyone can see from the list of references provided in the article. The crisis is a matter of fact.Biophys (talk) 00:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Really, care to provide a few publications that references that show that the crisis is a matter of fact in 2008? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    • International Crisis Group's recent report "Georgia and Russia: Clashing over Abkhazia" is one example. --Kober^Talk 05:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
      • The article makes no mention that this is a crisis. The events in the article are no more a crisis than the events that have occurred between 2004-2007. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Independent articles for previous military incidents already exist. As these recent incidents resulted in a military buildup in Abkhazia and talk of war on both sides I hardly see how this does not qualify as a crisis and a significant event deserving of its own article. Also it should be considered that these events together with the enhanced ties are sizable, significant, and ultimately if all accommodated under the article on Georgia-Russia relations would most likely result in a split anyway. The lifting of sanctions, followed by the establishment of legal ties with Abkhazia, is a major development in the situation and preceded these heightened tensions and ultimately are part of the reason for heightened tensions. As such all the information present is relevant to the article and all of it is significant.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Not really, Russia unofficially had sanctions lifted long ago. Now it's just official. Also, you can't really call it a military build up when Russia is going to increase the number of peacekeepers from 2000 to 3000 (within treaty limits). Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Nope. There are other troops which operate beyong peacekeeping mandate, such as railway force in the north of Abkhazia and special forces unit stationed in the region's south. Furthermore, the UN mission confirmed unsunctioned flights of Russian jets which engage in fighting with unmanned and unarmed Georgian drones. Anyway, Russia and Georgia were at the verge of war early in May, something that definitely makes the article notable. --Kober^Talk 05:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
      • And how exactly is this a crisis? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. This topic has been in the news headlines of all media. I'd say few weeks ago "world" was speaking about these crisis. How this article could be nominated for deletion? This article is not based on announcements, sports or tabloid journalism that would be against WP:NOT#NEWS. Gülməmməd ^Talk 02:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete- Per WP:NOT#NEWS DonaldDuck (talk) 03:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Notable topic which appeared in the international media headlines and led to serious international involvement. Pocopocopocopoco, a long-time combatant on Russia-Georgia issues, wants the article to be deleted because the international response was unusually harsh toward Russia. The article's narrative may need some more cohesion, but there is no valid reason to eliminate it at all. --Kober^Talk 05:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I fail to see how this article is pro-Russian or pro-Georgian. It is simply unencyclopedic. I suggest you refactor your bad faith assumptions above. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously notable, very important events. It's preposterous that we've now got people citing "NOTNEWS" to justify deleting articles on major world events. If it's in the news, these people say, Wikipedia shouldn't have anything to do with it! I had to laugh at "the article just basically has things that happened in 2008." Everyking (talk) 10:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • If you don't like NOTNEWS then how about Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. That is exactly what this article is, an indiscriminate collection of information. If you look at the timeline of Georgia-Russia relations, there is no difference with what is happening now vs what has been happening in the last 4 years. Having an article 2008 Georgia-Russia crisis is like having an article 2008 Iraq-US crisis. Why does 2008 get special treatment? This article suffers from presentism. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Plentiful coverage in reliable sources of the present troubles in relations between Georgia and Russia as there has been for other incidents between them for which we quite rightly have articles. Cannot see how this ever meets the 'Routine news coverage' of WP:NOT#NEWS. Davewild (talk) 10:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - I see a lot of reliable sources, and it seems to be clearly notable. Soxred 93 14:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep another attempt (out of many) by Proco (who has specific POV against Georgian articles in general). Iberieli (talk) 17:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep A well written article with lots of reliable independent sources like the BBC. Georgia and Russia have indeed been feuding in 2008. Artene50 (talk) 01:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. From what I have understood by reading the newspapers on this, the crisis level of 2008 is such that war is a serious danger. That is far more serious than a mere news story. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Templates for deletion

[edit] June 8

[edit] Template:Electionpeople

Template:Electionpeople (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Besides being large and unwieldy, I am not quite sure what this template is about. "Election people" is way too generic and can refer to anything in any country. It seems an arbitrary selection of some bloggers, academics, and officials who at some point had something to say about elections. I don't see any defined criteria for inclusion. As such it is not really appropriate for a navigational box. Renata (talk) 22:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't entirely disagree with the points raised here. Clearly the template has grown somewhat unwieldy and would be better served as a collapsible box. The initial reasoning behind the box was to bring attention to the topic of election administration (which related WP entries were in great need of). The template was intended to highlight notable persons whose primary profession or research area involved the administration of election. (not just anyone "who at some point had something to say about elections"). I think the template has proved useful and would suggest looking for improvements rather than deletion. Electiontechnology (talk) 22:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

My major point is that most navigational boxes have very objective scope and very clearly defined criteria: films directed by Doe, cities in municipality x, winners of y competition, etc. This template is very arbitrary and subjective. You don't have navboxes for, say, residents of Paris or international law scholars. Who and why decided that blogger A should be included, while blogger B should not? Renata (talk) 00:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether or not "most" is accurate or not, but there are a number of examples that show otherwise: Template:PoliticalCampaigns, Template:Politics, Template:Electoral systems, Template:Elections, Template:Voting. WP entries must contend with the issue of notoriety and relevance all the time. I'm all for clarification and suggestions for improvement, but I must oppose deletion. Electiontechnology (talk) 02:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Smile

Template:Smile (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Useless chain letter. The only reason it wasn't deleted last time was because a bunch of Esperanza members came. This template contributes absolutely nothing to the encyclopedia. --Rory096 19:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a nice way to just say hi, with a cute smiley face. I don't think it really hurts Wikipedia at all. Beam 01:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Actually, it contributes some very important values to the project: civility, friendship, appreciation and happiness. I cannot imagine anything sadder than killing a smile. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• KEEP I really like this and I think it is a very nice way to send some greetings. Please don't delete this, it is very coveted and many people like it. It really isn't bothering anybody, and is a nice thing to have. Thanks Smuckers (talk) 14:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• strong keep- see my talk page for a slightly inventive use of this at the top of the page. It also fosters community and has a more focused intent than the biscuits etc. It's not a chain letter as no-one need pass it on unless they want to. I've more often seen people use it as a one-off to be friendly to, for instance, a new-ish user, rather than people forwarding it for the sake of it. Sticky Parkin 15:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - It brightened my day when someone originally put it on my talk page and I have since found it a simple way to say hi, thanks, or commit a random act of kindness towards fellow Wikipedians. It absolutely contributes to the concept of WikiLove and should be kept. It is not a chain letter as no one is forced to pass it on/use it; if you want to be a Grinch that's your prerogative. MissMJ (talk) 20:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:WikiProject Video Games

Template:WikiProject Video Games (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Not used anywhere. No reason to have a redirect for this. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - new search system removes the need for captioned titles. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

  Question - what do you mean by "captioned titles"? Are you responding to the correct TfD? This is not a captioning discussion. <puzzled> — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, as the redirect serves no purpose, but this should arguably actually be at WP:MFD since this is not a template, it's a redirect, and redirects are miscellany. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually redirects would be at WP:RFD, but since this is in the Template namespace, I thought it would go here. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Cvgproject

Template:Cvgproject (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This is not used anymore. There are other redirects that are also short and are used more. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect residue and Delete, pointless cat - need to redirect the residue links and delete. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Cvg-proj

Template:Cvg-proj (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This is not used anymore. There are other redirects that are also short and are used more. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect residue and Delete, pointless cat - need to redirect the residue links and delete. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Province of Cameroon

Template:Infobox Province of Cameroon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

No longer used, does not offer anything that the standard {{Infobox Settlement}} ot {{Geobox}} cannot do. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 15:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Mongolian Province

Template:Infobox Mongolian Province (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

No longer used, does not offer anything that the standard {{Infobox Settlement}} ot {{Geobox}} cannot do. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 15:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Dominican municipality

Template:Infobox Dominican municipality (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

No longer used, does not offer anything that the standard {{Infobox Settlement}} ot {{Geobox}} cannot do. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 15:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Detroit Tigers shortstops

Template:Detroit Tigers shortstops (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I can see the value of it, but at the same time I think this is overtemplating. If one were to keep making templates like this articles would start having 10-15 of them. Should be listified then deleted rather than being in a template. Wizardman 15:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - I can understand the concern about overuse of templates. I, too, would not want to see a single player having 10-15 template, as that becomes distracting. However, I think that's a question of when to deploy a tool, rather than when to have the tool available. There have been many great or popular shortstops in Detroit history, and many of those guys don't have a lot of templatss applied. For guys like Alan Trammell, Donie Bush, Billy Rogell, Ed Brinkman, and Tom Veryzer, I think use of the tool is very helpful and not distractin. I note, too, that this particular template has been quite popular. According to the "groks" page view counter, it has received 250 views since December, 2007. And several editors have been working to keep it current. In the end, I think the way to deal with the problem is to be judicious about where such a template is applied to avoid the 10-15 template problem, but not to throw the template out with the bathwater. Cbl62 (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep – I echo Cbl62's comments above. If there were templates for every baseball position, then I would agree with deletion. However, there is only this template and the {{Detroit Tigers second basemen}} template. I'm not sure the original reason for why these two positions were chosen to make templates from, but I can imagine it was partly due to the Alan Trammell/Lou Whitaker connection (sharing the field from 1978–1991), along with the fairly-long tenures of the players over the years at the two positions. – X96lee15 (talk) 17:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per Wikipedia:Embedded list. The "Related topics (navigational lists)" section says: Ask yourself where would a reader likely want to go after reading the article. Ideally, links in these sections should have been featured in the article.. I don't think these kinds of navigational boxes are useful for the reader, as these players are not all part of a series, or subpages of a Detroit Tigers shortstops article, for example. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:WP:gaming the system

Template:WP:gaming the system (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Unused template that might be for WP:GAME, but seems unfinished. — Thetrick (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, no conceivable use.  Sandstein  21:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Female bio

Template:Female bio (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Appears to be an article in the wrong namespace. Brianga (talk) 11:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Basically an article in template namespace. Very odd. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Move to article space and AfD from there, if required. Being in the wrong namespace is not, by itself, a reason for deletion.  Sandstein  21:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, the content is also in article form at Bianca Gascoigne. Brianga (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

  In that case, delete as misplaced content fork.  Sandstein  19:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Close and move to article namespace and yes, AfD it. — _Maggot^Syn 05:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images and media for deletion

[edit] June 8

[edit] Image:Homosexual scene - 420 BCE, Dinos painter - Capua - GR 1772.3-20.154 F65 - British Museum.jpg

Image:Homosexual scene - 420 BCE, Dinos painter - Capua - GR 1772.3-20.154 F65 - British Museum.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Allstarecho (notify | contribs).

• The picture is licensed as {{PD-BritishGov}}, but I see no reason why. The pictures comes from the British Museum. I don't know whether a NDPB qualifies as “the United Kingdom Government”. Plus we cannot know if the picture was taken more than 50 years ago. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 08:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not au fait with the situation, but isn't this a 2-dimensional work of art by an artist m ore than 70 years dead, or is that irrelevant? athinaios | Talk 08:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a detail from a krater (a kind of large vase), so the PD-art license cannot apply IMO. On a side note, this is a low-quality picture of a well-known vase. The best solution would be that a London-dwelling Wikipedian hop into the British Museum (entrance is free) and shoot a picture. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

A crater isn't 2-dimensional. It's 3-dimensional. And this Image isn't 50 years or more old. Also the description is a problem. Silly talking without really deep going informations, in parts at the end false informations. delete. Marcus Cyron (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Unicursalhex1.gif

Image:Unicursalhex1.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Arthur_Warrington_Thomas (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, no description or context. Kelly ^hi! 17:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Categories for discussion

Categories for discussion was formerly known as "Categories for deletion". The name was changed in late June 2006.

[edit] June 8

[edit] NEW NOMINATIONS

[edit] Category:WikiProject Kansas City articles

Category:WikiProject Kansas City articles - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: category is redundant and unused see Category:Kansas City articles Grey Wanderer | Talk 23:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Multiplication and Division

Propose deleting Category:Multiplication and Category:Division

Nominator's rationale: Delete/Merge both. Both newly created, and covering disparate concepts with the same name, taken from Category:Arithmetic, Ring theory, and the theory of algebras over a field. Propose reverting the creation and moving those taken from Category:Arithmetic back. I'm willing to do the mess using AWB if this is agreed to, as there are only a few dozen. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I have yet to be convinced that these categories are worthless or unsalvageable. They could be given some introductory text, a few articles added and a few articles removed, and make more sense than they do now. See also Category talk:Division. Melchoir (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Both are sub-cats of the arithmetic cat, so have not been "taken" from there (if by that you mean removed). The problem with them is not immediately obvious to a non-mathmetician. Johnbod (talk) 00:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The problem is that some of the articles were taken from Category:Arithmetic, and possibly should be returned thare, and others have "division" or "multiplication" as part of the name, but were not taken from nor belong in Category:Arithmetic, so should not be returned there. There's no scope given for either category, and, if a scope were found, it's unlikely that the present list of articles would be a better place to start than working back from the parent category. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read my comment & try again. Johnbod (talk) 01:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's okay if one has cat A which is a "subcat" of cat B, and an article X belongs to A, when in the absence of A X would not belong to B. One has, for example, South Atlantic Medal which is a member of Category:Falklands War which is a subcat of Category:Wars involving Argentina, even though the South Atlantic Medal is not a war involving Argentina. Is this a point of disagreement? Melchoir (talk) 01:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The problem I see is that the articles added to these categories fall into three categories:

1. Articles related to arithmetic multiplication / division.
2. Articles related to mathematical topics similar to arithmetic multiplication / division.
3. (Mathematical) articles with a title containing "multiplication" or "division", whether or not the concept is related.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

True, but the juxtaposition of 1 and 2 is tolerable, even beneficial. 3 can be corrected by just identifying and removing the problem articles. I suppose you have articles like Cartesian product in mind, and I'd agree that letting categorical products into the mix is a bad idea. And for Division algebra, a brief "see also" in the category text is an alternative to membership. Melchoir (talk) 05:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, while removing articles that aren't really about multiplication/division. --ΨΦorg (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Anarchism and culture

Propose renaming Category:Anarchism and culture to Category:Anarchist culture

Nominator's rationale: I created the category in question to tidy away the remaining articles in the now-diffused Cat:Anarchism supercategory, but on reflection it is a clumsy and untaxonomic title. The articles which populate the category are more tightly and accurately defined as instantiations of anarchist culture rather than the ambiguous and underspecified anarchism and culture. Thoughts? ɥʞoɹoɯoʞS 22:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been listed as an Anarchism task force deletion discussion.
• Rename per nom; seems better. Johnbod (talk) 22:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Rename. New name is much clearer than the first.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. This seems to be rather unanimous. Is there anyway to speedy this?--Cast (talk) 00:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Speedy renaming guidelines are strict, and while it could possibly qualify under criterion 4, I have no idea as I am a neophyte at CfD. ɥʞoɹoɯoʞS 01:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• It definitely cannot be speedied. Cgingold (talk) 01:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Rename per nom -- the current name always struck me as rather odd. Cgingold (talk) 01:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Wikipedia articles to be split

Category:Wikipedia articles to be split - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: It seems that I inadvertently created a redlink for this category while doing some template work. Someone saw the redlinks and created the category. I have since fixed the templates and the category is now empty. The correct category is Category:Articles to be split. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Organisations designated as terrorist by several governments

Category:Organisations designated as terrorist by several governments (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale:Delete Orphan category which merely duplicates the existing Category: Organizations designated as terrorist. Valenciano (talk) 20:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Sewanee alumni

Propose renaming Category:Sewanee alumni to Category:Sewanee: The University of the South

Nominator's rationale: Should probably be renamed to clarify which Sewanee is being referred to. The college's name is Sewanee: The University of the South. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Query Has the word 'alumni' disappeared by intention? -- roundhouse0 (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:British Occupations

Category:British occupations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Subject appears to be deliberately inflammatory and intended to disparage the subject. I first noticed this category when the creator added the Falklands War. That nomination appeared to be deliberately provocative as did other articles added in the category, such as British Forces Germany and British Commonwealth Forces Korea. Category appeared to be an attack category created for POV reasons. I've reverted the addition of the category on those pages, leaving articles that might legitimately fall into such a category. Nominated for speedy deletion but declined with a recommendation to bring it here. Justin talk 10:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• NOTE Category not tagged. Johnbod (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Fixed that. Narson (talk) 15:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Weak-ish Delete The catagory has potential if used correctly, it does however seem to have been created as a POV attack. I am not sure that the Japanese occupation article, the occupation in the wider context was American led, in the same way Kosovo was a UN/NATO force. ATM it has three articles in it, hardly worth it for a catagory, especially when one should likely be removed. Narson (talk) 12:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC) (Edit: Occupation is a fairly recent thing, I can't see this cat becoming bigger than 2 or 3 articles, not worth it) Narson (talk) 12:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment As we have the completely different Category:Occupations the name is thoroughly confusing. We do have Category:Soviet occupations; template {{Nazi Germany occupations}}; perhaps there are others amongst the thousands of jobs/professions. (Category:British occupations would include much of the world if previous colonies are allowed.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 13:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - if kept, this and similar categories should be renamed to Category:Fooian military occupations to differentiate them from the jobs/professions categories. Otto4711 (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. It's not an attack category in any way. We have similar categories Category:Allied occupation of Europe, Category:Soviet occupations, and the large article List of military occupations. DonaldDuck (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • If it wasn't meant to be an attack category, can you explain the addition of the Falklands War? The category itself, as I said above, might have some vague potential (Though it is currently being filled with units/army formations rather than occupations) but that addition looks especially pointy and makes me question the value of the category as a whole. Narson (talk) 17:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Falkland islands were occupied by British forces during the war.DonaldDuck (talk) 01:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    • And looking I see you are removing the tag 'Soviet Occupations' from the same types of forces you are adding it to for the British. Narson (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
      • There was an Argentine military occupation in that war, not a British one. You really seem to be misunderstanding the connotation of military occupation. Occupation has a specific set of guidelines, sitting in your own territory? Not an occupation. Usually occupation is used when hostile forces remain in territory that is un-annexed. Narson (talk) 08:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I notice that the category is continuing to be used for clearly POV edits. Today the British Army of the Rhine and the Berlin Brigade were added. This is clearly being used for a POV push and is wasting editors time clearing up afterward. Justin talk 19:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
        • There are legitimate reasons to add this articles to this category. BAOR "There have been two formations named British Army of the Rhine (BAOR). Both were originally occupation forces in Germany", Berlin Brigade - "Allied forces occupied West Berlin. This occupation lasted throughout the Cold War."DonaldDuck (talk) 01:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
          • They were occupation forces, not military occupations themselves. You seem to acknowledge this difference by your removal of Soviet Occupations from various soviet armies that were used for occupations of eastern europe. Narson (talk) 08:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
            • Even without this articles about occupation forces, there will be enough articles to fill the category.DonaldDuck (talk) 10:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
              • Looking at what has just been the response of the creator of this category "Falkland islands were occupied by British forces during the war." that is clearly a POV edit, implying that British forces had not legitimacy being in what is sovereign British territory. Notably as Narson has pointed out, the same editor is removing a similar category from articles related to the Soviet Army. There is clearly a POV agenda here. Justin talk 16:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I've given some serious thought to creating a master category for all military occupations, but that covers a lot of territory (no pun intended), and would need very good and broadly-accepted inclusion criteria (as suggested above), so I've never gone ahead with it. Category:British military occupations could quite possibly be a viable sub-cat of such a parent category. That being said, I think it will surely face a huge battle over inclusion of Category:Northern Ireland or parts thereof -- even excluding earlier eras, it is certainly the case that the British Army had a major presence and role during the period of The Troubles. Cgingold (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• There are legitimate reasons for a category for military occupations by the United Kingdom, if there are a reasonable number of appropriate articles. Thing is, I don't think there are actually very many appropriate articles. Per WP:CAT guidelines 7 & 9 I think appropriate articles to include are the ones about what are universally acknowledged as occupations - not colonial situations nor technical details of occupations nor forces involved in occupations. If kept this category will need constant policing (to enforce these guidelines), drawing editors away from more worthwhile discussion - and I don't think it's worth the effort for a category with only very few articles that belong there anyway. Thus I do not think that this category is of net benefit to the encyclopaedia and suggest we delete. Pfainuk talk 19:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Photos by SimonEast

Category:Photos by SimonEast (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Per precedent here, here, here, here, and here, personal image categories are not needed. If allowed would set precedent to keep a similiar type of category for every individual user. Galleries are usually found on user subpages, there is no need for a category to be made for each user's images. VegaDark (talk) 00:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Galleries are better off as sub userpages.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom and unanimous precedent. Otto4711 (talk) 15:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom DA PIE EATER (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User categories for discussion

See Wikipedia:User categories for discussion, as the nominations and discussions are on the process's main page.

[edit] Stub types for deletion

Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2008/June/8

[edit] Redirects for discussion

Redirects for discussion was formerly known as "Redirects for deletion". The name was changed in late July 2006.

[edit] June 8

[edit] Circles of Reformist Initiative → Reformist Initiative Circles

In order to make possibile the move of the target article to this title, which was the orginal title of it and the most correct translation from Italian. Checco (talk) 22:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• You can do that most easily through the Wikipedia:Requested moves process. As long as it's not controversial (and this doesn't appear to be), it does not need discussion here. I would do it myself except for one question - does the history need to be merged or can the current history be simply overwritten? (I note that you are the only significant contributor to the page so far.) Rossami (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of shopping malls in New Hampshire → Category:Shopping malls in New Hampshire

Redirect to a category. I don't think this is acceptable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep while technically a cross namespace redirect, it's a rather logical one that is still pointing to encyclopedic content. It could also help editors from making a list, if they were not aware the category existed. -- Ned Scott 06:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - agree with Scott above. Potentially useful, and mainspace-to-category isn't as bad as other cross-namespace redirects since categories (well, this one at least) are reader-oriented and linked to from mainspace. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 06:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Week keep per above. Potentially useful in some circumstances. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 07:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete because it's a misnomer. We have WP:CLN to tell us the difference between categories and lists; this redirect is referring to a category as a list, which isn't technically correct. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 09:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Miscellany for deletion

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, as MfD uses subpages for the nominations like AfD but places them within the process's main page.

[edit] Proposed deletion

See Category:Proposed deletion as of 8 June 2008, as categories are the only methods to easily list yesterday's new proposed deletion candidates.

[edit] Copyright problems

[edit] 2008-06-08

Articles

• Laerskool Reformia (history · last edit) from [10].  Andreas  ^(T) 13:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Hunt Armory (history · last edit) from [11]. Reworded here and there but still obviously a copy of the source URL. Rividian (talk) 14:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• National Golf Coaches Association (history · last edit) from [12]. ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• It's been cleaned up. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• لیست پرشی (history · last edit) from [13]. Kubek15 ^{(Sign!) (Contribs) (UBX)} 16:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Stand up paddle surfing (history · last edit) from [14] (User:Addshore found it, I just beat him to this) ...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 21:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Luqman (person) (history · last edit) from [15] & [16]. 71.96.135.118 (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• John J. McGilvra (history · last edit) from [17]. Nomination completed by DumbBOT (talk) 23:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Phi Alpha Nu (history · last edit) (url not detected). Nomination completed by DumbBOT (talk) 23:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Images

• Image:Ashok house.jpg (history · last edit) from [18]. Whpq (talk) 15:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Image:Cite soliel3.jpg (history · last edit) from [19] NauticaShades 15:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Image:Rajendra house.jpg (history · last edit) from [20]. Whpq (talk) 15:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Image:Dmosquec.jpg (history · last edit) from [21]. Whpq (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Image:226면제배갑 육군박물관.gif (history · last edit) (url not detected). Nomination completed by DumbBOT (talk) 23:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Image:3355-dryice12.jpg (history · last edit) (url not detected). Nomination completed by DumbBOT (talk) 23:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Image:B0053460 4826f7d904c4e.jpg (history · last edit) (url not detected). Nomination completed by DumbBOT (talk) 23:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Image:Psumenchampions.jpg (history · last edit) (url not detected). Nomination completed by DumbBOT (talk) 23:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Image:면30겹방탄복200804010265.jpg (history · last edit) (url not detected). Nomination completed by DumbBOT (talk) 23:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)