Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 August 30

< August 29	August 31 >

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 delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 19:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Flowers

NN. Bio extensively edited by its own subject. Subject isn't notable in any of his fields (computer security, literature, or film). Secondary sources for article fall into two categories: a long newsweekly article claiming the subject is a fraud, and superficial trade press hits. What little there is to be said about the subject cannot be written NPOV and within bio guidelines. What's there now is highly misleading. Tqbf 03:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keepThere are multiple published articles about him that are quite large and widely distributed. Even if he is only known for fruad it is enough. The rest of it has to be weeded out.--Dacium 04:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Edited) rebuttal: the only WP:N-qualified source cited by the page can't be represented due to WP:BLP --- it slams the subject. Trade press is NN: it's not independent of the subject (based on press hits). As from [Uncle_G] --- Wikipedia is not a business directory.

This seems to be only your opinion. The article does not slam the subject. It questions his stories. The articles his method of making money. Where are the lies in it? There are none. NPOV doesn't mean only kind things.--Dacium 23:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm being unclear. I agree with the article; I don't dispute it. But (a) that article is the subject's PRIMARY source of notability, (b) it's a profoundly unfavorable article, (c) the subject disputes the article and its contents, which disputes are hard to resolve because of WP:BLP. 69.17.73.234 05:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not meet notability guidelines. Indeed, article doesn't even assert significance of subject. faithless (^speak) 04:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

subject quite clearly passes WP:BIO "The person has been the subject of published1 secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." There are 3 very long articles dedicated just to him.--Dacium 23:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I only see 1 very long article from a credible independent source dedicated to him: the one calling him a liar. Cite? 69.17.73.234 05:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- note "search engine lowdown", the second biggest secondary source in the article, fails the WP:N general notability guideline --- it's not independent, but rather a straight interview with the subject by a webzine that is itself not notable enough to have a wikipedia entry. Tqbf 05:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Problematically, the subject is not a "fraud", just prone to whoppers, such as allegedly fake degrees. His startups, however, are real, and Kozoru is mildly notable even if it went nowhere. Some of that just goes with the territory, e.g. Steve Jobs's reality distortion field, except that Jobs is wildly successful and Flowers is not. If WP:BLP means it's impossible to have an article, that's one thing, but no article is a drastic solution for an WP:NPOV problem. --Dhartung | Talk 04:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Point taken re drastic measures. I considered that before I nominated the page. Kozoru no longer exists; it can count itself among thousands of tech startupts to have obtained only a first round of funding, no significant traction, a few superficial press hits, and an unfortunate demise. See this news brief: 3MM (a small amount) from a no-name fund, company liquidated pre-revenue. Is there value in trying to document this nn company, esp. in a bio page for an nn person hotly contested (and edited) by that person?Tqbf 04:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like just a guy to me. Media mentions of fraud are news - Wikipedia is not a newspaper. MarkBul 05:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like a vanity-bio to me. Notorious maybe, but notable? No. --WebHamster 05:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - There's a lot of legit stuff in here, and I checked out the movie he's producing and it's real and has real actors in it, even if they aren't major stars. The guestion seems to be whether moderate notability/notoriety in a number of areas adds up to sufficient notability overall. IMO it probably does in this case. As for not 'asserting' the significance of the subject, my suspicion is that the author - who is presumably connected with the subject - thought it was obvious, and it kind of is. --Hanging Jack 18:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- rebut: WP:NOTFILM. The film hasn't received significant coverage. It hasn't been released. It is based on a self-published (Xlibris) novel written by the filmmaker. It is unlikely to obtain national distribution, because it is a low-budget local film with an NN cast. It is in no other way historically or academically notable. Thousands of similarly ambitious/successful film projects do not find themselves in the encyclopedia. Perhaps, if the film is the core argument for notability, a new article could be created describing it, instead of John Flowers. 204.152.235.217 22:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The reason to keep would be if he's considered an expert in his field, but I dont feel like that's the case from looking at the article Corpx 00:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He's not. ~~It's easy to measure: look at Scholar or Citeseer. He has no cites,~~ (I guess I concede that he doesn't claim to be a scholar) ... just patents and patent apps (none of his patents have been enforced; they prove only that he has hired an IP lawyer at some point).Tqbf 23:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment as he is a practical engineer, not an academic, neither GS or Citeseer is necessarily relevant as a test. DGG (talk) 06:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it's tricky in security (my field). There's no WP:SECURITYNOTABILITY, but if there was, tests would include (1) academic cites (many of us have them), (2) authorship of notable security tools or products, or (3) discovery of notable security vulnerabilities. I'll assert Flowers would fail all of these tests. (1) He's cited nowhere. (2) His security company, Hiverworld, has faded into obscurity. (3) From what I can tell, he's discovered no vulnerabilities. Agreed preemptively that he's not "just" a security person, though. Tqbf 18:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hiverworld did not "fade into obscurity. It changed its name, brand, received considerable funding, re-organized with a different management company and currently exists as nCircle using the same core technology developed at Hiverworld and covered by the patents.--P Todd 18:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rebut: (a) the relationship between Hiverworld and nCircle's success is highly debatable, (b) the "founder of nCircle" claim on this page is misleading (nCircle is a different company), (c) being the founder of a middle-tier security company doesn't confer WP:N notability; there are hundreds of these people, an ever-changing roster, all of whom derive "notability" only from non-independent secondary sources based entirely on press releases. Request, peripheral to the argument: cite a source that argues nCircle's product line, say, since 2003, is based on "core technology" from John Flowers. Central argument: the difference between John Flowers and some random founding CTO of some random foundering software company is that John Flowers seems to have lied about a bunch of stuff and got caught. What's he doing here?Tqbf 21:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, this article is an orphan, with problems. Maybe he is notable but this article doesnt show it, and neither does a quick search. John Vandenberg 06:48, 7 September 2007 (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 deleted as a repost. Still the same speculation that was deleted the first two times. Reso lute 03:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still Cassie

The article consists entirely of unreferenced speculation about an album that is supposed to come out sometime in 2008 (according to Cassie, although a Google source says Sept. 18th, '07), but it seems they're not even sure what record label it'll be under yet. Recommend deletion under WP:CRYSTAL. Contested Prod. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was already deleted once through AfD and it doesn't look like anything's changed; can't we just speedy delete it under CSD G4?--P4k 02:56, 30 August 2007 (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 --Haemo 01:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of guest stars on The Sonny & Cher Comedy Hour

As with List of guests on the Ellen Degeneres Show and List of guests on The Dick Cavett Show, it's pure listcruft. An indiscriminate list of variety show guest stars. The list is not notable in and of itself, has no sources, and is unlikely to ever be accurately maintained. Realkyhick 02:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, as the show is over, I expect it wouldn't need much maintenance other than VP. FrozenPurpleCube 03:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List of loosely-associated people, appearing on an episode of a variety show is a non-notable characteristic to connect people by. Crazysuit 04:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What would be a tight association? How is this loose? Would a list of people on the Titanic be tight? Can you elaborate?--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No references - how do I know Ronald Reagan and Larry Storch were really guests during season two? MarkBul 05:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have episode lists for situation comedies such as Sienfeld. We need the equivalent for variety and interview shows. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Oh, don't even get me started about episode lists/articles. But I'm fighting a losing battle on that one. Realkyhick 07:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft, pure and simple. Eusebeus 16:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm sorry but I think this is WP:LISTCRUFT, and in regard to your question Richard Arthur Norton, I would say loosely associated would mean they are related because of something relativly non-notable or something that to many individuals belong to. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 21:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again per we're not a directory of people who appeared on a show Corpx 00:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sad that someone went to a lot of trouble on such a useless list that says nothing. But I do remember the 1974 episode with Joel Grey. It was funny. 65.207.127.12 22:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, needless list. JIP | Talk 10:10, 4 September 2007 (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 --Haemo 01:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of guests on The Dick Cavett Show

As with List of guests on the Ellen Degeneres Show, it's pure listcruft. An indiscriminate list of talk show guests. The list is not notable in and of itself, has no sources, and is unlikely to ever be accurately maintained. Realkyhick 02:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment so what maintenance do you expect would be needed? Might take some work to get the list complete, but once done, it'd be done. FrozenPurpleCube 03:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List of loosely-associated people, appearing on an episode of a talk show is a non-notable characteristic to connect people by. Although being a guest was probably a notable event for Jerome Irving Rodale. Crazysuit 04:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reorder by appearance date We have episode lists for situation comedies such as Sienfeld. We need the equivalent for variety and interview shows. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: No, we don't. Besides, this was a talk show, not a variety show. Realkyhick 06:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Huh? We don't have episode lists for other shows like Seinfeld? "Talk show" "interview show" all are synonyms. Read about it in Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Duh. I missed the word "interview." Eyes are getting tired. But in case you didn't gues, I'm not a big fan of episode lists for shows, particularly individual articles about each and every episode. Certainly some particular episodes of top shows are notable, especially first and last episodes of a series... well, I'm drifting off topic here. Realkyhick 23:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I believe I created this article for little reason other than to move the list from the article for The Dick Cavett Show (which already looked like hell at the time -- and still does). If the list isn't going to be better organized/maintained, I won't mind seeing it go. It would make a bit sense to have a list of episodes, but that's another can of worms. Pele Merengue 13:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - same as above. Eusebeus 16:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per we're not a directory of people who appeared on a talk show Corpx 00:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dick Cavett would turn over in his grave if he saw this one... especially if he was deceased. 65.207.127.12 22:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, needless list. JIP | Talk 10:10, 4 September 2007 (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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 19:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MediaZone.com

Delete spammy article about a web sports service - was originally tagged speedy for copyvio, tags removed pending permission being received, don't know whether it was, but this website in not notable Alexa rank of 14,232. Carlossuarez46 02:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This is as much a gut feeling as anything, but the company sems to be notable due to the corporate partners and events it webcasts. It reads a little like a news release, but I think this company is notable because of its affiliation with notable events. But this a pretty close call. Realkyhick 02:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems to be an awful lot of red links for something that is supposed to be notable and "global". I'd nuke it for being a pseudo-advert. --WebHamster 05:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Maybe a re-write with more corporate data.Mbisanz 06:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - references establish adequate notability. — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SPAM per Carlossuarez46. Lack of independent sources suggest notability to come. --Gavin Collins 11:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SPAM. Article created by single purpose account that also created a half-dozen or so related articles the same session, most of which have already been deleted. Precious Roy 13:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or merge to Naspers? Current sources a touch iffy, and the concerns about COI and spam certainly warrant consideration. Only obviously valid and reliable source, the nytimes piece, is now inaccessible and makes no mention of the firm in the summary - can anyone confirm that it's relevant? Regardless, the article is short enough that it would make sense to merge it back into its parent. MrZaius^talk 07:44, 7 September 2007 (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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 19:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sociolinguistics research in India

The article has negligible content, and the subject matter would seem to belong as a section in Sociolinguistics or Languages of India. Tamfang 17:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Never delete for lack of content--Pheonix15 (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks to me like this is just WP:SYNTH Corpx 18:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Boricuaeddie 01:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Corpx. The external links should support the content of the article, not the other way round. Shalom ^Hello 03:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for long enough to attempt cleanup. This is an absolutely appalling and useless article as it is -- but it's a topic deserving of an article. A very quick Google Scholar search finds book reviews for "Explorations in Indian Sociolinguistics", Rajendra Singh, Probal Dasgupta and Jayant K. Lele, New Delhi and London: Sage, 1995. There are bound to be plenty of other reliable sources out there, but it will take time to gather them and create a worthwhile article from them. --Zeborah 09:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there is something particularly important going on - in which case the article should be totally rewritten (see last note above). Most large nations - especially multilingual ones - have people doing sociolinguistics research. What is notable about that? John Hill 11:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - 'notable' in a Wikipedia context doesn't mean 'unusual' or 'unique'; it means it's something that has been written about by reliable sources. I've gathered a quick hodgepodge of sources on the article talk page, not all of which are perfectly on topic but whose existence does show that this topic has been written about by numerous scholars, hence is 'notable' in Wikipedia's sense of the word. Of course asking what's unusual about the situation in India is a fair question too: the answer to that is that it's a *really* multilingual country, more so than any other country I'm aware of except perhaps China (and because of the common written system, not to mention political situation, in China the situation there is quite different). Anyway, I'll be at the library this morning and hopefully will be able to get at least a decent stub started over the weekend. --Zeborah 19:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless expanded. The article is very short, and doesn't emphasize why the topic deserves a separate page (in fact, it states "but only a few have concentrated on the sociolinguistic situation of India"). Keep after rewrite by Zeborah. Great work. utcursch | talk 10:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, empty. Kappa 21:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC) Thanks for the expansion Zeborah. Kappa 08:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow, an entire article about the fact that somebody is doing research on something. I wonder what the "H" stands for in PHD? Mandsford 22:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as empty, unless someone starts the potential expansion. The talk page has much more significant information than the article, and will hopefully be preserved in user space. Abecedare 22:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've just added several sections to the page (complete with references). My head now aches mightily. :-) It could still do with work because I haven't tidied any of the stuff that was already there, but it should be enough to go on with now. --Zeborah 09:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definite keep now after the tremendous rescue effort by Zeborah. Abecedare 19:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now I agree with Utcursch - you have done a great job Zeborah! I reverse my earlier opinion. Thank you very much. With a bit of minor editing it will be a really good and useful article now. What a difference in such a short space of time! John Hill 12:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zeborah. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 18:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per John Hill. Keb25 16:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC). Keep after the rewrite. Keb25 05:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify which part of John Hill's comments you're referring to? The article has been significantly changed since he made them. --Zeborah 19:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Rationale per nom no longer applies. dr.ef.tymac 09:08, 7 September 2007 (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. MastCell ^Talk 22:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guayaquil Marathon

Tagged as A1, but has plenty of context. Is this worth keeping? Feels like it to me. Daniel Case 01:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete; keep if independent sources are added. This looks like an event that is probably notable, but needs independent sources. I'm troubled by the fact that the only link is to the web site of the race promoters, which smells of spam. Someone might rescue this with a little work. Realkyhick 02:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a perfectly legitimate city marathon with over a thousand runners competing. Here are the 2005 results [1]. Nick mallory 06:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. A moderately large marathon in a moderately large city likely has enough notability. Hard to track down sources due to its location, but a Google search turns up several, many in Spanish. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Spanish sources are OK. Link some and we'll probably be fully in the clear here. Realkyhick 16:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 02:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC) —Crazytales talk/desk 21:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems legitimate after checking out the AIMS links. Per earlier posts, a city marathon is likely to have no problem meeting notability. Perhaps someone at Wikiproject Ecuador can help finding suitable sources. Thomjakobsen 21:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:16, 7 September 2007 (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 all ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2000s music groups

This article is redundant with the Category:2000s music groups. I am also nominating the following related pages because they all fail in the same way as being redundant with their respective categories of the same name:

There is no need to merge the information on the page. The categorization of each group's article will suffice. Keeping this list separately introduces all kinds of problems and should be considered Listcruft. Maher-shalal-hashbaz 01:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to categories. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 02:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant. This is why we have categories, boys and girls. Realkyhick 02:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it is just a list (with no/minimal description in each one), create a category and delete the article as "redundant". Same applies here.--PrestonH 03:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 05:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With info transferred to categories Mbisanz 06:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Redundant to categories. Thin Arthur 06:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Thin Arthur and Mbisanz.--JForget 22:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Simon Says Delete all Thin Arthur and I are the only ones who voted to Delete All. Oh, I guess the nominator did too. Since nobody's voting to Keep All, it looks unanimous. Mandsford 22:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Redundant. DJBullfish 03:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite, could be rewritten to not be redundant with categories. For example, a year of foundation could be added. Grue 06:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to 2000s in music, 1990s in music, 1980s in music, 1970s in music,1960s in music, Delete the list portion, Rewrite the intro with sources. HokieRNB 17:28, 1 September 2007 (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. Singu larity 02:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Eby

Tagged as speedy but does make an assertion of notability. Does it carry the day? Daniel Case 01:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see an assertion of notability. Fails WP:MUSIC. Precious Roy 01:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The CD release. Daniel Case 01:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Releasing a CD is not notable. Anyone with money and the inclination can release a CD. As far as WP:MUSIC goes, the criterion for notability through releases is two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels. Precious Roy 01:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I thought it was still down at one. Daniel Case 02:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been "two or more" since the very first edit to WP:MUSIC, although I don't know if there was a precursor page with a less stringent guideline. --Dhartung | Talk 04:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. My cat could release a CD. Realkyhick 02:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with slight reservation Does not seem to meet the notability criteria for a composer. "Reservation" because I'm not very familiar with the genre, and perhaps such institutions as the Dallas Jazz Orchestra are notable. If it is, however, I don't know about it. faithless (^speak) 04:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC or WP:PROF. --WebHamster 05:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep 1000+ google hits. Mbisanz 06:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I get more than that under my real name and I'm certainly not notable. Does this mean I can get a WP article now?--WebHamster 06:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

good point, I figured that "Eby" is an odd last name, but since the consensus looks like a delete, I'll keep my weak keep for the time being.Mbisanz 06:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 20:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless significant coverage from reliable, independent sources are found Corpx 00:15, 31 August 2007 (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. Mackensen (talk) 23:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latino Fan Club

No sources. A google news archive search for "Latino Fan Club" comes up with no relevant results. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability for relevant policies. Chick Bowen 01:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. —Becksguy 19:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, likely porn-spam. Realkyhick 02:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not spam, although it is porn. LFC is a significant and long time producer of ethnic gay porn located in NYC. Market is for those who want Latin men, thugs, newyorkricans, etc. There are about 35 videos listed on their website for sale. Review here which mentions it, although in embarrassingly little detail. Here's another article from GayYN. Two of their videos were nominated (didn't win) for a 2007 GayVN award. Here's an entry from Fleshbot. Google lists 87,900 hits, most listing Videos/DVDs for sale, granted. Fotofactory Press is publishing an erotic art book this fall featuring their models, here. This listing shows that a LFC video has reached #2 position in weekly rentals. The article has almost no references, and much appears to be original research, but thats reason to improve, not delete. — Becksguy 09:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, correct me if I'm wrong of course, but none of those look like reliable sources to me. Chick Bowen 00:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Taken individually I would agree with you that's it's not enough. It's all I could find, as I was really really tired. I don't like this stuff, but the company is notable within it's niche market. And I think we are generally too quick to delete when improvement would be a better option. I think the company is notable, any thing else can be fixed. — Becksguy 01:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Per WP:PORNBIO, a nomination for GayVN establishes notability, LFC had two of their videos nominated in 2007 for the Best Ethnic category, so that should be sufficient. — Becksguy 16:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete porn spam. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PORNBIO. Please note that the article does need to be improved. — madman bum and angel 15:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since this is a company, I think it should technically be judged under WP:CORP rather than WP:PORNBIO. On the subject of sources, the company is briefly/trivially mentioned in this book and there is apparently at least one Village Voice article dedicated to the company (see [2]). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:26, 7 September 2007 (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. Singu larity 02:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wired New York

Website which does not meet the notability criteria of WP:WEB. The external links to the claimed number of members are to the cite itself, not a reliable source. Most of the article is about a member of the website who died tragically, in circumstances unrelated to the website. Exteranl links in this section are to the sites forums. Savidan 01:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lacks notability, and WP:NOT#MEMORIAL for the unfortunate fellow who died. Shalom ^Hello 03:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a memorial. Unnotable site with forum *yawn*--Dacium 03:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Shalom, and Dacium. IP198 —Preceding unsigned comment added by IP198 (talk • contribs) 17:56, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
delete Original research--Sefringle^Talk 05:47, 31 August 2007 (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 speedily deleted, per WP:CSD#A7. Non-admin closure. --Boricuaeddie 02:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naked Ape (band)

Non-notable band (WP:MUSIC). Only claim to notability is an unreferenced claim that they are "famous" for using zombies in their music videos. Savidan 00:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Not really making a grab at notability. Also, AMG says they've only put out two albums (on NN labels) in the last ten years.--Sethacus 01:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7, non-notable band, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 01:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Fails criteria as established here - Nascentatheist 01:32, 30 August 2007 (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. CitiCat^♫ 18:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brownies (Fablehaven)

Non-notable race from a series of fantasy novels. No independent coverage. Sopoforic 00:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability isn't inherited, and it doesn't look as though there's independent coverage to establish the notability of brownies in this particular book. --Bfigura ^(talk) 01:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The guidelines on notability (fiction) point towards these characters not deserving their own article due to a lack of real-world coverage. Moreover, what there is to be said about them can fit quite adequately in the current articles on the Fablehaven books --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 20:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Fablehaven. i ^said 04:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Fablehaven (series), where it already appears in list. Not notable enough for a separate article. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:20, 5 September 2007 (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. --Core desat 04:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheka (artist)

Does not reference any sources or make a claim rising to the level of a WP:MUSIC notability criteria. Savidan 00:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Ordinarily I would have said that he just scrapes into meeting WP:MUSIC with the 2 album releases, but on closer inspection that first one isn't his. I'm not sure whether it's a compilation and he has a track or two on there or that he's just telling porkies, but either way it can be discounted from the equation. Not notable, off to MySpace with him.--WebHamster 06:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of notability. MarkBul 20:49, 4 September 2007 (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 under WP:SNOW. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 19:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Canadian celebrities by hometown

Not sure of the purpose of this list. Grouping people by home town seems very indiscriminate, and there is no explanation at all of what qualifies one as a "celebrity", or what qualifies a place as one's hometown. <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s"> Some hockey players are listed, but not most, etc. In fact, Steve Yzerman is listed twice. Some bands are listed, some not. Unmaintainable list, no objective inclusion criteria, trivial intersection by location, unreferenced. Reso lute 00:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO, woefully indiscrimiante list. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 00:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a case where Categories are the way to go, or at least, grouping by province, not nation. Note, lists of people from say Toronto or Montreal is a different question. FrozenPurpleCube 00:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and break out the Category (as mentioned by Manticore). --Bfigura ^(talk) 01:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Considering the population of Canada and the number of celebrities there, you might as well divide them into categories of "Celebrities from [name of province]".--Alasdair 01:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, use categories instead by city and/or province. Realkyhick 02:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. nat^tang 03:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 05:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Mbisanz 05:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List of bands from Canada was once organized this way, too, and there was a general consensus that it was a bad idea. Bearcat 07:28, 30 August 2007 (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. Carlossuarez46 04:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas Equality Coalition

Too local in scope for inclusion per WP:ORG New England ^{Review Me!}/Go Red Sox! 00:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. —Becksguy 19:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Local scope does not prevent notability, so long as WP:V can be met. Not sure if that's the case here, but it's worth pointing out. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I don't know that I consider a state-wide organization to be particularly local in scope. This one has seven chapters, it seems, spread across the eastern and midparts of the state. It is a little light on sources, but I did find another reference in USA Today (apparently they rallied in opposition to Fred Phelps), and there seem to be a number of google hits. It would be nice to see more verification. --Moonriddengirl 01:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I agree with Moonriddengirl and I'll add what I wrote in the deletion discussion for Equality Mississippi: "The 'Equality [State Name]' organizations seem to be representing a significant movement associated with the Gay Rights issue, and there are organizations in a number of states, including California." They do seem to be referenced in some few news stories and serve as sources for news outlets. See, also, this set of criteria. Like Mississippi, I would imagine that we'd hear more if it were a more tolerant environment for gays. - Nascentatheist 01:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - WP:POINT much? See Equality Maryland afd, MassEquality afd, Equality Mississippi afd and Kansas Equality Coalition afd -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tagishsimon, SatyrTN and kdogg36. • Lawrence Cohen 13:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I do not think the reference support in a non-trivial way the notability of the organization. I hope their cause succeeds, but not everyone who supports a notable cause is notable. State branches of a national organization are almost never independently notable, and this is no exception. DGG (talk) 07:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Moonriddengirl. -- Roleplayer 10:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This state organization doesn't appear to be part of a national organization or umbrella—at least I can't find any connection—but it has significant presence in the state, so local scope reason would not apply, I think. It's a weak keep, as it's rather light on references, especially compared to the others, such as California's. But it's notable and fixable. USA Today isn't really a good reference, as it's just a mention. Here is another mention in the press, and there are more than just a couple others, none in depth that I see, but together, enough. If it doesn't improve, renominate in the future. — Becksguy 03:50, 5 September 2007 (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. The article would benefit from some of the references cited in the AfD. Tyrenius 02:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MassEquality

Too local in scope for inclusion per WP:ORG New England ^{Review Me!}/Go Red Sox! 00:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. —Becksguy 19:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A local scope doesn't mean something is necessarily non-notable. (So long as notability can be established by outside sources). I've added one reference to the article, and I think more can be found (given that MassEquality played a strong role in the evolution of gay rights in MA. In fact, they won a national award for that). --Bfigura ^(talk) 00:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep See my comments at the AFD page at Equality Maryland. I'm not sure MassEquality is even "local" in the sense meant by the criterion, but even if it is, it surely is notable -- although not represented here, we could find many references to it in national media. I think it would be better to improve the article with references than to delete it. kdogg36 01:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:ORG, Since it's mentioned by InNewsweekly, a very large LGBT magazine.--Alasdair 01:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and agreed that the organization appears to have a significant presence. - Nascentatheist 01:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close Delete The Google hits are mostly blogs and press releases. For all the media coverage of gay marriage in Massachusetts, they have a remarkably low presense in the media. One Bay Windows article doesn't equal notability. MarkBul 03:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Bay Windows comment is a bit misleading, as there are much more prominent sources: there are several articles in the New York Times that mention the organization by name kdogg36 03:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite those articles non are actually about it just, just passing mentions and comments from people who are in the org. still seems to fail notibility of WP:ORG-Dacium 03:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - WP:POINT much? See Equality Maryland afd, MassEquality afd, Equality Mississippi afd and Kansas Equality Coalition afd -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously notable. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This outfit is the point crew behind the same-sex marriage faction in Massachusetts. A complete list on Google News returns nearly five hundred hits, from the AP newswire, FOX News, MarketWatch, the Boston Globe, Bloomberg, the Philadelphia Inquirer, PBS ... "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found." Reliable sources are available in carload lots. RGTraynor 18:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as reason given for nomination is untrue -- Roleplayer 20:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tagishsimon, SatyrTN and kdogg36. • Lawrence Cohen 13:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I do not think the reference support in a non-trivial way the notability of the organization. ""We believe he's projecting himself to a national Republican audience," said Marty Rouse, campaign director for MassEquality, a pro-gay marriage group." as two lines in a full page article that is devoted to the general issue, quoting several other people and organizations at considerably greater length. The article furthermore does not talk significantly about the organization, but about equal marriage rights politics in Mass., mentioned that the organization is one of those involved. Straight PR; they are notable for getting themselves quoted as one among others. I suppose the support for the article proves they're good at their PR. I fervently hope their cause succeeds, but not everyone who supports a notable cause is notable. DGG (talk) 07:43, 1 September 2007 (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 ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Day by Day Armageddon

Non notable, no reliable reasources and over all absolutely nothing defining about it. User:ECH3LON

Delete Search results reveal loads of forum posts about the book, which aren't reliable sources. Hence it lacks mentions by reliable sources. There is no proof that the book won any awards or have outstanding sales or what not, so it's not notable. Oh, forgot to mention, the author isn't exactly that famous as well. So it fails WP:NB.--Alasdair 01:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notiable as it apparently started off as an online journal that turned into a novel, apparently quite successful as RRP is £12 but they are going on Amazon for from £79.92 for a used copy. - I added some references to the article, one is from a forum, but it is the official forums of the publisher, and this post has been posted by a moderator, so it seems reliable. - Fosnez 03:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment On the contrary, forums posts and amazon catalogs aren't considered reliable sources in Wikipedia.--Alasdair 03:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Examples, says While they are often controlled by a single party..., many still permit anonymous commentary and we have no way of verifying the identity of a poster. I would argue that because this post is by a Moderator, on the publishers forums that this would become a reliable source. Regarding Amazon, the citiation was used to reference a fact on the article saying that the books were selling for up to 8 times their RRP, this fact is proven by the reference, and it is a notable source. (I can't find a policy that specifically says amazon is not a reliable source, I can understand how the reviews on amazon are not a reliable source, but amazon itself is.) Fosnez 03:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely Fails Book Notability standard.-Dacium 03:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't agree that there is anything paticularly notable in a book that started off as an online journal - not a unique situation, I'm afraid. There is a significant difference between a used book being offered at £79.92 and one selling at £79.92. I can't agree that any forum, moderated or not, constitutes a reliable source - particularly one operated by Permuted Press. I see no indication that the book meets any of the criteria for notability. Victoriagirl 22:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete forums/amazon listings do not confer notability Corpx 00:14, 31 August 2007 (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 Blatant copyvio of [3]. This is with no prejudice against this being rewritten in someone's own words in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright. W.marsh 13:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Equality Florida

Too local in scope for inclusion per WP:ORG New England ^{Review Me!}/Go Red Sox! 00:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Local scope does not prevent notability, so long as WP:V can be met. Not sure if that's the case here, but it's worth pointing out. --Bfigura ^(talk) 01:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fairly significant number of Google links and even a few in Google News. Seems to be part of the creation of an "Equality [State Name] set of loosely affiliated organizations with a national focus on Gay Rights. - Nascentatheist 01:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs a rewrite and format, but notbility seems to have been established by Nascentatheist - Fosnez 03:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced. Does not show how it had media/published information. does not establish any notibility for WP:ORG standards.Dacium 03:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With added NPOV and Wikify tags Mbisanz 05:58, 30 August 2007 (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. Carlossuarez46 04:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Equality Mississippi

WP:ORG says organizations need to be national in scope to be notable enough for inclusion. Therefore, this group is too local. New England ^{Review Me!}/Go Red Sox! 00:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. —Becksguy 19:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect WP:ORG gives the guideline that non-commercial organizations that aren't international or national usually aren't notable unless they meet the policy WP:V: "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found." Please consider each of these "Equality"-group articles based on searches for substantial and/or multiple coverage by reliable sources, not on whether they're local or statewide or national. Barno 00:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The "Equality [State Name]" organizations seem to be representing a significant movement associated with the Gay Rights issue, and there are organizations in a number of states, including California. There's quite a bit on Google about them, and some of the links found there represent independent sources, as expected by WP:ORG. See, also, this set of criteria. The organization isn't as large as California's, for example, which hasn't been nominated for deletion, but then again, there aren't as many openly gay people in Mississippi, I would imagine! ;) - Nascentatheist 01:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Org is seven years old, has google results. Organisations don't have to be national to be notable. Fosnez 03:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self sourced. Does not establish any notibility from media/publications. fails WP:CORP.--Dacium 03:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With added NPOV and Wikify tags Mbisanz 05:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - WP:POINT much? See Equality Maryland afd, MassEquality afd, Equality Mississippi afd and Kansas Equality Coalition afd -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - When you click the Talk link, you're taken to a page that says, "This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia." You can't ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia, if you're deleting part of LGBT related issues. Part does not equal all. Futher, the organization has garnered not just national attention and acceptance, but world-wide attention and acceptance. Equality Mississippi has been reported on by CNN, FOX News, ABC News, BBC News and several others. This organization is recognized by the Human Rights Campaign, Equality Federation, National Gay & Lesbian Task Force and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, all national LGBT rights organizations, as their partner in Mississippi. As noted on the page, this organization also wrote part of the historic argument against sodomy laws, for the United States Supreme Court. You can't get any more national than arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court. Deletion of this historic organization (who says equality Mississippi is an oxymoron?) would be tantamount to deleting all 1960's Mississippi related civil rights entries on Wikipedia beause, well, they happened in Mississippi and not anywhere else. Thanks for your time and consideration. Do not delete. Allstarecho 14:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add specific citations to the article? If individual reporting by national TV/radio organizations has been as broad as you suggest, then this will meet WP's requirements. As it stands, the article has no independent sources. Barno 15:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly, with age, most public links to national coverage have been moved or removed. I have all of the links, dating back to 2000 but most are now dead links. I was able to find the ABC News story. I also found several stories from The Advocate, a national news magazine. If would like those links, I can provide. I found 5 of them. Further, I found a story in Christianity Today magazine and a story in Pentecostal Evangel magazine, both national magazines. Futher, there are stories available on the internet from regional media such as Southern Voice, which covers most of the Southern states. A simple Google News search brings back numerous results. You must also keep in mind that while some news stories appear to be in, and come from, local news outlets, these are Associated Press stories, which is a national news organization. Thank you. Allstarecho 18:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further: I just read where New England has marked several statewide gay organizations for deletion. See the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. This of course brings into question the motive here, especially since included in that list is MassEquality. If we're basing this decision off of national media coverage, there's no other organization out there that has gotten more than MassEquality thanks to the state's passage of legislation allowing and acknowledging same-sex marriage. Again, as pointed out above, the policy WP:V: "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found." A simple Google/Yahoo/MSN search returns hundreds of reliable independent sources. Allstarecho 23:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still Further: I just found a USA Today article. Allstarecho™ 10:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep - it is a complete fallacy that organisations have to be national to be notable, though this one could do with some better referencing -- Roleplayer 20:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tagishsimon, SatyrTN and kdogg36 from list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. • Lawrence Cohen 13:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as I do not think the references support in a non-trivial way the notability of the organization. For example, the CNN article simply quotes them "Jody Renaldo, executive director of the gay-rights group Equality Mississippi, said that the state law makes gay marriage "a non-issue."" as a paragraph added on to a long article about the subject. (That's all it says--this is not a substantial reference to the importance of the group.) I hope their cause succeeds in Mississippi as everywhere else, but state branches of a national organization are almost never independently notable, and this is no exception. A walled garden of local articles. We have to separate an objective consideration of the organization from our devotion to the issue. Nominating them is not POINT, unless the point is that WP is not for PR. DGG (talk) 07:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: First, your userpage says you're an inclusionist -- you could have fooled me. :-p Second, just as a point of information, this organization is not a state branch of a national organization (this is also true of the other organizations currently listed at the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions.) There is something called the "Equality Federation" which includes most such groups, but it's a loose, a posteriori federation of the groups for purposes like sharing resources or information. Finally, I think the POINT suggestion was because the user nominated lots of similar articles for deletion all at once, when there's no reason this matter couldn't have been discussed on the talk pages first. kdogg36 12:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Equality Mississippi is not a branch or chapter of any other organization, national or otherwise. It's a sovereign organization. Allstarecho™ 01:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 01:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VX (band)

Non notable band that simply covers songs written by others. Currently signed to a non-notable (no wiki article) label. New England ^{Review Me!}/Go Red Sox! 00:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- PS, the article was written by a band member, who hasn't contributed outside this article. New England ^{Review Me!}/Go Red Sox! 00:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BAND. --Bfigura ^(talk) 00:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, signed to a label that, by the label's own admission on their MySpace, only started this year. Before that, the only other thing I could find was one album, listed on the All-Music Guide. The label? VX. Fails WP:MUSIC.--Sethacus 01:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable per nom and this guideline. - Nascentatheist 01:36, 30 August 2007 (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. Singu larity 01:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean State Job Lot

This company is semi-notable in New England, but that's it. Its not notable enough for inclusion here. (and I live down the street from one). New England ^{Review Me!}/Go Red Sox! 00:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 85 stores? It may be notable. This [4] court case may entail some notability. Possibly even more in he archives. This [5] looks like the best. FrozenPurpleCube 00:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, regional chain with 85 stores seems to be notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 00:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's one near me, and I've never heard a word about it for 35 years other than the flyers they send out. Non-notable. MarkBul 03:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, what you've heard or not heard, may not mean anything. Have you looked for sources besides your own memory? FrozenPurpleCube 03:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough for WP:CORP.--Dacium 03:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Have you looked at the existing secondary sources? The case involving the mall certainly made a lot of news. FrozenPurpleCube 03:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jamesway only had 110 stores and thats a keep. Mbisanz 05:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Quite on a par with many, many regional chain department stores, most of which -- even long defunct ones -- have articles. RGTraynor 18:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is definately a notable regional chain store. Many examples of this already on wikipedia. --Djsasso 18:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 80+ stores that have been around for over 35 years Rackabello 01:00, 31 August 2007 (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.