Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 July 3

< July 2	July 4 >

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 Speedy Deleted, nonsense. Nakon 19:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dark storm

Neologism? I'm not sure whether this is a hox or not, but it doesn't quite fall under "vandalism", I don't think. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 23:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definetly falls under vandalism, and fairly offensive too. I'll speedy it. Ironho lds 23:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G3 Vandalism and ... eww. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Eew indeed. Neologism that would need some kind of third-party sourcing to verify use of the term. -FrankTobia (talk) 01:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm adding a third eww to that mates! --Vhoscythe^chatter 01:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete stupid bored kids being stupid. Plus it's nothing more than a dicdef. JuJube (talk) 02:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Someone tell'em to stop making shit up. Also if they're are really serious, then suggest an editor with such interests to try and cozy up with whoever contributes to eww Coprophilia.
Comment fourth 'ewww' - apart from that, should this really still be tagged to copy to Wiktionary ? Surely that would only apply if this was a neologism that could be verified ? CultureDrone (talk) 18:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with this assessment. "No" to the first question and "yes" to the second. -FrankTobia (talk) 01:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Any personal reactions aside (which should have no bearing on the deletion discussion), a gsearch isn't coming up with notability for this, even with a few key words added in.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW delete. Wikipedia isn't the place to ... ahem ... spread one's scatological aspirations. Banje boi 14:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW delete indeed. Completely and utterly ridiculous. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete Can't even find it on Google. --Simon Speed (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Barring scatalogical fetishes, there's no evidence to back this up. Delete. -WarthogDemon 19:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete -- it's not even on Urban Dictionary, which is the king of Things made up in an afternoon -- Ratarsed (talk) 19:55, 7 July 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. - Philippe 23:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Wainer

Fails WP:BAND. Claims to be signed to LL Cool J's label, with an album "upcoming" (read: no albums yet). Google for "Michael Wainer" guitar gives no relevant ghits. — Gwalla | Talk 23:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —— Gwalla | Talk 23:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BAND and WP:RS Artene50 (talk) 10:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per failing Wp:BAND ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 20:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Wainer owns 13 Music. The production company has sold over 2 million units (such as singles by Usher, Beastie Boys, Foxy Brown, etc.) They are releasing a solo album hense the "upcoming". The only team with more units sold is N.E.R.D. Here are some links http://www.discogs.com/label/13+Music - www.myspace.com/13musiconline - http://www.triplevision.nl/label/13Music/ - http://www.dancerecords.com/labels/13music.

Please reference these before deleting. Mr. Wainer's company is in top 5 production teams under 25 and the first band/production team signed to LL Cool J's Platinum Harvest Productions. There are fictional characters from law & Order listed on your "encyclopedia". Do Mr. Wainer the honor of his place.68.173.185.227 (talk) 07:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources verifying notability. - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 07:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, without prejudice. The anon 68.173.185.227 produces some interesting information, but the myspace link and others do not qualify as reliable sources. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:54, 7 July 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. - Philippe 23:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gerardo bruna

Poor quality article on a non-notable footballer that has never played at fully professional level therefore failing WP:FOOTYN and WP:ATHLETE. If the player ever plays at the required level a suitably titled and accurate article can be created. E P 22:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. E P 22:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. --Eastmain (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Does he meet the general notability guideline? --Eastmain (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know, maybe someone would like to trawl through the approximately 80 news links about him to find anything more than "hey this guy has moved to Liverpool, cool"... ugen64 (talk) 02:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, I'm sure you know this, but the quality of an article has no bearing on AfD - all that matters is, is the subject of the article encyclopedic? ugen64 (talk) 02:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he fails WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition. --Jimbo^[online] 07:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - definitely fails WP:ATHLETE. --Angelo (talk) 10:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 16:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom (Fails WP:ATHLETE) ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 20:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[s]Delete . Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN.[/s] Nfitz (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ATHLETE. AlwaysOnion (talk) 01:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Rosiestep 00:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/comment I've completely reworked the article with the help of Bigbrenriley. Here are the revisions at nomination for deletion and the current version. I believe votes should be reviewed on account of this great change. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I believe the subject now passes the basic criteria of notability. Thus WP:ATHLETE does not support deletion; as this is only additional criteria. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Keep - fails WP:ATHLETE but the Daily Telegraph article seems enough that he meets WP:BIO. Liverpool Echo link doesn't seem to work. Nfitz (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the "improvements" in the article quality does not however add any sort of factual notability to the subject. He is a footballer who never played football, and is "famous" (please note the quotes) solely for his move from Real Madrid to Liverpool (that is what these sources actually say, they do not really cover the subject in detail, but merely his move). Is this fact enough to make him notable? I don't really think so, or do we really want to consider a subject notable solely because he was transferred from a "big" team to another "big" team? --Angelo (talk) 21:39, 8 July 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 Redirect to American Idiot#Movie adaptation Waggers (talk) 21:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Idiot: The Motion Picture

Previously deleted article under American Idiot (film). The article itself states that it is unknown about the status of the film and more likely that there won't be a movie. Fails WP:NFF. Orfen ^T • _C 22:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Contested prod. Pure speculation, using quotes that are several years out of date. There has been no news on the film for two years. Nouse4aname (talk) 07:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect (as below) - makes more sense. Nouse4aname (talk) 13:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to American Idiot#Movie adaptation, of which most of this article comes from. Most of article is speculation mixed with out of date information (it might not be made at all, due to other projects the members of Green Day are involved with). Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 20:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to American Idiot#Movie adaptation as per my original creation, having created the article in question. I appreciate Orfen recognizing that I created this page as a redirect. VolatileChemical (talk) 06:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:17, 5 July 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 no consensus to delete, defaulting to keep. There is substantial consensus, however, that the article has to be at the very least rewritten, and hopefully some of the keep !voters will take a stab at it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New relationship energy

No reliable sources have been provided since the first deletion nomination. Sources given are all from questionable sources, e.g. polyamory websites or books from publishers without a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Topic is a neologism, and is still non-notable. Discussion from the last nomination was skewed since notice of it was posted to polyamory discussion community on LiveJournal and members were asked to vote against the deletion nomination. Scarpy (talk) 21:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect – To here [1]. I personally believe it is a neologisms. However, a small claim can be made that there has been enough coverage for Notability to be established in that the term has been covered by 3rd party – reliable –creditable and verifiable sources as shown here [2]. While Google Scholar only shows two hits, and one an unpublished thesis as shown here [[3]], there have been a few books published covering the subject, as provided here [4]. Overall, as I mentioned above, there is enough information that someone can make a case. However, I feel it would be better served with a merge/redirect to here [5] as it fits well in the research category of Polyamor and fleshes out the article. Just my thoughts. ShoesssS ^Talk 23:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having a look at the google news archive and google book results, there could be a small claim made for notability, but only as a neologism. They all document the term in more or less an anecdotal sense. There's no scientific or clinical definition of it established. This is evident by the large amount of original research in the "Related terms" section of the article comparing NRE to established language and concepts like limerence, puppy love and honeymoon. The only way this article could be written as anything another other than WP:OR is if it was just a list of anecdotes describing the subjective feelings described as "New Relationship Energy." -- Scarpy (talk) 02:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails as neologism and as OR. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - this article is certainly not original research. There may be an issue with the reliability of the sources, but there are plenty of sources that attest to the existence of this phrase and have significant enough coverage of it. According to an unpublished doctoral dissertation for the Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality, "New Relationship Energy (NRE) was coined by Zahai Stewart in an Internet polyamory discussion group in 1993 to describe the overwhelming feelings of lust, emotional receptivity and easy connection that new lovers might experience. According to Stewart (2002), (RS?) “people seem ever so much more compatible, interesting and clever while in the throes of NRE.”--Michael White^T·C 20:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a neologism. Could be redirected, but infatuation and limerence would seem a bit original research. Google scholar turns up ["new relationship energy" 10 hits, several of which are unrelated to polyamory and I don't see any discussions, just mentions. Straight-up google turns up 4K with wikipedia at the top - never a good sign. WLU (talk) 02:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite: It reads like original research, but there seem to be a number of sources that report that this term is actually real. Perhaps it needs to be rewritten to make it more clear who coined this term, who uses and accepts this term, and what others think of the term so as to make it non-biased. — OranL (talk) 02:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite: This term is used on a very regular basis, in real life conversations, by a very large number of people within the subculture and related subcultures of polyamory. I've encountered it in real life far more often than online. It differs from 'limerence' and 'infatuation' in several ways. Both limerence and infatuation do not require reciprocation, whereas NRE requires a reciprocal relationship. A lot is discussed in real life, as well as in a few books, about how to deal with NRE, for instance, how it affects current relationships, how it affects daily life, how to retain it for longer periods of time, etc. There are a great many articles on cultural perceptions and topics which by nature have not been nor ever will be studied scientifically. That does not discount their reality, nor their need to be researched by individuals using Wikipedia. (Has any published scientific paper mentioned Emperor Palpatine, today's featured article? Or Live Aid concerts, also listed on the front page today?) The fact that it is subjectively experienced should also not discount it, otherwise we'd have to throw out a lot of articles related to lesser studied topics on emotions, parapsychology, dreams, trance states, drug use, etc. We'd also have to toss out any unscientific references to any topic, or any reference to materials written before the objective, scientific age. The article may need to be re-written to give it better context. But this is a real term, real phenomenon, used frequently in real life, and is distinguishable from other similar terms and phenomenon.

lunaverse (talk) 17:22, 13 July 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 No consensus or more so Merge and Redirect however many has suggested to merge content to Veronica Mars and to remove the rest. Please merge any necessary content into that article and then delete the rest and just redirect this to Veronica Mars. --JForget 22:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neptune (Veronica Mars)

Non notable fictional place only appearing in one TV series, merge to the tv series article and trim down. Myheartinchile (talk) 04:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only appeared in one episode. No real-world relevance, so no need to even merge. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification Neptune actually was the primary setting of the series; it appeared in most (all?) of the episodes. Townlake (talk) 15:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the C-word. JuJube (talk) 02:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the usable bits of the fourth and fifth paragraph of Geography into Veronica Mars#Filming location, then redirect because the article has incoming links, also from dab pages. The rest of the article would mostly fall under WP:OR for original research and synthesis, plus WP:UNDUE for excessive in-universe information (WP:WAF). (sign one day late: – sgeureka ^t•c 16:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete This article is almost entirely WP:OR, and there isn't anything critical here that isn't already covered in the existing Veronica Mars article. Merger of minor details from here into the main article would strike me as tedious, but if anyone's game... Townlake (talk) 15:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into some appropriate list. Not the main article, but "List of location...." WP being a contemporary modern encyclopedia, a person should be able to look up an unfamiliar fictional allusion and find some information on it. Does that mean our articles on notable series should contains somewhere a list of every place and every character--yes, that is exactly what I'm advocating. Not articles on each--the concept of notability is real. But inclusion with a suitable amount of content in a list article, yes. DGG (talk) 02:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fictional location itself is not notable, and the article has no real-world content. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:05, 9 July 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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jhowy Lopez

Artist appears to fail WP:MUSIC and has a lack of non-trivial third party publications to confirm the current content being presented on Wikipedia at this time. JBsupreme (talk) 02:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, caknuck _° is back from his wikisiesta 19:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some assertations of notability, but no reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried (and tried) in Google News archives and in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, but could not find any sources to establish WP:N notability. Delete. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:04, 4 July 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 to State University of New York at Binghamton (non-admin closure). Finalnight (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Binghamton Review

Non-notable student newspaper. PhilKnight (talk) 21:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to State University of New York at Binghamton. No claim of notability in article, and most student newspapers are not notable. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. No evidence of notability by itself, with only a single source, but would add some info and balanace to the main SUNY Binghamton article. Bearian (talk) 18:13, 9 July 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. Closing early per WP:SNOW and because this is getting seriously off-topic. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Linden

No assertation of notability. Sources aren't ~~reliable~~ substantial. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

QUESTIONS Okay, hammer... got some questions for you here:

how exactly do the statements "...professor of neuroscience at Johns Hopkins University, and the author of The Accidental Mind: How Brain Evolution has Given Us Love, Memory, Dreams, and God,..." and then "... The book ... recently received a silver medal in the category of Science from The Independent Publisher Association ..." not qualify as an assertion of notability? Not notable enough? Maybe. But the notability is definitely asserted.
How exactly is Harvard University Press not a reliable source?
How exactly is The American Physiological Society not a reliable source?
How exactly is Slate Magazine not a reliable source?
How exactly is Newsweek not a reliable source?

Please address these issues.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There're, like, a million of those Independent awards. Is this one notable? Also, the Newsweek article simply references him; it's not actually about him. I'm not seeing anything really substantial in the sources; they're reliable indeed but not substantial. My main concern was the {{notability}} tag placed by someone else. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if that particular award is notable or not, and that can certainly be discussed... but the article claims that it is notable, so the article itself does claim notabiliy, so the article does have an "assertation of notability". The real argument (as I'm understanding it) is that the subject is not notable, not that the article does not assert notability. They are related, but different.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears clearly notable -- article needs work however that is no reason to delete it. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the Newsweek article is not about Dr. Linden; it is, however, about his book and his book only. That seems material to this discussion. Scooge (talk) 23:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ - the sources we have don't quite establish notability. Harvard University Press and the American Physiological Society aren't independent of the subject, the Slate and Newsweek articles aren't about Linden. Newsweek is the best of them, but to me it isn't quite enough to make him satisfy criterion 1 of WP:PROF. Huon (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Curious how is Harvard University Press not independent of the subject?--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change to keep - the citation info is enough to clearly let him pass WP:PROF. Harvard University Press is the publisher of his book, though - I wouldn't call information distributed by a publisher about one of its books "independent of the author" for purposes of notability. Huon (talk) 12:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe the nominator is looking at it from the wrong perceptive. Concerning Dr. Linden as an author, you can possibly make a case with regards to not meeting Notability standards. However, as a candidate for inclusion under academic guidelines, as shown by the blue link, Dr. Linden does meet our standards as shown here by Google Scholar [6]. ShoesssS ^Talk 23:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --if I'm allowed a vote (I started the entry--does that mean I should recuse myself?). I'm afraid that when I compiled the list of Linden's writings, I left off the Science publication, which was careless of me.Scooge (talk) 23:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep articles about someone's book are sufficient to show the notability of the author, and in any case he meets the requirement of WP:PROF. I can't tell what the nom is actually objecting to. DGG (talk) 04:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course. Major university prof, editor in chief of a journal, etc.... John Z (talk) 06:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extremely well-cited academic (I have added citation data to the article). The article is not very good though and should be pared down. Especially the large quotes from Newsweek and Slate should be reduced or deleted. J. Neurophysiol. should have its own article, respected journal with an impact factor of 3.684. In any case, obvious notability. --Crusio (talk) 06:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JohnZ and Crusio. Impressive citation results in GoogleScholar[7]. Passes WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 12:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/snow Here's a hint, if someone can make the claim that " the American Physiological Society is not sufficiently independent of the subject" without having to stifle a laugh, the subject is probably notable. :) Protonk (talk) 16:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read that source? He's their journal's editor. As with Harvard University Press as the publisher of his book, I wouldn't call their bio of their new editor as independent of him for the purpose of notability. Or would you argue that every company's bios of their employees confer notability? Huon (talk) 16:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I'm afraid I wasn't clear. If he is the editor of the journal for the American Physiological Society, you can bet your bottom dollar he meets WP:PROF. That doesn't mean the APS is an independent source. Also, a publisher's bio IS considered independent insofar as the publisher itself (HUP) is independent. Protonk (talk) 17:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep Clearly over the bar of WP:PROF, h-index over 40, and per Crusio, DGG, Nsk92, etc. Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not the place to ask this, but I will anyway: if the decision was to keep the article, when does the flag get removed from the top of the page? Also, I did make an attempt at streamlining those too-long quotes and improving the article, so I'm wondering whether a few of the "this thing sucks" flags might be removed as well at some point. Is there a template for "this article only slightly sucks?" How about "the article sucks only moderately?" (Okay, okay--I'll get my ego back out of this. But I'm still curious as to how the process works from this point forward.)Scooge (talk) 01:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fine place to ask that. If you go to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion, you will find a brief explanation. The idea is that MOST cases run 5 days. That number is set to limit debate on contentious issues but to allow time for problems to be fixed. If a debate trends off in one direction, the AfD may be closed early by an administration (or very rarely a non-admin). This article will probably not run the full five days, but it may. The "flag" (they are called templates) will be removed by the administrator who does the closing. Does that answer your question? Protonk (talk) 01:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm removing the {{notability}} tag from the article, as it seems from the above discussion and from the more recently added sources that Linden's notability is pretty clearly established in the article. I originally added the notability tag shortly after the page was created; the article has been greatly improved since then. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 02:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - But there's still a little broom up there, and a "citations needed" note. I'm hoping those will eventually go away, or I might be forced to go find a life somewhere else. I hear that watching reruns of old Star Trek episodes is a fine way to do that . . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scooge (talk • contribs) 02:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:) Well, it does still require cleanup. There is a guide on how to write better biographies. As I can see, the sources need to be cleaned up (no bare links), the prose needs to be tweaked, and the "writings" section needs to be clarified. but, if you need to take a break, you can do that for free. Protonk (talk) 03:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Somehow the source lists scare me, since on one article I worked on the numbers refused to correlate properly, and in another the reference list just didn't appear at all. I suspect the footnote system of being out to get me.

I guess a "bare link" is all those "external links" that don't refer specifically to Linden's writings? So that means I must master the footnote system. You know, my husband has been trying to tell me for years that I'm not perfect, and I've . . . resisted this bizarre idea. But it could be that the spouse is onto something . . . You're right: Shatner break. Scooge (talk) 05:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Okay--that was GREAT. I was alllowed to watch ST when I was 7-8 because a colleague of my mom's said it was good. I think she must have been dating this guy, because a year later it was just TELEVISION (bad). So I don't remember much, except for all the stuff one hears second-hand (cf. Monty Python and the Rocky Horror Picture Show).

So where do I get more free ST--or, possibly even better, a recording of Shatner singing "Rocket Man"? I've heard that that is wonderful.

Furthermore, why is Shatner so YOUNG in Star Trek? I mean, he's, like, barely legal. Sexy, but almost creepy. Is it some sort of makeup effect? Scooge (talk) 14:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You want creepy, see how much they gel the lens on every female costar. As for bare link I mean this: [8] versus Google.com. If we are citing websites in an article we can use the {{cite web}} template. You don't HAVE to, but I like them. If you don't want to do that (or there isn't enough info about the source to do that), you can write a web citation like this:

Geanakoplos, John (2001) Three Brief Proofs of Arrow's Impossibility Theorem at IDEAS. Accessed on 2008-07-05

Again, nothing will be perfect. This is a wiki, so perfection isn't expected. Protonk (talk) 14:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'm a fact-checker, so I CAN do this. I just hate doing it without being able to bill at some obscenely-low English-major rate. And, as previously indicated, I abhor imperfection. (Proofreading background + 46-year-old eyes = imperfection. No exceptions.)

As far as ST is concerned--and I'm going to Comic-Con this year for weird spouse-related reasons--I have the following concerns: (1) Aren't the women's uniforms just a TAD impractical? (2) Which color shirt is it that guarantees death? Is it blue? (3) Are there teensy hints of Takai's homosexuality in that first episode? Or am I imagining it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scooge (talk • contribs) 15:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.
Red
You're imagining it.

Protonk (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm just guessing on how many asterisks I need, here--totally in the dark. Making it up as I go along.)

1) Are there ANY long-term ST crew members who wear red? Because in episode, #1, we had a few blue-guys die. Also, how frequently does Kirk wear that sexy V-cut shirt? (As I understand it, Shatner is obligated to lose his shirt entirely in 99% of episodes, just as Chuck Norris needs to lose his gun once per movie. Life, like a sonnet, does have its rules, after all. Not for me, but for others.)

2) How frequently do female crewmembers die in ST, and does uniform-color bear any correlation to this statistic?

3) Sorry, but I still think Sulu comes off a bit light on his loafers. it could be that I'm the victim of prejudice.Scooge (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4) I'm sorry but I'd like a color for engineering-smock stats. Is that those sort of maintenance uniforms that people wear? Might I assume that there are zero chicks in such outfits? And, while we are on the subject, what color did Scottie wear?

I hate to sound like an idiot, but . . . it's truth in advertising!Scooge (talk) 16:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The coloring was in flux throughout TOS. The pilot (for example) is totally different from the rest of season 1 and seasons 2/3 are diff from season 1. Female characters die much less often (usually the ones that die are found on planets, wooed and discarded). Sulu may seem light in his loafers but this is probably a "confirmation bias". We know the actor is gay so any "gay" mannerisms we might see in the character are amplified. Keep in mind that in the 1960's it was shocking to have a black man and a white woman kiss. Most actors, writers and directors who were gay did not come out of the closet and there are VERY few gay characters in film or television before the 1980's. Engineering smocks were red in TOS, but not always. "Science" was supposed to be blue, but if I remember correctly, there were a few episodes where engineering people wore blue coveralls (rather than smocks). But red is the best bet. Scottie wore red more often than other colors, but almost all the characters changed shirt color over the series. Protonk (talk) 17:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We actually have an article on redshirts. Huon (talk) 17:50, 5 July 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 (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

South Callaway High School

Article about a school that fails to assert notability and cites no third-party sources Steve Carlson^Talk 20:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools usually ends up keeping articles about high schools. Could be improved, yes...--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on precedent, I believe local High Schools are considered notable enough to be kept. Rasadam (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think that high schools are probably notable only if they meet WP:V. This one seems to fail that test. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are 178 articles in the [[category:High schools in Missouri]]... I'd say that there's a solid precedent.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - it doesn't fail WP:V since plenty of sources are available to verify this school. TerriersFan (talk) 22:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - decent start to an article and multiple sources are available to meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 22:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as valid high school article. Expandable and link shows it passes WP:V.--Sting Buzz Me... 22:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in this article's content demonstrates notability. Article is a newsletter soap box, "This year our football team dramatically improved.." Delete as per WP:V, WP:NOBJ, WP:NOTSOAPBOX. GaryECampbell (talk) 23:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Article is in pretty good shape, but more sources would be nice to satisfy WP:V. -FrankTobia (talk) 01:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a high school verified to exist, the end. JuJube (talk) 02:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I thought we had long since concluded that High Schools were notable. Nfitz (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs work but seems to meet WP:N. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets notability criterion and contains multiple reliable sources. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:56, 7 July 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. - Philippe 23:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Antioch University Ph.D. in Leadership and Change Program

Sorry to have to nominate an academia-related article for deletion, but the subject of the article is just not notable enough to pass WP:N or WP:ORG. I looked around and could not find any substantial independent sources covering the program as such. Also, the article is definitely written as a publicity piece. Nsk92 (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no notability claims for the PhD program, nor can any be found searching. The only sourced claim is that it is accredited, which does not meet the requirements for an article. Rasadam (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide an example of a substantial independent source is? Meaning third party sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Binguser (talk • contribs) 20:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a third-party independent source that is also a reliable source in the sense of WP:V and WP:RS. E.g. articles in the newspapers discussing the program in some detail. Or articles in scholarly publications discussing the program. Nsk92 (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If removing the Contact, Admission Info, and Tuition will that remove the feeling towards it being a publicity for the piece? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Binguser (talk • contribs) 20:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, one would have to see. However, the main problem is establishing notability. I just don't think it is possible in this case. Nsk92 (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, so using a program template such as Tri-Institutional MD-PhD Program for reference would make this more notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Binguser (talk • contribs) 20:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability cannot be fixed by using any particular template. You have to find independent reliable sources that cover the subject of the article. The other article you mention, Tri-Institutional MD-PhD Program, was also in bad shape, with no references. But a bit of google searching quickly uncovered several newsarticles providing in-depth coverage of that program, including articles in Nature [9] and The Scientist [10]. (I've added them to the article). So the notability of the Tri-Institutional MD-PhD Program is not really in question. If you find coverage of similar kind for the subject of the present AfD, this would certainly establish notability. Nsk92 (talk) 21:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'll inform my client and we will go about creating this page with the appropriate sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.215.11 (talk) 20:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shall we interpret this as a request for the article to be withdrawn?DGG (talk) 02:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are looking into third party sources and removing the publicity towards the piece. How long do we have until the article is considered to be removed completely? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Binguser (talk • contribs) 16:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have updated this page with third party sources. Can you review and check for notability and let us know if we need to verify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Binguser (talk • contribs) 18:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The phrase "inform my client" is setting off WP:COI alarm bells with me. — Gwalla | Talk 18:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are an independent source, because it was a puffery piece written by the client, we have re-wrote this so that they would not promote a publicity piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Binguser (talk • contribs) 18:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see nothing here other than info belonging in a institutional website. No notability established (being a Ph.D. is hardly enough, there are maaaany of those), nor WP is a website hosting service. - Nabla (talk) 18:25, 8 July 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 - Nabla (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evolver (John Legend album)

Non-notable unreleased album, requires substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources (per WP:MUSIC). None provided, none found. Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I did find two sources which mention the album name in the Philadelphia City Paper and The Washington Times, but all they do is mention the name of the album and the possibility of it being released in October (the City Paper mentions one song). I can't find any reliable additional information, so I don't see the point of an article page yet. It can just be mentioned on the artist's biography for now. Rasadam (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't think it's time yet. Perhaps once the album is released the article can be revisited but at the moment appears a little bit WP:CRYSTAL. Don't think think there is enough reliable information to warrant an article at this point in time. For what can be sourced it can be mentioned on the artist's article. Orfen ^T • _C 20:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:CRYSTAL & WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:23, 5 July 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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

S. L. Martin

I was going to speedy this as spam, but then I saw the first AfD nomination, so I figured I'd re-post it for more discussion. It seems to me to be solely promotional. Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 19:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, read through the previous nomination that only got 3 responses (2 keeps, 1 delete) and was kept on the premise that there are notability claims. But the fact is that they are unsourced and I can't find sources to the claims myself. I looked into specific claims, like the UMARA "Man of the Year". The UMARA, United Martial Arts Referees Association, is a non-notable small local association. I also looked into the IKF 2000 "Hall of Fame" claim. First trying to figure out what IKF is, two main ones came up, the International Kickboxing Federation (which is notable) but the person is not on the list. The other is a local academy (The International Karate Federation, which is not a federation just the name of a dojo) that has no information on its website concerning the person. All these claims appear insignificant and dubious, I fail to find any notability in the subject, therefore I vote for a deletion. The articles has had unsourced tags for well over a year. Rasadam (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate1481(^t/_c) 22:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I made the original nomination and the AfD was closed before I could respond to some of the points made mainly that none of the points of notability raised are actually in the article. You may find Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial arts/Notability of use.--Nate1481(^t/_c) 23:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep assuming the claim that he was named Inside Kung-Fu magazine's Instructor of the Year and was inducted into its Hall of Fame 2000 can be verified. I couldn't verify it at their web site [11]. JJL (talk) 23:25, 3 July 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.

Food court

The result was

Speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. SilkTork *^YES! 11:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried a couple of times to make something of this article, but there are no reliable sources out there for this as an encyclopedic topic so something needs to be done. Food courts exist, but nobody appears yet to have produced a study of them. The problem is that without reliable sources the material tends to be original research, or an inappropriate synthesis of material gathered from varied sources. I have attempted to merge it with Shopping_mall#Food_court, but this has been undone. The term Food court has been transwikied to Wikitionary and the article was tagged either for a redirect, expansion or deletion. The tag was removed before any of these things happened - I have replaced the tag. User:TexasAndroid put a Prod on it, but that was rejected. I suggested another attempt at a merge, but this also has been rejected. My feeling is still that a merge/redirect to Shopping Mall is the appropriate option. If the #Food court section manages to gain some reliable material to become a stand alone article then it can be broken out in Wikipedia:Summary style, until that point it seems appropriate to keep it in the Shopping mall context where it makes more sense and is more likely to gain attention. The other option is to delete it, as there is already enough material on Food court in the Shopping Mall article to explain what it is: an area in a shopping mall that serves food. SilkTork *^YES! 19:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you aren't really trying to get this deleted, just merged and redirected, I think this is the wrong venue and I would suggest withdrawing the nom, adding a merger tag to the page, and re-starting this discussion there. I'm not sure what you mean when you say the merger attempt was rejected, as I found no evidence of a merger discussion on the talk page. However, if you insist on going ahead with this AfD, my vote is Keep~~/Merge~~. The article has some sources cited, ~~but could probably be easily incorporated into Shopping Mall.~~ (changed per TPH's comment below) Beeblbrox (talk) 19:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Not all food courts are in shopping malls, so I don't think that's a valid target (there're food courts in gas stations and airports, sometimes even standalone food courts). Some of the sources are decent, and I'm sure there might be a way to improve the article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep A food court is certainly a notable subject. The only concern is the quality of the article, and that is not in and of itself a reason to delete. The article just needs to be developed. Eauhomme (talk) 00:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have started looking for sources and have found some. I will try to improve the article during the AfD period. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Their commonness makes them encyclopedic. There are plenty of secondary sources on the topic. Just a few seconds of googling brought up many articles by very reliable sources.[12] [13] [14] [15]. While so far I haven't looked into the subject enough to find a study on them, having a verified "study" has never been a WP inclusion requirement. --Oakshade (talk) 04:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eauhomme. Quality is something that can be worked on, but the article is definitely a keeper. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:26, 4 July 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. - Philippe 23:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bunnies (song)

Non-notable song. Fails WP:MUSIC. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete -- no evidence given for fulfilling WP:MUSIC criteria.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Perhaps this could be merged into the artist or album page? I find the part about an hobbyist animator creating the official music video for the song fascinating. Superjoe30 (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Song doesn't appear notable, fails WP:MUSIC. If any content can be found that is sourced it should be merged to the appropriate album or band page. Orfen ^T • _C 20:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:24, 5 July 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, consensus is that there is sufficient coverage to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 09:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Sia

This was previously nominated for deletion approximately 2 years ago, but I believe that our standards have risen such since then that this person no longer meets the requirements set forth by WP:BIO and others. All the material presented is being sourced by Kenny Sia's personal blog, or other blogs and this thing is quite an amazing libel magnet as well. I will treat this as a procedural nomination for now and withhold my !vote for later if evidence of substantial non-trivial coverage of this subject can be located from reliable third party sources. RFerreira (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, you are nominating it for deletion, but you don't actually have an opinion as to whether it should be deleted? I don't see how this is a "procedural" nom, as there is no process compelling you to nominate it. If the person nominating the article does not feel it should be deleted, what are the rest of us to think? Please reconsider or reword your nomination. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And speaking of procedure, you should really have a link to that first AfD here. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've added the afd2 template to the AfD page; the first AfD is now linked above. Deor (talk) 17:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not speaking rhetorically, obviously this can and should be deleted if there is nothing in the way of non-trivial publications from third parties about this individual. This is a discussion, not a vote my friend. RFerreira (talk) 21:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's a discussion, here we are discussing it after all, but in what way is this a "procedural nom"? I don't understand why you say that. Also, isn't a nomination an implied vote to delete? Beeblbrox (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, all that nonwithstanding, it seems that, just as in the last AfD, it comes down to whether or not The Urban Wire which is apparently put out by Ngee Ann Polytechnic as a student publication, is considered a reliable source. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep from their website: "UrbanWire is an online entertainment/lifestyle newsmagazine produced by final-year online journalism students of the School of Film & Media Studies, Ngee Ann Polytechnic in Singapore." Even though the other 12 sources cited are not reliable, being mostly the blog of Mr. Sia, it seems to me UrbanWire is a reliable source, and the article cited is wholly about Kenny Sia and his blog, so it is not trivial coverage. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject lacks multiple non-trivial sources from reliable publications. News wires and self-published blogs are NOT reliable sources. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More reliable sources, such as newspaper, magazine publications and websites other than Kenny Sia's, have been included in the reference list. ElectrifyingGuy (talk) 02:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this does it for me. It's not sailing past notability, but I think it's at least rowing. WLU (talk) 14:02, 10 July 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, reads like a copyvio textdump of an EU document. Sandstein 23:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

European Year of Creativity and Innovation 2009 (proposal)

The stated purpose of this article is to "summarize the recent proposal by the European Commission that 2009 should become the European Year of Creativity and Innovation." Its unencyclopedic and OR.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 19:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete An original research article, does not belong here. Rasadam (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research essay. Use of Wikipedia as one's personal webspace. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Ditto.--Boffob (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:OR and WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. -- RyRy (talk) 21:00, 8 July 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. — _Maggot^Syn 16:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improvision

Non-notable corporation per WP:CORP Madcoverboy (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. I think the article is notable now. --Eastmain (talk) 21:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I intend to add more references and further history, Improvision were one of the first companies to introduce 4D software imaging technology to the Academic Biological research market. Surely this is notable enough for Wikipedia. I intend to build their history from their news pages & other sources of reference. Thanks Eastmain for your inclusions. ----Hairyjim (talk) 16:03, 4 July 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 This is not Articles for Merging. For crying out loud, use a {{merge}} template. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duan and Ding's endowment to Zhejiang University

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Duan and Ding's endowment to Zhejiang University

Wikipedia is not a news syndicate, merge back to Zhejiang University Madcoverboy (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – Agree, what more can you say. Not enough there to support its own article. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:28, 3 July 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. However is an appropriate redirect so will create redirect after deletion. Davewild (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alec Bauer

I had trouble finding any reliable information for this article. It says b.1987, but then says 1989? Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Sorry to say, that at this point in time, Mr. Bauer has not gained the level of Notability from third party – verifiable – creditable and reliable sources necessary for inclusion in Wikipedia, as shown here [16]. Hopefully in the future, he will be included. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to L.A. Guns Chubbles (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not every member of a band is notable; WP:NOTINHERITED and all that. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:15, 12 July 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 to Belair, South Australia. As TerriersFan has already merged the cited content I'll just change the article to a redirect - Peripitus (Talk) 05:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belair Schools

Non-notable school, no coverage from WP:RS Madcoverboy (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools usually keeps articles like these as notable. Improve it? yes, but keep it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The school's website states that it's a primary school [17] and the Wikiproject schools people generally acknowledge that few primary schools are notable. The refences which turn up through a Google search (the best of which are a couple of government websites saying that this is an 'eco-school') don't seem sufficient to meet the level of coverage required at WP:N and WP:ORG. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to a new section ~~Adelaide Hills#Education~~ per normal practice - to clarify I am recommending merging the content not a simple redirect since being an Eco School is significant enough to record in the locality article. TerriersFan (talk) 16:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, but to Belair, South Australia, into which a mention of the school can be added. I know nothing about the geography of the area; however, Belair is not listed in List of towns in the Adelaide Hills, so I'm not sure that it's technically located in the Adelaide Hills. Deor (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - thanks, you are correct so I suggest Belair, South Australia#Education. TerriersFan (talk) 17:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect Procedural. As above. Five Years 17:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect There is no reliably sourced material in this article suitable for inclusion in the locality article, other than the fact that the school exists. Further, I have no idea what an "Eco School" is and why that is significant. "[Participating] in recycling, watercare, composting , energy management, and sustainable environmental practice" sounds like standard practice in Australian schools today. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Belair, South Australia per above. There's no coverage to indicate that there is anything distinctive or notable about this particular school; but the pertinent parts should be merged to the location article which is a bit stubby. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete There's barely any content worth merging to Belair, South Australia. Examination of the school website suggests there's little notability in the "Eco" angle. Murtoa (talk) 07:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - mention of the schools is always appropriate in a page on a suburb and this one badly needs some content. I see no basis for deleting, rather than merging. TerriersFan (talk) 01:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - fair comment. Maybe this reflects my lack of understanding of the deletion process. I'm not against a mention of the school on the suburb page, but can't see how this would be much more than just that - a mention. To me, a merge implies or at least suggests that a deal of the existing content on this page would carry across, which I don't think should be the case. Murtoa (talk) 07:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -OK; I have gone ahead and carried out the merge and I think it provides an interesting enhancement for the suburb article. I suggest that this page should now be redirected to Belair, South Australia#Education. TerriersFan (talk) 19:23, 8 July 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. Though clearly the consensus is that Infancy research should be deleted, but as this article was never part of the AfD doing so would be out of process. I have added a Prod to it with a link to this AfD discussion. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tricia Striano

Autobiography of non-notable academic. While I'm not officially including it in this nomination, please also evaluate Infancy research by the same author. Author's account has been blocked for having a promotional username. --Finngall ^talk 17:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See multiple references at http://news.google.com/archivesearch?hl=en&ned=us&q=%22Tricia+Striano%22&ie=UTF-8 --Eastmain (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I admit Ms. Striano references in the news, and they are all in German, as shown here [18] are a bit thin, but they are all from verifiable – reliable –creditable 3rd party sources. In addition, Ms. Striano is cited in a number scholarly works as noted here [19]. Third, she has published as shown here [20]. Finally, the article is well written – sourced and wikified. Put all together, I can see no reason to express a delete opinion. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note – regarding Infancy research, I could not find any news articles on the Lab/Company. Figured any scholarly works would be published under Sr. Striano name and not the research facilities. So a moot point. My thoughts would be to ~~merge/redirect~~ Infancy research to Dr. Striano page until independent – verifiable – third party sources can be found dealing with the research facility as a separate entity rather than an extension of Dr. Striano. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Struck merge/redirect, with regrads to Infancy research, and agree with DGG point abot redirect. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Shoessss. John254 19:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
neutral~~weak keep~~ very early in her career according to the calendar, but a very prolific researcher. GS lists citations as 98, 64, 41, 46, 40, 32, 34, 30... GS h-index=14 (~~can't get throught to ISI just now~~ISI returns much more modest numbers, highest citation count =39, h-index == 11). I can't judge whether German articles have her as a subject or merely cite as a source. On balance I'm ~~in favour of~~neutral on retention of the Biography but think Infancy research ought to be ~~merged~~deleted. I'm not really in favour of redirection, since a general article on the topic of research on infancy ought to be there rather than an article on a single PI's lab or subdepartmental unit. Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The German articles have her as a subject, because of the AvH award she won which ic pretty prestigious. --Crusio (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though not yet notable by professional academic standards merely an editor of 1 collected volume, editor of a special issue of a journal, co-author of about 60 papers, almost none of them cited substantially-- 21 of them have never been cited at all. This is a prolific but not distinguished record. However, the attention from the popular press is sufficient. If they publicize an academic figure, it counts for notability just as for anything else they publicize. DGG (talk) 03:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Infancy Research" --that's just a single lab within a single department of a ordinary-level university. It is extremely hard to actually establish anything resembling notability for such laboratories, unless they are very famous. Essentially a PR attempt to get another article on her, and make it look respectable by giving it a title that appears to be generic. The redirect should not be created, because people looking for "infancy research" should not necessarily be directed to this particular laboratory. DGG (talk) 03:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete infancy research per DGG — we don't normally keep articles on sub-school-level academic units without some clear evidence of notability in the form of third-party sources, and the ones listed in the article are not convincing to me (many are press releases or otherwise affiliated with the university, and I have no way of evaluating how nontrivial the coverage in the others is). No opinion on Striano herself. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Judging from the titles, the German references in the IR article all (or mostly) concern the Leipzig lab as far as I can see, although the article is about the Hunter College lab. --Crusio (talk) 22:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Infancy research per DGG, neutral on Striano. Depends on how much weight one gives to the German articles. Without those she would not meet WP:PROF. --Crusio (talk) 22:12, 8 July 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 in its now much better form - Peripitus (Talk) 07:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Machon chana

Appears to be rambling commentary, not an encyclopedia article. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Sorry to say that the school makes no claim to Notability in either the article and or in any information I could find as shown here [21]. In addition, I believe what is currently posted is nothing more than the opening statements of a formal business plan (Executive Summary – Overview – Mission Statement). Which if this is the case, probably constitutes Spam. Either way, looks like delete. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~whatever this junk is, it's not an encyclopedia article. JuJube (talk) 02:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Fabrictramp has done a good effort to make this an article, but it still does not have any notability. Vote remains the same for different reasons. JuJube (talk) 06:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unencyclopedic rambling. Wasn't even terribly clear to me what the subject of the article actually is. (WP:COI seems to be an issue too - see the talk page.) AndyJones (talk) 07:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I suspect it is notable but the editor doesn't seem prepared to replace this piece of puffery with a real article, so it must go. andy (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Editing issues should be solved by editing, not deletion. In the spirit of WP:SOFIXIT, I've rewritten the article to be a neutral, verifiable stub. I have no idea whether the school is notable, which is about the only possible deletion reason I see.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment -- note to the closer. If the article is kept, it appears the second word in the title should be capitalized. I won't bother moving it now, in case the result is delete.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You've reduced it to an OK stub, but there's still no evidence of notability. I'm still for deletion. andy (talk) 22:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Same comment as Andy. AndyJones (talk) 09:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per above. Bhaktivinode (talk) 03:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As always, the notability criteria have to be satified. The relevant guideline is WP:ORG. Suggest that the article's authors take a look at the guideline and see what's required. The general minimum requirement for having a Wikipedia article about an organization is that the organization needs to have "significant coverage" by independent reliable sources. Please see the guideline for additional information. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 06:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Right now the only listed sources are from the organization's own website, which of course isn't "independent." To avoid a delete, independent reliable sources which discuss the school will need to be found and cited. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 06:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Those looking for reliable sources should try an obscure web site known as Google Books. Four or five solid references show up for Machon Chanah (though they lead me to vote for Merge).Yudel (talk) 23:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hi Shirahadasha: THREE "independent reliable sources which discuss the school will need to be found and cited" have now been added and cited in the article, see Lubavitcher Women in America: Identity and Activism in the Postwar Era (State University of New York) 1998, p. 49. and Encounters with American Ethnic Cultures: The Lubavitcher Experience (Philip Leroy Kilbride, Jane Carter Goodale, Elizabeth R. Ameisen, University of Alabama Press), 1990, p. 194. as well as a newspaper article at"Whole religion in one matzoh" by Joyce Shelby, Daily News, Tuesday, April 15th 2008. On this basis, the nominator is respectfully requested to withdraw the nomination. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Ratarsed (talk) 08:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to new section Crown Heights, Brooklyn#Education per numerous precedents. TerriersFan (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry, but it still fails WP:OR. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Queston. Could you elaborate on how the article still fails WP:OR? I'm not arguing for a keep here (after a quick gsearch, I'm not convinced of notability); I'd just like to learn something, and after reviewing WP:OR, I'm not seeing the original research. Thanks!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect with Lubavitch as it's a Lubavitch educational institution.Yudel (talk) 23:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it is one the first key pioneering schools for Baalas teshuvas (Jewish women from non-Orthodox backgrounds who return to Orthodox and Hasidic Judaism) and it still remains a notable school as such, not only in Chabad but particularly in the world of the Baal teshuva movement and a key trail-blazing institution relating to Orthodox Judaism outreach. The creators of this article did a bad job starting it off, but it has now been improved greatly. It now cites TWO reliable scholarly works that focus on Machon Chana's importance, see Lubavitcher Women in America: Identity and Activism in the Postwar Era (State University of New York) 1998, p. 49. and Encounters with American Ethnic Cultures: The Lubavitcher Experience (Philip Leroy Kilbride, Jane Carter Goodale, Elizabeth R. Ameisen, University of Alabama Press), 1990, p. 194. as well as a newspaper article at"Whole religion in one matzoh" by Joyce Shelby, Daily News, Tuesday, April 15th 2008. The importance of this institution to all of Chabad can be seen from the over 2,500 Google references and citations to it relating to Chabad and Lubavitch centers and sites. IZAK (talk) 08:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: The article has now been entirely rewritten and expanded with RS. The nominator is requested to withdraw the nomination. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am sorry, but the article's latest incarnation reads like an advertisement and not an encyclopedia article. Therefore, I will not withdraw the nomination. I believe it is best to allow the AfD discussion to run its course. Ecoleetage (talk) 11:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Ecoleetage: There is no other way to write about a reputable and respectable instititution as long as it is done in a matter of fact and NPOV manner that reports the truth. Rather than make accusations that "it reads like an ad", kindly supply some examples of what you like to see in it that would make it read the way you would like it to read. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 03:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are now multiple references supporting the notability of this school. An article requiring cleanup is not a reason for deletion. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Comment – I’m sorry, I just do not see how this school has established notability. I see no difference between this school and any other secular grade – middle or high school. In fact, the coverage received by this school would be the same as any other secular grade – middle or high school. The reference from the New York Times is in passing. The cites from “Lubavitcher Women in America: Identity and Activism in the Postwar Era” , by Bonnie J. Morris, are no more than I would expect from any write up from a secular individual dealing within a specific topic area, be it Christian – Jewish – Muslim or Confucianism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoessss (talk • contribs) [22]
  - Shoessss: User Shirahadasha (talk · contribs) had once noted [23] in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaim Dov Keller that: "...Religious sources and media of notable religious organizations are perfectly acceptable reliable sources to establish notability of religious subjects and figures. Notability in the field, not notability in general media, is the standard, and that is met here. There is no problem I can see that can justify a delete vote..." and the same applies here. IZAK (talk) 03:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per IZAK. Bhaktivinode (talk) 13:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - specific claims of notability and now meets WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - still hasn't established notability. Claims to be unique as "one of the first...". D'uh, that's not what unique means. And a couple of lengthy quotes doesn't establish the sort of base of coverage that WP:N requires. It's just one school among many as far as I can see. andy (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply There are now multiple sources. Also, the documentation provided in the article, that Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson endorsed this institution, does help significantly to estabilish notability. Bhaktivinode (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - To Andy: It is most certainly not "one school among many" because it is the pioneering first and still one of the very few (not "many") major Jewish educational insitutions under strict Hasidic auspices dedicated explicitly to educating previously secular Jewish women in their quest to become more religious Orthodox and Hasidic Jewish women. You can count such "schools" in America on one hand, so your claims make no sense. IZAK (talk) 03:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it seems fixed with complete sources esteblishing notibility. thanks for the user who saved this very intresting subject.--YY (talk) 23:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - whatever problems may have existed with earlier versions seem to have been fixed, because there's not much wrong with how it now looks. -- Zsero (talk) 03:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the only full-time seminary for female returnees to Torah Judaism in the US (as far as I know), and it has been around since 1974--34 yrs.!Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 04:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Adequate sources. FYI I've added this: Morris, Bonnie. "Female education in the Lubavitcher community: The Beth Rivkah and Machon Chana schools" in Women in spiritual and communitarian societies in the United States. Wendy Chmielewski, et al., eds. Syracuse, NY, 1993. Notability is achievable and any shortcomings are a matter of editing, no AfD needed. Thanks. HG | Talk 10:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree that after improvements adequate sources have been found and the article meets WP:ORG. --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:08, 9 July 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 (non-admin closure), Three keeps (all valid) and no requests for deletion Leonard^(Bloom) 17:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Menwhopause

Non-notable band per WP:MUSIC Madcoverboy (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see how they fail notability guidelines for musicians, and the nom is not very explicit. Frankly, a rock band from India being invited to play the South by Southwest festival seems pretty darn notable to me. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quick search on Google verified much of the article's content including the SxSW appearance and US tour. I don't see any problem with notability. The article needs a lot of work but that's a separate issue.--Michig (talk) 22:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:45, 3 July 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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mayan Uthayakumar

Biography of a non notable religious leader with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — Ism schism (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Could find no refernces for Mayan Uthayakumar, Mhilitansi or Shri Mayan-ji at Google News – Google Scholar – Google Books and finally Google which only showed Wikipedia or mirror sites. As the article does not provide any references or cites, and I could not find any, the only choice left is to express a delete opinion. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No source, no article for the supposed branch of philosophy he created. Not notable.--Boffob (talk) 02:48, 9 July 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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve "Flash" Juon

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Steve "Flash" Juon

Non-notable musician and journalist per WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO Madcoverboy (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried searching for independent, reliable sources at Google News archives, and in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, but could find nothing to help establish WP:N notability. Delete unless sources are forthcoming by the end of this deletion discussion. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Paul Erik, lacks the reliable sources required for biographical content. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources to establish notability.--Boffob (talk) 02:50, 9 July 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. Waggers (talk) 09:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J.O.A.T.

A bootlegged album, with no assertion on importance besides "one of the first bootleg albums to appear containing Jack Johnson songs." Most of the article is a listing of tracks. A google search turns up little. Grey Wanderer (talk) 17:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bootleg albums almost never meet notability guidelines. There're no sources here, so no reason to keep it around. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Del per 10lb. H. tomasz. 11:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This should not be deleted it is valuable information and I found the article very useful/helpful. Why delete an article that was already written? Why would you want less information than is available? Deleting this article goes against the foundations of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.207.138 (talk) 19:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With or without the artist's approval this is not a notable album. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This collection was released with the artist's input and is respected by him and his fanbase (goggle "jack johnson" and "JOAT" for proof of this, or go to jackjohnson.com where there are entire threads dedicated to this collection). JOAT was the first collection of its kind and it does not make sense why the other articles about other "unofficial" recordings are left and only JOAT is being considered for deletion. Beatnikdaddio (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Are you the same Beatnikdaddio who compiled this album? tomasz. 10:41, 8 July 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. - Philippe 23:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ElectricFM

Non-notable per WP:WEB, no coverage from reliable, independent sources Madcoverboy (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per CSD:G11, blatant advertising.--Rtphokie (talk) 21:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined the G11 speedy (twice now). While I agree that it's borderline, it does not seem overly blatant to me. --jonny-m t 01:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no references from reliable secondary sources to prove notability, little or nothing to distinguish this from any other web station. - Dravecky (talk) 05:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable and there are not reliable references that prove otherwise. Just looking at the traffic rankings (Alexa) show the site is very lightly traffic'd and this would seem to be an attempt to put the site "on the map" via Wikipedia.Zredsox (talk) 16:35, 6 July 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. - Philippe 23:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Sly Serpent

Contested prod by the creator. Non-notable Korean fairy tale. A Google search on this topic returns no results. The external link provided by the creator of this article doesn't mention this fairy tale. The other link provided by the creator doesn't return any results either as seen in this Google search. This is probably a hoax or very obscure fairy tale that few know about. Cunard (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: According to the article as well the poet is a well known Korean poet but I can't find information about him through this Google search or other variations. Possible hoax. Orfen ^T • _C 20:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —Dekkappai (talk) 21:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm always hesitant to vote delete on something from another language/culture of which I may be ignorant. However, I searched quite a bit, in English and in Korean, and could find nothing. Finally, I've asked my Korean wife, and she's never heard of it. I suspecect it is, indeed, a hoax. Dekkappai (talk) 04:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX. I've never heard of such a folktale and the names of characters in the story are very dubious. The author name, Cho sun or Chosun is an alternative spelling of Joseon Dynasty, as well as the princess name is one of Three Kingdoms of Korea, Silla. If anyone who does not know Korean culture read the story, it sounds spurious, but it is well written hoax, I believe. The creator of the article would be better to publish his own story as a book.--Caspian blue (talk) 21:09, 5 July 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. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 20:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kappanews

Software package with no claim in article of meeting WP:Notability. Gsearch gives lots of download sites, but not a whiff of notability; zero gnews hits. Prod contested back in February. Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator's reason. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable usenet binary downloader. No coverage, or reviews and only download links -- 20:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom and not notable (that i can see) ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 20:28, 4 July 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 WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mars hoax

Fails WP:IINFO, WP:WEB given no indication of notability or significance, only single reference Madcoverboy (talk) 16:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 17:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 17:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Struck by ∫Æ_S per WP:BOLD/WP:IAR because this article isn't about a conspiracy theory, and I believe the inclusion was a mistake. ⇔ ∫Æ_S dt @ 20:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I actually remember this one. But on to way we should keep. I believe it generated enough new coverage from extremely reliable – verifiable –creditable – 3rd party sources, as shown here [24]. I’ll add some inline cites over the weekend. That qualifies for our criteria of Notabilty and inclusion. In addition, with a little research, I am sure there are more than just a few news broadcasts that covered this. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per multiple independent instances of press coverage establishing WP:N and meeting WP:V. (references: NASA, Sky and Telescope Magazine, space.about.com, Information Week). I added each of these as external links. They still need to be properly cited and integrated into the article, but they provide a strong keep argument. ⇔ ∫Æ_S dt @ 20:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per AubreyEllenShomo. I had a coworker who's mom obliviously forwarded him this hoax year after year, forgetting that she had done it the previous year. swa q 20:29, 3 July 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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caddillac Tah

No evidence that this meets WP:MUSIC save for many non-verifiable claims, failing content verifiability policy as well. JBsupreme (talk) 16:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article does need sources, but he has several Google hits including VH1 and Yahoo! Music. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Caddillac Tah is notable but the article is unreferenced. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also the article looks terrible and could use a substantial rewrite. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:42, 5 July 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; article about a real person in which no significance is asserted (WP:CSD#A7). PeterSymonds (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rihana

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable musician; the only Google hit I found was another Wikipedia article (where her mention is unsourced). THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sorry I messed up the template; I did things in the wrong order again. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 16:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This qualifies as a CSD A7 and also one other as there is no context, no sources, or anything else to go by. JBsupreme (talk) 16:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A7 No context, sources, or assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:59, 3 July 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. Though specific guidelines like WP:CREATIVE may not be met, there is enough coverage in independent reliable sources that we can find the subject notable per the general notability guideline WP:N. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nabila Jamshed

AfDs for this article:

Page fails to assert notability per WP:CREATIVE - not important, minimal attention, no new concept, no major role in a movie or other creative work, can't find reviews of her book, can't find any critical attention, most references are to local media and quite short. There's only three real references which are quite short and dated to nearly a year ago with no attention I can find since then. Previous version of the page was deleted and no real new content or sources added since then that I can recall (can't see the deleted page for a direct comparison).

Amazon does not have a copy of her book, I can't find an ISBN, no attention seems to have been paid since the initial publication push in 2007 and google turns up 1000 hits, the top of which are blogs and wikipedia mirrors. WLU (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. --Eastmain (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a reference. The Hindu is a national newspaper, and I think this article in The Hindu is enough by itself to demonstrate notability, despite the fact that the book isn't available through Amazon.com I would be puzzled if a book published in 2008 in the United States or the United Kingdom lacked an ISBN, but the book industry in India is less automated than elsewhere. NDTV.com is also a reliable source, based on this claim that "New Delhi Television Limited (NDTV), founded in 1988, is India's first and largest private producer of news, current affairs and entertainment television." --Eastmain (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As evident from news stories on New Delhi Television (NDTV 24x7), Star News India - radio interviews on Delhi's Radio City 91.1 FM & Meow 104.8 FM - coverage of the launch AND reviews in The Hindu, The Times of India, The Hindustan Times Next, Hindustan Times City, The Statesman, The Pioneer, India Today, The Week and the Indian Express - the book has been quite famous in India. One will have to accept that NOT ALL OF THIS COVERAGE CAN POSSIBLY BE FOUND ONLINE! Whatever can be, has been linked to. There are a number of notables from other countries on Wikipedia - countries that have a culture of putting nearly everything online. Dismissing someone for not being famous, just because you cant find amazingly massive evidence of it online is absurd. The book was published by Neeta Prakashan, New Delhi. The ISBN has now been ascertained. It is an original work with a new concept. It is India's first and only fantasy novel by a teenage author. And it has sold hundreds of copies since it launch next year within the country. Just beacuse it isn't on Amazon doesn't make it notable for Indians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.153.44.3 (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CREATIVE's criteria sets the bar at being an important or widely cited figure by their peers, originating a new concept, created a body of work that has been the subject of independent publishing or film-making or reviews, or been a substantial part of an exhibition or some other attention from the relevant community. Jamshed has had none of these, and the coverage is generally quite trivial. The book does not seem to have moved past the initial stage of attention garnering. I think WP:CREATIVE exists so anyone who gets published doesn't get a page, but that's part of the debate (and my interpretation!). WLU (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've seen the book in bookstores. It was reviewed by Live Mint (Part of Wall Street Journal) & Hindustan Times Next. The Live Mint review also appeared on its website. [25] Here is a page I found that mentions ISBN and other details. [26] No major role in a movie shoudln't really be a criteria for deletion! C'mon! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.153.44.3 (talk • contribs)

The page is about the author, not the book. The criteria is set at WP:CREATIVE, not by individual users. WLU (talk) 22:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, wise guy, we know its about the author. But since u brought up the issue of no ISBN and no reviews, I had to bring to your notice both things. Its beginning to look as though you were hellbent on removing the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.153.44.3 (talk) 11:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability for a book and for a author are different, and I see little evidence of the relevant notability guidelines being passed for either. Below:

WP:CREATIVE

Jamshed is not an important figure, hasn't created a new concept, has no body of work or major film and there's no critical attention (the criteria for the article about an author). Publishing a single book, the interest in which has died off, is not a reason to have a wikipedia article. The page was deleted previously and nothing has really changed since then, so there's no reason to retain the current page. Two paragraphs in TheWeek, two paragraphs in Kolkata Newsline, a stubby non-article on NDTV's print section and a single article in The Hindu, all from a year ago with no attention since indicates a lack of notability. Unlike people or topics in general, press coverage is not sufficient for an author, it must be more than a single book. Coverage by multiple sources is the general notability guideline for topics but authors have more specific ones (most authors get some press time which lets them scrape general notability even when they only ever publish a single book that flops; accordingly, a more specific guideline is used). Reference should be made to the specific guidelines, not the general notability page.

WP:BK

At best, an article might scrape the bottom of the barrel for the book's notability, but these are news stories, not reviews. The relevant criteria for books is multiple independent publications with non-trivial coverage, some of which include critical commentary. Coverage is trivial in Kolata Newsline and NDTV's artilces, borderline in TheWeek and reasonably extensive in The Hindu. However, the sole aritcle that is extensive (The Hindu) is about the author primarily, not the book. None include critical commentary or reviews and at best could expand the plot summary section of the book.

Books and people have separate notability guidelines, and neither subject passes the appropriate one. WLU (talk) 14:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there is just enough coverage of this person in reliable sources to meet the primary notability guideline which I would give more weight to than a subguideline such as WP:CREATIVE. Davewild (talk) 09:19, 12 July 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 was that, even after a rewrite, this article had substantial WP:SYNTH, WP:IINFO and WP:N issues. The rewritten article was mostly about pop-media coverage of some specific subjects related to the airline, such as its 9/11 flights, and I'll restore the history on request if it is shown that consensus exists for a full or partial merger to somewhere else. Sandstein 23:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United Airlines in popular culture

This was created by an editor who wanted to make it more difficult to delete items already removed from United Airlines#In popular culture. Most of the information there is original research involving nonnotable, trivial or passing displays of United Airlines in the media. Anything that isn't should be placed back into the popular culture section at United Airlines. Since that section currently only has two entries, there was never a reason to fork it in the first place. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. The list has serious notability issues. --Matt (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, my delete stands even with the revised version. As others have said, move the United 93 information into the appropriate article, and then the remaining information still has trivia, notability, and original research issues. --Matt (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced original research/synthesis, trivia, you name it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, OR and Trivia article. Rasadam (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research should be removed rather than spun off. WillOakland (talk) 22:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still should be deleted as it now stands. There still is no source that discusss the subject per se, only different subjects that accidentally involve UAL. As for United 93, there happens already to be an article about that. WillOakland (talk) 03:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment maybe worth a couple of frequent flyer miles, but this would even be a reject from Hemispheres, the in-flight magazine for the airline; the difference between trivial and trivia is that the latter seeks to be interesting. Mandsford (talk) 23:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- May I collect them? I'm trying to earn enough miles for an upgrade on Mileage Plus. Thanks! --Inetpup (talk) 07:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per as author. Better to err on the side of too much information than too little! Especially if it doesn't clutter the main article. --Inetpup (talk) 04:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you think AFD exists just for kicks? Or, for that matter, Wikipedia itself? WillOakland (talk) 07:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I don't think that. I think trivia sections should be tagged as unsourced indefinitely, and the user can decide for him/herself whether it's relevant. Thanks! --Inetpup (talk) 07:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That doesn't make any sense in any context or under any policy we have here. We never leave unsourced information in articles and leave to the readers to decide what to believe or not. That has to be one of the strangest arguments I've heard yet. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 09:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright folks, let's try to stay civil here. Intetpup has a right to his/her opinion. Although I'll have to remember that line, "Do you think AFD exists just for kicks?" It reminds me of the interrogator in The Lives of Others ("Do you think we simply arrest people on a whim under our humanistic system?"). Happy Fourth of July. Mandsford (talk) 14:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you too! Happy Fourth everyone! --Inetpup (talk) 20:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the nominator says, the point of this is to get rid of material dealing with popular culture. first to remove content from the main article, then to delete it isf its in an article by itself--whatever works. If we can assemble all the scattered references to this from the movies, or as many as we can, its relevant content for wikipedia. DGG (talk) 03:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:SIZE specifically has a section mentioning that splitting trivial content out of an article based on length, that would not stand a notability test on its own is not a reason to create a dedicated article on it. Rasadam (talk) 04:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - False Doesn't meet the criteria of content forking --Inetpup (talk) 09:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Huh? The article was a content fork. I responded to the keep vote that suggested that all forked content deserved and article, but policy guidelines state otherwise clear. And please, use sensible wikilinks. Rasadam (talk) 09:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a collection of instances of the United Airlines appearing in various media. We are not told what ties these instances together. These sources provided are not about the "United Airlines in popular culture", so the article is currently unsourced. The list is indiscriminate, as it includes a variety of cases; UAL plane flies by in a scene, jingle makes its way into a U2 lyric, people in a UAL flight in a movie, a UAL terminal is the set of a movie, somebody trying to make a reservation, etc. The article is original research and synthesis. I expect an article on a thing in popular culture to discuss what it represents, why it resonates with people. This article has none of that. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable - appears to be a collection of stuff not allowed in the main article because it is not notable. MilborneOne (talk) 09:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sourcing of the main contents to speak of. I also think it is a little crass to describe "United 93" as a united flight in popular culture. (LGRdC rightly reminded me of a double vote Protonk (talk) 01:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)) Protonk (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section break regarding revised version since nomination; no longer just a list and now asserts notability and includes published secondary sources

Very strong keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (discriminate, encyclopedic, notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable topics of popular culture with importance in the real world). Material from such an article at worst could easily be merged and redirected into articles on Aviation in popular culture (see this book as an obvious reference), some kind of connection with 9/11 and popular culture (see this link), etc. See such book references to United Airlines in popular culture as [27], [28], [29], etc. There is enough information out there where this information does indeed have encyclopedic potential and value so we really should be discussing how to use that information whether it is expanding this article, creating a new one, or something, rather than outright deleting. Anyway, I have so far done this to improve the article. Surely, something salvageable can be done with the information I have added. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The citations in the article are mainly for United 93. They belong there. I hesitate to turn this into another "IPC" debate, but we aren't questioning those references. We are questioning whether or not the broader idea of "united airlines in popular culture" is notable or sourced. How many of the United 93 sources specifically mention united airlines in popular culture? Even The Airplane in American Culture, which should be our anchor reference, only mentions (among the web-viewable text, which is substantial) United to quote employees or refer to policies towards female flight attendants. That book and the next two references only mention United Airlines trivially (the second book to use flight numbers and the third book to show how Barbie is embedded in popular culture). Those references don't support this topic. There is room for a GREAT Airplanes in popular culture article, but not united airlines in popular culture. Protonk (talk) 19:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Article has been revised even further. The references combined support the topic or at least now provided mergeable and redirectable content for articles on either United 93 in popular culture and/or Airlines in popular culture, which means the deletion discussion should close and we should instead be having a merge discussion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that interpretation. We may still delete this article and use the sources in a completely different article without violating the GFDL. And I'm not suggesting that we make a United 93 in pop culture article, the article on United 93 will suffice. I still strongly content that no reference produced in this discussion or cited on the article verifies the statement "United Airlines is significant in popular culture". Tellingly, none of the books above have United Airlines in their indices. Protonk (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot Wikipedia:Merge and delete per the GFDL. We know have sourced information that can be merged to a host of articles and it would be logically to leave the article in place rather than expect editors to have to do searches again that have already been done to provide referenced content. I have no idea why or how you don't see the connection from the sources, but I suppose we have to agree to disagree there. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of that restriction. That refers to when text is transfered. If no text is to be transfered, then no copyrightable work is used without attribution. In the case of facts, we are free to delete an article and later create similar content from the same sources at any point in the encyclopedia. But we are getting sidetracked. The ONLY way this article meets WP:N is if we have a source that says something about United Airlines (the company) in popular culture. Those United 93 sources don't say it. Those book sources don't say it. Without that, how can we justify maintaining the article in accordance with WP:N? Protonk (talk) 19:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without any doubt the Hawaii-5-O material is at least transferable to that article, the comments on airlines in general in popular culture are transferable to such an article as that, the material on United 93 is transferable to that article, as well, i.e. there are now lots of text as well as references that could indeed be used elsewhere as well and in multiple places which is why deletion would not be the best choice here. The article meets any reasonable notion of notability, which itself is a heavily challenged guideline with diverse and significant proposals for revision ongoing. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent) This isn't too hard for me. either a source says "United airlines is significant in popular culture", "United Airlines is notable in popular culture" (or words to that effect) or it doesn't. If no source says that, it is OR or SYN (take your pick, depending on how it is presented) to claim that in an article. Since this is an article about United Airlines in popular cultures, there is a de facto claim that the subject is notable. The article cannot exist without that claim. It is black and white. Protonk (talk) 21:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources presented in effect demonstrate that United airlines are particularly noteworthy as far as airlines go in popular culture, which is why the article needs to be kept in some manner. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But presenting sources to the effect of something where the sources don't actually say it is the definition of original research. All I need is a single article saying what I said above or words like it and I'm a convert. Even an article in a magazine devoted to United Airlines and its impact in american culture would do. What we have are articles about United 93 or mentions in books related to hull numbers (err...airframe numbers) of famous aircraft (usually famous for crashing, unfortunately). The Hawaii Five-O mention, while cool, is basically a paid promotion. I could no more justify hanging an article on that reference than I could justify making an Alcoa in popular culture article because they sponsored programs on television in the 1950's. If, for example, Wings was based on united airlines rather than sandpiper airlines, we could be closer to agreement. But as it stands, no sources make the claim the article is making. Protonk (talk) 22:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources that mention United Airlines in the context of their use in popular culture is not original research and do in fact address United Airlines in popular culture. They don't need to be titled "United Airlines in popular culture" to be about "United Airlines in popular culture". --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But they no more mention United Airlines than to note (even in the case of United 93) that it happened to be a United Flight. Even in the Hawaii Five-O case, the source (so far as we can tell) doesn't mention united further than to say that United Airlines made a Product placement in the television show. The claim of the article is that united airlines is significant (or notable, or whatever) in popular culture and the sources supporting that claim are (as of this revision, starting from FN1, not FN0)

An article about CGI in film. Not accessible from my library access (that doesn't mean anything, just that I can't see the full text).
An article in ieee about the future of intelligent agents on the internet, quote that includes United in it:

“

The Softbot model manager performs fast inference

on local closed-world information; if the user later specifies that the carrier must be United Airlines, the Softbot need not access SABRE again. But if the Softbot i s informed of the creation of a new flight, or a change in the desired destination, it retracts its conclusion of local closed-world information and gathers more information.

”

A pop culture encyclopedia which, under the Barbie section, notes that Mattel sold a Flight Attendant barbie in 1973. United Airlines is not mentioned elsewhere.
"The Airplane in American Culture" Promising, but no mention of United Airlines is made in the index of the work and all in-text mentions that are available on google books are trivial in the extreme. United Airlines as a text string is mentioned several times, but usually preceding "Flight XX". One time where it is not, the book is discussing labor disputes between United and its primarily female (at the time) flight attendants in a larger article about gender issues.
Search term is United Airlines, no quotes. P. 92: united food service is noted. p.95: one of uniteds advertisements is unfavorably compared to Nixon's "checkers" speech. p.101: Noting that United urged customers to fly to hawaii in a paragraph about airlines urging people to fly to hawaii. p.121 Airline accident. p.149 United 93. The rest is not united, back matter or the index.
A website about pop culture references to 9/11 style attacks before 9/11. the only mention of united is to designate the flight numbers.
A history of pop culture. United is not in the index. references to united are solely to designate the flight number of the planes in 9/11.
A blog movie review of United 93.
A new york times review of united 93. All mention of united airlines is related to factual description of the events on 9/11.
slate.com movie review of united 93.
A mention that the producers of Hawaii five-o requested and United paid for film of flights taking off and landing for use in the opening montage.
Basically the same thing.

That is it. That is every reference on that page. I do not see anything that suggests a broader implication beyond the listing of flight numbers and the promotion of a company through a television show. In my opinion, to use these sources to claim that United Airlines is significiant or notable in popular culture is to conduct original research and to misrepresent the text and intent of the sources. As they stand, these sources verify the text by and large, but ref 1 probably doesn't, ref 2 definitely doesn't and none of them make or support the claim that the article is making. As I haven't !voted before, I will now. Strong Delete for reasons of original research and notability. Protonk (talk) 23:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually not true, you already "voted" here regarding this notable example of unoriginal research. There are sufficient references that can be either used as a basis of an article here or for merging and redirecting elsewhere, which is why deleting the article now would be detrimental to our project. Plus, we have to think beyond sources found in a mere five days relying on Google. Notice here for example. An article that has been around unsourced for three years and I just happen to be reading a book by Napoleon Bonaparte in which Napoleon devotes a whole chapter to discussing this man. And sources do indeed exist from this article and elsewhere that we can use to merge and redirect into an [{Airlines in popular culture]] article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Double "vote" corrected, thanks for that. It is true that 5 days may not allow for an exhaustive search but neither will 5 years. to argue that 5 days isn't enough for even one source to substantiate the article isn't fair. The only response to that is either to NEVER nominate articles for deletion or to allow the debates to continue indefinitely. Please, please produce some sourcing that substantiates the article or imputes some notability. I'm disinclined to continue to produce evidence that this article is original research if the only response will be having the article referred to as "unoriginal research". If it is not original research than surely some source must feature united airlines (the airline, not the text string) significantly or make some claim along the lines of "united airlines has had a significant influence in pop. culture". The sources in the article don't show that, and neither do the sources we have seen while researching the article. At what point can we accept that maybe, just maybe, United Airlines isn't that important in popular culture? I mean, that is one option. Protonk (talk) 01:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(As for WP:N). You may state that reasonable minds differ about WP:N. That disagreement is a matter for the talk page or new proposed guidelines. We can't just interpret a possible lack of consensus by refusing to implement the guideline in an unrelated discussion. Protonk (talk) 21:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can always Wikipedia:Ignore all rules when in such instances as this one outright deleting the article would prevent us "from improving or maintaining Wikipedia" as the article is necessary for the further revisions or from which to create a new article altogether or merge content to multiple articles. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should have included that. I think that is appropriate. I would suggest that appeals to ingore all rules be the exception, rather than the rule. If you feel that the current notablity guideline constrains the article from improving wikipedia, then I think it is totally kosher to make an appeal like that. But (IMO) ignore all rules doesn't apply to OR/V/NPOV. In this case, the OR question has to be answered. Protonk (talk) 22:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should not be invoked unless necessary, but even in this case as the article's unoriginal research, it's probably not even necessary to invoke. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a couple of years back almost every article had its "popular culture" section, where inane trivia were added. While some one has provided some serious academic content for this page, this bulk of it is still a list of trivial allusions in films etc. We might conceivably have an article Airlines in popular culture, but I do not see the need to have one on one particular airline or even every one of 1004 airlines (or however many there may be). Peterkingiron (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- We could move the article to Airlines in popular culture for the mergeable content and then expand from there. This particular airline has apparently had a noticeable impact in popular culture, whereas not necessarily every other one has. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be against starting an airlines in popular culture article from the content currently in this one. An Airlines/airplanes in pop culture article should be started from a broad resource (the book linked above) and individual sections should be fleshed out as needed and suggested by the MOS. Protonk (talk) 21:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We would use the excellent information and references from this article in addition to other material in such an article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or move/merge, this article looks pretty good, with lots of print refs. Including the Rosenbaum quote about Neil Young is a real stretch, though; I don't really see the relevance. An Airlines in popular culture article is a good idea, either in addition to this one or in place of it. Everyking (talk) 03:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep ... very^{(extremely, exceedingly, superbly, extraordinarily, incalculably, unconditionally, unboundedly, inordinately, and remarkably)} strong keep~~ - Let me vote again because we have a section break. Rescue article looks great! Great job! Thanks! --Inetpup (talk) 07:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I am still keeping my delete vote. I am not doubting the fact that United Airlines has been mentioned in Popular culture, that was not in doubt when I first voted to delete. But the fact that a compiled list of pop culture references deserves an article is in doubt. This to me is WP:OR, as there is no real suggestion that United Airlines being mentioned in pop culture is a notable event. At most, a broad article that talks about the usage of airlines in pop culture would be acceptable, if referenced by works that document the subject (like the book mentioned earlier). But simply compiling a list of mentioning of the airline in pop culture (even referenced) is still WP:OR. There's nothing to suggest that its usage is notable. If we allow this to be kept, this list will only get bloated with trivial but sourced mentions and I don't see any encyclopedic value to this article. I mean no disrespect to the editors that have made an effort to improve the article, but I still think it shouldn't exist. The trivia sections in the main article were borderline, content forking it into a separate article still defies the WP:SIZE convention about non-notable forks. Rasadam (talk) 07:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry guys, but nobody gets to "vote" twice. Nearly everyone has made that mistake once, including me, so there's a friendly reminder that comes in response. A section break is simply placed to keep the discussion readable, and is not a recount. Once you've expressed your opinion, everything after that can be called comment or response or something that isn't a keep or delete tag. I've ~~struck through~~ the extra vote, take it up with an administrator if you don't like it, but that's the way it is. You're welcome to comment more than once, as Le Grand Roi (who labelled his first entry "keep") has, but the closing administrator needs to see an accurate show of hands when considering how many people have weighed in on a discussion. Best wishes. Mandsford (talk) 15:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No offense taken, never saw the section split done, thought it was a recount as others revoted. Rasadam (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- The latest version is not original research and deemphasize the list significantly. Plus, we need the information in this article to make the other article that we could merge and redirect to. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Appears I was looking at the wrong version, I swore I still saw a list. But the argument that article should not be deleted to eventually go to a generic "Airlines in popular culture" article doesn't hold water for me. There are sandboxes for this reason, why not either rename the article straight off the bat or copyedit to a sandbox until that article is ready to go live. Other than the scholarly reception section, the rest of the article still suffers from the problem I mentioned above. Rasadam (talk) 07:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, there are sandboxes, but we could use the material from the scholarly reception section, so we can always just do a simple redirect that keeps the edit history available for any mergeable content, rather than having to look for the same sources and content all over again. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 11:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Wikipedia:No original research. Article is a list of disconnected product placements and I spy trivia bound together by the assumption that a parent organization can inherit pop culture notability. This list is then elevated to article status by the new and novel theory that the collection demonstrates the United Airlines has had a significant influence of popular culture. While there may be a meaningful subject here, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought and as there is no evidence that this subject has ever been explored in a previously published work. --Allen3 ^talk 12:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Current version of the unoriginally researched article deemphasizes the list and when there's potential, we keep. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 12:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you actually look at my reasoning, you will notice that the reason for deletion is not based upon lack of potential as you claim but upon the article's violation of core content policies. --Allen3 ^talk 17:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is completely unnecessary as it stands. The point is to discuss how the topic itself has been featured in popular culture and how that has impacted popular culture as a whole. The point is not to discuss 9/11, a film about 9/11, and some minor and trivial mentions of the company in pieces of media. The second sentence of the "Scholarly reception" paragraph, along with "such as the film "United 93"..." would be the only thing from this article worth salvaging (though the last bit about "Hawaii Five-O" could go into a marketing related section somewhere). That small bit can be placed within a succinct section in the main article rather than a useless full article. TTN (talk) 12:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This necessary article is presented in a manner in which it covers how it appears in popular culture in a variety of ways. All of those examples are aspects of popular culture and when material from one article can be placed elsewhere, we merge and redirect without deleting. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 12:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a redirect to the Airlines in popular culture article. Rasadam (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename for merging material to an Airlines in popualr culture page. Highly notable and there will be film commnetary books with chapters on hte Airline movie. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That page doesn't exist. the content we would move there would basically be some critical reception to United 93. Between the film and the crash article, all of the material is already there. The rest is a blanket statement about airlines in pop culture and a mention of a promotion in a television series. Whether or not an article should be created called Airplanes in popular culture (probably would be a better title rather than airlines) is not really subject to this AfD. Anyone can create and stub it now from the sourcing available on the web. We don't need to "merge" this page to a new page (read:rename) in order to avoid AfD. Protonk (talk) 03:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, I am just thinking aobut the best way to have the information presented, rather than have this descend into the usual boring old trench warfare of these debates. FWIW I could think of numerous metions of Qantas and Aeroflot, as as well as discourse on the movies. But anyway, back to this as we are trying to establish consensus. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am too. In my opinion, the best way to present information on the topic Airplanes in popular culture would be for someone to sit down and start an article from scratch. Were we to rename United Airlines in popular culture and remove content redundant to United 93, we would be left with 2 lines, both of which could easily be written from the sourcing from scratch. As for "united in pop culture" or airlines in pop culture, I'm disinclined to start those pages because they will just collect lines like "So and so boarded a united flight for five seconds in this and that movie". If (as it is in this case) the article contains little but those references, it basically becomes a haven for original claims and misrepresentation of sourcing. We are better off deleting this article and allowing someone to create an Airplanes in popular culture article organically. Protonk (talk) 03:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't delete when we can just as easily merge and redirect, it would achieve the same goal, but actually be more efficient. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure we do. We do it all the time. I mean, what is the precedent we set if we don't in this case? I'm not suggesting that you are gaming the afd system (really, I'm not), but someone could just add non-germane information to an article when it comes up for deletion then suggest it be merged into a target article. Let's say someone lists Patrick Tyler for deletion and I can't get sources for it. What if I add some information about Journalists in general and then insist the page be merged? what do we do then? Close the AfD and then who cares what happens to the article? Let me be clear again. I'm NOT accusing you of this. At all. This isn't even a backhand accusation. I'm saying that we have a policy and it would help if we apply that policy rather than contrive means to not apply it. Protonk (talk) 04:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you aren't maybe you should. We are not in the business of saving every single edit made by every single editor ever made on this encyclopedia. This article does not contain encyclopedic information and anything that isn't has already been included at the main article. There is no place to merge the information here because it is not encyclopedic. The information on what fleeting appearance United Airlines made in which movie does not inform anyone on the general topics of United Airlines or popular culture. It therefore does not serve an encyclopedic function and anyone arguing for preserving has yet to demonstrate why it shouldn't be deleted other than to keep it for the sake of saving the text. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't confuse your personal opinion with the rather indefinable 'encyclopedic'. This is somewhat contentious as tehre is (1) an AfD rather than a PROD going on and (2) some folks are voting to keep and (3) there are sources. Article history is important and there are rules on moving and merging material for this reason. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of those points addresses the prevailing question about the value of this information in the context of United Airlines. It's easy to find a bunch of useless sources for tangential topics for any article on this encyclopedia, but those sources -and by extension that statements they support- would be equally useless. Here we have an article in search of a purpose and nobody's found one yet. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh so where do you draw the line, 1950, 1930, 1850? What about heraldry or any symbolism for that matter? Thankyou for dictating to me what is useful and what is not. As an atheist I could say the same about religion and religious symbolism as they don't "serve a purpose" for me, but I don't. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent). We aren't asserting that sources do not exist. We are either asserting that they don't verify the text, don't support the claims made (or required by WP:N) in the article or are not germane to the topic. He started the AfD, so I rather suspect he knows what is going on. Protonk (talk) 05:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all "in popular culture" articles as inherently non-notable, trivial, and unencyclopedic. Stifle (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note Wikipedia:ALLORNOTHING, WP:JNN, and WP:UNENCYC. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's an administrator with 26 thousand edits. I think he's entitled to an opinion without having attention drawn to essays. Protonk (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should I reply to this reply by saying I have over 20,000 edits and therefore do not need a reply? In a discussion, we intereact with each other and make suggestions and even some of the most accomplished of us aren't aware of other every idea expressed elsewhere on the project. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. You should reply to this by saying something like "Oh, my bad. I guess I shouldn't have linked to WP:AADD in a didactic fashion when responding to someone who probably knows that essay back to front." I'm not saying he is immune from criticism because he has >X edits. I'm saying that perhaps care could be taken when picking teaching moments. Protonk (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. In disucssions we link to and suggest alternative arguments. Anyway, please get back to the article under discussion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess. I mean, you are the master of your own destiny but I'm not the first person to suggest that it might not be helpful to reply to deletion comments in that fashion. Protonk (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we have some ideas of how to proceed with either keeping outright or merging and redirecting to a new article. Should we start the new article now as well? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - I'm fully aware of the existence of that essay and while I agree with some of the concepts therein, I do not agree with others. Stifle (talk) 11:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - For that matter, WP:ALLORNOTHING is completely irrelevant to my point. It suggests that "votes" should not say that a page should be deleted or kept because other similar pages have been deleted or kept. I think that they all should be deleted. There is a difference. Stifle (talk) 11:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Topic is not notable. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 20:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note WP:JNN. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:05, 7 July 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 G4 and salt by Ultraexactzz. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny Rascal Gang

AfDs for this article:

This article was deleted via VfD back in 2005, but the article then was a bare stub. While this article is expanded, the flaws still remain. It is unreferenced. While the group may be notable, the article is not verifiable. —C.Fred (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, the only thing a Google search yields are Myspace pages and Youtube videos. Even if someone wanted to reference this article, they couldn't, which is why it keeps getting deleted in the first place. For What It's Worth, the contributor who keeps recreating the article launches personal threats against anyone that attempts to edit or delete it. 74.248.71.201 (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - NN street gang... the g-hits I found were either myspace/youtube hits, or hits for a band. Also, the opening paragraph is a copyvio of this page... - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and reference. There are lots of google news results.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Also delete the page at User:Avengercrunk to make it more difficult to recreate. I would recommend posting this to ANI to request a review of that editors contributions to see if a block is needed to prevent recreation of this material. This has been deleted numerous times, but this editor has continued to recreate the page against community consensus and is now wasting everyone's time with abuse of process. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I've left a notice at ANI since this is clearly a block evading single purpose sockpuppet. I invite all users to review that and advise. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:53, 3 July 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. If anyone believes they can address the notability issues and wants the page userfied, drop me a line with a link to this debate.Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rock and roll conservatory

Educational organization with no assertion of notability or significance, no references from reliable sources, no ghits of significance Madcoverboy (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Purely promotional advertising. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of this article is probably Joe Wiles, who is mentioned in this article as the owner and who has expanded several other articles to include his name. He has also created Strange occurrence, which is a band he is directly involved in and which probably qualifies for speedy deletion as self promotion or a nonnotable band. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC

I created Strange Occurrence and this article in an attempt to learn the Wikipedia code, culture, and formats. I chose these subjects because I have personal knowledge about them and thought they would be a good place to start. My article on Strange Occurrence does not qualify for deletion as a non-notable group. That article contained details about their placement on Radio & Records Chart and was about to be updated to include national tours, CD releases, record label information, and major festivals. I expanded one article, not several, to include Joe Wiles (as well as Eric Vickers and Steve Gale) factually into an article about Scott Hunter. And I removed Joe Wiles from this page because of the speculation of self-promotion, which it is not. Superhero77 (talk) 21:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe you. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't believe what? That I'm trying to learn Wikipedia? That I'm not Wiles? That I'm trying my damndest to gather references, but the library doesn't open until Monday? Some newspapers make it very hard to get back information. Ugh. Listen... I don't know why you've got a thing against me, but leave me alone. I don't care if you don't believe me. Just stick to the process and quit asserting your assumptions. You CAN'T believe me because if you did, you'd have to apologize for all the foolish things you acted on while under your wrong assumptions. Superhero77 (talk) 20:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:ORG; no news hits, no references to establish notability, and does not even explain why it should be. Also filled with fuzzy, non-encyclopedic content on the verge of WP:ADVERT. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I composed this article because I have personal, unbiased knowledge on the subject. I'm learning the system and would appreciate some leniency while learning to cite references in the code. I feel it's a small, but notable organization due to the fact that it's owner, Joe Wiles (whose reference was removed from the article due to speculation of self-promotion), seems to be popularly viewed around the internet, teaching people how to play particular songs. On the Youtube hits alone, he's upwards of around a million. That doesn't include his Expert Village videos or Answerbag. He's the subject of much controversy in message boards because of the way he teaches bit parts of popular songs. That seems to reflect the general philosophy of the organization in using rock songs to teach about music theory. Any help citing references would be appreciated.Superhero77 (talk) 21:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:"[P]ersonal, unbiased knowledge on the subject" is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Adding references is simple in Wikipedia and after two days, you should have been able to do so. Furthermore, you need to assert notability for this subject citing verifiable and reliable sources. This article fails all of these. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
::Having personal knowledge was my motivation. I didn't intend for the final article to be based merely on that. Two days (one being a national holiday) is not enough time to research archived news. Superhero77 (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:::Don't take it so personally. Why not concede it doesn't meet Wikipedia standards right now (which it sounds like you do), make a copy to a subpage on your user profile, and work on it until it meets our standards. No harm in that and it doesn't put you in this awful time crunch to get it done. Welcome to Wikipedia and I hope we can work this out, but there is no need to get stressed over it. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:::BTW, sorry about the motivation, I misunderstood what you were trying to say. Damn the English language and its ambiguity!!! — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
::::Thank you very much! Done. Your help and your non-confrontational manner is very appreciated. Forgive my ignorance as I'm new to Wikipedia, but your advice was what I needed from the beginning. I'll save this debate on my userpage and begin to address these issues. Superhero77 (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the article is changed fix the concerns listed above. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concede Thank you BQZip01 Superhero77 (talk) 21:00, 5 July 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. Sandstein 21:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Novell Open Source Internship Program

Non-notable corporate internship program with no assertion of importance or notability, nor independent coverage by reliable sources Madcoverboy (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: highly non-notable. Also, many companies have such programs. --GDibyendu (talk) 16:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 16:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 16:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 16:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as very non-notable. All companies have internship programs, and this one fails to show any kind of notability. News search finds nothing. Arsenikk ^(talk) 00:25, 8 July 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 nomination moot after a complete rewrite of the article to cover a different subject. Sandstein 23:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Custodian of the Holy Land

Not sure what this is shooting at, but it doesn't really go anywhere. It seems to be some sort of rambling that has nothing to do with the title. I declined an A7 as it's not really a bio or anything. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah, like Ten Pound Hammer said, the article is a ton of junk that has nothing to do with the title. --Vhoscythe^chatter 02:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as material copied directly from two pages in this document. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but completely rewrite. "Custodian of the Holy Land" appears to be an official title in the Catholic Church (here, and others), and it's getting enough gnews / google hits that it is probably notable. Add in printed sources, and you've got yourself quite an article. Anyone mind if I start on a rewrite?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment With TPH's blessing (so to speak), I've changed this to a stub that addresses all the delete issues above. Feel free to add to this, as this is not a subject I'm an expert on. :)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fabrictramp has called it right. it does appear notable. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:46, 5 July 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 to McMaster Students Union per consensus (non-admin closure). Finalnight (talk) 06:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MacInsiders

Non-notable student organization, no assertion of importance, no independent coverage Madcoverboy (talk) 16:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 16:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to McMaster Students Union. This could just have been boldly done surely? TerriersFan (talk) 22:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the AfD template to the article. TerriersFan (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep independent The organization in question is a recognized and funded club under the McMaster Students Union, but an independent entity and organization that is open to members outside of the McMaster Students Union and therefore searchable independently without ties to the McMaster Students Union. It's importance is being McMaster's only student-run online news service, and it has been recognized for its achievements through the awarding of the Club Of The Year award for 2007-2008. Sirchadlington (talk) 07:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - receiving "Club of the Year" is clearly not an indicator of notability. TwoMightyGods^Persuasion_Necessity 13:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Sirchadlington is the article creator and primary contributor, and has thus far made the only keep argument. ⇔ ∫Æ_S dt @ 18:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no objection to redirection to McMaster Students Union. I can find no independent sources to support a claim of notability. The only notability claim in the article is that it has been awarded "Club of the Year" by the McMaster Students Union. As it is funded by the McMaster Students Union, that coverage/award is hardly independent by anyone's meaning. Independent sources are essential for notability claims, as it the choice to cover a topic by a publisher with no direct incentive to do so that makes for notability under the primary criterion. The burden to establish notability where none can be readily found is on those who wish to keep the article. ⇔ ∫Æ_S dt @ 02:13, 8 July 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 A7 by PeterSymonds , non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex6767543

non-notable KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 15:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've taged as CSD A7. D0762 (talk) 16:10, 3 July 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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Beautiful Miscellaneous

Prod tag removed without any improvement to the article, which doesn't meet WP:NFF as a film that seems to have not yet been produced; no reliable sources, no assertion of notability, etc. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - IMDb says only "in development" for 2010, fails WP:NFF. JohnCD (talk) 17:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF. According to The Hollywood Reporter on June 5, 2008, the book was optioned to be developed into a feature film. This is not at all close to production; studios option many, many rights for possible films, but not all of them actually enter production. My suggestion would be to instead create an article about the book and include a sentence, using the THR citation, mentioning that the book was optioned. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The notability guidelines for future films stipulates that a stand-alone article should not be created until a project enters production. This is because many factors such as budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with the project. This project is not even in preproduction, and anything could happen before it is. The article can be recreated when, or if, principal photography begins. Steve ^{T • C} 23:57, 5 July 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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saving Ronald Reagan

Subject is a single TV program, and not even a very popular one. The content is entirely a recap of the content of the program, which belongs at Ronald Reagan if it belongs anywhere. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reagan assassination attempt might be another merge target, though I note that that article appears to be quite comprehensive. I'm not sure what, if anything, would be merged at all. As a result, I'd have to lean to Delete. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing worth merging to Reagan assassination attempt which covers it adequately. JohnCD (talk) 17:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot tell if this is some historic fiction or patent nonsense. Without sources, I'm not sure it is possible to tell. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of secondary sources. – thedemonhog talk • edits 22:01, 6 July 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 (CSD A7) J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 17:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilertv

Non-notable website with literally no external coverage. A Google search only brings up a large number of posts on various forums attempting to promote the website. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 15:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 15:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per similar concerns. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 15:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A rather new website that fails WP:WEB. Only 3 minor hits in GoogleNews[30].Nsk92 (talk) 15:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A7 Doesn't even assert notability. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:43, 3 July 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. Sandstein 23:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous people described as anglophiles

List of very very loosely associated people. It is also mainly original research and although authors should be commended for their effort to give proper references, the fact remains that one article labeling someone as an anglophile is not meaningful. Moreover, "anglophile" is a rather vague term and browsing through the references makes it quite clear that it has distinct connotations when applied to Nelson Mandela or to Madonna. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 15:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete more pointless than most lists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ Clayworth (talk • contribs)

Though I obviously agree that the list should be deleted, your comment is a bit too harsh. As far as I understand, the list was created as a spin-off of the anglophile article and is the result of a good-faith effort to clean things up. But as is often the case for the list spin-offs, the creation of the separate list makes it painfully obvious that it should simply have been deleted from the original article: it provides little added value beyond trivia and in particular it doesn't significantly increase the readers' understanding of the topic. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - per User:Pascal.Tesson --T-rex 16:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge We have already have a start at sourcing and some further cleanup should be tried before rushing to judgement. At worst, one would then merge back into Anglophile. Deletion is not appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point I tried to make above is that the fact that the content is properly sourced does not resolve the bigger problem which is that the list is a useless addition to an encyclopedic article. It's a random list (countless people have at some point or another been described as "anglophiles"), it doesn't discriminate between people whose "anglophilia" is/was a very significant aspect of their life (e.g. Guy Mollet) and people whose anglophilia is no more significant than their favorite ice-cream flavor, it's a list of famous people and course "famous", like "anglophile", is a nebulous concept, the list does not provide insight into the concept of "anglophile", the list a priori includes anyone who's been labeled once as an anglophile, no matter how accurate that judgment may be, etc. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or No Merge per Pascal.Tesson - Francis Tyers · 16:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Listcruft. I agree with Clayworth. Axl (talk) 20:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sourcing exists describing how 'labeling someone as an anglophile' is significant. Very few limits exist on the bounds of this list (although it is not as bad as some list). It is, as the nominator has said, bound to subjective judgments on a subjective notion. Protonk (talk) 16:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pascal.Tesson. Eklipse (talk) 09:07, 6 July 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 a blatant hoax (WP:CSD#G3). PeterSymonds (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jasper martens

Appears to be a hoax. Outrageous claims in the article and I could not find any proof that this person even existed Nsk92 (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy? as either pure vandalism or nonsense surely? Fribbler (talk) 15:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
speedy. hoax. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:38, 3 July 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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Craig gier

A non-notable local political activist in Portland. Only two fairly minor GoogleNews hits[31]. Fails WP:BIO Nsk92 (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — no evidence of notability, and no references. macy^talk 16:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
don't delete keep this page. check here [32]and here [33] also here [34] gee that looks like more than two hits to me. maybe someone didn't check more than a second.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Godofzelda (talk • contribs)

These are plain searches from Google, Yahoo and Alltheweb, and without putting the name in quotation marks at that. Of course, you are going to get a phone book of hits this way. If there are any sources that qualify as independent reliable sources, per WP:V and WP:RS, you are welcome to fish them out and add them to the article. The standard search used in these cases is a GoogleNews search (for all dates), with the name of the subject in quotation marks. This search gives two hits[35]. A similar Yahoo News search produces no hits at all[36]. Nsk92 (talk) 02:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Nsk92 (talk) 12:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - no assertion of notability. Bearian (talk) 18:15, 9 July 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. The track is only regionally known, with no hits found that discuss its notability at all. Creator and primary editor of the article notes below that it is notable only locally and "can't really find much else." Frank | talk 22:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Lawn Speedway

Doesn't seem to be a notable speedway. No reliable sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are a few mentions of it in various motosports and racing sites [37] [38] [39] [40] [41], but little significant coverage which addresses it in detail, and none that asserts it's notability. D0762 (talk) 15:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the track is notable only in east central indiana and i cant really find much else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigred1956 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to any of the welcoming stubs - Greensboro, Indiana and Mount Lawn, Indiana. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - could have been speedied as a G7 non-notable business establishment. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - no claim to be notable, and a very ugly website --T-rex 19:09, 13 July 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 a blatant copyright violation (WP:CSD#G12). PeterSymonds (talk) 16:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paradiso project

AfDs for this article:

Article is about a project that does not meet Notability. A search for Reliable sources about the project don't turn up any significant coverage. News results are for housing developments that happen to have the same name. Additionally the article appears to suffer from a conflict of interest. Most of the material reads like a press release, and in fact, I've removed a section that was a verbatim copy of a page from the project web site. The remaining text is still substantially a composite of press release material glued together. Whpq (talk) 14:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize that there was a previous AFD. It was speedied as a copyvio. -- Whpq (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Taken verbatim from here [42]. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as copyvio, for using nonsense phrase "hypothesis of the disruptive paradigm concerning global societal developments", for promotional language, and for non-notability. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a copyvio of this Mayalld (talk) 15:03, 3 July 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 Waggers (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Saudi Arabia of

This page is basically just a list of the places where this specific string of words has been written; it seems to fail notability by any standard I can think of. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Saudi Arabia of Delete. This is synthesis/original research; a list of loosely associated topics. I have never heard the term "The Saudi Arabia of" anything, and I bet that the term was never really used at all outside of the handful of cited examples. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regarding this article, I hated it, but then again, I think it's unimaginative writing when a journalist calls something "The Saudi Arabia of ____". With WP:IDONTLIKEITwell in mind, I have to say that a well-sourced article is exactly what we want to see in Wikipedia, whether we like the subject or not. I can't, at least not with a straight face, call this original research or original synthesis. Every one of the entries is sourced, and checking each entry confirms that journalists describe a place with the lion's share of some resource as a "Saudi Arabia". Mandsford (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while every entry is sourced, the article is a list of instances of use, not an article on "The Saudi Arabia of" itself. I haven't checked all the sources, but I doubt any discuss the term instead of just applying it. Huon (talk) 14:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete A well-sourced, well-written list of entirely unnotable uses of a phrase. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unencyclopedic. This list will never help or expand anyone's knowledge on the topics of Saudi Arabia, the media, lists or usages of the word "of." There is just no good reason to have this here. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - term is not notable and "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". --neon white talk 22:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete before Wikipedia becomes the Saudi Arabia of cruft (oh, too late :( ) JuJube (talk) 02:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:24, 5 July 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 no consensus, and I was actually quite close to calling this an outright "keep" since the issue of the national awards (confirmed by evidence produced by Groggy Dice) has not been adressed at all by those calling for deletion except for assertions that they are not notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SilentScream

The subject of the article seems to fail the notability criteria under WP:MUSIC. The band has released 1 album under an independent label (WP:MUSIC requires at least 2 albums on a major label or a notable independent label), there has been no non-trivial media coverage from independent and reliable sources. The article mentions that the band has charted a hit on a national music chart but a Google search didn't return any reliable sources to verify this information. There was only this blog which mentions the band charting a #1 hit on a local radio station, not on a national chart. All in all, it seems to be a band that may be known locally but, again, it fails the basic tenets of WP:N and WP:MUSIC. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No proof of the charted hit. No reliable sources, and the awards aren't notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 15:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The awards are not notable? The first result on a google search informs me that the "12th MACP Awards 2008 was ... telecast live by RTM1 at 8.45 pm starting with the Red Carpet and followed by the show which began at 9.00 pm." An award ceremony that is broadcast nationally on the country's oldest television network seems pretty notable to me. The award show gets coverage in the news and even on a government's website. The band easily qualifies as notable per criteria 8 of WP:MUSIC. --Bardin (talk) 05:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 02:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The MACP website (page now here[43])confirms that they won in three categories. The difficulties finding a bigger web footprint are understandable when you consider that Malaysia is a less wired country. I also feel this AFD should have been listed earlier at Deletion sorting/Malaysia. --Groggy Dice T | C 03:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. —Groggy Dice T | C 03:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep - if "Revolution" did indeed hit #1 on the Malaysian English Top 10 music chart (a national record chart) and it can be documented with the date of its hitting #1, then it would satisfy WP:MUSIC#2. If evidence of such documentation cannot be obtained, then it should be deleted without prejudice toward recreation should WP:MUSIC be satisfied at a later date. B.Wind (talk) 05:25, 11 July 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 closed after nomination withdrawn. Bduke (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of online encyclopedias

~~An alphabetic bullet list of wikilinks. Provides maintenance overhead, but (in this form) no added value compared to Category:Online encyclopedias. Sandstein 13:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn; the list has been improved and is no longer redundant to the category. Sandstein 06:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This has the potential to be more than the indiscriminate list that it is currently. Mandsford (talk) 14:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the deletion, lists like this do add relevant content to Wikipedia, and numerous examples of already established pages support not deleting this one. Pages like List of social networking sites exists, and List of tallest people was nominated for deletion, but kept, despite eloquent arguments about the notability policy, thus the list notability deletion (when it has value, which I argue it does) has a kind of case law in its favor. As far as a category doing a better job to the original purpose, it is not unheard of to have both an article and a category on the subject. For example, the Lists of people is even a part of the Category:Lists of people. Scapler (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, lists and categories can and should coexist. The two lists you link to, however, provide more information than their respective categories. This one does not. Sandstein 16:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But it has the potential to, and that makes it worth keeping. The list as it stands now is a building block to an even better list. Why delete it and take a step backward in development, forcing others to redo all this work in their effort to provide a list that meets your standards for completion? Such an all-or-nothing approach is wasteful. Also we'd be giving up another benefit: by having both lists and categories, you provide 2 methods for gathering links in Wikipedia. Some editors prefer lists (for example I rarely add entries to categories, but I have added thousands upon thousands of links to lists). A list often contains links that the corresponding category does not, and vice versa - so each can be used to update the other! Also, when entries drop off of categories there is no record of it, because categories have no history. Lists do, and therefore they provide a way to track the existence of articles and of link support to a subject - via redlinks. The Transhumanist 19:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because needless redundancy should be avoided. If one writes a list, one should at least make it a bit more useful than its corresponding category. For instance, by making it a sortable table with date and topic fields. That's not asking for completeness, that's common sense. Sandstein 19:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. Work-in-progress applies here. In order to get a list that is a bit more useful than its corresponding category, takes work. Why force all that work to be done all at once? If someone does part of the work, it is there for somebody to come along and do a little more, and then someone else a little more. That's called collaboration. By deleting lists because they "aren't done yet", you are denying list builders the right to put in a little work here and a little work there, and you hamper their collaboration. This is a wiki - the whole idea is for editors to build off of each others' efforts. Under your method, we can't do that, because you expect the list creator to make it "a bit more useful than its corresponding category" from the very beginning. That's dumb, man. Half a list is better than none at all. Stub guidelines apply to lists just as they apply to categories. Besides, a lot of people navigate through articles (including lists) only, and don't rely on the categories much. Me, for instance. The Transhumanist 20:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep - but limit to only internal blue links --T-rex 16:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and strong recommendation that nominator withdraw the nomination - What's going on here? Nominator appears to be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's guideline on lists or with the guideline concerning the relationship between lists and categories. This list of articles (internal links) follows both of those guidelines, and is a healthy component of Wikipedia, adding to Wikipedia the value and benefits specified in those 2 guidelines - which are considerable. Nominator is pushing categories over lists, and that is inappropriate. Neither of these 2 navigation systems has precedence over the other, and the existence of a page in one is not an argument for the deletion of a page in the other. AfD is not the place to conduct a categories vs. list debate, or to push a categories-over-lists agenda. The proper place to propose changes to guidelines concerning the superiority or preference of one these page types over the other would be on the talk pages for those guidelines, plus posting a heads-up announcement at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Please stop trying to delete lists on the grounds that categories are better than lists or that category-only support for a subject is sufficient. They are not. Take it to the pump. I highly recommend that the nominator review the relevant guidelines and withdraw this nomination. The Transhumanist 19:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(e.c.) I'm quite aware of these (overly long) guidelines. I'm not attempting to make or change policy concerning lists vs. categories. I'm not opposed to lists as such, including lists that overlap with categories (see, e.g. my List of Aar bridges in Berne and Category:Bridges over the Aar). I'm opposed, however, to indiscriminate, web-directory-style, poorly conceived-of, poorly laid out, redundant collections of information. Sandstein 19:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC) (Stylistic correction, Sandstein 19:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- How is the list indiscriminate? It is specifically a list of on-line encyclopedias. You can't get much more specific than that! How does an alphabetical arrangement constitute poor layout? And how is the list poorly conceived of? If the subject is poorly conceived of for a list, how is the subject not poorly conceived for a category? Per WP:CLN, redundancy between lists and categories isn't a valid argument for deletion. The Transhumanist 20:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per some of the above. John254 19:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This list provides absolutely no information other than a directory list. Nothing. Therefore, it is redundant to the category, which organizes the information just as well as this list does. This list is superfluous, and should be deleted. seresin ( ¡? ) 19:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that is not true. A list of articles on Wikipedia is not considered a directory, rather it is a table of contents and/or index, and falls under Wikipedia's Contents system, which is a huge network of lists leading to articles on Wikipedia. And redundancy between lists and categories is allowed and even encouraged in the 2 guidelines I posted above. It is clear that you are either oblivious to those guidelines, or you are fighting them by attempting to enforce the opposite. Either way, you are totally out of line. AfD is not the place to push a category vs. list agenda. Please stop. The Transhumanist 19:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, this list contains entries for several encyclopedias for which we don't yet have articles, a feature not available in categories. John254 19:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep - These days, online encyclopedia is getting popular, so this list have a potential to compile more info and is useful to readers who seek such info at one glance. --Caspian blue (talk) 20:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One again, keep - I strongly agree with John254's point. A great feature of this is to allow the creation of redlinks to help improve the encyclopedia, which categories do not provide. I understand you concerns, but lists are useful organizational tools, and removing one with such an obvious narrow concept and a concept of notability at that, would only serve to the detriment of Wikipedia. Scapler (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notice: the list has been expanded in content and formatting. It is now a table, with fields for language and a description. It no longer fits the description provided in the nomination. The Transhumanist 21:41, 3 July 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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arkam Asylum

Only recordings are on a label that's also up for AfD. Sources aren't reliable (e.g. Last.fm) or otherwise non-substantial. They participated at a few festivals, but that isn't a criterion of WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have systematically AfDed both a record label and all the bands signed to it. To assume Good Faith for this would require me to believe that all of these articles, some of which have existed unchallenged for years, have simultaneously become non-notable. I find in incredible to believe this and cannot help wonder if you have some other agenda for this, rather than the best interests of wikipedia's article quality. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try and help but wonder. It is ok for you to assert bad faith, i.e. "tenPound hammer wrote here (diffs galore) that he hates this band and will never rest before they are deleted from wikipedia". If, in suspending your assumption of good faith you have nothing to fall back on but an assumption of bad faith, perhaps you just ought to assume good faith. Assume good faith is meant to work in the trenches, too. It is EASY to AGF for day to day stuff--I make a spelling error or revert another spelling error as vandalism. Where it is hard and especially important to do so is where you seem to have evidence (almost by definition circumstantial) of a pattern. Hammer nominates two articles for deletion, two points makes a line, right? No. This is where AGF steps in. There are 2 million articles on wikipedia. Some will go years without being challenged, but there is no tenure process for articles. It is entirely possible that a non-notable record agency would sign non-notable bands. Protonk (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No aspects of WP:MUSIC passed. tomasz. 14:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 15:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:MUSIC 4 refers to international tours - a condition which was met by EuroRock 2001. It's in the nature of this scene that fans typically travel to festivals, rather than bands performing multi-venue tours. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent coverage of this band beyond blogs and tour notes. Protonk (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

how many refs do you need? You have the Whitby official site for 2002, Infest 2003 and last.fm for EuroRock 2001. None of these are "blogs". That's two major UK festivals and one international festival. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A review. A bio piece in a newspaper or magazine. If they don't meet WP:MUSIC (festivals vs. international tours), then we have to rely on the general notability guidelines. In that case a mention in a schedule counts as a trivial reference (even if infest, last.fm and the whitby sites were RS--whether or not they are is immaterial). Protonk (talk) 04:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSIC is already met by the festivals. Of course the WGW official site is RS for a band list at Whitby! Similarly for Infest. Those are probably the two major UK-based festivals for the industrial / goth scene. Now last.fm might not be the most robust source ever for some extraordinary claim, but it's also perfectly adequate for a EuroRock setlist. If you allege that Arkham Asylum didn't play EuroRock, then I'm all ears to see your cited refs that disprove the reliability of last.fm. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:59, 8 July 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 21:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homeopathic Materia Medica

This article lacks any references asserting notability, and is simply a definition of the term "Materia Medica" with repect to Homeopathy. As the article states, there is no such thing as "the" Homeopathic MM, and the much more notable Homeopathic repertory only warrants a subsection of the main homeopathy page. SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 13:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This seems to be a reasonable stub that begins at the beginning, for a topic whose worthiness of an article seems also fairly self-evident, and should be susceptible of expansion by interested editors. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic has great notability having many thousands of potential sources so I have started to improve and source the article. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment your search is for all MM, not just homeopathic. The fact there seems to be no core MM for homeopathy seems to be part of the problem.

Keep per the article's placebo effect. John254 19:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn if people think this can be expanded (and are willing to do so) then I see no reason for delete at the moment, therefore I withdraw my AfD without prejudice. I would point out that Materia Medica is indeed notable, but a question about Homeopathic MM still exists. Hopefully the article will now be expanded or moved somewhere more appropriate. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 21:22, 3 July 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 insufficient significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 07:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasp Factory Recordings

Non-notable label. No reliable sources, only acts seem to be non-notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:CORP. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 15:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The label, and the strongly associated band / bandmember / head honcho Lee Chaos have been a major fixture in the UK Goth / Industrial scene since the mid-90s. A moment's searching will show this, as their footprint through the net.goth / news:alt.gothic / news:uk.people.gothic is massive. The sheer age of this article is itself indicative of the subject's significance - this isn't just some recent WP vanity page. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This label won the Young Music Professionals Award in 2003 and has had its own entire stage at several major music festivals such as EuroRock, in addition to bands headlining at festivals such as Whitby Gothic Weekend, Convergence and Black Celebration. Their bands have been reviewed favourably, and included on cover-discs/tapes, by major music magazines such as the New Musical Express, Melody Maker and Kerrang!. Wasp Factory Recordings predates blogging culture by about ten years, so most online evidence of its activities will be found on Usenet. I'll try to scan in an old festival programme and edit it so that it can be suitably used as a source whilst remaining fair use. I should also be able to source some quotes. Andrew Oakley (talk) 12:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further evidence: WP:MUSIC states that "A musician or ensemble is notable if it has had some sort of recognition by professional organizations" - met notability as per Young Music Professionals Award; "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable" - met notability for Tarentella Serpentine who did vocals for Sheep On Drugs; "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city" - met notability for Cheltenham & Gloucester through Judder nightclub; etc. etc. etc. The article does need more sources, so perhaps change AFD to WP:VERIFY ? Andrew Oakley (talk) 13:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep - nomination shows unfortunately poor judgement on the part of the nominator, and appears to be part of a mass nomination after people objected to his nomination of DeathBoy. Appears to be a nomination from ignorance. I don't question his good faith, but I do question his judgement in these particular nominations - David Gerard (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm ... DeathBoy was nominated by tomasz. This was nominated by Ten Pound Hammer. Care to explain or retract your comment? --Bardin (talk) 04:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This label is essential to the story of the UK industrial scene. Erstwerst (talk) 12:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article still lacks reliable sources. The award has no indication of notability. It doesn't state who it was from or what it was for. (I removed the reference as it was a press release from wasp factory records). The usenet posts mentions above are not reliable sources. Label does not, in my opinion, have roster of performers, many of which are notable. Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting per RyRy's^{[citation needed]} concerns of notability. Good idea, RyRy. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Gross bad faith relisting by Otter chirps and his sockotters. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Several comments to keep by people aware of the label IRL and familiar with that corner of the music scene. Comments to delete by barrrack-room lawyers only interested in wiki power politics and sniping through the obscure corners of the rulebook. None of these editors appear to have any previous interest in or connection with the UK industrial scene. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like Throbbing Gristle and Cabaret Voltaire, so I do have previous interest in the UK Industrial Scene (although I can't speak for anyone else). We are not lawyers, or "snipping through obscure corners in the rulebook". We're using the set guidelines on Wikipedia, and WP:RS and WP:V are not obscure rules. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've reverted bad faith vandalism by Duffbeerforme, who attempted to reduce verifiability by deleting references from the article. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A change which I clearly stated I had done in my above comment and gave a clear, and I believe valid, reason for. Duffbeerforme (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reliable sources to indicate notability or provide verifiability. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 19:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any realiable sources as one's from the label's website and two are from blogs. Also many of the people voting keep are attacking those who have voted deleted, accusing them of sockpuppetry and other evils. I suggest that they stop being so offended and calm down. Someone mentioned the label being profiled in Melody Maker and New Musical Express. If they had, then please produce them, as they would help your cause. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see no reliable sources (blogs and newsgroups are not reliable in any way), and still stand by my !vote. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

news:alt.gothic / news:uk.people.gothic is a robust primary source for showing the existence of the '90s net.goth movement and the place of Wasp Factory within this this. Google Groups is an adequate, but reliable, secondary archive of this. The fact that everyone on Usenet is insane doesn't change this. You wouldn't trust Usenet to tell you what day of the week it is, but studying Usenet from outside is perfectly reasonable as a way to observe a Usenet-hosted culture in its original environment. This is not only reliable, it's the most reliable way to do it. Access to the primary materials through a reliably objective secondary archive is always going to be better than secondary or tertiary commentary on it. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia relies most heavily on secondary sources; google groups (a forum) cannot be considered a reliable source per WP:RS. News outlets (BBC and NME, for example) would go a bit further toward establishing the claim of notability. Also, sometimes a notable act does not make its label notable - if the label were "at the forefront" of a movement, that should be documented at some reliable source, somewhere independent of the label itself. B.Wind (talk) 04:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google Groups isn't just a forum, it's also a reliable archive of Usenet. Usenet is a forum, but our intention here isn't to use the content of that forum as a source (as I pointed out, everyone on Usenet is insane), rather it's to document the existence on that forum of the pre-web net.goth movement of the '90s. Google Groups is an excellent and reliable source for doing so. Wasp Factory was a significant aspect of that community, both on-line and IRL. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've replied to the previous comment... This article makes no substantive assertion of notability for the label (the fact that a good number of notable acts "have come and gone" from the label does not confer notability on Wasp Factory). In addition, more space is dedicated on the label's unsourced, undated, release list than discussing the workings, history, and business of the label - almost always a bad sign when trying to demonstrate the notability of a record label. Delete for lack of reliable sources in the article showing sufficient independent coverage demonstrating the assertions mentioned above. B.Wind (talk) 05:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notable bands do not imply notable label. My corner Kwik-E-Mart sells such notable producuts as gasoline, Cheez-its and Pepsi, and yet still does not have an article of its own. HiDrNick! 11:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As it stands, the article is reading like an advertisement (i.e. npov), and there doesn't seem to be much information supporting the notability. While there is an interview and a thrid-party bio, it seems quite minimalistic concerning this group. There is a list of releases trying to show impact, but having a mostly red-linked list tends to look awkward under the notability aspect. --Sigma 7 (talk) 00:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't redlinks until the tag-team deleted them. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:21, 13 July 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. Spellcast (talk) 12:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Earth Loop Recall

Tagged since March for lack of notability. Seems to fail WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Andy Dingley (talk) 01:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim of notability in article. No professional reviews found at metacritic; allmusic doesn't have a review and doesn't show the band has charted. Failing evidence of notability appearing, I have to go with delete.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC as both labels mentioned in the article are under AfD for notability/WP:CORP reasons - even if both are kept, there's still not enough for the guideline. B.Wind (talk) 06:19, 11 July 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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xykogen

Doesn't seem to meet WP:BAND. Albums were released on a label that's up for AFD, only sources are primary or unsubstantial. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's disingenuous of you to claim "non-notable because an associated article is up for AfD" when you yourself tagged that article the same day. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it isn't, since he didn't. i did. In addition to which, it's possible both articles are non-notable. That doesn't mean they can't be considered at the same time. tomasz. 14:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your logic is still circular and thus flawed: "the bands are non-notable because they're on a label that's tagged AfD", and "the labels are non-notable because they're only bands that are tagged AfD" -- when they were all tagged in one go! Andy Dingley (talk) 14:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are (in my view) non-notable because they don't pass WP:BAND. tomasz. 14:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I pasted my comment to the wrong vote - I've moved both mine and your reply back to where it should have gone.

Yes, if they're objectively non-notable, then they're non-notable. However the circular fallacy "Albums were released on a label that's up for AFD" still applies to the original statement here. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable (no WP:BAND criteria passed) as are both their record labels if you ask me. tomasz. 14:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Andy Dingley (talk) 01:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Only one full length album. Only secondary source is a short gig review. Duffbeerforme (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:MUSIC 6 applies here too, on the grounds of the link via The Chaos Engine (band)Chain D.L.K. on Eris, Chaos Engine & Wasp Factory. This would admittedly be more obvious is that wasn't a redlink... Andy Dingley (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reading that article I only get that Eris is associated with Wasp Factory, not that he was or is a member of another notable band. Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference between Wasp Factory and The Chaos Engine anyway? (if you're familiar with the scene, you'll understand how overlapped the two were). The point is that Eris (and obviously Lee Chaos) were more notable than either of these individual projects. The nature of the Industrial scene was to have loose groups of the same people, in ever-changing combinations. As it stands it's like trying to argue that a Berry Gordy side-project is notable, when there's no article on himself or the Jackson 5, just one on Diana Ross that doesn't even mention him. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:59, 9 July 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. The article does not demonstrate notability per WP:N nor WP:CORP. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Line Out Records

Seemingly non-notable record label. Prod removed by anon without significant comment or alteration. tomasz. 13:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The alleged "without significant comment or alteration" changes between prod and un-prod may be seen by the diff here. Listing the labels releases and fuller listing of their artists would indeed appear a significant expansion. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:CORP. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 15:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They're the current publishers for a number of bands significant in the UK Industrial scene Andy Dingley (talk) 01:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Currently active label with busy release schedule. One the key players in the current UK industrial/futurepunk scene. Erstwerst (talk) 08:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The undiscussed COI tag placed on this article in the midst of an AfD debate can only be judged to refer to the creator of this article 3 years ago, in relation to content that has no obvious NPOV issue. Remember - COI isn't a ban on contributions, just advice to be cautious with them (let alone the practices of 3 years ago). For the proposer of the AfD to do this during an AfD itself is not an action in good faith and can only be judged to be an attempt to prejudice the AfD. If there's an actual NPOV issue, then talk about it openly - don't just sneak around throwing mud. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i don't think it is necessary to discuss every tag you put on an article. i added the tag in reaction to the fact that the creating editor has the same name as the articlespace: the tag notifies people of this fact. Its usage is not limited to where a definitive NPOV issue is identified or even suspected. The time frame is therefore not strictly relevant. i don't see how the addition of the tag could be prejudicial to the debate, except as "advice to be cautious". Although thanks for your continual assumptions of bad faith. tomasz. 14:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am required to assume good faith as a starting condition and I always strive to do so. However I am not required to continue believing so, in the face of actions contrary to it.

Tagging this article as COI when the AfD is based on notability, not NPOV or COI issues, is an irrelevance. Creating a flimsy justification for doing so based on one 3 year old edit is prejudice. Doing so in the middle of an AfD stretches AGF to the limits of credibility. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't see how COI might relate to notability, i can't be bothered continuing this discussion. You may believe what you wish. tomasz. 14:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to add the COI tag given that the article has been completely altered since the one and only edit made by a COI-related editor. Specifically, the two paragraphs that were written by that COI-related editor is no longer to be found in the article. In other words, the edits made by the COI-related editor have already been cleaned up prior to this AFD. I have removed the COI tag accordingly. --Bardin (talk) 05:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks secondary sources as per WP:CORP. Does not appear to have many notable bands. Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sea of red that doesn't indicate that the label meets the qualifications of WP:CORP. Lack of coverage by independent, reliable sources focusing on the label (and not the acts) hurts the case here. Citations of articles in reliable sources demonstrating the significance and influence of the label in the UK music scene would certainly help here. B.Wind (talk) 05:17, 11 July 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. PhilKnight (talk) 23:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mandi's of Agra

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mandi's of Agra

Delete Pure WP:POV and WP:OR essay Mayalld (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources, factuality is dubious. Huon (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dont Delete I have provided the links to Uttar Pradesh tourism's website also the fact that Agra was around thrice as big as London was also in the BBC's programme 'Story of India'. Also the video of 'Raja Ki Mandi' Station. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lallsons (talk • contribs) 09:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the Uttar Pradesh tourism website contains no information about the Mandis. It mentions a few place names, but that's it. YouTube videos are not reliable sources. I can't judge the BBC programme, but it doesn't seem to tell anything about Mandis anyway. Huon (talk) 12:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not well sourced ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 20:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:36, 5 July 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 a blatant hoax (WP:CSD#G3). PeterSymonds (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Backleswater

Hoax. This town does not exist. D0762 (talk) 13:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G3 Clearly a hoax, not even mentioned in the sources. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:45, 3 July 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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gaspare Mastroianni

The subject of the article fails general WP:Notability criteria as well as Wikipedia:Notability (people). The article is more or less an anecdote about a 19th century Italian immigrant who allegedly taught American people that tomatoes are "good to eat" as opposed to the the supposed 19th century American belief that tomatoes are poisonous. A Google search bring up mostly Wiki-mirror sites and a couple of other blog/self-published sites that mention the anecdote. There are no reliable sources to indicate this person is notable, therefore the article also fails WP:V and WP:RS. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if the only notability of this person is that he taught Americans or in this case people in Pittsburgh that it was safe to eat tomatoes, then this person is does not fulfill Wikipedia:Notability (people) as Thomas Jefferson was the person to truly promote tomatoes as an edible fruit in the United States. I also looked through all of my texts on American cuisine including the Oxford Encyclopedia to American Food and Drink and he did not appear anywhere. The rest of the article is written anecdotaly as the nominator mentions and tells nothing of why this person is notable. I also performed the usual Google search and found nothing about him to help fix or expand the article.--Chef Tanner (talk) 21:17, 5 July 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 01:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alestorm

Heavy Metal Pirates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - albums added by Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable band, not satisfying criteria of WP:music MSGJ (talk) 13:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keephttp://heavymetal.about.com/b/2008/02/02/alestorm-interview.htm http://www.metalstorm.ee/bands/band.php?band_id=2786&bandname=Alestorm http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/BLABBERMOUTH.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=99015 http://www.wacken.com/it/woa2008/main-bands/billing-2008/alestorm08/ This really isn't even close to non-notable. There are also a number of reputable reviews on the album page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.181.195.10 (talk)

You've shown me an interview, a directory listing with nothing else than the band's membership, a primary source, and a piece of PR puffery. Those are not reliable third party sources; the reviews, maybe. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are indeed a few good reviews of their albums online (most notably the About.com reviews), but I doubt the EPs are notable (EPs usually are borderline). I'm not finding very much in the way of sources, but Napalm Records seems to be at least marginally notable, so they might meet WP:MUSIC. I'll await further commentary, however. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that the Wacken link sucks, but that is only to point out that they're playing a Wacken, which is arguably the biggest metal festival on earth. I'm really not that well versed in metal, but I do know that blabbermouth wouldn't cover a non-notable band, and the fact that I've heard of Alestorm suggests notability. Not to mention the extensive edit history. But you're right about the EP's Those articles are likely unnecessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.181.195.10 (talk) 14:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Metal is a tricky subject for AfDs since they usually tend to be "underground", and it's hard to determine sometimes whether a source is truly reliable. If I could find even a news article on Wacken, that would be helpful. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finding a third party article on the Wacken Open Air festival is proving dificult as well, as almost everything I find is simply the addition of a band. But with 70+ bands playing, it might not be all that exclusive either.136.181.195.10 (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: as we have a specific guideline about the notability of music and bands, I suggest you look at wp:music and see if it can be verified if the band meets any of these criteria. MSGJ (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm surprised it's even being considered in the first place. This band is a very much breakthrough act from their first album. Also like half a million views on their myspace, slightly behind Firewind who have their own page. Seriphyn (talk) 08:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the alestorm page should stay, they were notable enough to be featured in Metal Hammer's battle metal themed CD, along with the likes of Turisas, Ensiferum and Finntroll. Infact, I defy anyone to give evidence to show they are not notable enough to stay! -Anon 14:13, 5/7/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.125.122 (talk) 13:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Like Seriphyn above, I am surprised that this is being considered for deletion. There are not one but four different professional reviews listed for Captain Morgan's Revenge and that has to be something of an anomaly for album articles nominated for deletion. Yes, it is their one and only album but it's on a major heavy metal label Napalm Records. Consequently, the band has received plenty of coverage. Aside from the four reviews already listed on the album page, there's interviews here, here, here, here, here, Allmusic bio here, news coverage here, here, here, here, here, here, here, more reviews here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, need I go on? Clearly notable per criteria 1 of WP:MUSIC. --Bardin (talk) 13:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:38, 5 July 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 as he fails WP:ATHLETE. Leave me a note if he plays later in the week and I'll restore the article. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 17:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Lund (footballer)

Contested PROD - no reason given. Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition - only in a pre-season friendly. --Jimbo^[online] 13:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heywhat! I think I bought this guy in Football Manager the other day — chan dler — 13:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ATHLETE - by the way, being featured in Football Manager is not a proof of notability :) (the game includes also players from non-league teams, as far as I know). --Angelo (talk) 13:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for not meeting WP:ATHLETE. I've only ever played the original Football Manager series so can offer no opinion on that aspect of the debate :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - needs investigation to see whether he played for Gothenburg before moving to Villa.Londo 06 14:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 16:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delte. The guy doesn't even have a soccerbase profile, which made me think he might be a hoax. He's mentioned a few times on the Aston Villa [44] site, though, so he's real. He does not, however, pass WP:Athlete, so delete for now and recreate if/when he makes a first team appearance. Vickser (talk) 17:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is real i can assure you of that [45] — chan dler — 21:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 21:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom (Per WP:ATHLETE) ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 20:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think someone needs to check into whether he played for Gothenburg before moving to Villa before deleting the article.Londo 06 22:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's not even listed in IFK Goteborg's official squad [46]. Are you sure he actually signed for IFK Goteborg? --Angelo (talk) 15:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he's signed. [47][48][49]. It can also be noted that he is in the squad playing in the Swedish Cup this week — chan dler — 22:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if he's due to play this week I would hold off on a possible negative decision and see if he plays.Londo 06 10:20, 10 July 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 a non-notable band (WP:CSD#A7). PeterSymonds (talk) 16:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fromdatetobulletin

Non notable band - Previously Prod'ed by another editor. Prod removed but nothing showing notability added. Hunting dog (talk) 13:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. i was the prod'ding editor. i still don't see any notability per WP:BAND. tomasz. 13:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No claim to notablilty Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A7 Doesn't even assert notability/G11 Overly promotional in tone. Either way, delete it speedily for utterly failing WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:30, 3 July 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 Redirect fails the notability guidelines as a seperate article but is an appropriate redirect. Davewild (talk) 09:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Czum

No notability outside band. WP:BAND Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the band. Real Smash Hits stuff; i was half-expecting it to say his favourite colour is blue and his favourite food is pizza. tomasz. 13:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With some work, this article can stay. --Namsos (talk) 19:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Tomasz. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:45, 12 July 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 and redirect. Spellcast (talk) 12:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After the snow

non-notable short story; contested prod - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 12:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - then use title as redirect to After the Snow. Grutness...wha? 01:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, then redirect - no assertion of notability of the short story in a scientific journal. This would be a valid redirect to After the Snow as a likely typo (per top of WP:RfD). B.Wind (talk) 05:42, 11 July 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 no prejudice to an appropriate merge being agreed upon. There is consensus here that this is notable enough to be covered somewhere and not deleted. Davewild (talk) 07:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assault and Peppered

The subject doesn't seem notable enough to have its own article. Instead, it might be better to either delete it, or create a list of episodes, inlcuding this one. StaticGull Talk 12:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Daffy duck episodes are inherently notable. This needs a rewrite-- something I've been doing in the wake of this new editors efforts at creation. I'll be back after lunch to get my thoughts together. Basically per the arguments presented in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Go_Go_Amigo and other related discussions. I wasn't going to edit today, but will make the time to attempt a rescue. There is a List of Daffy Duck cartoons. At worst, gut the plot summary and add real world information (as I've done with some of the creator's other efforts), and merge to the list. Do we have a Daffy Duck Wikiproject? Cheers, Dloh cierekim 15:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded rationale after lunch. They are notable as a huge part of animation history. There is also significant coverage online and even a Google book reference. The article is now rewritten with real world info that is verifiably sourced. The plot summary is gone. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 16:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing but a poorly written plot summery. Daffy duck episodes are inherently not notable --T-rex 16:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Daffy Duck cartoons. I'm not seeing that every Daffy Duck cartoon is inherently notable. If reliable sources turn up showing notability for this one, I'll gladly go to keep.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag for expansion - Warner Brothers theatrical cartoons are notable per their listings in various movie databases. Granted, this is one of the weakest on the Warner Brothers collection (it was actually made by DePatie-Freleng for Warner Brothers, which had just closed its cartoon studios), but Wikipedia doesn't make value judgments as to cartoon quality/quality regarding inclusion/exclusion. The article needs expansion regarding plot and production details, but that's not a reason to delete. B.Wind (talk) 05:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I'm leaning towards redirecting, but it seems as if the list of episodes is mostly red linked. Redirecting these articles to the list would require obtaining a summary of these episodes. --Sigma 7 (talk) 00:25, 13 July 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. Spellcast (talk) 12:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adprom

The subject doesn't seem notable enough. And even if it is notable enough, it belongs on Wiktionary. StaticGull Talk 12:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TranswikiTagged for this. Prashanthns (talk) 12:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:NEO and WP:CSD A1. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (but not speedy, as A1 doesn't apply). Gsearch is only showing this usage on Urban Dictionary; gnews isn't showing this usage at all.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:44, 5 July 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 as mostly nonsensical essay. Sandstein 23:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gothic Ceremonies

Delete Essay that contains a hell of a lot of WP:OR Mayalld (talk) 12:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Confusingly written, definitely original research, if it's not a hoax.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 14:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has alot of references in the literature it has mentioned, I think the article should just be formated abit better, alot of the material which is discussed in the article is common knowledge to alot of people in the world —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.163.136.135 (talk) 23:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

should the bolding of references under the "Highly Recognised Ceremonial books from the Gothic World" title be replaced with italics —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.163.136.135 (talk) 02:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The whole section should probably be deleted (not to mention the whole article). Are "Mein Kampf" (by Adolf Hitler) and "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" (by the Tsar's secret police) really Gothic ceremonial books?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The books mentioned above were written by notable peoples of Gothic ancestory in times of violent revolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.135.113.228 (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note most of the literature influenced wicca, paganism & the new age movement as opposed to the dark side of gothic culture like the technocracy & the void engineers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.135.113.228 (talk) 08:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where are your references that wicca etc are influenced by the Goths? And Hitler was a Goth? - where is your evidence that such people are descended from the Goths? (And sure, technically it's possible for anyone in Europe to be descended from a Goth, but that's no more relevant than being descended from any other European tribe - no one considers it part of their culture anymore, and it is only the sort of thing you could discover with DNA testing.) Mdwh (talk)

hitler was born in east germany near austria, he is definitely a goth, he venerated the swastika & other pagan symbols, this does not mean that anyone who venerates these symbols will be a warlord, most people venerate the symbols in a peaceful manner.

Delete To be honest it's confusing what this is about - the title is "Gothic Ceremonies", but there is no lead defining what it's about, instead going straight to something called the "Gothic World". I presume it's talking about Goths, which we already have an article for (and I've not heard referred to as the "Gothic World"?) But then it jumps to things such as books and New Age, that came long after the Goths disappeared. Seems a confusing mix of things that are better covered in existing articles. No references. No cats either - I was going to categorise, but I have no idea what to put it in... Mdwh (talk) 09:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there is no existing articles which point reference to gothic ceremonies or lists the books that will instruct someone how to partake in these ceremonies. apart from the aurom solis article.

the goths never disappeared their are people today who call themselves goths, the books listed describe gothic ceremonies as they are suppose to be celebrated, you have to read one of the books to understand what the Ogdoadic tradition is about, the books listed span at least 2000 to 3000 years, maybe 10 000 years according to the red book of westmarch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.135.113.228 (talk) 10:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"their are people today who call themselves goths" - who? (I presume you are not suggesting that goths are descended from Goths...) Mdwh (talk) 10:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the books you mentioned are not to be revealed to the general public most are stored in libaries around the world it is the hermetic tradition after all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.163.137.77 (talk) 10:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the public have a right to know, they should know what these books are called so they can gain access to them & read them for themselves, I know its the hermetic tradition to keep the books hidden from public view & this has been the policy for the past 2000 years or 10000 years as suggested in the article, but times have changed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.163.137.77 (talk) 10:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 58.163.137.77 seems to be saying that it is not possible to comply with WP:VERIFY in this case. The collocation is pretty much unknown to Google apart from wedding ceremonies tailored to Goth subculture. William Avery (talk) 13:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Please note a very large chunk of Gothic_Ceremonies#Highly_Recognised_Ceremonial_books_from_the_Gothic_World seems to be re-formatted Copy-vio of this [50]-Hunting dog (talk) 13:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the article seeing you all feel it is not suitable for wikipedia -> if you change your mind email me at mantra@spraci.zzn.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bindigoat (talk • contribs) 13:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted. The template is explicit that the article must not be blanked during an AfD Mayalld (talk) 14:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

20-Mule-Team Delete:" The "Technocracy" and the "Void Engineers?" I'm more comfortable when Wikipedia articles purporting to be real world fact don't take their sourcing from White Wolf roleplaying games, and that's about all the commentary this clear WP:BULLSHIT violation warrants. I wouldn't call it WP:NOR so much as something made up for last weekend's gaming session. RGTraynor 16:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It struck me that way too - couldn't quite pin it down but the upper level of the site the Copy-vio is from is related to that game also see [51] and various sections read a lot more like gaming guides than real world articles. -Hunting dog (talk) 20:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is not helpful to a reader looking for information, be the inquiry about modern goths, ancient Goths, or white wolf roleplaying games. If I thought it could be re-written I would try it myself but there are just too many claims that need sources and many that I suspect I would struggle to find a credible source for. So I say delete. TheSlothBear (talk) 03:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it looks more of an essay then an encyclopedia article. Marlith (Talk) 04:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have spend 20 years research in writing this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bindigoat (talk • contribs) 04:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You'll forgive our doubts, given (a) the vast number of elements that are directly taken from the 1995 Mage: The Ascension roleplaying game (such as the Technocracy, Void Engineers, the Euthanatos, the Order of Hermes and the Celestial Chorus) and (b) that most of the article is just a list of publically known (or rumored) books. RGTraynor 18:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Salvagable content can be moved into the appropriate articles, list of books can easily be done without. John Carter (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is an insult to patent nonsense. Al Azif is a fictional author of the fictional Necronomicon (which is described, though the title is mysteriously not mentioned as it might be too much of a giveaway). This is a complete work of fiction being passed off as something researched. Tie a piece of lead to it and kick it off the deck! LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Right now the article seems to be entirely original research. There's no evidence anyone but an editor has a definition of "gothic" divided into these three groups or connects this particular list of books to the concept. The recognizable books don't seem to be sources for the concept. They seem to be books an editor believes are related. Comments such as "The Technocrats & the Void Engineers are often accused of corrupting the work of the Mages by taking away peoples telepathic skills, community spirit, craft skills & material creation abilities," presented as fact, suggest an essay or political manifesto on an editor's part. --Shirahadasha (talk) 08:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Suggest the author consider taking a break from Wikipedia editing. Although it's true anyone can edit anything, even a mage's ability to shape reality to ones will in the Wikipedia world can be more limited than it might first appear, and this can be something of a bummer, metaphysically speaking. How about another game of Mage: The Ascension? Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 08:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete With statements like "The Lord of the Rings is said to be a 10 000 year old history of Gothic Culture by many people." its obvious this is (at best) a non-notable fringe theory, if not an outright hoax. Edward321 (talk) 15:36, 6 July 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 01:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mbnomics

I didn't want to just delete, so here you are... all I could find that was decent was this. Alex Muller 12:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's this, this and this in addition to 6000-odd links on google to several korean newspapers and other sites that use this term for the economic policy....sometimes, as if it were very popular. It does seem to be a widely accepted word in Korea at least. Here's a pdf document from the ADB website and here's another from the AFDB. Prashanthns (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By all means, feel free to enlighten me as I dont pretend to know all things wiki... however, shouldnt this be a wikitionary thing? On one hand, we do have terms like Baby Mama... so I'm torn. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 12:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepNeeds re-write. There are enough secondary sources (see above). Used widely in the Korean press (per google search). Prashanthns (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Conditional~~ Keep - The conditional aspect of my keep opinion is that the article be written from a Neutral point of view. The current version is extremely POV. I’ll clean it up a little, but this is definitely not my field of expertise. The primary reason for my keep, is that I believe it has established enough media attention, as shown here [52] to meet our criteria for inclusion on [[Wikipedia]. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Struck conditional and POV comments in that I have cleaned up and sourced. ShoesssS ^Talk 16:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Just enough content to not be a WP:DICDEF or WP:NEO but more english references are needed for verifiability. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Oh I agree, that’s what I am working on now. We should be able to get two to three paragraphs at least. Definition of the actual policy – implementation of the policy and current views of the policy. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:45, 5 July 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.

Additional Moog

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Addtional moog

Only one album. No other real claim to notability Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The source is just coverage of a concert they played. I couldn't find any other sources, so right away they fail WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A 2 year old unnotable article with no reliable sources. Artene50 (talk) 09:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:46, 5 July 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. Sandstein 23:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It survival kit

Delete Wikipedia is not a how to guide Mayalld (talk) 12:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Not only per the nominator's reasoning, but this probably could be deleted under SPAM, in that the crux of the article is for the reader to contact info@bccmanagement.com. However, if an editor wanted to start a piece under "IT Disaster Recovery", I give them a hand as there does seem established Notability in this subject field as shown here [53]. ShoesssS ^Talk 12:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per the above --T-rex 16:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above spam and WP:NOT. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi All i agree about the email, but i copied and pasted the article and it had the email link so for sure it is to be removed and as far as the contents it is the same concept as the article "Emergency Survival Kits" or "Survival kit " under wikipedia.

And as far as the category i have to agree with --T - Talk it does fall under "IT DISASTER RECOVERY" thank you --T-Talk 10:06 AM , 4 July 2008

Delete Per mayalld (nom i think) ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 20:32, 4 July 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. Keeper | 76 | what's in a name? 22:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pattamana

Non notable family article.No references -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 11:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced : (per nom) Provide references or else delete. -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 12:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —-- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 12:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no prejudice to a recreated sourced article. Spellcast (talk) 12:27, 11 July 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 no consensus to delete, default to keep. WP:V does not outright mandate deletion, because most listed media have articles that are (presumedly) sourced. No prejudice to a rewrite, merge, etc. Sandstein 23:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Simpsons media

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of The Simpsons TV ads

I have been thinking of how to save this list a lot, but I have come to the conclusion that it should get deleted per Wikipedia's policies. The list has several problems:
The first is that it is really not a "complete" list of Simpsons media. It is an overview over the seasons combined with a list of Simpsons ads and music videos. Since the seasons are only presented in a overview form, they cannot be considered complete. I don't even think we need a season overview. If people wants to read about the episode, they can go to List of The Simpsons episodes. If they want to read about the short, they can go to The Simpsons shorts. This article is basically an excuse to make a list over ads and if you go through the history of this page you will learn that it was previously called "List of The Simpsons TV ads".
This brings me to the second major problem. The list of Simpsons ads is both incomplete and unsourced. I wouldn't actually mind a list over the Simpsons ads as long as it was sourced by reliable sources, but that is not the case. I have been looking all over the internet. I can't find any reliable sources to cover this. Heck, I can't even find any unreliable sources. I have also looked it up in google books and in newsbank with no result. I have also requested sources at the talk page and at the Simpsons Wikiproject, but with no result. As long as we can't find any reliable sources it has to get deleted per Wikipedia's content policies.
In conclusion, I will recommend a ~~deletion~~ for this incomplete and unsourced list. --Maitch (talk) 10:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. --Maitch (talk) 10:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. --Maitch (talk) 10:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Maitch (talk) 10:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Transform into ad article~~ While it is interesting to see this list, I'm not really sure how helpful it actually is to know that an ad ran for 30 seconds about "Bart takes Homer's Butterfinger while he's buried under sand.". At the same time I notice we don't haven an article for the Simpsons and ads. Given the extensive use of The Simpsons in advertisement, it might make for a good article. I don't think a full and detailed list would be totally necessary (some examples, yes, but not every tiny detail like "Homer digs a Butterfinger BB.". I don't think we even mention the very large ad campaign with Butterfinger outside of this page. -- Ned Scott 11:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But what are going to do about sources? --Maitch (talk) 11:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are plenty of sources for the Butterfinger ads: [54]. Not sure about the rest. Zagalejo^^^ 18:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first book listed here could be somewhat helpful, although I can't get a fuller preview. Zagalejo^^^ 19:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I figured we could find sources for the general information about the ad campaigns, but probably not for each and every specific ad. My position here is kind of odd, since realistically the resulting article would look completely different. I guess we could just delete this page and start from scratch. -- Ned Scott 00:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant in my original statement was that there is no way to source this list. I could take a look at ad campaigns later. I think we can make a paragraph out of it. I don't really think it is enough for an entire article. Perhaps it could just get added to the main article. --Maitch (talk) 06:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding to the main article would be fine with me. I guess I'd consider myself neutral on this specific list, for the time being. -- Ned Scott 06:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you try going and asking the people who originally wrote the article how they sourced it? - rst20xx (talk) 13:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this list is very old. It is made by several people and most of them haven't been active on Wikipedia in several years. --Maitch (talk) 13:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge: It seems that there is a small chance that the list will ever be comprehensive, but the topic as a whole is notable, so a paragraph in the main Simpsons article should suffice. –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am really on the fence on this one. Sources would help a lot. I added the prior AFD discussion above (it was before the article was renamed). Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 10:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The piece should concentrate on a “List of the Simpson characters in advertisements”, and get rid of the lists Simpsons episodes and The Simpsons shorts as the nominator points out, they already have separate articles. I believe if an editor took this approach, there is more than enough Scholarly works to establish Notability as shown here [55]. ShoesssS ^Talk 12:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thank you for commenting. It is true that you can find scholarly sources on the Simpsons and advertising, but you can't find sources that covers what is written in this list. How do you reference stuff like this below?

#	First Aired	Title	Length	Description
1	1988	No Teasing	30 seconds	Bart teases Lisa about having the last Butterfinger in the house.

People don't publish books which contains summaries of televisision ads. When you can't cite this, what is left then? Nothing, except for the title and the article history. --Maitch (talk) 14:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think we are both reading the same book, but on different pages :-). My keep opinion is based on the believe that the list can be useful and an integral part of an article that pertains to Simpson characters in advertisements. On the one hand, I am in agreement with you, that we should not just have lists to have lists. On the other, I believe that the list can be used to support an interesting piece that is both notable and verifiable. While the list does need some additional cites and references and the whole piece does need a major makeover, I go with the old adage: “…let’s not throw out the baby with the dirty bath water”. ShoesssS ^Talk 15:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the topic has good secondary sources, I don't see a problem with citing primary sources for parts of the article. At a guess, you can find the ad somewhere. That's enough for WP:V in this case. And WP:N is met by the other sources. Hobit (talk) 16:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point. The list in itself is not notable, but the topic is since it is covered by multiple reliable sources. We don't need sources for the descriptions, but we do need sources for the dates and lengths.

Weak keep Seems plenty sourceable, I'm just not sure that the topic is in any way notable. But meets the letter of WP:N et. al.Hobit (talk) 17:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: what I'm suggesting we keep is Simpson characters in advertisements and perhaps the music videos as everything else appears to exist elsewhere. It could link to the episodes and shorts lists as needed. Hobit (talk) 17:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am now willing to make a page that focuses on advertising with The Simpsons. It could also contain a discussion on the advertising that they are parodying. I'm not too crazy about the title you suggesting. If think the old "List of The Simpsons TV ads" is better, but that is a minor problem, which can be discussed later. I don't think there needs to be a list over the music videos. I have never seen a list like that elsewhere on Wikipedia and the descriptions are pretty bad: "A music video featuring Bart Simpson and other characters from The Simpsons." What is interesting about that list is already covered elsewhere. --Maitch (talk) 10:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine too. I just think the overlap with the DVDs/seasons isn't needed. I do think the music videos should go somewhere, but I'm not sure here is the right place. Hobit (talk) 17:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this article/list fails WP:NOT#IINFO. It is not clear where the idea for this article came from as no reliable secondary sources have been cited, so the article fails WP:V and WP:N. I think we can conclude that this list is basically a POV fork from other lists of Simpsons episodes.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:04, 7 July 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 No consensus to delete, agreement on whether the subject is notable or not couldn't be reached. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Gaylor

Unreferenced autobiography that fails WP:BIO. --DAJF (talk) 13:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —DAJF (talk) 13:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —DAJF (talk) 13:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ I have expanded the article and added four references[56] but despite the modest amount of coverage he has received he is still an indie director with no notable films. (To closing admins: if this is still the only vote when it comes time to close it please re-list, more discussion is needed). -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 22:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the addition of even more sources by Paul Erik. -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 05:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I've also now added several references: articles in The Gazette, Variety, Playback, and the Montreal Mirror. None are exclusively about Gaylor, but they are all non-trivial mentions, likely enough for the "basic criteria" of WP:BIO. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment since its frowned on to add stuff about oneself, re: "notable films" - http://www.nfb.ca/collection/films/fiche/?id=51284&v=h&lg=en

I am also on the executive of the Quebec chapter of the Documentary Organization of Canada.

http://www.docquebec.ca/executive/#brett

- BG —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etherworks (talk • contribs) 13:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - how does an article on Lessig act as a source for this article? --T-rex 01:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article (from the San Francisco Chronicle) mentions Gaylor's film The Basement Tapes, has a quote from Gaylor, and verifies that Gaylor is from Montreal. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 10:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - just about sufficient media coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 10:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources have been posted that show this guy isn't "the average Joe", so I have no concerns with keeping this article. If an article doesn't fail any policies, and the subject has some notability, I believe we should keep it.--SJP (talk) 12:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Referring to WP:CREATIVE, I don't believe Mr. Gaylord has yet achieved any of the criteria. The closest would appear to be "(c) has won significant critical attention" for which it may be argued that his win at Banff in 2005 would suffice, but I am not convinced that it does. PKT (talk) 16:52, 7 July 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 redirect to wealth. Notability is very ambiguous in cases of this sort, but given the narrowness and simplicity of the topic, as well as the strong topical overlap with wealth, there's little benefit to keeping a separate article. I'll leave the history intact in case someone does decide to merge some of the content. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 10:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Financial freedom

Contested prod. Dictionary definition with shades of personal essay. No realistic prospect of becoming encyclopedic since the phrase is a massively broad marketing term that can mean all things to all people. Debate 木 10:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having stumbled across this when patrolling new pages, without expressing a view on notability of the term, it does nevertheless appear to be a newly coined neologism and as such generally not notable enough to be included. HOwever without expert knowledge of the field I do not feel I can contribute enough to give a definite opinon. BigHairRef | Talk 10:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above comment posted to wrong article? Since the article was created 22 October 2004... Debate 木 10:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No I use the phrase newly coiined in the sense on WP:NEO, i.e. it mmay be well known in certain communities and well used, perhaps for some time but still a relatively recent neologism which doseen't necessarily enjoy 'universal' usage. As I said I don't necessarily think that the phrase is one (alhtough later scholar searches may seem to indicate it isn't), but that I thought that ip appears to be one under WP:NEO. If it is just a definition of a phrase as having viewed various edits it probably is, rather than deletion I would suggest that it merits Transwiking to Wiktionary (and sorry to keep using it :) ) again as suggested in WP:NEO. Now you all wish I'd stop going on about the policy, I'll shut up. BigHairRef | Talk 06:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair enough. :) I picked up on the "patrolling new pages" part of your comments, but your point regarding WP:NEO is well made. Debate 木 06:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was a fair question given the way I'd phrased it, I've made considerably worse ones. BigHairRef | Talk 13:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was bold and redirected it to Wealth. Plrk (talk) 10:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination provides no evidence to support its assertion that the article cannot be improved. A brief search indicates that there are thousands of scholarly sources which is good evidence there is much potential for improvement. Redirecting to Wealth does not seem appropriate since this does not cover the essential element of financial freedom - that one is free from worry and stress. This is a matter of psychology as much as economics. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How does financial freedom free you from worry and stress? Financial freedom, per definition, means freedom from financial worries - but not from all worries. Prosperity redirects to Wealth, and Wealth seems to cover everything Financial freedom covers. Your "scholarly" ("The 9 Steps to Financial Freedom" doesn't sound very scholarly to me) sources most probably does not differentiate between wealth and financial freedom, and neither should we. Plrk (talk) 13:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The search link above provides 2630 hits. Some are not useful so we focus upon the ones that are. For example, from International Journal of Stress Management: ...and a sense of financial freedom were particularly useful in predicting life satisfaction. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - And how does your quote differentiate financial freedom from wealth? Plrk (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The source describes a mental state rather than an amount of money. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not necessarily with prejudice. The term itself may be worthy of some article, somewhere down the line. The instant text doesn't seem all that helpful (mostly it boils down to "financial freedom = being rich") and it also seems chock full of original research:

The statement Financial Freedom is used by financial institutions to convince the public to give them their money thinking that these very institutions will achieve financial freedom for the public, when in fact it further creates financial freedom for the institutions and the public gets what's left. Only people can create financial freedom for themselves. Most people lack the needed financial education to create wealth therefore they fall prey to sales promises.

Strip out the tautology and original research, and there isn't anything left. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to wealth No prejudice against breaking the redirect and recreating if and when an editor wants to make an ACTUAL article. Don't bother merging. There isn't anything in this worth putting into another article (as of this comment). Matter of fact, I'll just do that right now. Protonk (talk) 17:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Delete it then. Protonk (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wealth Two people have been bold and redirected it, both times we have been undone. Therefore we now await the judgment of an administrator. Plrk (talk) 00:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has been greatly improved through doctoring by Colonel Warden.--Firefly322 (talk) 04:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has certainly been improved, but the main problem with the article remains despite Colonel Warden's admirable efforts to rescue it. The phrase "financial freedom" is a marketing term that is essentially undefinable. Per WP:NEO, it's not our job to define it no matter how widespread it is used, and no matter how many books or references appear to use the phrase in a variety of different ways and contexts. Debate 木 06:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why bother to edit the article then? Why, User:Debate, add a link to the article on wealth at 00:54 this morning [57] to the see also section? --Firefly322 (talk) 10:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly possible to define financial freedom. I used a form of words in the lede which seems adequate. If the exact definition is disputed then we may cite sourced definitions such as Financial freedom is the state of being contented with your financial situation. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the issue here is whether or not the phrase itself is definable (someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) but whether or not it is a notable phrase with significant enough coverage to pass WP:N and WP:V. I may be oversimplifying it but I'd say that if the phrase is a newly coined neologism (assuming we're talking the policy's definition of newly coined, i.e. not in widespread usage), then it dosen't pass WP:N. If it is a phrase in general usage then I think that some sources other than what are essentially primary ones to do with financial reports etc would be needed, i.e. in the outside world. Not being OTT of course passing reference or even close reference would do but all the refernces seem to come from one general area i.e. the specialised financal domain, which would suggest to me it is a neologism. 13:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
[edit conflict with the above by BigHairRef] This is getting silly, but seriously, using the "Money Today" column in the Nigerian Tribune as a principle source for defining anything, let alone a "notable concept" in finance and economics, strikes me as somewhat desperate. Since I appear to have been insufficiently clear in making my main point I'll try to clarify: per WP:NEO, the problem is not a lack of definitions, it's too many ad hoc definitions making the concept far too slippery for an encyclopedic article. This whole discussion is one very good example of the problems associated with relying too heavily on search engine results. Debate 木 13:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Nigerian Tribune appears to be a reputable newspaper which has been published for over 50 years and the text that I cited seems quite satisfactory. Please explain why this is not a reliable source. You have produced no sources at all to substantiate your assertions which seem to be just your personal opinion. You are welcome to your opinion but "because I say so" is not an adequate reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nor is "because I say so" an adequate reason to keep. Debate 木 02:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Financial freedom appears in the title of over 500 books. This is a massive level of notability which one rarely sees here. The common usage of this phrase also disposes of WP:NEO since it demonstrates that the phrase will be readily understood by our readership, which is the point of that guideline. In any case, WP:NEO is never a reason to delete since one just rewords using more familiar language. My impression is that the real complaint is here is that this is some sort of WP:SPAM. I have, I trust, disposed of this by completely rewriting the article in neutral language. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't, even with your own search Google Books only returns 119. (Scan forward a few pages and see how many are actually there.) What you appear to be arguing is that frequency of occurrence in search engines is the defining criteria for notability, the fallacy of which can be easily refuted by Googling Financial Slavery, or any other grammatically correct but otherwise largely random collection of words. Per WP:GOOGLE, "Measuring is easy. What's hard is knowing what it is you're measuring and what your measurement shows." Debate 木 14:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a puzzle that Google's hit count misleads in this way but, no matter - whether it is 100 books or 500, we are still hitting the challenge of notability out of the ballpark. It seems apparent that the topic of financial freedom is of great interest to a great many readers and so it is worthy of notice. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not that the term is non-notable or newly coined. It is, like prosperity, simply redundant to wealth. I'd say "prosperity" differs more from "wealth" than "financial freedom" does, and "prosperity" is a redirect to "wealth". "Financial freedom" should be too. There is no need for two article on essentially the same thing. Plrk (talk) 17:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. In business and finance literature there is NO shortage of new wine in old bottles. Every year, hundreds of "finance" books are printed and consigned to airport bookstores. Very few of them present novel concepts. This isn't necessarily the author's fault. Publishers often demand that a book make some new claim or present some new phrasing in order to become the next "tipping point" or "random walk" (though those BOTH have strong pedigrees in scientific literature). We may go back and forth as to what we think "financial freedom" means apart from "wealth", but most of the differences are minor. Financial freedom is subjective, to be sure, but wealth is subjective, too. Financial freedom may mean escape living month to month (and this is probably the clearest it may be defined away from wealth), but then how notable is that distinction? How homogeneous is that distinction? We have 100 some odd books that use the words "financial freedom" but do they all mean the same thing? Do most of them mean the same thing? Protonk (talk) 20:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All well made points. As you imply, the problem with definition goes both ways - there are a wide range of related phrases, several of which are used more often than 'financial freedom', such as "financial independence", "financial security", "financial comfort", "economic independence", etc. all of which appear to overlap the broad meaning of the phrase 'financial freedom', at least in some usages. Debate 木 02:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Independent of this AfD, there exists a merger proposal here at Wealth. Interested editors may provide input on the merge (specifically) there. When the AfD closes, I will probably transclude "merge" related comments from here to there. Protonk (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Making this proposal in parallel with this AFD discussion seems unnecessarily disruptive. It is better to have all the discussion in one place. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ask that you assume good faith. This discussion will conclude in 5 days. The merger discussion has no time limit. If the community determines that "financial freedom" is independent from wealth, then the pages will remain separate. Protonk (talk) 20:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - I'd say It's only appropriate, as this is a deletion discussion and not a merging discussion. Plrk (talk) 20:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would broadly support a merger with Wealth, although I'm not convinced that the resulting redirect is particularly helpful. Since AFD is not a vote I'll leave it to the closing admin to wade through the options see which makes more sense, or relist. Debate 木 02:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I remain concerned that this is nothing more than a WP:DICDEF that has no clear potential for expansion, at least, not without a fair amount of original research. Debate 木 02:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not a neologism. The term was used in Savage Garden's Affirmation which is nearly 10 years old. --Candy-Panda (talk) 13:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might be misunderstanding the term neologism. Although I understand the use of "recent" in the policy's introductory paragraph is unfortunate, in that what is "recent" is at least arguable, the critical definition for our purposes can be found in the main article, "a neologism is a word, term, or phrase that has been recently created (or "coined"), often to apply to new concepts, to synthesize pre-existing concepts, or to make older terminology sound more contemporary" (my emphasis), which I would suggest is very much what this term is. nb. I'm pretty sure that no one here is arguing that the term was not in use 10 years ago, I certainly am not. Debate 木 13:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list of sources I cited above includes a book written in 1926. That's over 80 years ago so we don't need to look any further. It is not a neologism for this and other reasons and, even if it were, this would still be no reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even if the term is a neologism, then it is still a notable concept, being in the titles of a number of different books. For example, Suze Orman (The 9 steps to financial freedom), and Van K. Tharp (Trade Your Way to Financial Freedom and Safe Strategies for Financial Freedom). The term means that a person has control over their personal economy, and though it is correlated with wealth, it is not identical. Even a wealthy person with high income can find themselves burdened with excessive debt and expenses. The article as it is now is a stub and should be expanded, but the concept is so well-covered in literature that a stand-alone article seems justified. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having considered my view after initially coming accross the page by chance, I feel that if the phrase is not a newly coined neologism, then the article is clearly a dictionary definition which is seriously inlikely to ever be expanded beyond that. BigHairRef | Talk 14:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wealth. This dictionary definition cannot stand on its own, and there doesn't seem much in the article to merge into the target. B.Wind (talk) 06:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:DICDEF which carefully explains the difference between a stub and a dictionary definition. This is not a matter of length. The only reason that this item is short is that care has been taken to cite sources and this is painstaking, laborious work for which no-one is paying me. If I instead wrote freely then I could soon fill pages as others have shown by writing numerous books on this topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The problem with most of the Google-based keep arguments is that none of these sources are actually about "financial freedom". What the sources are about is wealth creation. Following the discussion above and further thought, I've returned to my original conclusion that "financial freedom" is not even a neologism, it's just a couple of words that happen to occasionally occur adjacent to each other when people are discussing wealth. A phrase is not notable simply because it is used frequently (or in this case, infrequently). Debate 木 08:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, amassing wealth is just one route to financial freedom. Other routes include reduction of outgoings, cultivation of mental attitudes and clarification of life goals. The books on the subject usually seem to cover these aspects and presumably that why they use the phrase financial freedom to indicate this wider scope. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation of the extracts clearly differs dramatically from mine. Without going into detail, the first few hits I get for "financial freedom" on google books are described as (in this exact order) 1) "[title is about] how to obtain control over their money through changing their spending habits; how to understand investments, retirement, insurance, and credit...", 2) "[Title] is filled with the kind of information that will help virtually all traders and investors substantially increase their income", 3) "[title] shows you how to know in 30 seconds whether you should be in or out of the market", 4) "[title is about] Legal and practical strategies for getting out of debt and making a fresh start", etc. etc. None appear to spend much time on "cultivation of mental attitudes and clarification of life goals", which appears to be part of your definition, which may even be a good one except it's OR unless you can find it in reliable sources. Debate 木 09:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also since you wave at Google-based, we must note that this states: Multiple hits on an exact phrase in Google Book Search provide convincing evidence for the real use of the phrase or concept. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

QED what? Debate isn't arguing that the term is not in use. that isn't the sense of neologism that we are talking about. He (as well as me) is arguing that it is a term constructed by business guide book writers and financial analysts in order to sell books. That it isn't fundamentally separate from wealth in terms of the concept. that the sense that "financial freedom is in the head" and "wealth is not" is neither fully supported by the literature nor sufficient grounds to justify an article separate from wealth. Protonk (talk) 13:13, 11 July 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 consensus, welcoming anyone to find even more refs to head off a 3rd nom in the future (non-admin closure). Finalnight (talk) 06:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bloviate

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia articles are not usage guides or slang and idiom guides Rtphokie (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because article not a usage guide (refuting nominator's argument) and subject is notable. Nowhere in the article does it guide or presume to guide readers regarding the usage of the subject; an article about a slang is not automatically a user guide for that slang. In addition, a brief google search shows it has been written about in multiple reliable and independent secondary sources. The page needs a good copy edit, but does not warrant a delete.-Samuel Tan 09:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't feel much can be said about this to create a full article, infact everything covered in this bloviated article, is covered in the very short and precise wiktionary definition, minus the unnecesary and unreferenced coments. On a slightly less serious note, i think we should can it because it's only in Merriam-Webster, but i notice it's not in the Oxford English, and we should only take real dictionaries seriously. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 09:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For now I'm going to stay neutral on this, and see how this discussion unfolds. We can define the slang word[58], and it appears to be commonly used.[59] [60] [61]I believe there's a chance we can get some information from reliable sources on this that isn't a definition, so I'm going to see if any sources like that are brought up here. If we can't find any reliable sources that don't just offer a definition, then we should delete this for violating WP:NOT. If we can find information thats not just a definition, then we should keep this.--SJP (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This world has a rich cultural history and several reliable sources which discuss the word specifically (rather than just using it.) Google news archive shows 616 entries for "bloviate" including the Rocky Mountain News (1994) calling it "a beautiful verb" in "'BLOVIATE' A DELIGHTFUL, UNDISCOVERED VERB [62]." The New York Times discussed its history and application in "Journal; The Bloviators' Ball "(1999)[63] and earlier in 1972. Its long absence from dictionaries was discussed in the Boston Globe (April 4, 1999):"The real mystery is why the lexicographers ignored bloviate for so many years. ... Like disconnect, bloviate somehow eluded the radar of most slang ..." If multiple reliable sources have substantial coverage in discussions of the word, it seems to be notable. Most dictionary words lack such coverage (as opposed to simple usage). (Rather than deletion, perhaps it could be redirected to one of the blowhard radio talkers. I could make a recommendation ;<) Edison (talk) 00:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Edison's sourcing above provides notability and sufficient material to move the article beyond a strict dicdef. Protonk (talk) 16:25, 5 July 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 with nobody except the author defending this odd aggregation of data. Sandstein 22:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of British military, naval and air force figures by wealth at death

Contested prod. List of two (actually, four) largely unrelated subjects. One country, one group of people, one characteristic, and one moment in their life. Page is a synthesis of data gleaned from reliable sources, but is as such (wealth of military figures at time of death) not a subject of any notable research or commentary. Wealth (and, probably more importantly, class and family) played a large role in British military history (to make it overly simplified, if you were a nobleman, you became an officer: otherwise you didn't), but that doesn't mean that your wealth at the time of your death had any relation to this. And of course any job means an income, so there is some relation there. But there is no significant reason to single out the wealth at death of this occupation. A novelty list, not a representation of a subject that has received consioderable scientific attention or mass media attention. Fram (talk) 07:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a database of spurious data. This article provides information unspecific to those listed, or to notable canditates, with only notable subject's listed. It provides no encylopeidc insight, or useful links (in the literary sense) to other articles. The criteria for inclusion is also far too broad, and provides completely unnecessary information which i wouldn't personally include on each ot the members articles, never mind a central record that serves absolutely no purpose. Perhaps we should have a page about how many kittens every man or woman who has ever served in the British Military has ever had. Put me down for 2. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 09:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 10:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a meaningful classification of these people. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above, and WP:not-a-directory. Buckshot06(prof) 11:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, or move. No unifying theme for an article. Only theme is that of military service and being British, thereby rendering the list incomplete (forever) and not particularly coherent. However, I recommend looking into a move to Wikibooks if possible, because the information seems well documented (though not up-to-date) and it may prove useful to future researchers on these particular individuals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trippz (talk • contribs) 12:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet wikipedia standards Kalivd (talk) 14:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:SYN --T-rex 16:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Save The research, while not original, could be useful to someone trying to understand the material circumstance of British military leaders or to get a sense of the social class to which they belonged. As to the criticism that the information is at only one point in their lives, I would respond that it is the only point in their lives that such comparative data is likely to be available, i.e., at the moment their wills were probated.

One could put all the info into the relevant Wikipedia biographical entries, though that would not answer the question of how this person's circumstance compares to those of his contemporaries. As to the sarcastic observation that Wikipedia might just as well put an article in about how many kittens each military figure had, I will not respond other than to say that the information is of sociological significance. Please do not view this material from a narrow, purely military, point of view. The material circumstances of an important class of people in a nation at a time when it was the dominant power in the world is of more than passing interest. Surely it is of greater significance than the minute details of minor campaigns, details found in Wikipedia in abundance ( details I support keeping). Is a danger not creeping into Wikipedia, that of narrow specialization, a preoccupation with viewing the world through one lens only? Knowledge is about making connections among things. These are facts taken from a prestigious source. The do not quite fit the mold of military history. So should they then be unavailable to interested generalists? Is military history only a hobby for some with rules about what is to be considered and what is not? Polycarp

Our only rule as to "what is to be considered and what is not" is: have other, authoritative sources considered this info before us or not? If the wealth of British military figiures has been the subject before, then we report on that. We don't create new areas of study though. We are an encyclopedia, a tertiary source reproducing and summarizing what secondary sources have produced qua studies, analysis, commentary, ... This is not creeping into Wikipedia, this has been a basic position since the beginning. Please check WP:OR for more on this. We are not saying that this page has no potential value, just that it is not fit for Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:IINFO. Protonk (talk) 16:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Do the arguments that have been presented here for deletion also apply to List of British politicians by wealth at death? Regards—G716 <^T·_C> 20:30, 6 July 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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Walk-off (Parking)

Non-notable, unecyclopaedic. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete completely unsourced neologism. Possibly a made up term. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day --neon white talk 22:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's notable, albeit a recent neologism, but it's encyclopedic as a newly-emerged term related to town and retail planning. It's certainly not made up for this article, as evidenced by the images and the text on the signs. With some expansion, particularly on measures taken by mall operators to avoid walk-off, then I think this could become an interesting article. There's an interesting UK civil liberties tie-in where some very heavy-handed CCTV surveillance is being used to crack this rather trivial problem.

Article text is obviously poor, but that's an improvement not a deletion. As the subject is already verified by the term's usage on the illustrated signs, I'd say that the article is already sufficient to be a keeper. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent neologisms are not appropriate for an encyclopedia. See WP:NEO. The article simply doesnt assert any kind of notability. --neon white talk 04:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then re-read WP:NEO. Using neologisms is frowned upon, as they're unclear. Explaining recent (not new) neologisms is valuable. "walk-off" is a concept that's real, notable and significant in modern retail management. What we need here is a better article, and one contrasting what appears to be difference in UK / US attitudes to how it should be handled.

What's needed is some sources that prove it's notability. It seems like OR to me. --neon white talk 02:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources convey verifiability, not notability. I'm happy that the concept is notable (perhaps not clearly so, perhaps not verifiably so, as yet). Now IMHO, photographs of real parking signs are an acceptable primary source for verification.

I'd note though that the phrase itself is an Americanism, so that although the concept is notable in the UK too, the same term isn't used (which isn't a probelm anyway, it's the concept's notability that's important - we're an encyclopedia, not a dictionary). Andy Dingley (talk) 09:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Transwiki to wictionary. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while the phrase appears in a picture of a "homemade" sign, there is no evidence of its being used in any reliable source. B.Wind (talk) 05:12, 9 July 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. PhilKnight (talk) 23:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banners Gate Community Church

Non-notable and WP:NOTDIR -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be any viable reason for this page's deletion Musicalphilosophy (talk) 11:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lack of notability is a valid reason to delete a page. The page does not assert notability and I could not find any evidence of notability. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no secondary sources conferring notability on this church. Google News gave quite a few passing mentions in the local press, but nothing of any substance. Huon (talk) 11:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notability, and it sounds like every other church. --Vhoscythe^chatter 12:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there doesn't seem to be any viable reason for this page's keeping. So what if it's a partnership: that happens with other organisations, not to mention union presbyteries before the formation of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Nyttend (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - many churches are notable, but not this one. lack of history and claim to notability --T-rex 16:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you give me chance to collate the information (instead of slamming a delete mandate on the page) you'll find that the building itself has a history, not to mention an organ that has an interesting back story and is widely known in the area. Seems like anti-Christian behaviour to me Musicalphilosophy (talk) 10:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mandate to delete the page yet. What we are doing here is to give an editor the mandate to delete or retain this page. I deemed the article to be non-notable based on the content, lack of references and a google search. If this church is included there may well be thousands of other churches in the UK and 100's of 1000's worldwide that should be included. I doubt Wikipedia is ever going to list all these churches therefore this particular church should not be included. Note that this is not anti-Christian. Wikipedia is based on having a neutral point of view. All information is based on "what is out there" and not what one particular person or organisation wants to document. This is a damn sight better then pre-internet days. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a total of four ghits, two of them to wikipedia, as per here, does not give me much reason to think this church has established independent notability. Should notablity be established, of course the article could be recreated. John Carter (talk) 20:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are there enough external links and references now? I'd like to draw you're attention to the Streetly website, which has hardly any independant info, and there is no request for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicalphilosophy (talk • contribs) 09:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- It is a pity that WP policy is to delete articles on churches so frequently. The article is porrly referenced, but that warrants an unreferenced tag not AFD. I believe that there are guidelines on notability at WP:CHURCH. Unfortunately, the truth is that most churches are NN in the worldwide context. even if fairly notable locally. The decision has been taken that secondary schools are notable, but they are at any one time a community of perhaps 600-1000 people, whereas a church may be serving a community of several thousand, even though it only has a regular congregation of 100 or so. This article is barely more a week old, and written (I think) by a new editor. I think that we should give him a furhter chance to expand the article to justify the chruch's notability. I would like to see a paragraph (or more) on the history of each of the predecessor churches, dealing for example with how they were founded. For example, I presume the baptist church is an offshoot of another local one. The problem may be a lack of citable sources, with the result that the article will be WP:OR. WP traditionally is not keen on the use of original documents, preferring secondary sources, but when there is nothing else, original documetns are better than nothing at all. I expect each former church has minute books for example. Keep for the moment, but we may need to consider AFD again in a couple of months if the article still does not prove the church's notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP, like all other encyclopedias, are not repositories for original research. WP:OR is, ahhh, sacred. Therefore, if there is no published material on the church WP cannot have an article on it.

Delete or merge with Sutton Coldfield#Religious_buildings, as suggested by WP:LOCAL. justinfr (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is published material in the form of newspaper articles, and on the Sutton News Website, which I have referenced on the entry. The page is a work in progress as Peterkingiron said, and will in time have a much more detailed entry. Banners Gate Community Church is the centre point of the community which serves around a thousand people. Again I can provide evidence of a great deal of wikipedia entries that are ENTIRELY unreferenced, and there is no unreferenced tag or deletion recommendation. Could someone explain to me why that is? Musicalphilosophy (talk) 21:48, 10 July 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. Shereth 20:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Years spent cold

Non-notable band, promotional tone, no cited sources. MBisanz ^talk 06:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: [Well, rewrite.] Looks like the rolling stone mag made a statment about them? If so, i'll work over the article to improve it. CindyTalk 06:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Do you have a link to that please? I couldn't find anything quite that notable. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 09:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find any notable mention of the band. However, i'd definetly change my mind if a none passing and serious mention was made by Rolling Stone. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 09:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One minor mention does not make a band notable. No other reason given to keep. Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 15:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A supposed death metal band with no entry on such comprehensive database as the Metal Archives or Rockdetector. Google search was of little help. I could not even find out how many albums the group has released. If this is a band from Colombia or Saudi Arabia, that might be understandable but a group from New Jersey? I think not. --Bardin (talk) 05:01, 6 July 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 redirect (see below) or nomination withdrawn. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental Technology Verification (ETV)

No assertion of notability and absolutely no evidence of it. (And why on earth do people include the abbreviation in the title?) — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Violation of virtually every wiki-policy there is, straight down to its naming of the article. There are no cites, no notability established, and the text is shorter than the AfD template. --haha169 (talk) 05:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect. I had forgotten that I had seen this before! This is a program of the United States Environmental Protection Agency so I would assume it to be notable. It is just that no-one seems able to write an article about it. The article I have redirected to: Environmental Technology Verification Program was also of very poor quality and had been deleted on very dubious grounds. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:25, 3 July 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. Redirect optional. Spellcast (talk) 12:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's Me, Eloise

Eloise in Hollywood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Little Miss Christmas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Eloise in Springtime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Eloise Goes to School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Eloise's Rawther Unusual Halloween (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Because each article say the exact same thing, with the exception of its image, and it does not establish notability, per WP:NOTABLE. --haha169 (talk) 05:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~I agree. Delete the articles per the above reasons.~~ --mauler90 (talk) 05:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Eloise: The Animated Series. These articles are over two years old, and even their parent article is really stubby, so any information (which may exist, I didn't check) should go there first per WP:AVOIDSPLIT. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with the redirect. I wasn't aware of the Animated Series article, since the history to It's Me, Eloise showed someone redirecting that article. Anyways, the redirect should happen first, but I want to remind everyone that every single article in this series has the exact same text in them. --haha169 (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete all since they was created by a hard-banned user. Might be useful as a redirect if they're recreated as such, but this yahoo shouldn't be in the history as the creator. What is it going to take to shut this little moron down once and for all? FWIW, this sort of contentless substubs without so much as a brief plot summary remind me of the old "B-Movie Bandit" of a few years ago. These are practically useless. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd be hesitant to speedy under G5 here as articles did not appear to line up with MascotGuy's usual long term abuse in WP:MASCOT and appear to be genuine adits (probably) BigHairRef | Talk 07:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of the named articles, non appears to be anything other than listing epsisodes of a programme in separate articles, I'd suggest a redirect to a list of episodes should one exist or otherwise redirect to the parent article. BigHairRef | Talk 07:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of the parent article, but I would agree with a redirect to it. mauler90 (talk) 08:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Eloise: The Animated Series. Doesn't seem to be anything to merge. AndyJones (talk) 13:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:EPISODE and not redirect as it is doubtful that people will be searching for these titles. –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:03, 6 July 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 no prejudice against merging. Concerns about sourcing appear to have been addressed, and shortness of article is not grounds for deletion (though it may be for merging). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rotoworld

Article is non-notable and has very few g-hits that are reliable secondary sources. Also, it only links to two other pages, both of which are user/talk pages. Leonard^(Bloom) 04:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please tell me you're kidding. Rotoworld is frequently quoted by reliable news sources. The NY Times has 49 hits for Rotoworld. This is one of the best known sports web sites there is.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into NBC Universal as the Rotoworld article has only two sentences. There's not anything in the "article" indicating its significance; but should someone wish to expand it (with citations, of course) to explain what Rotoworld is, and so forth, it would be preferable to either a merge or a deletion. B.Wind (talk) 06:12, 11 July 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. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AptaBiD

Does not appear to be a notable scientific technology. There is only one source, and this appears to be the only scholarly source available. Total GHits when excluding wikipedia total about 19. The phrase "Aptamer-Facilitated Biomarker Discovery" fetches fewer ghits, and the same scholarly source. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Aptamer, still too new for an article of its own, but this is useful material for the more general article. The main article on aptamers does mention AptaBiD, but this could be expanded to a new section on the application of aptamers to cancer cell biology. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spammy and non-notable. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 04:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Per Tim Vickers ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 07:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as section. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 07:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and remove any spamminess --Orange Mike | Talk 16:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per above, to new and doesn't imply WP:N yet for it's own article Medicellis (talk) 17:24, 12 July 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 nancy ^(talk) 20:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Prescott

No assertion of notability (being a "vital part" of a winning team is a nearly meaningless statement). Orphaned. Makes nebulous unverifiable claims. Absolutely no hits on web searches for pages, news, etc. bring up this person (though some patently unrelated fellas with the same name do come up). Submitted as AfD after PROD-NN was contested. Vianello (talk) 04:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete- easily falls under the banner of ((db-bio)). Reyk _YO! 05:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. In my opinion it does at least assert notability (though it does absolutely nothing to substantiate it), which is why I haven't done so. But if you or anyone else wishes to, I wouldn't frown on it, personally. - Vianello (talk) 05:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gnews and gsearch isn't coming up with this Steven Prescott as a baseball player, shortstop, or student at Randall. Not notable or hoax.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:06, 5 July 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 --JForget 23:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zoo Tycoon 3

I fear this game dosen't exist. Search on Google turned up nothing. Marlith (Talk) 03:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete plenty of ghits, e.g. [64], [65], but they seem to be speculative. JJL (talk) 03:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete DLerner (talk) 06:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too speculative for right now JBsupreme (talk) 07:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No official mention of the game exists, and the article consists only on a complete list of animals, basically what most people would call "wishlist". Eriorguez (talk) 12:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No single info. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - speculation with no sources. currently a game guide anyhow --T-rex 16:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — What is this? MuZemike (talk) 17:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. swa q 20:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delte per WP:CRYSTAL. Black ngold29 22:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there does not appear to be anything about this game, and even rumors about it coming out are scarce. I suspect this page was created in error by someone who mistook an expansion pack for Zoo Tycoon 2, as the third in the series. Icemotoboy (talk) 04:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: nonsense. --- Cuddly Panda (talk · contribs) ^{review me! |my chatroom]} 08:43, 4 July 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 both. No evidence of coverage by reliable sources, therefore there isn't really anything to merge, either. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Doomsday Dust

I can't find any reliable sources for these books. Schuym1 (talk) 03:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. These books appear to actually exist, but all I could find online were sales listings, which do not indicate notability. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into parent Spy Gear Adventures article for now, then delete the redirects if that AFD closes as delete. --Groggy Dice T | C 13:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did your suggestion. Schuym1 (talk) 02:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - totally non-notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:16, 12 July 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 nancy ^(talk) 20:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Crossball League

League has not yet started up. No verifiable independent coverage which I can find. Hence, does not appear notable. Fightindaman (talk) 03:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - League won't start for another year or so. As it stands, fails WP:CRYSTAL. TN‑X-Man 13:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This has all the earmarks of a hoax that exists only as a webpage. Try googling "pro crossball", let alone "pro crossball league" and see what happens. Mandsford (talk) 14:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Crossball? --T-rex 16:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, sort of. See List_of_fictional_games#Sports--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually hired to code the Pro Crossball League website, so I think its legitimate as far as them being a company (they are registered as an LLC). Also, the webpage has not been running (or even fully functional) for very long so it would not have been indexed by google yet. It is true that the league has not started yet so if that is grounds for deletion of this article then I cannot argue. Just my thoughts. Drapesrgay (talk) 06:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:21, 5 July 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. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GrIDsure

This article has been tagged with multiple issues for months, and does indeed read like an ad for something that is at best marginally notable. An anon blanked it and replaced contents with "delete", rather than bring it here, which I am doing... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 14:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be heavily promoted vaporware that fizzled out about two years ago. At the very least it needs a major anti-advertisement cleaning. - Eldereft (cont.) 05:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 03:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NTEMP and WP:ATD. The article, right now, does not read like an advertisement and in fact cites both strenths and weaknesses of the subject itself and of independent studies done of the subject. The fact that the subject is vaporware cannot be used as reason for deletion because that fact does not mean the subject fails notability, per WP:NTEMP. Per WP:NTEMP, the subject may in fact be notable since a brief search on google yields many independent reviews. If anything, the article needs a good copy edit and more references, rather than an outright delete. --Samuel Tan (talk) 05:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - crappy in its present form, but meets the notability test (even if it is vaporware). Deletion is not justifiable with the sources provided; but the current article must be stubbed and rebuilt. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:13, 12 July 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. No consensus to delete as the subject is notable. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 00:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nitya Chaitanya Yati

Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Straightforward keep. Famous scholar and philosopher. Re google try alternate spellings Nitya/Nithya Chaitanya/Chaithanya Yati/Yeti, or combine Nityachaitanya. The string "nitya chaitanya yati" gives the list of his books etc Tintin 04:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tintin. A bit of spelling variation does seem to produce a fair number of extra quality google hits. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 03:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Very Notable and Famous scholar and philosopher -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 12:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I concur that the notability is there, but we need to see some sources. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 19:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep He's a notable philosopher of modern age. -Tux the penguin (talk) 15:21, 6 July 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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Young Carer's Festival

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Young Carer's Festival

No links to independent references to this festival and not very promising that the link to the official YCF site don't work. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete utterly unworthy of note. --neon white talk 18:28, 3 July 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.

Entitism

The result was delete. Goodnightmush^Talk 17:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A belief system. The number of Google hits suggests original research or at least non-notability. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep- This seems to confirm that it's not original research, and is probably notable. The article itself could do with some attention from someone who knows more about philosophy and religion than I do. Reyk _YO! 02:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is it just me, or does that link have nothing to do with the belief system described in the article? (See, I'm kind of tired right now and may be missing something.) "A belief based fundamentally on a meditative understanding of equality among all living things" is not "the view that it is possible to talk of instants [from the context, I'd say that means the smallest possible increments of time] as particulars [things that have their own discrete existence, as opposed to things that exist only in other things] and make sense of individual instants having, in some sense, an existence." I'm too tired to trust my judgment on this article (and I'm biased against it because of its fairly poor grammar), but I'd say it should be deleted because Google (minus Wikipedia, of course) turns up nothing on this belief system (the 22 ghits refer to about 22 other things) and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy knows nothing about it (surprisingly, given the link above). I agree that, if kept, the article needs attention; as it is, it doesn't make much sense. AnturiaethwrTalk 05:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment- Meh. I don't know. But both refer to the "entity" or unity of religions, so I'm assuming they're about the same thing. Reyk _YO! 05:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. I guess I'm missing something, 'cause I don't see any reference to religion (not even what one would expect in thirteenth-century metaphysics) in your link. I'm willing to agree to disagree, though, especially since I'm fairly puzzled that the idea mentioned in that book wouldn't be in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. AnturiaethwrTalk 13:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that it actully means anything.DGG (talk) 05:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: original research proposing someone's newly minted philosophy. The connection between the links about molecular biology and the article's proposal of a philosophy based on universal human fungibility is too profound for my broken little mind to follow. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to basically be a protologism. JuJube (talk) 02:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless sources can be found, it appears to be a non-notable belief system. Edward321 (talk) 16:12, 6 July 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 nancy ^(talk) 20:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Channel Summer Programming

AfDs for this article:

The same reason as the first nomination. (List of Disney Channel's summer shows. Unencyclopedic, original research, unreferenced.) Gary0203 (talk) 02:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Read my vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/So Hot Summer! for reasoning. It's the same cruft again. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 04:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Clear rounding of deletion decision under So Hot Summer. Still not notable or extraordinary marketing campaign. Nate • (chatter) 06:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This re-creates a "history" that was deleted last September. There are other articles about the programs that have been shown on the Disney Channel. TV networks are reluctant, to promote their programs more than 40 times in an hour, but I have a feeling that the Disney Channel will keep its own viewers informed about its summer programming. Mandsford (talk) 14:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seasonal fork of Disney Channel. previous afd resulted in delete. perhaps a redirect would discourage recreation --T-rex 16:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just another excuse for an article. --Vhoscythe^chatter 15:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per what I said last time. –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:55, 6 July 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, practically patent nonsense. Relisting would be pointless. Sandstein 23:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK model

A previous, very similar version of this was deleted as "incoherent". It is very difficult to understand, has no real supporting references and no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The original author of the article appears to be the same as the author of the only real reference. No real google hits on "observing knowledge model", "ok model" is all irrelevent. Seems to be some sort of research that has no coverage in secondary sources. --Tombomp (talk/contribs) 09:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:26, 5 July 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, discounting single purpose accounts. Sandstein 21:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xitip

Contested PROD. Somebody put an article up for an obscure piece of information theory software whose existence was impossible to verify. None of the references given in the article mentioned anything whatsoever about this software, and what is supposedly the software's home page says "This page is under construction."

Subsequently a page was put up on one of the external sites referenced that had no more than a couple of sentences vaguely referring to proving information-theoretic inequalities.

There is still no independently verifiable evidence that this software actually exists. It is an example of vaporware, and not at all notable at that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepmath (talk • contribs) 01:09, 3 July 2008

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It would have to be pretty well talk about to be notable prior to release. I can't find anything online relating to it. The article creator pretty much admits to a COI in the edit summaries; they're talking about their own software, which isn't big enough to be notable at this time. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 01:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Adding to it, is the fact that it says the software will be available for download on... makes it sound like vaporware/advertisement, even though if the last was left out, it wouldn't have been so obvious.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Must retain It is very useful for information theorists. It works nice. perhaps it was not available earlier, but i see it is pretty accessible —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epflmit (talk • contribs) 08:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC) — Epflmit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment I fail to see how it's vital. it has barely any theory related things, no source code (which Wikipedia isn't for), and the closest thing is what it does, which proves notability for the inequality thingy page (where ever it is) not XiTip which is a software, not a theory. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 22:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:*Comment I think you are sort of ignorant about information theory. It is not simple algebraic inequality prover. Information theory deals with concept of entropy (sort of surprise element in a message). This tool is not for school children to play little inequalities. This is already heavily used by Information theorists across the world. Information inequalities are very very hard to prove. The tool Xitip is of humongous use to check whether some complicated inequalities are indeed true. Remember that, the well known Shannon capacity formula is also coming from such inequality. Ofcourse, the documentation of the tool is not yet available on the page linked, but that is available in Information theory society publications (IEEEexplore) for the useful readers. I guess these folks (who created it) must be thanked for putting this to public use. Myself being and Information theorist knows the significance of such a software. Just to restate it, information theorists all over the world, want to know whether the bounds they found is always true and this does exactly that. ITIP (The one they linked from this xitip.epfl.ch) did more or less the same, but that was partly outdated, partly required license and so on. Besides, the source code is there and I am a little suprised that, some comments are written (saying source code not present etc) without really checking properly. I happened to check it, last evening during this ISIT conference in Toronto, where I could take the source, compile and make an executable. This is already talked about among folks here)ηTheoryWizardTheorywizard (talk) 09:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)— Theorywizard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
CommentI think what you fail to notice is that while you're talking about the notability of the theory, this is a software. Not a theory. The page should be on the software, not on some theory or other or way to check it, which would belong on the theory page. Also, if the software is "important", but not yet notable (which from the wording of your's I can't tell, and I'm no expert, but if it was, can you give some sources?), it doesn't need a wiki page until it's notableηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 16:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete any article which makes this little sense. If there is an assertion of notability here it needs to be expressed in a manner that we can understand. According to its wikilinks it verifies inequalities in the longest river in Ireland, the usefulness of which is a bit lost on me. AndyJones (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I dont think the idea of this page is to teach information theory (That is available in many places). Please be aware that, information inequalities are much more complicated than algebraic inequalities. These are inequalities on information measures.Information measures are functions (special functions involving probabilities) of probability distributions. Again, the comments are a little under prepared comments. Please be aware that the guys who created (at least one of them is a well known figure in the information theory field) this are unlikely to spend time on explaining this to general public. Moreover this is unlikely to be a commercial product. They provided the source code and it is open to anyone to improve it, including us.ηTheoryWizard

Theorywizard (talk) 09:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, but is it notable? You can have endless amount's of some research project created by some school or other and obscure software on some notable subject, but if it in itself is not yet notable, it doesn't require a wiki page. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 16:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retain It is a pretty interesting utility even in statistical inference and learning. There is scope for expansion of the documentation but definite entry.Iadmirestars (talk)— Iadmirestars (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment It's a little disconcerting to me that apparently three new accounts have sprung up in support of retaining this article:

Epflmit (talk • contribs)
ηTheoryWizardTheorywizard (talk • contribs)
Iadmirestars (talk • contribs)

These three accounts at this time have not made any edits outside of Xitip, Talk:Xitip, and this AfD discussion. It looks suspiciously like a case of sock puppetry to me. Deepmath (talk) 05:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good thing AfD don't follow number of votes then. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 15:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this is leading to arguments without properly understanding the essence of a tool developed. The idea of putting this on Wikipedia is not market it of any sort, by which there is nothing to gain. It is just to ease the job of someone, who work in related area. If the self appointed folks think they understand what is information theory (and concluded this utility is find the length of the longest river in Ireland!), and offer comments offered above, you can vanguard the credibility of the listed item, by your own actions. I leave it to you. It is pretty disappointing that, people with no clue of the subject and still claim to classify the items. I have added it to aid someone's research somewhere in the world, who may not have readily seen all the Information theory aids. Galoiserdos (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How about, as somewhat of a compromise, starting an article on Shannon-type information-theoretic inequalities (or some such)? In this article, we can talk about what these inequalities are, why they are important, why they are hard to prove, and the fact that software (such as ITIP, and now Xitip) has been developed to prove such inequalities. Would there be any objections to this? Deepmath (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we can have entry describing these inequalities and their difference. Shannon type inequalities are talked about and they are already classified so in information theory. I am more than sure that, some one in the near future will edit this page and increase the scope. Currently Shannon (and non Shannon type) type inequalities are talked about and discussed mainly in Information theory journals (or arXiv) and perhaps one of the recent book (Raymond yeung's book Information Theory and Network Coding, Springer 2008).A google search of non shannon type inequalities already will have some hits. For instance www.cs.princeton.edu/~ymakaryc/papers/nonshann.pdf Galoiserdos (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Call the article something more generic, like Information-theoretic inequalities or Inequalities in information theory, and then you can also talk about the non-Shannon type inequalities and what makes them different from the Shannon-type ones. Deepmath (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment May I reiterate that the discussion at hand is about the notability of a software, not the notability of the theory behind the software. It seems that people are failing to understand this key concept. Regardless of the notability of the theory (which is obscure), if the software fails notability (as there can be a endless number of softwares based on one theory) it does not deserve a wiki page. Therefore, if it is a theory you are stating, leave that to the talk page for the theory or create a page on it. It also seems like there are lots of sockpuppet/One-Time Use accounts here.....leaving me to wonder if the article fails advertisement/promotion. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 15:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ignorance about a theory (anything for that matter) does not make it obscure. This theory unfortunately is not yet taught in high school (in US, as you are a high school student in US as it appears in your profile). If and when you decide to learn, you will learn. If you think, you are the right person to make a judgment on topics such as this, little to be said:-)Galoiserdos (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let's drop the comments about "ignorance". While I do not feel that this software is notable per se, (after all, I did propose the article for deletion), the discussion made me realize that we are lacking a Wikipedia article on the related theory, which certainly is notable in information theory. The purpose for my suggestion, which Noian considers off-topic here, was to suggest ways for the original contributor(s) to the Xitip article to contribute encyclopedic content to Wikipedia, rather than what appears to be promoting their own software, which is certainly inappropriate for Wikipedia. To reiterate, I stand by both my proposal to delete the Xitip article, and my suggestion for ways that the original contributor(s) to that article could contribute positively to Wikipedia. Notwithstanding, I question whether someone who engages in sock puppetry and/or repeated calls others "ignorant" has the motivation or desire to contribute positively. And it's completely irrelevant to refer to an editor's level of education on Wikipedia. Contributing properly sourced material, and no original research, leaves little room for someone's educational qualifications (which we can't verify anyway) to bear. And it doesn't take a PhD to see that the article on this software has no references outside the software's homepage, which did not even exist at the time of the article's creation. If it is in fact used by information theorists, I would expect that in some of their research papers they would have cited their use of this software. I don't see any such citations, or, in fact, any evidence that the authors of this software (or someone closely connected to them) did not use Wikipedia to announce their software prior to its release. Deepmath (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you Deepmath for the rebuttal. May I quote from the article to Galoiserdos:

"Xitip is a graphical front end based Information theory inequalities prover[1][2]. This software is adapted from the ITIP software."

I am not questioning the notability of the theory. I am questioning the notability of the software which is what this AfD is about. Please don't bring in red herrings to the discussion. Edit: I fully support Deepmath's proposal to create a page on the theory tough, but that is unrelated to this, as it obviously wouldn't use any significant amount of text from the current page which is on a software. Also, may I remind you Galoiserdos that it is wikipedia guidelines to assume good faith to all users and against guidelines to attack editors. My education has nothing to do with the obvious fact that this article on a software is not notable. It

might be notable in the future, but right now it isn't. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 18:50, 7 July 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. Emperors are inherently notable, possibly a disruptive nom at work here. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jiaqing Emperor

Fails WP:Notability. Relatively unknown powerless Chinese person. ItoFMA (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, under ¶2 of WP:SK#Applicability, which supports speedily keeping an article whose nomination for deletion is "unquestionably vandalism or disruption and nobody unrelated recommends deleting it . . . . Examples of this include (i) obviously frivolous nominations." An emperor is China is per se notable, and I suspect the nomination was made (inappropriately) as some sort of commentary on notability arguments. Pop Secret (talk) 01:47, 3 July 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. Sandstein 21:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Gibson

Contested PROD. Article is about a character from the film Wanted with no substantial information. The article's only source is one issue of the comic book on which the film was based, and all the article contains is a standard info box and a brief character biography which basically rehashes the very basic plot of the comic book. Note the article Fraternity of Assassins, which currently redirects back to the same film article (or did before I delinked it anyway). As evidenced here [66], the article, which was not dissimilar in nature to that of Wesley Gibson, was redirected almost instantly to the main film article. Tempting as it is to just do that, I thought I'd go through due process and PROD it (may be a speedy though) and as it's been contested (albeit by an IP and first time editor to the article, without an edit summary) here it is Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 00:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make more explicit, since I realised I haven't done so, this AFD is based on failure of WP:N using the reasoning of Ilikepie2221 as seen below.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 01:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. ...Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. LESS than exclusive. The only source is the subject's comic book. ...Availability of secondary sources covering the subject... There are no secondary sources. 3.1 million hits on Google may be appealing for keep supporters, but they're all MySpace/Blog/Job-finding websites. TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 01:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. Happyme22 (talk) 02:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 07:15, 9 July 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 (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brianna Taylor

Article provides no sources that establishes notability according to any of the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (people). Unless such sources can be provided, the article should be deleted. Nightscream (talk) 00:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nightscream (talk) 00:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOTABLE and is lacking in sources Yamakiri ^T_C § 07-3-2008 • 00:29:09 00:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Article now meets my quality and sourcing standards, and asserts its notability. Yamakiri ^T_C § 07-4-2008 • 04:12:21

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There are many media mentions of Brianna Taylor, for both her American Idol appearance and her Real World appearances. Sources I have added include The Morning Call, The Philadelphia Inquirer, Newsday, and The Beaver County Times. (Did the nominator search for sources, as is asked of us in the guidelines regarding deletion protocol?) Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in the deletion guidelines requires the nominator to search for sources. That's the responsibility of the article's creator. In any event, appearing on American Idol does not impart notability (unless the person makes it to the final rounds), nor does appearing on The Real World, as there are dozens of such people on that show who do not merit their own articles. Nightscream (talk) 15:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but not all those appearing on The Real World have multiple newspaper articles about them, as does Taylor. As to the collaborative aspects of searching for sources, Wikipedia:Notability#Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines describes steps to take prior to deletion, including look for sources yourself. And Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination says: first do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the {{notability}} template, if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of reality show alumni appear in local newspaper and magazine articles, and a lot of them have "legal troubles". This does not make them notable. The entire cast of Survivor 2: The Australian Outback appeared in their own special issue of People magazine, a national magazine with a far greater readership than The Philadelphia Enquirer or Beaver County Times, and it was decided that they do not each merit an article and having "legal troubles" doesn't change that. It is for this reason looking for sources was not my obligation: The policies you cite only pertain to whether notability could be established. But since the only criteria for her notability that is being claimed by advocates of her article is A. Appearing on a reality show, and B. Having legal troubles, then my looking for sources is unnecessary. Otherwise, you might as well make an article for every suspect who's ever appeared on Cops, since they qualify under the exact same criteria. Nightscream (talk) 00:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Articles in Category:X have been deleted, so this one should be too" is generally considered an argument to avoid in deletion discussions—for the reasons noted at WP:ALLORNOTHING. I am not arguing that all the cast of Survivor 2 ought to have articles. Furthermore, you seem to be misreading the standards laid out at Wikipedia:Notability (people): all that's required is the "basic criteria", not "the basic criteria plus something from the 'additional criteria' list". If the articles were all related to her being on one reality show, then the verifiable content could be merged into, say, the article on The Real World. But the article's topics are more varied than that—you may have missed the edit summary here (by thedemonhog), which mentions "A" and "B" but also "C" and "D" (her music career). Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make an AllORNOTHING argument, since I never said anything about articles in another category. My statement was in response to your argument about her being in a reality show and having legal troubles, and was that those criteria do not convey notability. The example I used was meant to convey that point, and was valid as a line of counterargument. It was not an appeal to similarities about "categories". Nothing on the Notability page you linked to says that Basic Criteria is "all that's required". Being the subject of published, secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject is necessary, but it does not, in and of itself, establish why the person is notable. As for her music career, I checked out the Intro. The first source is a dead link. The second one, The Philadelphia Daily News, aside from not being a nationally known periodical, is not an online source, so I can't currently verify its contents. The third one is a brief article in something called Beyond Race magazine, which I've never heard of. Is this really sufficient to establish her as noteworthy for her music?

I apologize for suggesting that you made an "all-or-nothing" argument. I thought you were saying that because other reality show participants' articles were deleted in AfDs, this one should be too. Now, it appears that you and I have a very different understanding of WP:N. The way that guideline evolved was in the spirit of establishing a neutral way of determining if an article is notable, taking our personal judgments of notability out of the picture as much as possible. That neutral way is to look to see if "the world has taken note": sufficient coverage in independent sources. (Plus, of course, not violating some other guideline or policy such as WP:NOT.) That's it. That's all I'm arguing here. I'm not arguing that she is notable because she is on TV. I'm not arguing that she is notable because she had legal problems. I'm not arguing she is notable because of her music career. I'm arguing she is notable because "the world" has taken note of her: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable. (There are currently nine newspaper or magazine articles referenced, all of them non-trivial mentions of her, some of them exclusively about her.) That's WP:N. That's WP:BIO#Basic criteria. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Continuing the exchange, I would question how exactly the "world" has taken notice of her, when none of the publications that have written about her are "global", or even "national". Nightscream (talk) 00:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The world" is shorthand for "reliable sources that are independent of the subject". There have been AfDs in which editors have argued that "local" notability does not count, but there's nothing in the guidelines that says that is the case. There do not have to be articles in, say, the New Straits Times, especially when there are high-quality local papers such as The Philadelphia Inquirer sourced here. Besides, Beyond Race and Newsday are beyond the Philadelphia and Bucks County areas, so the "notice" is not purely in media of towns in which Taylor has lived. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No 44 in Americna Idol is not notability. The various events in Philadelphia are quite possibly BLP violationsDGG (talk) 05:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Regarding the BLP issue: I've now sourced her legal troubles to two separate articles, one in The Philadelphia Inquirer and one in the Philadelphia Daily News. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the references provided in Brianna_Taylor#References indicate sufficient coverage of Brianna Taylor in third-party reliable sources as to establish a presumption of her notability per the general notability guideline. John254 19:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as "she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" (WP:BIO). –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she has two things going for her, both Idol and the Real World, and those combining up gets her to warranting an article IMO even though neither does on their own. She has considerable media mention as well. CrazyC83 (talk) 04:45, 7 July 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: recreation of previously deleted material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ Clayworth (talk • contribs) . macy^talk 16:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/"Sneakernight"

"Sneakernight"

Speedy was denied for some reason, article is a re-creation of Sneakernight, whose content was deleted after an AfD Passportguy (talk) 13:56, 3 July 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.