Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 March 17: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:48, 17 March 2008

< March 16	March 18 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Whether or not to merge can be decided elsewhere, without the need for AFD discussion. — CharlotteWebb 21:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Cook (programmer)

No assertion of notability beyond being involved in the production of a number of games. -- Mark Chovain 04:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 05:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ No sources, and possible COI issues as well. —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 21:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Despite the potential WP:COI issue, [1] reveals a few non-trivial mentions [2], [3], [4]. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Metaweb. It's not a lot to go on but as you say it is non-trivial. However, I think the article on Metaweb should suffice. —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 23:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, I think Metaweb already says everything about him that needs saying: He founded the company. -- Mark Chovain 21:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable and unsourced and unreferenced Dreamspy (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable programmer. Operating (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. References have been added for notable features. Bungopolis (talk) 09:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Invented and patented an animation technique, authored a published game, founded a company. I think the notability issues could be addressed by simply stating the preceding in the opening sentence. --Zippy (talk) 15:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Robert Cook is a well-known futurist, visionary, and a highly respected ontologist. His ground-breaking work at Metaweb is revolutionary and is well documented in articles and books around the world. Colinhevans (talk) 02:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough references & notability for an article DGG (talk) 13:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 23:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Letter Bible

Note, previously bundled in this Afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SwordSearcher

Trivial RS mention and other than some assertion of it being 'one of the first' in the bundled Afd. Ghits are forums, howtos, and other discussions with no evidence of notability complicated by more than 1,000 websites distributing content. Use!notability TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks pretty notable to me. Lots of coverage/distribution and even a respectable mainstream newspaper like the Daily Telegraph links to it as a bible reference [5] Halfmast (talk) 05:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a version of the Bible with hyperlink cross-references appears to be a notable measn of presenting the Bible. Hence an article on it is notable. The article is a not wonderful one, but well worth keeping. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment unfortunately that doesn't meet the notability guidelines for websites and web-based software, which requires reliable source coverage. Please also see WP:USEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 14:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: THE AFD TEMPLATE ON THE ARTICLE HAS A RED LINK TO THIS PAGE. COULD SOME ONE CHECK THAT THE AFD NOMINATION HAS BEEN DONE CORRECTLY? Peterkingiron (talk) 11:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle hiccuped. Appears fixed now TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 14:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per User:Travellingcari. It's a valuable resource, but without sources we can't keep it. I don't think it will be impossible to find those sources - the BLB is widely recommended to students by Bible scholars, but I don't have any of those on hand right now. -- BPMullins | Talk 17:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, With respect, in voting for deletion I think you have the cart before the horse. We should delete if there are no sources showing notability (and this can be demonstrated). If the notability or source status of any article is unknown (and you acknowledge that there may be sources), then we may well be deleting a notable article! Deletion is a big step and we should not delete from an uninformed postion. To do otherwise is to open the flood gates to delete many quite possibly notable articles, just because no one has had time to cite the references. I think you need to demonstrate that there are no references. Let's assume innocent until proven guilty. Halfmast (talk) 04:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response, but no one has found these so called sources. That's the issue. You can't prove something doesn't exist TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point, but it's not as if he said "I have looked hard for sources and there seem to be none". He said "I don't think it will be impossible to find those sources". He seems to be voting to delete an article for which he thinks there may well be reputable sources showing notability. I respect his delete vote, but can't follow his rational for it. Halfmast (talk) 05:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I follow. I'd misunderstood you the first time I read your comment. FWIW, I haven't seen any RS coverage for the whole lot of these but there's no real good merge home. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 14:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Found Orlando Sentinel very quickly, there must be others. Honestly, the objection "no evidence of notability complicated by more than 1,000 websites distributing content" almost speaks for itself. A large network of distributors seems to meet criterion 3 at WP:WEB, independent of the fact that criterion 1 is likely to be met also. The article does need rescue, but not deletion. John J. Bulten (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 12:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evgenia Eremina

Non-notable adult model under WP:BIO. No reliable sources to verify any claim of notability. Image is probably a copyright violation too. Vinh1313 (talk) 04:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Vinh1313 (talk) 04:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She's easy on the eyes, but the reliable sources have yet to find her. Fails WP:BIO easily. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She's a babe but just no notability for an article here. Sting au Buzz Me... 05:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the image is courtesy a serial copyright violator. I just zapped it again. No comment on the article itself - David Gerard (talk) 09:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the evidence for this assertion that the image was uploaded by a serial copyright violator?--Toddy1 (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete due to crstal ball concerns and failing the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 12:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True to My Word

As far as I can tell, no release date has been set for this album and I can't even find a reliable source that would clearly establish the veracity of the content. Right now, it's a bunch of rumours with an awkwardly outdated promise that "more information is expected in late 2007". Pichpich (talk) 02:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as outdate info on an album which will most likely never be released. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 03:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. Notability established after nomination. SNOW. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yvonne K. Fulbright

Article reads more like a resume than an encyclopedic article. Article does not assert notability, no major press coverage, no awards, no references or inline citations bolster any claims to notability. Ozgod (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep adequately published, on TV, Google news hits--clearly notable. JJL (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment copied JJL's comment from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Editing Yvonne K. Fulbright - Preview and closed that one since nothing points to it anyway (the article Yvonne K. Fulbright itself correctly points here). cab (talk) 02:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. She has FOX coverage, as well as working for FOX. She has been also been featured in Cosmopolitan, Women's Health, Mean's Health UK, Zink, and several other things. See her press kit here. Clearly notable and verifiable. Cel ^{Talk to me} 03:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge. Not quite the participation I would have liked, but I'm not listing it for a fourth time, and anyway merge is a nice harmless close. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grey cycle tour

While this student cycle tour was without question a laudable fundraising effort, as an article it does not appear to satisfy WP:N and WP:V; no significant secondary sources outside the group's/school's website cited or found. Contested prod. ~Matticus ^U_C 08:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jonny-m t 02:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Grey High School. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or maybe merge to school article due to small size of both. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 13:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothermia (band)

Non notable band. Fails WP:MUSIC. The article is full or OR and personal statements. Delete. Undeath (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In common with many of the articles on black metal bands here, there is a lack of notability and no evidence of significant coverage.--Michig (talk) 07:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Non-admin close. Jfire (talk) 05:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Vicious Circle

Non-notable film by a small independent film company. Practically no G-hits for it on Google. -WarthogDemon 02:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that this is original research, with no reliable sources to verify it. Davewild (talk) 13:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of spells in The X-Family

Simply not encyclopedic. This is trivial information, not to mention original research. Pichpich (talk) 02:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:OR and unencyclopedic to include here. Chris! _ct 03:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with The X-Family if the research can be verified. Otherwise, delete. -- Kevin (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not your web host.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 06:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First Camp

Apparently this company is notable at first sight so speedy was declined but other than some information on the company being purchased and hiring decisions, I find a lot of false positives, directory listings and no evidence this meets WP:CORP. Wikipedia is not a travel guide and there's no evidence that this company actually 'transforms' anything. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 15:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as declining admin - 82,000 Ghits on Swedish-language Google, with few false positives. The cited refs are non-trivial coverage. WikiTravel:Sweden#Sleep reckons it's "the leading chain" in Sweden. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply, the cited refs are buying and selling of the company and administrative hirings. Nothing that establishes the notability. Wikitravel's claim's citation is the company's website, hardly notable or independent. It's aiming to grow by 2011, but I don't see any evidence it's notable at the moment, but we'll see where this goes. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the fact that acquisitions, takeovers, and hirings are being reported that establishes notability, in my view. I, too, will be interested to see where this goes, as it doesn't seem open and shut :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed :) TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Speedies are declined not for being "notable at first sight" but for having any evidence or indication or assertion of notability. Its the ones that are clearly NOT notable as judged even at first sight that should be tagged for speedy. DGG (talk) 22:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems to be well-referenced in several travel sites and the like. If there's someone who can read the native tongue, I'd very much like to know what camping.se, the official site for such things in the country, has to say about the matter. Cel ^{Talk to me} 02:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 03:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 03:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — I imagine that it easily meets WP:CORP; not being a speaker of Swedish, I cannot check easily. EJF (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per the references that already exist in the article. They are reliable. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 15:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Nissan aftermarket parts

The result was speedy delete after author blanked. Toddst1 (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lacks notability for an article itself - should either be deleted or merged with Nissan. The article was originally prodded, but it was removed and contested. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 02:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 02:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article is largely a list of models catered for by the afterparts market. The remainder might conceivably be mereged by to Nissan, but I dount there is much worth merging. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Peterkingiron. I honestly don't see how this article is useful to anyone. -- Kevin (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Peterkingiron, nothing worth saying here. The mere fact that there is are Nissan aftermarket parts is nothing remarkable, and it's unlikely that anything can be written about them as a whole that's worthy of an encyclopedia. -- Mithent (talk) 20:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that article as it exists is a dictionary definition, rather than an encyclopedia article, and that it does not present sufficient reliable sources to verify that the term is in widespread usage. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Managed move

Delete WP:DICT The term is probably specific to a particular country/local region, and has no references, fails WP:ORI. Bardcom (talk) 02:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, needs sourcing and indication this is UK social-work jargon. [6] In the US a "managed move" is something a corporation does for an employee they need to relocate, and there are vendors who do this as a service. It also refers to companies moving their own operations, e.g. consolidating IT in one data warehouse without interruption. --Dhartung | Talk 07:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a UK teacher, I've heard this phrase used, most recently on a BBC Radio 4 programmes where it was described in the same way as in the article. However, I do not feel it is encyclopaedic: it is not widespread, it appears to be used in some areas and not others, there are alternative ways of describing the same thing and, basically, it is not a new idea but has happened unofficially for years without the need for a name or with other descriptions. My decision reserved, pending evidence that the term is widespread in the social work milieu, as opposed to teaching, and not just a neologism. Emeraude (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Any other opinions? Let's try to avoid a resubmit for consensus. Can someone look at this please? Bardcom (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As it is a WP:DICT with a bunch of red links that someone thought satisfied a wikify request. There is not much to lose if someone wants to start a substantial article, if indeed there is an encyclopedic article to be written. Dimitrii (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete It has enough reliable sources if someone really wants to create an article, but a wiktionary entry will do for now. –thedemonhog talk • edits 19:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per article's generally much improved sourcing. Nice work Schlehub! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fantom Warior

Band that fails to meet WP:MUSIC. All coverage seems to be limited to myspace, bloggs, forums, and metalarchive-esque websites. [7]. No secondary independent sources. Reference section is also questionable and spotty. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 02:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 02:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 02:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only sources are primary or unreliable. Nothing in the article asserts notability per WP:MUSIC. Makes a couple vague claims which put it just this side of an A7. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Music criteria 2-12 won't be met; 6 perhaps someday, some ex band members are still going strong but haven't hit the big-time. Criteria 1 would be the only possibility then. The difficulty with finding references for Fantom Warior is that since the band was around only during the 1980s, the articles do not exist in electronic form on the internet. I'm not sure if every reference on wikipedia needs to be a link to something on the web; if it's not a link then that probably raises the verifiability issue. I have photo copies of magazines that they appeared in, some were major metal magazines from various countries and others are minor local fanzine publications. I have articles from 15 magazines, some of which were quite popular in the 1980s thrash circles but probably don't exist today; (e.g. Metal Forces Magazine - October 1986, No 20, England; Blackthorn Magazine - 1986, No 4, Denmark; Shock Power Magazine - No 11, Germany; Ardschok America - November 1986, USA) Did find a stub for Metal Forces in wiki. I could just list those as references without links but again not verifiable without the actual magazine article. Not sure if I can actually post those articles to wiki's database without some sort of copyright infringement. I suppose the question is whether those articles are considered "non-trivial". Schlehub (talk) 03:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Schlehub (talk) 03:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, references to paper sources are perfectly fine. Zagalejo^^^ 04:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. If they are properly formatted and placed in the article, I will withdraw this nomination. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 04:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll have to include more "paper" source references then. I've included a couple of references currently [3], [4], [5] that link to scanned in copies of the articles. I'm not that familiar with the copyright issues to know whether I can link to those copies of the articles. I also don't know if I can submit them to the wiki databases and reference them from there. Any help in the form of what I legally can do with images of these paper articles (be nice now) would be appreciated. I've read some of the copyright info on wiki but I'm not sure I understand most of it. I'll at least work on getting the formatting of the "paper" references correct and then perhaps with some direction I can sort out what I can do with links to such articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schlehub (talk • contribs) 04:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. With the addition of print sources, even if only in fanzines, I think this band just barely squeaks past WP:MUSIC. It's difficult to verify, of course, since these are print-only fanzines. I would myself be inclined to place this as something akin to subpoint 3 under criterion 1: "An article in a school or university newspaper (or similar) would generally be considered trivial but should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis." They seem to have coverage from 7 different print fanzines from 6 different countries. The article does need clean-up, particularly the references which cite to other Wikipedia articles. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep due to the sources. –thedemonhog talk • edits 19:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raffaele Cadorna, Jr.

Contested prod. Violates WP:RSUE and WP:BIO. Failed WP:Geogre's Law at the time of the prod. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears notable from a Google search, although I would like to see more references. Isn't there a street named after him in Rome too? Bardcom (talk) 02:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be an entire book about him: [8]. And I think Geogre's law is a bit silly. A new user might simply make a typo when writing the new article's title and not know how to move the page to the proper location. Zagalejo^^^ 02:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject appears to be notable; I cleaned up the text and corrected the article title; I'm sure the user wasn't aware of the naming conventions when he created it. Yes, the article needs work, but that's nothing new to Wikipedia. Also, I think WP:RSUE isn't sufficient grounds for deleting an article. At worst, the Italian-language sources should be removed, and the article tagged as unreferenced. Parsecboy (talk) 05:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment per Parsecboy's comment above... the Italian language should be kept and more sources in English should be added :) Also, subject seems notable. -- phoebe/(talk) 06:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable Italian general and statesman. SUE doesn't say delete it for violating SUE, it says English language sources, all things considered, are preferable for en.wikipedia. This doesn't mean en.wiki uses low grade English sources, and eliminates non-English speakers, when these resources are not readily available. English sources are a courtesy to the reader, not the only allowable reference materials. There probably is a street named after him in Rome. I've never heard of him doesn't mean he's not notable. --69.226.108.255 (talk) 08:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, chief of staff of a national army would seem inherently notable position, and having been a Senator means he passes WP:BIO automatically. --Dhartung | Talk 09:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, user may need to review quoted policies for this. And I agree with Dhartung. ~ Cheers! Dreamy ^§ 23:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep — being a provincial legislator alone is sufficient for notability purposes; national legislators should be even more obvious. Of course a national legislator is notable. Nyttend (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as copyvio by User:Rudget, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gilanyan

Musician with no apparent real assertion of notability. -WarthogDemon 02:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G12 Text lifted directly from here. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G12 as noted. Chubbles (talk) 04:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Copyrighted text lifted directly from other sites should not be allowed to sit, even for a speedy deletion. I removed the copyrighted text and reworded the basic information into a bare-bones article that others can cast their fury about as to its worthiness. --69.226.108.255 (talk) 07:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 05:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, appears to satisfy WP:LIST. Could do with a serious tidy-up, though. Black Kite 18:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional guidebooks

Not encyclopedic content. Seems to me to fail WP:NOT#LINK. Prewitt81 (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's WP:INTERESTING but hardly seems encyclopedic. Is a Pokedex truly a guidebook? JJL (talk) 02:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally unencyclopedic, fail WP:NOT#DIR Chris! _ct 03:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And this !vote is contentless and WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. EDIT: That's better. I don't believe that this falls under any of those criteria. It isn't a directory per se, as it only links within Wikipedia. It is also not a list of loosely associated topics, as the things inside it are quite strongly related to each other. We have a list of fictional dogs, a list of fictional companies, a list of fictional doctors, and a list of fictional currencies, among several others that follow this formula. Cel ^{Talk to me} 04:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Well, it is a list, not a directory. This part I agree. But the items listed are loosely associated. They are all frictional documents that existed in frictional universe, not necessarily guidebooks. As for those other articles or lists about frictional dogs or companies, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. They are irrelevant to this discussion. Chris! _ct 17:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are not. The dogs that are in list of fictional dogs are fictional animals that exist in a fictional universe. They aren't necessarily golden retrievers. These all show precedent that fictional things can be within lists if the subject of those lists can be deemed interesting, notable, and useful. This isn't the WP:Pokémon test that WP:WAX is written to prevent. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lists such as these are important for redlink development and serve as a navigational aid for those reading about the topic. Beyond being useful, they are in actuality quite encyclopedic. If you were to look in the index of an encyclopedia containing an entry on fictional guidebooks, if the article itself did not lisat them, then they would have a place there in the index. Lists such as these are our index and are necessary to serve in that role. This one in specific does not contain original research, links to notable material, and is verifiable based on those articles. Cel ^{Talk to me} 04:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 05:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is pretty fantastic. It is not a directory of anything; it's a list, which we have a long and storied history of creating and keeping as encyclopedic. The main problems with this article lie in the name, and in the introduction, which reads like OR (who decides what a fantasy guidebook is?). Some of these works are certainly guidebooks, but some are encyclopedias and other reference works that may not guide. Perhaps List of fictional reference works would be a more appropriate title, less open to controversy over whether the work is guiding anyone or not, feel a little less fantasy-universe oriented, and be of greater interest to the encyclopedists among us. -- phoebe/(talk) 06:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a great article, but I think that it's OK. I'd suggest removing the fictional guidebooks which appear in works of fiction and keeping the real, published fictional guidebooks like Phaic Tăn though. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That article could be List of non-fictional fictional guidebooks. I made a funny. Cel ^{Talk to me} 12:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just added that section on "Real fictional guidebooks" yesterday. Possibly it should be split off elsewhere. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTS. Klausness (talk) 12:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge I agree that the title might be improved but the topic is sound. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Viable topic with examples like the Necronomicon that are independently notable, too. Needs expansion in terms of its intro and sourcing, but I see nothing wrong with this topic. 23skidoo (talk) 13:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not in great shape as it exists, but a valid topic for a WP:LIST. And kinda neat, actually, especially in light of all those encyclopedias documenting imaginary places. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs cleanup, not deletion. You might like to try raising concerns at the talkpage of articles, before leaping straight to AfD. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good points are brought up by those suggesting the article be kept. This was my first nomination of an article for deletion. In the future, I'll take Quiddity's sound advice and go to the talk page first. Prewitt81 (talk) 02:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good man. Also, the Article Rescue Squad is another good place to go before you jump off the deep end and go straight to AfD. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit of a silly article and I can understand why you nominated it. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No assertion of notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:LIST just fine - WP:NOT#DIRECTORY doesn't apply here. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 20:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important content and useful, verifiable through the main articles., just as for any list. DGG (talk) 04:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete no assertion of notability. Anyone with two or more sources that attest this company was notable per WP:CORP can re-create the article. Pegasus «C¦T» 15:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Videomaster

The Videomaster article is essentially unsourced (the only external link is to a fan site) and doesn't show how it is notable at all. No other articles link to it. I'm proposing it be deleted as it doesn't appear to meet the inclusion criteria. clpo13_(talk) 02:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 05:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD A7. "It is an article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under A7 criteria. No assertion of importance. Not a notability issue. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 15:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BIO1E as it stands. Tragic story, but does not pass biographical policy.Black Kite 18:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Hutchings

Delete per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. It's sad and his muder was covered but news!notability and there's no evidence he was notable apart from being killed. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 01:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 02:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tragic, but WP is not a memorial. —Moondyne click! 02:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Cody+Hutchings%22 and http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Cody+Hutchings%22 for an extensive collection of newspaper articles about this boy and the murder case. Also note that he suffered from Williams syndrome, and this becomes more than just another homicide. People with a disability are more likely to be victims of abuse than other people, and this case demonstrates how such things happen. --Eastmain (talk) 03:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (EC)Comment, I never said it wasn't in the news, but that news!notable. We would not have heard of him if he hadn't been murdered and he's not the only disabled person to have been killed. Still not encyclopedically notable TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - Unfortunate, tragic, sad etc. However, despite adequate coverage (which is not in dispute), Wikipedia is not a memorial, obituary, or WP:ONEEVENT. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 03:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The event of the killing and the debate over sentencing is notable and well-documented. If the event of the killing is more notable than the biography, then that is an argument for renaming the article to Death of Cody Hutchings or Killing of Cody Hutchings, not for deleting the article. But the argument against the move is that it would make the article harder to find. (Note that I am avoiding calling the killing murder because the killer was never convicted of murder.) --Eastmain (talk) 04:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is akin to saying Mary Ann Nichols or any of the other victims of Jack The Ripper shouldn't have their own articles. It's nonsense. Plus there is a connection to the Premier's pushing of new laws that explicitly mention the child's name. That alone should be sufficient to establish notability. Cel ^{Talk to me} 04:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Mary is talked about in over 250 books and articles in scholarly works like the Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling. This is not even close to in the same league - Peripitus (Talk) 07:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 05:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable per WP:RS so passes WP:V and new law pushed by state premier that carries the name "Cody's law". Sting au Buzz Me... 05:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Bill is called Crimes Amendment (Child Homicide) Bill 2007, not "Cody's Law". -- Mark Chovain 06:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not sufficiently notable in my view (although sad). The legislation will not be called "Cody's law" - The Herald Sun states "While the exact title of the legislation is yet to be determined, the family will know it as "Cody's Law" " [9] If the law is introduced, the death of the child could be incorporated into an article as an explanation to the background of the law.--Matilda ^talk 06:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into article on new law. This case is important in the context of the new law, but being killed does not make someone notable. -- Mark Chovain 06:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:RS and WP:N are addressed by the multiple Reliable Secondary Sources Independent of the subject. WP:ONEEVENT is addressed by the fact there are two events. 1 - his murder, 2 the affect on Victorian law. Fosnez (talk) 06:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Can we have a courtesy blanking on closure? -- Mark Chovain 06:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is tragic and dreadful news. But it is also simply news - clearly covered under WP:NOT#NEWS, not an encyclopaedic topic. Except for minor mentions, and possibly next years anniversary, this will fade from view soon. Delete it - if there is any news interest in 6 months(very very unlikely) then it may have the longevity for an article but at the moment this is clearly covered under WP:NOT and Wikipedia:BLP#Articles_about_people_notable_only_for_one_event (particularly the sentence If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted...the passing of a law in response does not make this two events)- Peripitus (Talk) 07:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. Sad, but not notable (and really, you don't want to be immortalised on Wikipedia for this sort of thing...). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A murder is not inherently notable. Mention of the murder should probably occur on the page for the resulting changes to the law (if any). And yes, a courtesy blanking should be carried out as a matter of course for something like this.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 02:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEPHi there, I composed the article not for the sake of memorial or the fact that he was killed-it is about a new law being introduced-the name (for the time being) is unofficially Cody's law, it is still rather new information as the bill and the name has not been introduced-YET. I was intending to place a category in wp about "children murdered by carers/parents" and Cody as well as Daniel Valerio and Jaidyn Leskie articles would be included under this umbrella-no WP is not news, (as someone stated) it is however encyclopedic and relevant to criminal law in Australia. Would it be possible for some of you to perhaps help locate sources of references to cite, rather than delete it? As I think that this is really an important subject as (in Australia, we seem to have a high rate of death in children at the hands of so-called "Carers".--Read-write-services (talk) 07:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, the proposed law is not, and never has been called "Cody's Law" - officially or unofficially. It was a bit of emotive sensationalism thrown in to a paper to sell more copies. The name of the bill is clearly, "Crimes Amendment (Child Homicide) Bill 2007". If passed, the act of parliament will be called the "Crimes Amendment (Child Homicide) ~~Bill~~Act 2007", which will amend the "Crimes Act 1958", the "Children, Youth and Families Act 2005", the "Coroner's Act 1985", and the "Sentencing Act 1991". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chovain (talk • contribs) 07:41, 18 March, 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Agree it's sad but not notable for Wikipedia and may have been more suited for Wikinews. -- Bidgee (talk) 10:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unfortunately, being a murder victim is not an uncommon enough event that it makes you notable. WP:NOTNEWS and all that. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. No worries. Thank you all for your constructive words, however, what is notable about Jaidyn Leskie? if we use your theory, how is it that Jaidyn remains?? to quote the above "unfortunately, being a murder victim is not an uncommon enough event that it makes you notable." I'm sorry I just seem to have lost something here. Thank you all, and Cheers--Read-write-services (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By most of the logic being used here, this article is also a good candidate for deletion. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the same league - Jaidyn's murder and subsequent things has resulted in 3 books specifically on the topic, and is still generating news articles, 10 years after the event - Peripitus (Talk) 01:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and that article as been re-written as Murder of Jaidyn Leskie to be in line with WP:BLP1E and highlight the fact that the murder has become symbolic of a number of issues and potential law changes. It's a horse of a different colour TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps an article should be created about the Bill's origin (that it came about after/because of the death of Cody? As per
The name of the bill is clearly, "Crimes Amendment (Child Homicide) Bill 2007". If passed, the act of parliament will be called the "Crimes Amendment (Child Homicide) ~~Bill~~Act 2007", which will amend the "Crimes Act 1958", the "Children, Youth and Families Act 2005", the "Coroner's Act 1985", and the "Sentencing Act 1991".

What do you think about this?--Read-write-services (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bill itself is not notable. If it passes, we can certainly have an article on the act, and if we have references linking the two, then I think it'd be a great idea. (Note: I've changed "Bill" to "Act" in my original comment, and your quote of it). -- Mark Chovain 02:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sad, but not notable. (Sorry). Halfmast (talk) 06:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitris Pistikos

Apart from its very poor English, which could be corrected, this article does not list any citations, the external links refer to pages of local only interest, this person is not a recognized writer outside the prefecture he comes from. Odikuas (talk) 01:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I suppose it could be expanded and referanced but notablility is an issue, this person isn't notable outside of his field. Highfields (talk) (contribs) 16:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 13:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is a faithful translation of that in the el.wikipedia.[10]. However, it would benefit from the addition of the kind of sources that we look for on en.wikipedia to demonstrate notability. It is most likely that any sources will be written in Greek and a search using "Δημήτρης Πιστικός" does throw up some results[11] but it may take some time to sift through them. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. Nom is banned. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 02:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Kane

Local television personality, not known except in local area Cryptographic Slurm (talk) 01:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please note that all March 17th nominations of local TV news personalities are the work of a sockpuppet of User:Spotteddogsdotorg, an indefinitely blocked user.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. Nom is banned. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 02:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ernie Anastos

Local television personality, not known except in local area Cryptographic Slurm (talk) 00:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. please note that I have accused this nominator of sock puppetry on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alycia Lane (2nd nomination), another AfD about a local news anchor.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Major figure on a major TV station. Notable to millions in the New York metropolitan area. Anastos is the subject of several news articles.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Fat Man above. JNW (talk) 01:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close, possibly WP:POINTy nomination made by a now indef-blocked sockpuppet. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Frankel

Local television personality, not known except in local area Cryptographic Slurm (talk) 01:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please note that all March 17th nominations of local TV news personalities are the work of a sockpuppet of User:Spotteddogsdotorg, an indefinitely blocked user.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close, possibly WP:POINTy nomination made by a now indef-blocked sockpuppet. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Freeze

Local television personality, not known except in local area Cryptographic Slurm (talk) 01:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please note that all March 17th nominations of local TV news personalities are the work of a sockpuppet of User:Spotteddogsdotorg, an indefinitely blocked user.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The fact of her marrying a fellow BYU cheerleader and that this has come up in several publications should be considered in her favor.Johnpacklambert (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy close, possibly WP:POINTy nomination made by a now indef-blocked sockpuppet. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lynda Baquero

Local television personality, not known except in local area Cryptographic Slurm (talk) 01:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please note that all March 17th nominations of local TV news personalities are the work of a sockpuppet of User:Spotteddogsdotorg, an indefinitely blocked user.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close, possibly WP:POINTy nomination made by a now indef-blocked sockpuppet. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Gardner (broadcaster)

Local television personality, not known except in local area Cryptographic Slurm (talk) 01:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please note that all March 17th nominations of local TV news personalities are the work of a sockpuppet of User:Spotteddogsdotorg, an indefinitely blocked user.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close, possibly WP:POINTy nomination made by a now indef-blocked sockpuppet. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Bartelstein

Local television personality, not known except in local area Cryptographic Slurm (talk) 01:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please note that all March 17th nominations of local TV news personalities are the work of a sockpuppet of User:Spotteddogsdotorg, an indefinitely blocked user.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. Nom is banned. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, Maggot means User:Cryptographic Slurm is ~~banned~~ indef-blocked, not me. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course. My apologies. :p SynergeticMaggot (talk) 02:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carolyn Gusoff

Finishing incomplete nom for User:Cryptographic Slurm Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't realize that said user was a possible sockpuppet; that tag didn't pop up until I finished this. This was simply a procedural completion, and if no one objects, I will speedy close. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close, possibly WP:POINTy nomination made by a now indef-blocked sockpuppet. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Castillo

Local television personality, not known except in local area Cryptographic Slurm (talk) 01:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please note that all March 17th nominations of local TV news personalities are the work of a sockpuppet of User:Spotteddogsdotorg, an indefinitely blocked user.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. Nom is banned. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 02:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Ann Childers

Local television personality, not known except in local area Cryptographic Slurm (talk) 01:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please note that all March 17th nominations of local TV news personalities are the work of a sockpuppet of User:Spotteddogsdotorg, an indefinitely blocked user.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close, possibly WP:POINTy nomination made by a now indef-blocked sockpuppet. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Ushery

Local television personality, not known except in local area Cryptographic Slurm (talk) 01:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please note that all March 17th nominations of local TV news personalities are the work of a sockpuppet of User:Spotteddogsdotorg, an indefinitely blocked user.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close, possibly WP:POINTy nomination made by a now indef-blocked sockpuppet. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Castillo

Local television personality, not known except in local area Cryptographic Slurm (talk) 01:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please note that all March 17th nominations of local TV news personalities are the work of a sockpuppet of User:Spotteddogsdotorg, an indefinitely blocked user.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close, possibly WP:POINTy nomination made by a now indef-blocked sockpuppet. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Stoker Smith

Local television personality, not known except in local area Cryptographic Slurm (talk) 01:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please note that all March 17th nominations of local TV news personalities are the work of a sockpuppet of User:Spotteddogsdotorg, an indefinitely blocked user.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close, possibly WP:POINTy nomination made by a now indef-blocked sockpuppet. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Ahern (news anchor)

Local television personality, not known except in local area Cryptographic Slurm (talk) 01:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please note that all March 17th nominations of local TV news personalities are the work of a sockpuppet of User:Spotteddogsdotorg, an indefinitely blocked user.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close, possibly WP:POINTy nomination made by a now indef-blocked sockpuppet. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Becker

Local television personality, not known except in local area Cryptographic Slurm (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please note that all March 17th nominations of local TV news personalities are the work of a sockpuppet of User:Spotteddogsdotorg, an indefinitely blocked user.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep with the additional reliable sources added to the article whcih are judged to just about meet the notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 13:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yakov Kazyansky

Article does not meet the requirements in WP:BIO for notability. No significant press coverage, awards or impact on area of work. Ozgod (talk) 01:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Neutral. Doesn't quite seem to meet notability guidelines contained in WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. Further, the article's only reference is to the artist's own website. The lack of independent sources leaves the article's contents unverifiable. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 01:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC) 01:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The new reference seems to tip the scales back towards keep, unfortunately, it's in Russian, and I don't read Russian nearly well enough to determine anything about the article except that it mentions the artist in question. I'll take it on faith that it is a notable mention to the point of withdrawing my delete vote and switching to neutrality on the issue. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 14:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC) 14:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There's at least one non-trivial source in Russian, an interview with a regional magazine: Kostishina, Elizabeta (2007-09-05), "Яков Казьянский: «Не надо делать из искусства официантку»", Yunost, no. 35, retrieved 2008-03-17. Others may be available off-line. The award of "Honored Worker of Culture of the Russian Federation" (ru:Заслуженный работник культуры Российской Федерации) might be enough to meet WP:BIO; it is verified by [12], for example. cab (talk) 02:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 02:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep seems to be reasonably notable, 180 ghits on his name in Russian (even one book hit), 450 ghits on his name in English, almost all looks like belong to him and not self-published. A few good references to semi-reliable sources Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I restubbed the article just now since it was a copyvio of [13]. cab (talk) 03:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 13:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mustachistan

Non notable make believe country in Nevada. Delete. Sting au Buzz Me... 00:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Non-notable micronation, not the subject of any reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Okay, the article admits that this "country" is fictitious, but for the article to stand a snowball's chance in hell of being kept, it has to specify which notable work of fiction describes it. Land of Oz it ain't. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 01:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shave it off Somewhat humorous website, hosted by freewebs.com; not-at-all humorous article about the website, currently hosted by wikipedia.org. Do pay a visit to the website; it's diplomatic mission to Wikiland will soon be closed. Mandsford (talk) 01:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While a funny website, it needs some kind of substantial coverage by reliable sources. It got some kind of mention in the Austin American-Statesman [14], but that seems to be a passing mention. --Oakshade (talk) 02:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable. I was actually going to nominate it myself, but procrastinated on it. -WarthogDemon 02:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki this is just the kind of content that Uncyclopedia is looking for. Beeblbrox (talk) 04:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it didn't make it into the Lonely Planet guidebook on micronations, then it almost certainly isn't notable. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - funny, but non-notable and not for Wikipedia. PubliusFL (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very funny website, but not notable. What do we do, by the way, with their Molossian enemies? Nyttend (talk) 03:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Molossians have diplomatic immunity. Sting au Buzz Me... 04:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- :-) Surprised to see that they have that much coverage, but no question that they do. Nyttend (talk) 04:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 02:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RiceRokit

Non notable band and blatant advertising. Delete. (both per TPH) Sting au Buzz Me... 00:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. We are not an advertising service. When your band is notable, someone else will write an article about you. ➪HiDrNick! 00:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added Dubcat, an associated band which isn't notable. Delete both as, although they claim to have former members of the Long Beach Allstars (who appear to be semi-notable), the bands RiceRokit and Dubcat have no other notability whatsoever -- no chart singles, major-label albums, or anything that resembles coverage in reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Teamrokit (talk) 05:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed "Keep" explanation from article creator Teamrokit

Mendacity. Misdirected animosity. My colleagues and I are perplexed at this irrational resistance; perhaps we've wronged these poor folks in a past life? Or is this quite like bidding on Ebay--the thrill of victory and all that?

Regardless, at the risk of repeating ourselves, we humbly submit yet once more, the explanation previously entered on the Talk:RiceRokit page (plus a bit more):

Importance and Significance of RiceRokit, Part 1

As found in:

Wikipedia Notability Guideline for Music

Criteria for musicians and ensembles

A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

6. Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such.

Explanation, Part 1 (RiceRokit)

RiceRokit contains one member, (its founder) Kendo, who was once part of a band that is otherwise notable: Dubcat.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]

According to article 6 of the Wikipedia Notability Guideline for Music (above), this would deem RiceRokit as "NOTABLE."

Importance and Significance of Dubcat, Part 2

As found in:

Wikipedia Notability Guideline for Music

Criteria for musicians and ensembles

A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

5. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).

6. Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such.

10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album, etc.

Explanation, Part 2 (Dubcat)

5. Long Beach Dub Allstars has released TWO albums on a major label: Right Back (1999) and Wonders of the World (2001)--DreamWorks Records^[5]

Hepcat has released THREE albums on an important indie label: Scientific (1996 later reissued on Hellcat), Right on Time (1998), and Push n' Shove (2000)--Hellcat Records^[6]^[7]

6. Dubcat contains SIX members, (its founders) Marshall Goodman, Jack Maness, Opie Ortiz, Tim Wu, David Fuentes (deceased), and Deston Berry, who were once part of bands (and are still active in the groups) that are otherwise notable: Long Beach Dub Allstars and Hepcat.^[5]^[8]

10. The Long Beach Dub Allstars' song "Sunny Hours" was used as the title track for the sitcom Joey (TV series), starring Matt LeBlanc reprising his role as Joey Tribbiani from the popular sitcom Friends.^[5]^[9]

According to article 5, 6, and 10 of the Wikipedia Notability Guideline for Music (above), this would deem Dubcat as "NOTABLE."

Thank you very much for your consideration, and we look forward to discussing this with you further.

Sincerely,

TeamRokit

Notes

Teamrokit (talk) 05:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither RiceRokit or Dubcat seem to pass WP:Notability, WP:RS or WP:Verifiability as they only include "sources" such as the band's own pages and myspace. While there are links on RiceRokit to two places to purchase the cds, these do not suffice Fosnez (talk) 06:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, articles fails to establish notability. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Just not there yet – but getting close. If someone can point out any source interviews from reliable information sources other than the ones shown here [15] I would change my mind. Thanks. Shoessss | Chat 17:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. It is extremely simple and easy to find numerous articles, from reliable sources, substantiating both bands' importance. It's called "Google"--quite elementary, really. Here's a little taste: bon appétit!!!

1. http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/2/prweb104573.htm 2. http://www.iration.com/hepcat/4.11.02.html 3. http://www.megalithrecords.com/store/product_info.php/products_id/389 4. http://www.live2nite.com/band/RiceRokit 5. http://www.bellyup.com/show/detail/7636

Teamrokit (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Duplicate !vote by User:Teamrokit struck out. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sorry – but if you look at the link I provided - I believe it shows I know how to use Google. What I was asking for is something other than Press Releases, which are at the least very self-serving, and MySpace, which I will not even comment on. Provide sources that show in-depth coverage of the group from 3rd party reliable – creditable and verifiable sources and will gladly change my mind. Thanks. PS - Moved your Keep opinion to the discussion page as shown here to be a little bit more assessable [16]. Shoessss | Chat 19:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only sources provided appear to be MySpace, promotional sites and Wikipedia - none of these are reliable sources that could be used to verify the article's content. Without a way of verifying content notability concerns are secondary but the bands do not appear to have had the coverage required by the primary notability criteria or to have met the specific requirements set out in WP:MUSIC. Guest9999 (talk) 01:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sincere apologies for the "Duplicate !vote"--didn't realize the Wiki protocol here...

Also, Mr./Ms. Shoessss, very sorry to imply that you were not Google-savvy--clearly you are a master of Googling, and should be damn proud ot it.

Concerning this dead horse named "Notability," that's receiving a good, proper flogging--why does no one address the numbered articles we clearly recorded above (in our Detailed "Keep" explanation from article creator bar--conveniently folded away, yes?), from YOUR VERY OWN Wikipedia:Notability (music)?

Everyone keeps incessantly repeating that Dubcat and RiceRokit aren't "notable," and yet FAIL TO ADDRESS the specific articles we mention.

ONCE AGAIN, these articles clearly state: "6. Contains at least ONE member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable". YOU PEOPLE WROTE THESE RULES.

These articles do NOT mention the MAXIMUM DEGREE OF SEPARATION (or "six degrees of Kevin Bacon"), allowed. Hence, Long Beach Dub Allstars and Hepcat are NOTABLE. Six members of those bands founded Dubcat. Hence, Dubcat is NOTABLE. One member of Dubcat founded RiceRokit. Hence, RiceRokit is NOTABLE. The end.

Regarding the "reliable sources" about the facts contained--you have us there. We could not find INTERVIEWS published in The Los Angeles Times, The New Yorker, or Hustler Magazine (or any such trusted references), that would satisfy your lofty standards.

The most reliable sources we can offer, are the testimonies of Marshall Goodman, Jack Maness, Opie Ortiz, Tim Wu, Deston Berry, and Kenji Donnot (Kendo). We will gladly furnish Wikipedia with information DIRECTLY from these sources, however you like--notarized, recorded, video-taped, or in person. Surely these sources are more reliable than any interview.

Again, thanks very much for your consideration, and we look forward to your choice.

Teamrokit (talk) 05:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – That is a fair question and let me try to give an analogy. Let’s say we have a notable individual, who has an article here, and he works in a notable building, let’s say the Empire State building. Well the Empire State Building also has an article here. Not because the individual, who is notable works there. Rather because the building itself is notable. Now let’s take that same individual and have him work out of a garage. Does the garage deserve an article here? Of course not, there is not anything notable about it. On the other hand, can you place the garage in the individual’s article. Of course. Hope this helps you understand my reasoning. Good luck to you. By the way nice job with the info bar - Even in green for St. Paddy's day! Good job! Shoessss | Chat 09:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment SINCE NO DEBATER (rhymes with "HATER") CAN REFUTE THE NOTABILITY OF BOTH Dubcat AND RiceRokit SPECIFICALLY IN REGARD TO ARTICLES 5, 6, AND 10 OF "Criteria for musicians and ensembles", FROM THE WIKIPEDIA NOTABILITY GUIDELINE FOR MUSIC (Wikipedia:Notability (music)), IT IS OUR OPINION THAT WIKIPEDIA SHOULD EITHER, ALTER ITS NOTABILITY GUIDELINE FOR MUSIC, OR ALLOW THE Dubcat AND RiceRokit PAGES TO EXIST WITHIN THIS INFORMATIVE MICROCOSM.

THIS IS OUR FINAL WORD REGARDING THIS MATTER.

Teamrokit (talk) 02:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - LOL - or what? I am sorry, I do appreciate your passion, and in fact, the way you write. All I can say, is that you would be a wonderful addition to the Wikipedia team in editing and creating articles. Best of luck in any and all of your endeavors! Hope to see you contributing in other areas. A talent should never be wasted. Take care. Shoessss | Chat 02:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 02:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. First, I think it's important to acknowledge that Teamrokit is absolutely correct in their argument for derivative notability. I think that LBDA is notable, and assuming that everyone belonged to the band's claimed, a perfectly legitimate argument for notability exists. However, WP:MUSIC is a guideline, and must be construed using common sense. The guideline page itself indicates that there will be exceptions, and this is one. The claim is that a band without mention in reliable sources is notable because its membership derives from another band (Dubcat) that similarly lacks independent coverage, and never released an album. I'm not seeing it. Without multiple independent sources, we can't write an appropriate article. We can't use your first person information, accurate though it may be. And that, really, is the reason you see so many delete votes. Xymmax (talk) 02:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 09:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warriors Eskrima

This article about a martial arts organization (or whatever) says a lot about how knowledgeable its founder is, but very little about its own notability. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 00:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn. Sting au Buzz Me... 00:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as Abner Pasa as he is notable in the Filipino martial arts but the style isn't. JJL (talk) 02:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. JJL (talk) 02:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reads like an advert. If renamed needs a clean out. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn RogueNinja_talk 14:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete consensus is the article does not have reliable secondary sources to verify the article or establish notability. Davewild (talk) 13:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redhairday Netherlands

Contested prod. "Annual festival" for which the only Ghits are to Wikipedia,[17] and a more inclusive search finds only a single blog and a small business with possible interests in promoting the festival.[18]. Delete as per Wikipedia:Verifiability unless reliable sources are provided to verify the article claims. --Allen3 ^talk 00:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not assert true notability for event. Reywas92 ^Talk 00:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable event yet; hasn't been covered in any sources, even though it surely does exist. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 13:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Romeo's Distress"

Song doesn't assert notability or pass WP:MUSIC. Has copyright violation of lyrics, and the only reference is an unreliable link to a YouTube video. Only link is album, which it could merge to. Reywas92 ^Talk 00:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Either it is false or it is copyvio. Your pick. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 01:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the band and their albums are certainly notable enough, I don't see anything to indicate that this individual song merits a whole article onto itself. →DancingPenguin (talk) 09:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Violation of WP:MUSIC, not really notable and has no reliable links or referances - Highfields (talk) (contribs) 16:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete — insufficient non-trivial reliable sources presented which establish the notability of the subject. Given the checkered history of this article, I would urge anyone with an inclination to trying to write a new article to make a judiciously sourced version in their userspace, then submit it to deletion review. As always, I can provide copies of the deleted article. --Haemo (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Bylund

I am nominating this article for deletion once again per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 16. On that page I explained why this article should be deleted. Rather than write all that again, I'm just going to quote myself:

"The notability of this topic has not been established. The admin who closed the discussion, User:Nihonjoe, claims there to have been multiple, independent, reliable sources. Asked to do so several times, he was unwilling to say exactly which sources he was referring to. He ended the discussion by accusing the editor who approached him, User:Slarre, of being POV and being on a personal vendetta (a clear violation of WP:AGF, BTW; for the whole discussion see User_talk:Nihonjoe/Archive_30#Per_Bylund).

"Several links to external websites were provided in an attempt to establish notability: Bylund's CV, several articles written by Bylund himself ([19] [20] [21], [22], [23], [24]), a blog, a dead link, three extremely brief mentions in the Swedish media ([25], [26], and [27]), an article in the Journal of Libertarian Studies, which briefly cites Bylund's master's thesis, advertisement for a book he contributed to, his personal website, and a list of grad students at the University of Missouri. These links quite clearly do not establish notability. Most of those sources are not third-party. The few that are are only very brief mentions of Bylund and therefore are not enough to establish notability."

I'd also like to point to JzG's comment on the DRV page: "trout-slap anyone who makes an evidence-free !vote". So, please, do not vote keep without pointing to a specific source that establishes this article's notability! Hopefully, this time, the admin closing the discussion will actually take the time to read it and will disqualify any votes that aren't backed up by real evidence. Carabinieri (talk) 01:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are a few links out there, but as the nominator points out, they clearly fall short of substantial third-party coverage. Can my otters still have trout anyway? They're hungry. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references on the articles page provide a limited basis for notability, granted. But he has in fact contributed to his field extensively and I think it would be better to improve the article rather than deleting at this time. I also agree with the original closers assesment. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject's notability isn't established by the references, then he's not notable. A lot of people have tried to improve the article, but the fact that Bylund is not notable won't change, no matter how much the article is improved.

Keep. Per original closing admin and per article refs. Extensively published and refered to in other papers per Google Scholar. I don't see anything wrong with the outcome the first time around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halfmast (talk • contribs) 05:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You did a Gooogle Scholar search on Bylund and are voting keep based on that?!? Most of the hits there clearly refer to a different P Bylund. Besides, keep votes can only be considered, if they point to evidence of the subject's notability.--Carabinieri (talk) 11:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't pre-empt what the closing admin may consider establishes notability. Not your call. Also please don't imply I failed to consider there may be another P. Bylund. You have no grounds to support that. It's interesting that you say "most of the hits..." and not "all of the hits...". I don't know what search terms you used, but your remark seems to suggest both of us found some publications and citations for him.Halfmast (talk) 05:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure If this is all it takes to be notable, there are millions of people out there that are missing articles. Operation Spooner (talk) 05:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Made up my mind to Delete. I'm as notable as him and don't think I'm notable enough for an article. Operation Spooner (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It has occurred to me that perhaps we ought to request assistance from a speaker of the Swedish language to confirm any notable third party sources. I also have trouble finding any for this article, but this may be a result of language barriers. If Per Bylund has had any notable coverage as the organizer of the Walks for Capitalism, or such, perhaps news sources from Sweden can be found. Of course, I believe this would be an example of acceptable canvassing. --Cast (talk) 05:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not a fluent speaker but I can get the gist of things. Of the three "Swedish media" sources above, the first indicates he is in a pre-election debate of some kind with a journalist (podcast?); the second says he is "[well]-known from last winter's Walk for Capitalism" (but it's a letter to the editor, discussing his participation in some sort of salon/dinner; and the third he is briefly interviewed among several other people. His quote is along the lines of "We want to show that capitalism is the strongest system." If the narrator calls him the organizer (I am not disputing that he is, only whether he is known for it), I missed it. --Dhartung | Talk 09:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The third is from Sveriges Television, the national television broadcaster in Sweden (compare with BBC), the second is from Svenska Dagbladet founded 1884 the third largest Swedish morning newspaper, first I do not know, it is a bit strange but it is also from Sveriges Television. If that makes him notable is a different question. --Stefan ^talk 14:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Carabinieri (talk) 11:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A quick google scholar check shows that Bylund is not currently notable as an academic. So if notability is to be asserted, it has to be done on other grounds, such as political activism. There the question is how often and how prominently his political activities are mentioned by third party reliable sources. I did not see such sources cited in the main article. Nsk92 (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are very much mistaken if you think Bylund's notability is as an academic - the man has not even finished his master's degree for goodness sake. Please strike your misguided deletion rationale. скоморохъ 19:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the above discussion carefully. In this discussion I see a couple of mentions of a Google Scholar search, by Halfmast and Carabinieri. In fact, Hamfast's assertion of notability is explicitly made based on a Google Scholar search. There are also mentions of a the Journal of Libertarian Studies article, that cites Bylund's master's thesis. So academic notability is at least a part of the discussion above. (I would certainly not have brought up the issue of academic notability otherwise). My point was precisely to state that Bylund is clearly not notable academically, and that his notability, if any, has to be established on other grounds. Nsk92 (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is equivocation - being "an academic" and having "academic notability" are non-identical properties. Bylund's claim to fame is certainly not as an academic, i.e. WP:PROF. His scholarship and punditry are another matter, and they do contribute towards establishing notability. скоморохъ 13:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of the difference between notability as being "an academic" and having "academic notability". What exactly is this difference? In particular, as far as I understand, notability for scholarship is the same as notability as "an academic", so the requirements of WP:PROF would seem to apply. I totally agree that notability for political punditry is another matter, but it does have to be established, and established separately. A reference in a scholarly journal to his masters thesis would go towards notability as an academic (but a single such reference is certainly not enough to establish such notability), but not towards notability as political pundit. The latter would have to be established by references to conventional mass media sources, rather than scholarly journals. Nsk92 (talk) 14:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested try searching these sights for published materials. You could also try searching Per Bylund to see what work he does have published.

http://www.expressen.se/1.481850 http://www.expressen.se/1.561360 http://www.kvp.se/ledare/1.683575/hysterin-kring-klimatet http://www.sr.se/podradio/xml/sr_valpodd_tidig.xml http://www.svd.se/dynamiskt/ledare/did_2182453.asp http://www.svd.se/dynamiskt/brannpunkt/did_2152763.asp http://www.erixon.com/2/blogg070610.htm#10 http://svt.se/svt/jsp/Crosslink.jsp...lid=puff_534036&lpos=extra_0 http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/20_1/20_1_7.pdf

You will have a hard time locating his radio and tv appearances as they aren't located on Corporate news networks, as what tends to happen with Anarchists.--58.170.122.71 (talk) 06:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this appears to be a notable anarchist figure and I think we need to be careful to avoid systemic biases. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly the kind of vote I was referring to which deserves a trout-slap. Please either point to secondary sources which prove the subject's notability or strike your comment.--Carabinieri (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I would really like to see some specific arguments, with references to reliable sources, as to why this guy is a notable anarchist. I have some libertarian simpathies myself, but I would like to be given a good reason to keep this entry other than the abstract desire to avoid systemic bias. I must also say that I am uncomfortable with the Swedish sources being mentioned. This is English-language portion of Wikipedia, and most of us cannot read Swedish (not to mention cannot understand a radio interview in Swedish). I would really like to see some English language sources, please. Nsk92 (talk) 21:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, a reference does not become invalid just because it is in a language you don't speak. Halfmast (talk) 05:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite correct. The issue goes to verifiability, and WP:N specifically addresses the usage of non-English language sources, see WP:RSUE. I don't see that the requirements of WP:RSUE are followed here. No quotes and translations from non-English sources are provided. WP:RSUE also says: "Where editors use non-English sources, they should ensure that readers can verify for themselves the content of the original material and the reliability of its author/publisher." That is simply not possible with radio/tv interviews unless some kind of a transcript provided by a reliable source is available. Nsk92 (talk) 11:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Founder of anarchism.net [28] (The site ranks second of 2 million in Google search on "Anarchy" per Google's notability engine.) Quoted by Free Republic [www.freerepublic.com/~theraven/]. Quoted by Brussels Journal [29]. Widely carried by many notable anarchist and libertarian publications e.g. Strike the Root [30]. Founding editor of the Libertarianskt Forum (Libertarian Forum), a radically libertarian anthology published annually in Swedish [31]. McAdam Report [32] Halfmast (talk) 05:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is better, but not good enough yet for me to change my vote. The Free Republic reference is not to an article in a Free Republic but to a userpage for a participant (called Raven) in Free Republic discussion forums; hardly a reliable source, per WP:RS. If substnatial evidence of notability of the cite anarchism.net is provided, I would be inclined to change my vote. But looking at the text of anarchism.net, I don't see third party reliable sources cited there, so that article itself is a good AfD candidate. The Brussels Journal reference is solid. Don't know what to make of McAdam Report as a reliable source. Strike the Root seems to be OK. Nsk92 (talk) 11:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Certainly not notable as an academic--as a grad student he's still on the very fringes of the profession--it would take much more than his masters thesis to be quoted in a scholarly journal, by our usual standards it would take several major books or several dozen journal articles, all published by responsible publishers, some of them quoted dozens of times in peer-reviewed journals, to show distinction in the field. The question is whether he is notable as a nonacademic political writer or pundit. It takes more than a few interviews or web publications to do it. If he's founding editor of a forum, that might be notability, if the forum were very notable, which has not been shown. Any language source would do, but I do not see any to the point. DGG (talk) 08:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. /Slarre (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable on existing evidence. (1) I'd heard of him, from LRC. (2) Municipal councillors are on the edge of political notability, (3) but become unarguably notable if they have weekly local coverage (as Bylund claims without contradiction in the former AFD). (4) This coverage needs time to be delved; (5) Anglophone bias has made delving difficult. (6) But specifically, three proven news mentions is another point; (7) maintaining a best-in-class website for 10 years is another; (8) collaboration with several other notables is another; (9) 23 articles on LRC is another, (10) and they are heavily quoted. (11) A journal citation is another. (12) And that is more than enough to admit the plethora of self-publishing for noncontroversial points like CV. (13) The many different reported cases of activism, editing, writing, combined, make one more point of notability for me. (14) He appears in about 10 different WP articles already. (15) Plus, he looks a lot like Victor Laszlo. John J. Bulten (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is LRC? Nsk92 (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guess LewRockwell.com Murderbike (talk) 23:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom and DGG. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 18:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as false article. ... discospinster _talk 02:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kaleb Fasil

This is either a hoax or not notable. I find it kind of hard to believe that a 4 ft 10 in 12-year old can dunk on a regular hoop. Even if it was true, notability would still have to be established by citing secondary sources. Carabinieri (talk) 01:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3 Obviously a hoax, so tagged. The name turns up no hits outside of Wikipedia, which is alarming considering all the claims given here. See further discussion here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Page was previously nuked at Kaleb fasil. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] MySpace.com - "DUBCAT"-RIP DAVE FUENTES - Long Beach - Reggae - www.myspace.com/dubcatdave

[2] MySpace.com - RiceRokit - SAN DIEGO, California - Reggae / Ska - www.myspace.com/ricerokit

[3] Megalith Records Online Ska MegaStore

[4] CD Baby: RICEROKIT: Hang Loose

[autogenerated1-5] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Beach_Dub_Allstars

[6] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepcat

[7] MySpace.com - HEPCAT - Los Angeles - Ska / Reggae / Pop - www.myspace.com/hepcatlive

[8] MySpace.com - Long Beach Dub All Stars - Long Beach, California - Rock / Reggae / Punk - www.myspace.com/longbeachduballstarsmusic

[9] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joey_%28TV_series%29

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
-[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Worsley]]
+{{[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Worsley]] }}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Cook (programmer)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Letter Bible}}