Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 June 19

< June 18	June 20 >

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. Wizardman 13:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Metallica's Lollapalooza 96 Tour

In a previous AfD ~~most~~ a number of Metallica's tours were deleted, this one was not bundled. While I had originally said in that AfD that an merge would be viable, the other articles were deleted and as I think now, I don't think an article of tour dates is particularly encyclopedic. There's no evidence that this was a notable tour for Metallica and there is no content, context. For the same reason I'm including the same no-context tours:

I am explicitly *not* including those which establish context/content/notability as some tours might be notable. For the inevitable, what reason for AfD.. Wikipedia is not a directory of Metallica tour dates. Or any other band for that matter but I found the first of these in the backlog._{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 20:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —_{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 20:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Per nom. No explanation is given for tour notability. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lollapalooza was a package tour, so it's inaccurate to have an article titled "Metallica's Lollapalooza 96 Tour". I can certainly see an article being crafted about the 1996 Lollapalooza tour (I've personally been thinking of writing an article about the 1991 tour, given the number of resources I've found on the topic), but it wasn't a "Metallica tour" per se. They headlined a touring festival; it's a big difference. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yeah I didn't understand the article when I first found it for basically the reasons you said. It's like a subset of one year of one tour. There appear to be some Lollapalooze by years and there is this: List of Lollapalooza lineups by year but I don't know that this is worth merging to either of those. IMO, doesn't appear it would fit. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 23:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FWIW, during the Poor Touring Me Tour, Cunning Stunts was filmed. If you check out NewsLibrary.com and search for "metallica stunt" in 1997, you can see multiple newpapers that reported on individual stops on the tour.--Rockfang (talk) 10:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't disagree that there was news coverage of Metallica performing in City X but I question a) whether it's encyclopedically notable and b) whether a list of tour dates, which is all any of these are made of, is of any benefit. I think an article called Metallica tours could possibly exist of one line about each tour but tour dates aren't needed. That could be mentioned in Cunning Stunts, where it doesn't appear to be. I'm not sure filming a video makes a tour notable. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 23:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The last AfD for metalica tours had only 2 votes, both for merge. And yet the articles were deleted. I'd support a Merge as before, but i don't support removing the information from wikipedia entirely. The tour dates are useful for music journalists etc.Yobmod (talk) 16:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's useful? The closing admin, who said, Delete. WP:NOT#DIR. An overarching article might be possible, but these articles are just directory listings of shows apparently thought the delete arguments were more policy based. These have the same issues -- a list of tour dates is not encyclopedic. An article of lists without context is not an article, same issue of not being a directory. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 22:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essentially the articles are laundry lists of dates - Wikipedia is not a directory. Also there is little or no context and notability is not evident. nancy ^(talk) 09:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DIR. Music journalists should not be using Wikipedia to confirm particular dates, since we aren't that trustworthy. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 09:38, 29 June 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 it does chart, let me know and I'll restore the article. Wizardman 17:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flush (Head song)

Contested redirect of non-notable, forthcoming song. Fails WP:MUSIC#SONGS. Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The song is the first single from Head's new album, and will be on the charts after July 8. It is notable because it has been performed by Korn ex-guitarist Head, who's work has been kept secret for a long time. This is the first song he's announced and the first single for his new album, and will receive airplay and chart after July 8. dude527 (talk) 20:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If/when it charts, it will be notable. Until then, per WP:MUSIC#SONGS, it isn't. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why don't we keep it until it charts then? To me it doesn't make sense to delete something we know will be notable within a couple of weeks. That just means we'll have to re-create the page. dude527 (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because there's no guarantee that it will chart. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Thetrick (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC#SONGS. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can't tell you how many articles there are for singles that didn't chart, or did but have absolutely no mention of chart position. True, most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, but I believe songs that are uniquely sold as singles separate from the collective whole are, in fact, notable. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 19:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then nominate them for deletion (but I know what you mean) Faradayplank (talk) 01:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & WP:FUTURE "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. ... speculation about it must be well documented." The only link is a myspace page, surely there is some more press about this. Recreate it after it is notable, if it becomes so. Faradayplank (talk) 01:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, why does the {{Future single}} template even exist if articles for future singles are slapped with AfDs. The template even reads, "It may contain information of a speculative nature and the content could change as the single release approaches and more information becomes available." Even then, there's nothing speculative in the article. The song is confirmed as a single, its release date has been confirmed, a sample actually exists. Where is the false or speculative information in this article? Vixen Windstorm (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Go look up single on Wikipedia. A single is a song packaged with 2 or 3 other songs to promote the album it is being released on. Before the internet existed, singles had their own package, including cover art, a track listing page, even a booklet and a CD. Singles should not be considered as songs, but as albums in themselves. I believe we should keep the article, because it is now titled "Flush (single)". dude527 (talk) 00:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Let me explain this better. This article is in no way notable as a song, at all. It fails WP:MUSIC#SONGS and should be deleted. However, this article is not about a song, it's about a single. A single is a song, usually packaged with 2 or 3 other songs, released prior to an album, to promote that album. Singles are released as actual CDs, with jewel cases, lyric booklets, a track listing, an actual CD, basically released as a CD, not a song. In this aspect, the article is notable, because it isn't about a single song, but about a single, which, by actual definition, is like an album, with multiple songs. However, this article's standpoint is somewhat blurred because this single will be released exclusively to iTunes, and will likely not have any other tracks packaged with it. Still, it has it's own album cover art, and a track listing, and under the album section, it will say "Flush - Single", which means that this should not be an article about a song, but a single, which are two very different things, if you do your research. dude527 (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-does not meet criteria for notability/inclusion per WP:MUSIC#SONG Also, regarding the argument that other non-notable single articles exist and that is why this one is OK: WP: TWO-WRONGS.--Finalnight (talk) 23:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, funny guy. Anyways, this article is for an album single, not a regular song. WP:MUSIC#SONG is in need of a serious rewrite and inclusion of the notability of singles. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 10:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I try to keep things light hearted, its prevents wiki-stress. A rewrite of WP:MUSIC#SONG is outside the scope of this afd, but you should submit a proposal for discussion on Village Pump or something. As it stands, this article should be deleted--Finalnight (talk) 15:40, 29 June 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. Nakon 01:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Psychosocial (song)

Contested redirect of non-notable song scheduled for release. Fails WP:MUSIC#SONGS. Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also oppose deletion of this article. I would be for the deletion of this article if this was just a random song but it's not, it is the first single. This is a notable song so it should be kept. Thrashr7 (talk) 08:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.118.55.184 (talk) [reply]
I oppose deletion of this article. Just because it has not been released yet doesn't mean it's unnotable. If we delete this article, we'll have to delete Coldplay's next single, or KoRn's, or Disturbed's. You gonna do that? And Mdsummermsw, just becuase you don't believe it isnt notable doesn't mean you're correct. Jasca Ducato (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We can't predict notability of any individual songs. Jasca, I would encourage you to read WP:AADD in entirety - your paragraph hits about three or four arguments in there. As for whether it's a correct assessment, that's why we're here in AFD, to see if there is correctness in the suggestion that it's not notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI believe this article should be kept because it IS a notable song, it's the first single from their upcoming album. I do also believe the single will become more notable and the article will improve upon it's release, but I feel these arguments have already been dismissed by Dennis The Tiger. REZTER ^TALK ø 20:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose deletion, it's not a random song it is a single, like Slipknot's first eleven (that all have articles). I don't see how it can fail WP:MUSIC#SONGS when it's not about a song. As was noted on the articles talk page, why does a template for "Future singles" exist, if none of them are notable? Black ngold29 20:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We still need to demonstrate notability. Rather than argue the point, please read up on WP:MUSIC#SONGS. Outside of this you'll likely get nowhere. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - for what it's worth, I have no prejudice to recreation if it does become notable. Meantime, it needs to be demonstrated as notable for the present time. To say it's notable in the future is what I call crystalballery - because we are not, quite frankly, a crystal ball. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand that there is little notability at the moment, but as I stated, the reason for the proposed deletion is incorrect. How can a single fail WP:MUSIC#SONGS? What's the notability policy on singles? Black ngold29 20:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Yes, it's a single. Like that article says, a single is a song. How do we know if a song is notable? WP:MUSIC#SONGS. How do we know if a song will be notable? We don't. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A single is not a song. A single is basically an album which usually contains about three songs. This article is not about the song "Spit It Out", it is about the single entitled Spit It Out. Black ngold29 21:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this whole discussion is a waste of time because in a few weeks time the article will be recreated because it WILL be notable, I guarantee it. I know this isn't reason for keeping it I just consider this whole process to be pointless. As a result of it's deletion I believe that there may be IP contributions contradicting this AfD nomination too considering the popularity of the band are you then going to request the page to be protected? It's all just a waste of time. REZTER ^TALK ø 21:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, I think we all realize that there is about a 1% chance that this will not chart. Why delete now, when in two weeks we'll have to just re-do the whole thing? I see this more as a WP:IGNORE than Crystal Ball. Black ngold29 21:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Thetrick (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Wait until there are more sources and/or until it gets at least halfway up the charts. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
May I pose the question that do you guys think that it is at the benefit of Wikipedia to remove this article or is it just a formality? Because if this just a formality shouldn't we follow WP:IGNORE? I see the reasons for deletion as nothing more than a formality based on Wikipedia's standards, I don't see Wikipedia immediately benefiting by the loss of this article of what effectively is 2 weeks. REZTER ^TALK ø 21:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We follow WP:IGNORE, indeed. However, this is not the time. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which of those point are you referring to? REZTER ^TALK ø 22:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK see WP:UIAR. "If there's a better way to do something than what the rules say, do it the better way." Do you believe that deleting this article so that it is open to a lot of IP vandalism and to eventually be recreated in two weeks the "better way"? REZTER ^TALK ø 22:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I actually see a music single that we have nothing conclusive on whether it will meet WP:MUSIC on release. Popular? Sure. Chart information? If it's not on the air, it's not on the charts, right? Vandalism is trivial for the article - that's what WP:CSD is for. Recreated in two weeks? What if it isn't popular? Pessimal outlook, but then we don't want to set a precedent that opposes WP:CRYSTAL - for good reason, in my opinion. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Why does the "Future single" template exist then? Black ngold29 23:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        As much as you may keep regurgitating these Wikipedia standards, I cannot comprehend the benefit it may have on Wikipedia by deleting this article, it's beyond logic. It is just creating more work for editors and removing information from the encyclopaedia. I will accept the decision of deletion if this is the case but it is clear to me that there is no logic behind it, at all. REZTER ^TALK ø 23:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's back up here, as I stated earlier this article is not about a song. It is about a single. There is a difference, which I outlined above. I see a "Single" as basically a limited release album which contains (usually) three songs. Per the policy on albums, "may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources". This single has been mentioned by Blabbermouth, MetalHammer, Roadrunner Records, Rolling Stone, and the band's official website. Aren't those reliable sources? Black ngold29 23:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm backing Blackngold29 here. He's listed plenty of reliable sources to keep the article. Jasca Ducato (talk) 23:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:CRYSTAL. There just isn't a guarantee that this single will chart. Bands that sell millions of records still have singles tank sometimes. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep — there are a number of reliable sources which give significant coverage to this single. It easily passes the general notability guidelines for Wikipedia, and given that it is a single by a major band, there is little reasonable doubt that it will chart. Wikipedia may not be a crystal ball, but the language on WP:MUSIC is inclusive rather than exclusive — editors arguing that it fails to meet those guidelines because it has not charted are missing the point, and being rather bloody-minded about it to boot — to wit "A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". This easily meets that standard. All songs which meet the specific guidelines are notable; some notable songs may not meet those guidelines — for example, why do we have a {{future single}} template if not for this exact reason? You don't even have to ignore any rules to keep this song — it already meets the guidelines for inclusion, and only a narrow and incorrect reading of guidelines could possibly claim it is not notable. --Haemo (talk) 10:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - In context, the three full sentances of WP:MUSIC#SONGS, to me, mean: #1: Most songs are not notable. #2: Here are some that probably are notable. #3: But if there isn't enough material, merge anyway. - Mdsummermsw (talk)
- If it is still going to be argued that WP:MUSIC#SONGS applies in this case (which it doesen't, see above); then at the very least due to the wide coverage, it does meet WP:MUSIC#ALBUMS. Black ngold29 16:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Single (music) "In the record industry, a single is a song usually extracted from a current or upcoming album to promote the album." Album "...tracks released separately as commercial singles". iTunes "Single of the Week"? It's a song. We can, I guess, agree that WP:MUSIC should have something to say. If singles are not songs, which section applies? Certainly not "musicians and ensembles", "composers and lyricists" or "Others". If you want to say singles is are "Albums", I think you'll have an uphill battle. That leaves either "Songs" or WP:MUSIC forgot that singles are so common. We're also left with the peculiar notion the singles, often said to be "off of" or "from" certain albums are something other than the songs. Unless you have some compelling argument that a single is not a song, I'm left with simply agreeing to disagree. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here's my thoughts then: How do you consider this a song? It was a CD which contained three songs, not one. If that is denied or disputed, then what exactly do you consider "Don't Get Close" or "Disasterpiece"? Another thing...It has been asked four times now, why the {{future single}} template exists, no answer has been given. By the standards for notability of a single given, a single cannot achieve notablily until after it is released. Therefore, if the people who support the deletion of this article hold to their beliefs, then they should also delete every other article in Category:Upcoming singles. Black ngold29 18:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - How do I consider "Duality (song)" a song"? Well, let's read the article: "Duality is the name of the first single from Slipknot's third studio album Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses). They performed this song on various late night talk shows in support of the new album. The song is also featured on Slipknot's live album 9.0: Live. It was written by the lead vocalist Corey Taylor and is the most successful single regarding charts produced by Slipknot." -It seems the editors of that article consider it a "song". And it has a music video for that song. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a non-notable article and it can be recreated (if need be) after the release, if it falls under the notability guidelines of WP:MUSIC and only then. MOTE Speak to me 09:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe this discussion is going anywhere, I'm sure most parties have had their say on the matter so we need a decision. REZTER ^TALK ø 10:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And at the moment, there is no consensus with regards to where the article stands. In such a case, Wikipedia have a policy of keeping such articles (I believe); just wanted to point that out. Jasca Ducato (talk) 10:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And Mdsummermsw, I just read your comment on Talk:Psychosocial. Why are Moving Mountains (song) and High Price notable songs, and not this one? I've never even heard of Ciara. Jasca Ducato (talk) 12:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I guess he thinks it's notable because while it's a future single, it has still charted. However:
- Keep, I know Mdsummermsw's labeling this article an AfD for formality standards, because he's done it to some other singles I've been recently looking at. Anyways, for one thing Blackngold29 is right about the future single template. There is no way it was created with the sole purpose that every single "charts, therefore asserting its notability," which is basically one main requirement of WP:MUSIC#SONGS, because not every single charts, or is even released to radio stations. Anyways, I said it before but I'll say it again since AfDs are going around like hot cakes, it's just a little odd because I can't tell you how many articles there are for singles that didn't chart, or did but have absolutely no mention of chart position. True, most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, but I believe songs that are uniquely sold as singles separate from the collective whole are, in fact, notable. WP:MUSIC#SONGS doesn't even cover the notability of singles, it covers the notability songs. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Go look up single on Wikipedia. A single is a song packaged with 2 or 3 other songs to promote the album it is being released on. Before the internet existed, singles had their own package, including cover art, a track listing page, even a booklet and a CD. Singles should not be considered as songs, but as albums. I realize the article is entitled "Psychosocial (song)", and if it is to stay that way, I agree with deletion, but we should instead change it to "Psychosocial (single)" to make it more appropriate. dude527 (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, changing the parameter from "(song)" to "(single)" would make no difference. Either the article's content asserts its notability on Wikipedia, or it doesn't. That's what this discussion is about. Besides, we're trying to keep all similar articles (members, albums, songs, etc) pertaining to Slipknot concise, and changing one song article's parameter to something else would mean doing it to the other song articles with parameters in their titles. The article uses a song template and is categorized as a single, so the including "(single)" in the parameter does little more to distinguish this. The article's content and notability are the only real key factors in deciding whether or not it is kept or deleted. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 05:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think you fail to see my point. This article is not notable as a song, no. But technically, it shouldn't be about a song, it's about a single. Singles are albums in themselves, in a sense of speaking. They have their own jewel case, CD, booklet, track listing, etc, etc. This article should not focus on a song, but on a single, which, in theory, makes WP:MUSIC#SONGS an invalid rule to apply to this article, making it notable. Do you see what I'm saying? dude527 (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I do Dude527, I've been saying the same thing all along. I have no problem with the page being moved to "single". Black ngold29 18:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I already saw what you were saying. I own CD singles, I know exactly what they are. You don't see what I'm trying to say. Changing the parameter doesn't make a difference on the content of the article. Besides, so far the article already focuses on the song as a single. It makes no sense to think that changing the parameter to go against the norm of other single articles, as well as other Slipknot single articles, will deem it any more notable. "(single)" brings little more focus to the song as a single, when you see every other way the article reads as a single, and not just another song from an album. That's why I say content is key in deciding if the article kept or deleted, and has nothing to do with changing the parameter to something so similar, just to get across the already well-demonstrated point that this article is about a single. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 18:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well then, this isn't notable. The information is even inaccurate as the article is about a single, not a song. Labeling it "song" is making this article even more inaccurate. Labeling this article as a standalone song renders it non-notable and it should be redirected, or the content should be changed. I just don't see the accuracy in saying the article is about a single, but labeling it as a song. If you want it to be notable, you'd best change the content to focus on the song, or change the title to focus on the single. dude527 (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first line of the article read; "Psychosocial is a single…, so the article is about the single. Jasca Ducato (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It doesn't seem that way, the content seems to be written more about a song then a single. Example: "It is scheduled to enter airplay on June 30, 2008,[2] and will be released as a digital single on July 1, 2008.[3] and on June 21, 2008 a 30-second preview of the single was released by Nuclear Blast." dude527 (talk) 19:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guarentee that further info will be added when it becomes avalible. The physical CD single does not have a track listing or release date set, though the official Slipknot site says the info will be avalible shortly. Black ngold29 19:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna come right out with it, dude527, you have a weird outlook on how to represent a single. The example you used is exactly how to represent a single. The single is scheduled to hit the radio, so how else do you recommend saying it? The single will be released as A DIGITAL SINGLE; how else do you suggest we note this? A 30-second preview of THE SINGLE was released by Nuclear Blast; what was released as a 30-second preview? THE SINGLE. These are things that appear on album articles as well, release dates, previews, etc. But wait a sec, don't you feel singles should be treated like albums? Because we got that covered. But you're forgetting that singles are songs, pieces of music. We're not going to not mention its attributes as a song just because it was pressed on a piece of plastic and sent to radio stations. I feel we balance the song as both a single, and where it stands as a song, just fine. It isn't even out yet, we're doing the best we can here. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 07:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying, if you want to avoid the article's deletion as per WP:MUSIC#SONGS, the content should be changed accordingly, as this article is not about a song, but a single. dude527 (talk) 09:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And how do you sugegst we do that? As Rtiztik just said, everything there is about the single. Jasca Ducato (talk) 11:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a confirmed single from a highly notable band. This is verified so WP:CRYSTAL does not apply. --T-rex 17:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, blabbermouth.com is acceptable. If song turns out to be non-notable flop, then revisit later. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 09:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:MUSIC. There is nothing notable about it. Merge it into the artists page if you like but until the song (single?) charts it is not worthy of an entry in an encyclopedia. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:50, 29 June 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 Reverted to notable version prior to change of material. The politician seems notable. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Ritchie

~~Non-notability Deconstructhis (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete – Mr. Ritchie sounds like an extremely nice well respected individual. However, that does not translate into Notability as it is defined here at Wikipedia. No information on Google News – No references at all in the article and no real claim to notability. ShoesssS ^Talk
Revert back to the notable Canadian politician See this version of the article. I think this is a case of vandalism that slipped through the cracks. -- JamesTeterenko (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oooops sorry about that. mea culpa Deconstructhis (talk) 20:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great Catch James. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's blind luck really. It's been a while since I have looked at my watchlist. When I looked at it today, there was an article I have edited up for deletion. So, I had to take a look. When I looked at the article, I couldn't believe that I would have ever touched an article like that without nominating it for deletion. So, I checked the history to see what I was thinking. Well, it was a very different article. -- JamesTeterenko (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It WAS a great catch. I've been trying to clean up some of the mess I've inadvertently created. Apologies to all Deconstructhis (talk) 20:41, 19 June 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 reasons provided with the arguments to keep did not address policy-related issues. Shereth 21:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glass Skin

Contested redirect of non-notable single, schedule for release in September. Fails WP:MUSIC#SONGS. Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Thetrick (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why would this even be considered for deletion considering that the band has their own discography article along with articles for their other singles? 76.228.104.23 (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well you know once it gets deleted, it'll just be re-created come it's release date, so why bother. -- Furik (talk) 23:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not necissarily- if it flops, it's not liable to pass notability. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Individual songs are not inherently notable per WP:MUSIC, also fails WP:CRYSTAL. Recreate without prejudice if the song does something notable like actually chart. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: there's not really much material for now, but who knows? This article seems to have future. Victor Lopes (talk) 17:03, 23 June 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 Looks like a pretty comprehensively withdrawn nom. Grutness...wha? 01:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When Do We Eat? (1918 film)

Delete because it fails WP:N. WP:NF states the requirements. The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. NO The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following: Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release. NO The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.NO The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release. NO The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema. NO The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.NO The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.NO The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program. NO. Sorry, it fails the criteria and should be deleted. Model710 (talk) 19:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Another day, another "I never heard of it" AfD. OK, I'll a little of the research the nominator should have done before putting this one up... Dekkappai (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of the many films directed by Fred Niblo that didn't have an article, and I created it to help plug the gaps. It is hard to find sources for silent films, but this article is referenced. If this AfD did end up as a delete, then I'd guess around 95% of film articles for films before 1927 would get deleted too (and quite a few post 1927!). I'm also concerned that the nominator only has 10 edits (as of this AfD being listed), with none in the WP mainspace. Lugnuts (talk) 19:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How encyclopedic can it be if it's a five minute long, 90-year old silent film with no recorded plot overview?--Koji †Dude ^(C) 19:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a hypothetical question, since a very quick search just pulled up a lengthy, contemporary review by Variety and a full entry in the American Film Catalog. Dekkappai (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is it hypothetical? The only reference the article uses states the running time as 5 minutes, it's from 90 years ago, and the article doesn't have a plot overview.--Koji †Dude ^(C) 20:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's fifty minutes long, not 5. And I've just been working on adding a plot. Lugnuts (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ce)Oh, you're saying our article has no plot overview, therefore we should delete it rather than write one from the many sources that summarize the plot? Sorry. I wouldn't have even replied if I knew that's what you meant... Dekkappai (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never said delete. I asked how the article, the way it is now, establishes encyclopedic value. I was trying to show what my first impression was to point out the work it needs.--Koji †Dude ^(C) 20:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Additions only add to the article. Just crosses the line for notability, doesn't give much history. I smell an axe grinder. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AFI gives four more contemporary reviews... Dekkappai (talk) 21:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple reliable sources exist, even if there's not a whole lot to say it still seems to meet general notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Dekkappai (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just added two more newspaper reviews/articles from Google News search... Gee, it's beginning to look like something 90 years old can actually be "Notable"... Now I wonder if something in a foreign language could possibly be notable also?... nah! Dekkappai (talk) 22:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Reliable sources and notable. On another note, Why are new sockpuppets, such as Model710, allowed to hide behind a separate account (for reputation's sake or ban evasion) to nominate articles for deletion? This practice always seems to be protected. SashaNein (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am being attacked and called a sock. This is a way to bully me. So I give up. I vote keep. I declare this article the most notable in the history of Wikipedia. Model710 (talk) 23:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not "most notable" simply "notable" will prevent its deletion, and will suffice. Thanks. Dekkappai (talk) 23:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So should this be closed now, or, what?--Koji†Dude ^(C) 23:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I think the above strikethrough works as a withdrawal of nomination. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:43, 20 June 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Fryar

He's played with several notable bands but that doesn't make him individually notable. I see no reliable sources pertaining exclusively to him. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep? You be the judge. In reference to the argument above about Chris Fryar's lack of individual notability because he only played with a few notable bands: Shouldn't Chris's acceptance into a wide variety of notable bands at the top of their genre be proof enough of the esteem with which he is held by his musical peers? For instance: the members of the Beatles only played with one notable band. Since Lennon and McCartney did most of the hit song writing, are Ringo Starr and George Harrison not notable because they only played in one notable band and weren't the main contributors to the Beatles' recordings? Should the other members of the Beach Boys (aside from Brian Wilson) not be afforded a mention in Wikipedia because they only played in one single band of note, and weren't the primary contributors to the Beach Boys? Another example: Donna Godchaux (see the Wikipedia article about her) was only a backup singer for the Grateful Dead, and worked "only" as a session singer in Muscle Shoals, appearing on songs by Elvis Presley, Aretha Franklin and Otis Redding. She never was a major contributor to these artists' recordings. Should she, therefore, be deleted from Wikipedia? You be the judge.

Weak Keep - he seems notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and it is properly sourced. - Diligent Terrier (and friends)19:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just now I've added four new references. Granted, none of them is an article exclusively about Fryar. Still, it's likely enough to satisfy WP:MUSIC criterion #1, especially considering there is verifiable content here now that does not have an obvious target for a merge. So I guess I'm saying keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Starting Over (Korn song)

Lack of notability, biased information, lack of information dude527 (talk) 19:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notability established. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not establish notability according to WP:MUSIC#SONG guidelines, already covered in Untitled Korn album.--Finalnight (talk) 23:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah! Tour

Not notable Tenacious D Fan (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no claim to be notable --T-rex 22:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NN. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability establishment or even a claim to notability. Also, take this one down with it: Downstage Thrust Tour.--Finalnight (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I think somebody invented a claim for you, Finalnight. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 09:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I am not sure I understand what you mean.--Finalnight (talk) 15:51, 29 June 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 21:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Plummer (footballer)

Fails to meet WP:BIO per WP:Athlete for not having made a professional appearance. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete without prejudice. He fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:CRYSTAL as he has not yet competed professionally. Can't get much clearer. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He's now signed for a new club so a useful reference to any fans wanting to know his history. Will possibly be updated more regularly now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.168.176.1 (talk) 18:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being signed to a club, even a professional one, does not pass WP:ATHLETE. The fact that he's signed and probably will compete at a level that passes WP:ATHLETE does not pass WP:CRYSTAL. Once he has competed at a level that passes WP:ATHLETE, then the article should be recreated. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neither appearances for Ipswich Town youth sides or possible appearances for Bangor in the new N Irish league make for sufficient notability for this article be justified. - fchd (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as yet to make an appearance in a fully-pro league, so fails WP:ATHLETE, Recreate when/if he becomes notable. Giant Snowman 20:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another footballer that isn't notable yet. No prejudice against recreation when he meets the criteria for inclusion. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:35, 20 June 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. Shereth 21:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of bills sponsored by Barack Obama in the United States Senate

Violates WP:NOTDIR and WP:IINFO. Anything relevant here can and should be incorporated into Political positions of Barack Obama. Besides, if we have a page like this for Obama, we'll need one for every significant member of a national assembly worldwide to avoid POV problems, and doing that would get way out of hand. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 18:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cross reference - There is a similar AfD at List of amendments proposed by Barack Obama in the United States Senate. -- Bebestbe (talk) 00:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and per general redundancy with this. Wikipedia is not for just repeating source information, even in lists. Krator 18:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I'd rather not open this can of worms. Relevant info should be merged to Obama's political position's, per nom. TN‑X-Man 18:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I completely agree with Tnxman307. ¢rassic! (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is whack. Wikipedia is not paper. I don't see this as a "can of worms" at all. The more neutral, accurate, and usefully presented information we can present about elected leaders, the better. Having more content about one politician than another does not constitute a "POV problem" in and of itself. POV is about how content is written, not about systemic bias in coverage, and the remedy for systemic bias in coverage is never to delete content in the area covered better, but simply to add content in the under-represented area. By this logic, we could delete nearly every article about US politics because we have virtually no articles about the politics of several other countries. A list of bills sponsored by a senator is more than a simple directory or unorganized information. And for the record, I don't think it would justify a similar page for every member of a national assembly, only for those whose sponsorship of bills is notable enough to produce non-trivial sources. Savidan 19:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Micha Beekman Billhpike (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Political positions of Barack Obama or United States Senate career of Barack Obama. I don't think we need a list for every congressman. I believe this list is relevant, relative to other lawmakers, because 1) Obama is a major party candidate for president and 2) his his short time in national politics is an issue been raised by his opponents. This speaks to the Kirk Watson interview flap of a few months back. I also think the article would be justified in the event that he wins the presidency, for historical reasons. It would be appropriate to have similar articles listing the legislative records of Harry S. Truman or Lyndon B. Johnson.--Bridgecross (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't know who marked this for deletion, but I believe it should not only be kept, but that similar pages should be generated for all the members of the House and Senate.Westrim (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentDo you mean similar lists for everyone who ever served in any legislative assembly in the world? Otherwise it seems POV. Edison (talk) 04:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets Wikipedia:Lists. The information is a discriminate collection because it clearly is focused on a particular, quantifiable topic, so WP:IINFO is not violated. None of the five sections of WP:NOTDIR apply. Also, there is a significant difference between the third party opinions contained in the political positions of Barack Obama vs. an article (here a list) containing information that lets the reader come to their own conclusions about Obama's political positions. Legislation sponsored by Ron Paul (AFD1, AFD2) and sponsorship of legislation by John Kerry have been around for a while without opening can of worms. "List of bills sponsored by Barack Obama in the United States Senate" can be modified using "Legislation sponsored by Ron Paul" and "Sponsorship of legislation by John Kerry" as guidelines as needed. -- Bebestbe (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - the merits of those articles are not up for discussion <Baseballfan789 (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Some posters argued that the Obama list would open up a can of worms (and the nominator posted "if we have a page like this for Obama, we'll need one for every significant member of a national assembly worldwide"). I posted the existing other stuff to show that no can of worms has yet been open by other similar lists. In other word, opening up a can of worms is not a reasonable basis to delete the Obama list. Here's two more I found: List of George W. Bush legislation and programs and Vladimir Putin legislation and program. -- Bebestbe (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Baseballfan I fixed your link for you.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 20:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of the rather trivial nature of the list, because useful content can be merged elsewhere, and because it creates a bad precedent (well, Paul and Kerry too). Biruitorul ^Talk 19:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wikipedia is not a directory <Baseballfan789 (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The more that is known about Obama to the public, the better. Chris (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this info is encyclopedic. Especially per the comments of Bebestbe--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 20:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As a non-US citizen with no affiliation to any american politics, it confuses me why this list has been nominated for deletion, at least for encyclopaedic reasons. This article provides a useful list of bills sponsored by a U.S. Presidential candidate... it is not OR, and to say that this would lead to similar lists for any significant assemblyman is stupid - this is notable because this guy is a presidential nominee and serves as a representation of his politics and beliefs. -Toon⁰⁵ 21:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - although the introduction should probably be reworded, this is important, notable information. We should keep it, and aspire to make a limited number of similar articles (not all political leaders, but the more notable (e.g. John McCain). Bebestbe is right in stating that it will not "open a can of worms" However, if we do keep it, some of the verbage needs to be changed. roc314 21:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roc314 (talk • contribs) [reply]
Delete, WP:NOTDIR. This strikes me as highly political. Corvus cornix_talk 21:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we delete all the political articles about politics we won't have much left. Savidan 00:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Interesting article - verifiable and significant. --Oldak Quill 21:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. Neutrality shouldn't be achieved by deleting the articles we have; we should create such lists for every Senator. Wikipedia is about leveling the playing field up, not down. --Oldak Quill 13:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiable, useful, non-indiscriminate information. Certainly the inclusion of this article does not necessarily justify the inclusion of similar lists for every national politician anywhere (given that Obama is, at this point, not just any old senator), but even if it did, I wouldn't see a problem in that. Frankly, it could be helpful to have similar lists for people like Kong Sam Ol. Anyways there is no NPOV problem in having an article on a verifiable, neutral topic. McCain supporters and Obama detractors can create similar lists for other politicians if they feel that the existence of this one should be balanced out elsewhere. Mangostar (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bebestbe --Yablochko (talk) 22:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge - Delete or merge into Political positions of Barack Obama. A mere list of bills, on their own unexciting and not worthy of an article, are not all of a sudden turned into a legitimate article merely because the writer is an Obama fan. I would prefer deletion, but if merging is a valid compromise, I'll accept it. Anthony Hit me up... 23:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Topic is notable and seems to have been covered in reliable sources. Nominator's assertion that this leads to POV problems is incorrect. The nominator meant that it led to systemic bias, there is a difference. Since when do we delete articles because no one else has created similar articles for other people? --Aujourd'hui, maman est morte (talk) 23:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts. WillOakland (talk) 00:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how this could possibly be described as indiscriminate. Senators introduce bills; important senators introduce many of them. It's not like we're listing the people on his street or high school graduating class. Savidan 00:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Reformat content, redirect article to Political positions of Barack Obama. I could see this article accidentally on purpose becoming a coatrack, and it would be better to centralize things on one reasonably sized article. Are there any third party sources to demonstrate the notability of the fact that he supported Bill X? Do we really need this list, or can we show Obama's values in other ways?--Nick Penguin_(contribs) 00:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, given the number of papers, magazines, and other print media that cover the United States Senate - Congressional Quarterly, The Hill, and The National Journal come to mind - every bill introduced probably meets our general notability criteria. I agree with the coatrack problem except that I believe that this page will end up highly watched. --CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 01:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment - I think merging has been proposed multiple times into the already lengthy "Political positions of ... " article. Obviously, I think this would result either in the loss of sourced content or in making that (already substantial) article too large. A list of bills seems like a good form of daughter article for such articles. It would also remedy the concern expressed by many deleters that too many of these articles will be created: first, a political positions article should be filled, then one of these can be created if there is too much sourced content for that article. Savidan 00:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I created this list because the Wikipedia format offers me to integrate more information than is available at thomas.loc.gov or Govtrack.us. Specifically, I have used the format to provide links to third-party articles referencing some of the legislation (the Notes column), although I have more to do there. I've created Wikilinks to various entities mentioned in the bill names or descriptions, such as Juneteenth and 2-Methyl-4-chlorophenoxyacetic acid, and to a few articles such as the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act. While many of the lesser-known bills are represented by red links, some, such as the Genomics and Personalized Medicine Act, have generated substantial discussion in the media and in scientific literature and should be represented by their own articles, and this list serves as an outline with starter references.

The article is clearly appropriate according to the policies listed. It is not an "indiscriminate collection of information", because the exact number of bills listed matches a source cited and several sites interested in government will yield precisely this list of bills sponsored by Obama. It is not a list with non-notable entries, because most of the bills I've looked up so far have at least some discussion in third party sources, though sometimes they are quite obscure. It is not a "coatrack" or a "can of worms" because there is fairly little discretionary content, and where substantial content exists about a particular bill an article can be started on that one piece of legislation.

The list format serves a particularly useful role because it allows readers to sort by title, allowing them to find multiple introductions of a particular bill. It also allows searching by bill number for specific queries.

It is true that this can (and should) be done for other senators. However, Obama is clearly of special interest at this point in time. It is conceivable that at some point this list could be superseded by a well-written page that customizes a comparable list for any Senator from all sessions of Congress, but it is my impression that such a page would not work quickly or efficiently without fundamental revisions in the core software. There really is little waste of space in creating separate lists of bills sponsored or amendments proposed by each senator, since each has only one sponsor.

A merge into the political positions of Barack Obama is undesirable, because the full table would overwhelm that article, and anything less would involve an arbitrary selection of certain bills as more important than others. Also, there is arguably a distinction between political positions and concrete legislative actions. It was actually the limitation of the Barack Obama article, and the unavoidable bias that occurs when only a few bills are selected for discussion, that led me to create this table. Mike Serfas (talk) 01:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Interesting list. Passes WP:N and WP:V. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd have said to merge into the positions article, but as Mr. Serfas said, it would be a nightmare due to the combined length. It's relevant information, especially with his position as a presidential contender for a major party. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. Also this would tend to make notable lists of bills sponsored by every person who ever served in any national assembly in the world. Edison (talk) 04:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't what Wikipedia is for. csloat (talk) 09:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is Wikipedia for? If Wikipedia can cover the 2005 Texas Longhorn football team and the December to Dismember (2006) pay-per-view event, Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner and Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater (all of which are current featured articles), then why should it be taboo to have an article about each and every major piece of legislation introduced in one of the world's better known legislatures? And in turn, to have lists of such legislation crediting them to their primary sponsors?

We all know what Moore's Law is. Year by year, the number of articles that Wikipedia can hold using a fixed amount of money and serve to the general public in a fixed period of time will grow in an exponential manner. What will these new articles be about? Should we dream only that they should cover each wrestling pay per view event, but not dare to touch on issues of politics?

I have another idea. I think that as Wikipedia's reach grows, that the time will come when each new bill, on the day of its introduction if not sooner, will receive its own Wikipedia entry linking it to its founder and news coverage of the circumstances leading to its introduction. I think that there will be a "U.S. Senate" Wikiportal where people will see each of these articles as a "Did you know?" fact for the day, among other relevant entries. I think that each bill will be linked into a list of bills sponsored by so-and-so, and summarized as appropriate in a shorter summary of the political positions of so-and-so. I think that the vast majority of these articles will be started by supporters who do not deny their partisan opinions, but that they will be adorned with links to other sourced criticism in a timely fashion by those on the other side. I think that most of the time this process can happen in a relatively civil manner overseen by the neutral bloc of editors and admins primarily devoted to Wikipedia policy. And I think that the result of this process will be that more Americans (in this case) will read these bills, will ask relevant (if pointed) questions in the discussion pages, will rephrase these questions with less restraint on political talk forums in the external links, and will in this manner yield genuine, informed feedback on the bills. By causing the voters to yield more relevant, better timed, better thought out feedback directly on legislation, Wikipedia will not only assist in the formation of better bills, but will generally put pressure on Washington insiders to treat their constituents with more respect than they have been accustomed to.

I don't deny that the full implementation of this idea requires hundreds of lists and tens of thousands of articles just to cover the United States alone. But Wikipedia will be adding millions of new articles in coming years, and these should be among them. I also don't deny that the creation of an article is a method by which people can express a personal bias in favor of its subject matter. But that is true for articles about video games and rugby teams as much as it is about politics. When so many people have such strong opinions, Wikipedia will not be free of electioneering, but we can choose what kind of electioneering we want: do we want the kind where individuals express their sympathies by writing up new articles with sourced, accurate information, or the kind where individuals cluster at AfD discussions and try to get one another's information deleted? Mike Serfas (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and what would be this information's parent article is too long for merger. Shem^(talk) 16:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that as many of these pages as possible should be made an linked to as many elected officials as possibly. There is never a downside to more information, as long as it is accurate and presented appropriately.Απόλλων 11:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hangar 9 Sundowner

The article does not appear to be written with a neutral point of view. - Diligent Terrier (and friends)18:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Advertising/ spam/ nonsense. Was tagged for speedy, but tag was removed by author. TN‑X-Man 18:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Was already nominated for WP:CSD#G11, removed by page author. That's not good. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy Delete~~ - Out and Out Spam. By the way I will retag - author can not remove - must be either administrator or thrid party editor. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See below conversation. ShoesssS ^Talk 00:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as nom, and per CSD G11. - Diligent Terrier (and friends)19:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've removed the speedy and prod tags from the article to let this afd run it's course. It is not eligible for speedy, I just declined it. It is not eligible for prod, I just removed it. There are 72000+ google hits for this, I didn't look through them, I don't know the quality. But a new article with a speedy/prod/and AFD template looked ridiculous. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to Keeper76 - maybe we should just work on improving the article; it seems notable if that's the case. - Diligent Terrier (and friends)22:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I am sorry to disagree – but I only got 51 hits on Google as shown here [1] with a majority of them being blogs and Wikipedia web sites. In addition, on Google News there were no hits at all, as shown here [2]. Let us not confuse Sundowning with this spammy piece. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 23:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral because while I happen to be of the opinion that some R/C models are notable, not all of them are. Not sure if this qualifies as notable. A fellow flying club member has one of these models. Believe me, this plane is to die for. It's ridiculously fast, 100% aerobatic and has one of the most gorgeous color schemes I've ever seen. A good article might be possible about this plane, but I agree this current version is a bit spammy at present which I'll chalk up to the fact that it was written by a new user. I'll see what I can do with it. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it now. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I do appreciate the effort you have put into this piece, and anyone with time here at Afd knows I am all for keeping articles. However, concerning this piece, where is the Notability? Even in a niche interest group, I see little to no coverage. If you can provide some independent – verifiable – creditable – 3rd party sources, and more than just company press releases, I am more than happy to change my opinion. Either way this particular Afd goes, I know where to look for a passionate advocate. ShoesssS ^Talk 23:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've done about all I can on it. Unfortunately, radio controlled aircraft are a definite niche item. They are notable within hobbyist's circles, maybe not so much outside. I just found that a model I'd written about some time ago no longer has that article. Yet another model I'd written about was deleted on an AfD soon after I started back in to editng here. I was absolutely sure of its notability, but no one seemed to agree. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – How about a Merge/Redirect to the company’s page Hangar 9 or even the parent company’s pageHorizon Hobby. I believe the piece would fit nicely into either of those pieces. However, the concern I have, is that both companies articles may be subject to Afd in that Notability has not been established with either piece. ShoesssS ^Talk 00:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of a merge to the Hangar 9 article; it's a little thin and borderline spammy as it is. Sub-articles on individual Hangar 9 models would be a real asset there. The Horizon Hobby article is real thin as well. They are, I believe the second-largest hobby distributor in the US behind Hobbico. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This reads like marketing collateral - it doesn't belong here. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just delete it! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. After seeing the work done here, I think a merge is the best course to the manufacturer's article, which I agree needs work. The product reviews are good independent sources and show at least a niche level of notability, enough to not outright delete this information, but I agree with Shoessss that it isn't enough for a standalone article. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm good with that. I do articles on individual models on the radio control wiki and the independent Eflightwiki.com; I've become convinced that articles on individual models over here aren't terribly helpful. Kind of like the occasional articles on cell phones which tend to pop up every so often. Unless it's the iPhone, there isn't a lot to say about an individual phone.--PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to delete. Article was created by the sock of a now-blocked user. I can easily add this info to the main article about the company at a future date. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Was the sock acting disruptively (voting as more than one vote in discussions, etc?) I don't see the point of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You've done a lot of work on that article yourself, PMDrive.Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you're right (blush). I was miffed that I was snowed by a sockpuppet and I kind of lashed out. Let's keep it at merge if not an outright keep. It's just that there isn't anything really notable about the model other than its potential top speed and the fact it's factory-configured for gasoline, glow or electric. The only other really notable issue is the grand prix rules which are unique to the model as I pointed out in the external links section. That's definitely cool. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:58, 23 June 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 23:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Security

Non-notable security company. BradV 18:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The fact that a business exists does not establish notability.--Richhoncho (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No information on the comapny other than their web page. Even given the claim that Delta is the first company in the UK to achieve Security Industry Authority (SIA) Approved Contractor Status in Close Protection, Door Supervision and Security Guarding. There is no verifiable source to check this with. And to be honest, I can not believe they were the first or only company to achieve. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The company's choice of name makes it difficult to find references to it on Google News because a search turns up lots of references to Delta Air Lines security staff, security in the Niger Delta and Camp Delta. I didn't find anything helpful at a variety of United Kingdom news sites such as telegraph.co.uk, guardian.co.uk, timesonline.co.uk and bbc.co.uk Something might be found in a UK security trade magazine. --Eastmain (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:COMPANY. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and non-verifiable. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:37, 20 June 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. A redirect may be created as an editorial matter. Sandstein 20:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burn rubber

Is there even one item that belongs on this dab page? The first item violates WP:DAB#Partial title matches, the second goes against WP:DAB#Dictionary definitions and the third has its own (redirect) page. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- The nominator covered my thoughts exactly. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to burnout (vehicle) and place a hatnote to Bump 'n' Jump there. --Dhartung | Talk 23:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:11, 20 June 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. Arguments referencing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bills sponsored by Barack Obama in the United States Senate are not really pertinent as that debate covers a different topic and is of a different nature. Shereth 21:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of amendments proposed by Barack Obama in the United States Senate

Violates WP:NOTDIR and WP:IINFO. Also, creates quite a slippery slope. Currently, no similar articles exist for the 1900 other people who have served in the US Senate, the 8600 who have sat in the US House, members of the British Parliament, the German Bundestag, the French National Assembly, the Filipino Senate, or the Malawian National Assembly, nor should they. We are an encyclopedia, not a legislative journal. Biruitorul ^Talk 17:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cross reference - There is a similar AfD at List of bills sponsored by Barack Obama in the United States Senate. -- Bebestbe (talk) 00:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- anything of note can be covered in United States Senate career of Barack Obama or Political positions of Barack Obama. There's no need for a seperate article. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no need for articles like this on every single legislator, and if we only leave Obama's, it's a POV problem. I also agree with the nominator that it violates a few elements of WP:NOT. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 18:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the NPOV policy that says you have to create 100 articles if you want to create one. The list that I created satisfies the NPOV policy, and that is all that I can be held to account for. I think that there is substantial public interest in knowing what legislation Obama has proposed, and the companion article list of bills sponsored by Barack Obama in the United States Senate was rated "top-importance" by WikiProject U.S. Congress. Mike Serfas (talk) 01:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. I have previously nominated Legislation sponsored by Ron Paul, but deletion of this should warrant deletion of that article, provided that we create a new policy against these articles. - DiligentTerrier (and friends)19:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, deleting this won't do any more to create a policy for deletion than the keep consensus at that AfD did to create a policy allowing them. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bills sponsored by Barack Obama in the United States Senate (with which I think this debate should be combined). The cited policies simply do not apply to this. What is being alleged here is systemic bias in coverage, and the remedy for that should not be to delete well-sourced, neutral information. Savidan 19:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, of course it's well-sourced and neutral, but does that imply it deserves to be an article? By that standard, as I've pointed out, we'd have tens of thousands of these, we'd have an article for most every news story ever published, and so forth. At some point, one encounters WP:EVERYTHING problems using that line of reasoning. Moreover, is this article in any way useful or interesting to a general audience? Biruitorul ^Talk 19:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Umbralcorax Billhpike (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not all laws are inherently notable just by existing, even though they;'re discussed in reliable sources. I see this as a collection of non-notable information interspersed randomly with notable facts, which should go in the parent article of Barack Obama. We do not store the complete CV of all notable people, so I see no reason why this list is notable in and of itself. HatlessAtless (talk) 20:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bills sponsored by Barack Obama in the United States Senate. roc314 (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts. WillOakland (talk) 00:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets Wikipedia:Lists. The information is a discriminate collection because it clearly is focused on a particular, quantifiable topic, so WP:IINFO is not violated. None of the five sections of WP:NOTDIR apply. Also, there is a significant difference between the third party opinions contained in the political positions of Barack Obama vs. an article (here a list) containing information that lets the reader come to their own conclusions about Obama's political positions. Legislation sponsored by Ron Paul (AFD1, AFD2), sponsorship of legislation by John Kerry, List of George W. Bush legislation and programs, and Vladimir Putin legislation and program have been around for a while without opening can of worms. "List of bills sponsored by Barack Obama in the United States Senate" can be modified using existing lists as guidelines as needed. Bebestbe (talk) 00:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a list of amendments, not bills. Biruitorul ^Talk 02:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I created this article because there is an unavoidable bias when we select only a few pieces of legislation introduced by a senator to mention: there is no source that can tell us which bills are important and which are not. This article is still at its earliest stage, but as in the list of bills sponsored by Barack Obama in the United States Senate, I intend to augment this article with third-party references and helpful Wikilinks. As I said in the concurrent deletion discussion for that article, I see no ground in policy for its deletion. I think it is entirely appropriate and within the scope of Wikipedia's resources to list several thousand bills and amendments submitted in the United States Senate each year, but for now I am focusing on a senator of exceptional interest to the readers. Mike Serfas (talk) 01:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I respectfully disagree. How is a list of bills and amendments - mere legislative proposals - within our scope as an encyclopedia? Why not, if we're going to list such trivial information (and, really, these are little more than parliamentary maneuvers, so I feel confident in calling them trivia), have, say, a List of rules published in the Federal Register on June 18, 2008, List of rules published in the Federal Register on June 19, 2008, List of rules published in the Federal Register on June 20, 2008...? Where do we draw the line?
- And I strongly disagree with the contention that we need to know every bill sponsored in order to gauge the merits of a legislator. (Obama himself tells us what he thinks are his most important accomplishments at the bottom of this page.) See Daniel Webster: no List of amendments proposed by Daniel Webster in the United States Senate, but still a comprehensive enough view (for the general purpose an encyclopedia serves) of the man's legislative accomplishments. Biruitorul ^Talk 02:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I interpret the (second-to-last) paragraph to refer to his votes as a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and the Lugar-Obama bill more than his sponsored legislation per se. Mike Serfas (talk) 11:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Violates WP:NOTDIR and WP:IINFO. We do not need lists of every amendment offered by every member of every national assembly in history. Edison (talk) 04:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; lists like this are not consistent with the goals of Wikipedia. This stuff borders on electioneering. csloat (talk) 09:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How can this not be important? This is a legislative history of one of the most important people alive today--Democratic candidate, possible next president, first black Democratic candidate for presidential office, possible first black president. Barack Obama turns up 60 million hits on Google. To compare covering him to covering the "Federal Register" is absurd. (Similarly, don't compare him to "every other legislator" or every news article ever published. The 'slippery slope' point has no meaning; almost all arguments are slippery slopes. If we accept it here, how much farther will the slippery slope argument go?) To say the article is electioneering, simply because the man is running for office, is absurd, unless the record is biased in some way--which it obviously isn't. The fact that you are running for office doesn't make an article about you biased. I think the author's account of his reasons for making the site is good; he should consider adding it as an intro to the article. And, yes, traditional encyclopedias do have lists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osloinsummertime (talk • contribs) 12:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He's the Messiah! Surely we can't have enough of him here! Seriously, though: I'm all for covering the salient points of his career. But let's not get carried away either. His legislative achievements (rather thin gruel, by the way) can easily be summarized in a paragraph or two. We simply don't need an exhaustive list of jejune parliamentary maneuvers. And yes, there is a slippery slope: if we accept this for him, we must accept similar articles for every member of every national assembly in history, which would do deep damage. Biruitorul ^Talk 16:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, look: Barack Obama is not equivalent to every other assembly person in history. That is why the slippery slope argument is invalid. It asserts no distinction in a context where there is indeed a distinction. E.g., WP lists songs by Gwen Stefani. Is this a slippery slope because WP should then list all songs by all singers in history? Like this failure to distinguish famous and obscure singers, you are failing to distinguish between notable and less notable political actors.Osloinsummertime (talk) 09:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even if we concede that point, we'd still have to take dozens of pages that are very long, dull and ultimately irrelevant lists of what are essentially parliamentary maneuvers and have very little to say about the politicians themselves. Our goal (as I see it) should not generally be to present raw data, but to shape that into a coherent, readable format. Winston Churchill sat in Parliament for over six decades; John Howard for over three; Tony Blair for 24 years - the length of Gerald Ford's House career; LBJ was a senator for a dozen years; and Robert Byrd has been there almost half a century. Should we compile similar lists for them too? If so, why? If not, why for Obama then? What purpose does any of this serve? Biruitorul ^Talk 16:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Make it an appendix I would agree with you, but I think this article serves at least as a great appendix to a main Obama article. Is there a way to indicate that it is an appendix? If not there ought to be.Osloinsummertime (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete (non-admin closure), speedy deleted per CSD G4. - Diligent Terrier (and friends)19:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seventysomething (term)

A re-creation of an article deleted a while ago. Georgia guy (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Diligent Terrier (and friends)18:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per CSD g4. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 18:37, 19 June 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. Fram (talk) 09:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Golden tutoring

It doesn't satisfy WP:COMPANY. It has been the subject of a local TV station report about it being a scam. Other than that, there isn't much in the way of reliable sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:COMPANY. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:COMPANY DA PIE EATER (talk) 01:34, 25 June 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. Not notable outside Brighton. Malinaccier (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton Information Studies MA

A degree not notable enough to have an independent article, appears to be only in Brighton? SGGH ^speak! 18:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In the article, it states that it is an equivalent to the American Masters program, so keep. It can still be a legitimate stub. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 19:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Course at a single university. there are many such information science programs in various universities--no evidence that this is an unique degree it any way, and nothing substantial is said about it. And no references. An MA in Information Studies might be an article, if there were some information. An MA in Information Studies at Brighton is not. DGG (talk) 19:26, 15 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, Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG. Fails WP:N. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. Such a narrow scope would require considerable third party coverage to be notable, which it doesn't have. The creator is also an SPA, making me think it may be an ad for this institution. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:43, 20 June 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 20:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shlomi Fish

Not notable, violates Autobio WP:BIO, orphaned, useless WP:N. EvanCarroll (talk) 17:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One year diff of all edits done to this article by someone other than Shlomi (subject of the article).

Keep-just because there aren't sources in the articles doesn't mean there aren't reliable sources to verify information on the subject, if you search this person on a search engine, you find many Reliable sources for this person. The nominator should have tried to improve it before AfD'ing it. [3]--SRX^--^Latino Heat 17:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So find one source that talks about the accomplishments Shlomi! Please tell me why Shlomi is anymore notable than any other author of a CPAN module (myself included). This is a direct violation of a WP:BIO anyway EvanCarroll (talk) 18:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - He published a few articles on the O'Reilly website, which is is pretty respectable. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Below from Evan Carroll

It only has primary sources he wrote, **and** he wrote the article so there is arguably a WP:COI too.
No notable source has written about the works of Shlomi Fish.
You can not tell what makes him different from any other CPAN author. Or, even any other CPAN author who has written to an O'reilly blog.

I would hope that not every one who has authored articles on O'reilly's blog is notable in your eyes -- and so I would ask you what makes him different? EvanCarroll (talk) 18:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE Amir E. Aharoni: I think it is a rather clandestine tactic that you did not recuse yourself, or disclaim that you also frequent Israel.pm the perl monger group for Israel. Which is subsequently also the group that Shlomi frequents. I see this as a violation of WP:COI. EvanCarroll (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh ... I didn't bother to mention it because i thought that our Israeli names give it away too easily :) Seriously, you shouldn't be so suspicious. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 08:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Sorry to say, I agree with nominator. I was only able to find one – independent – reliable – creditable source for Mr. Fish. One source does not make for Notability. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources, fails WP:BIO. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if there are no reliable sources about the person then obviously we cannot keep the article. JBsupreme (talk) 05:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources per above. Culturalrevival (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Individual has apparently done lots of things. However, none is individually notable (e.g. writing a typical CPAN module), nor does their summation confer notability.Agricola44 (talk) 16:48, 23 June 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. Is notable, just needs to be cleaned up. Malinaccier (talk) 00:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Football University

Creation by new user Fbu08 suggests spam. Is it notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep-seems notable, as they have coverage from FOX and Sports Illustrated also mentions them, and it seems to establish notability, though it could use clean up, references to the reliable sources in the External links, and more internal links.--SRX^--^Latino Heat 17:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep appears notable. Article needs cleanup (parts of it do appear a bit spammy). Additional 3rd party sourcing wouldn't hurt either. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:41, 20 June 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, fails WP:N. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian National Top 40

Like Hot100Brasil and United World Chart (both of which were deleted per WP:AfD), there seems to be a big question about these charts' validity or notability. A Google search doesn't bring up anything official and the articles certainly have no sources to back them up. I attempted at one point to see if anyone had reliable information (such as, who is "APC-stats"?) and nothing has come up. A Google search on APC-stats brings up the webpages that show these two charts, but that's it. Unless I am missing something here, all of this seems unofficial and fanmade. Would suggest deletions unless there is some concrete evidence of how these are compiled and whether they are recognized as national music charts. - eo (talk) 17:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I had talking with the chart manager. They have sources. The bulgarian radio market, bigger radio stations in Bulgaria, most of musical stores in Sofia. BGTopDon listen! Sir! 20:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question. I would like to know what the nominator means by the word "official". Is there some world-wide authority that decides what counts as an "official" music chart? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a vague term for me to use, but basically I am referring to a chart that is recognized as one that represents music sales and airplay of a particular country. i.e. I would consider Billboard magazine or the UK Singles Chart as "official", yet something like the iTunes Store, a cable television countdown show or someone's personal chart as "unofficial," if that makes any sense. These particular charts don't seem to have any kind of documentation or history on who compiles them, or how. At least none that I can find. If someone does have it, then great. - eo (talk) 22:47, 21 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, Sandstein 20:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Sources need to be reliable and verifiable and unfortunately talking to the "chart manager" and saying they have sources is neither reliable or verifiable. --JD554 (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and JD554. SKS2K6 (talk) 20:43, 24 June 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. Unsourced, not notable. Malinaccier (talk) 00:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nanopond

No assertion of notability (WP:N), no references (WP:V). Previously deleted through prod with same concerns. Tagged with {{notability}} concern in February but was anonymously removed without comment. 143 ghits, mostly wikis and blogs, couldn't see anything both reliable and substantial. Marasmusine (talk) 16:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Someone another 01:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Lack of notability or sources. MuZemike (talk) 18:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

La piccola banda

No assertion of notability. Had a look on google, and can't find anything that would indicate that this is likely to change Ged UK (talk) 10:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep -- this article says it's the 12th musical this team has put together.
:"La Piccola Banda" ist das zwölfte Stück, das die Autoren extra für Musikschüler geschrieben haben, "weil wir für unsere Schüler und Chorkinder keine geeigneten Stücke für ein Musiktheater gefunden haben", erzählte König, der selber Leiter einer Musikschule ist. -- "La Piccola Banda" is the twelfth piece which the authors wrote specially for music pupils, "because we have found for our pupils and choir children no suitable pieces for a concert hall" , said König, himself a director of a school of music.

--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 13:36, 12 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, Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no specific guidance for this type of material. So I looked at a combination of WP:MUSIC and WP:MOVIE guidelines and could not find any reason to keep it.--Finalnight (talk) 00:03, 29 June 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 Helloween discography#Tribute. Wizardman 17:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Keepers of Jericho - Part II

Non-notable tribute album Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Helloween discography. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woops. It's not Helloween discography. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:01, 19 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, Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into Helloween discography (as above). There is little doubt that the album exists [4], [5], however there are a lack of WP:RS to prove notability. With out sounding like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, there is a precedent of including tribute albums in the artists discography. [6], [7] & [8]. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is not a notable album. No reliable sources. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Keepers of Jericho - Part I has been closed as merge to Helloween discography#Tribute.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Keepers of Jericho - Part I --T-rex 17:12, 28 June 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 Helloween discography#Tribute.. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Keepers of Jericho - Part I

Non-notable tribute album Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Helloween discography. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it isn't Helloween discography. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:00, 19 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, Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into Helloween discography. There is little doubt that the album exists [9], [10], however there are a lack of WP:RS to prove notability. With out sounding like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, there is a precedent of including tribute albums in the artists discography. [11], [12] & [13]. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:00, 20 June 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. Nakon 01:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Emerson

contested prod. This article fails to establish why this radio personality, out of thousands, is notable. No 3rd party references. Currently fails WP:BIO. EBSCO, Regional Business News, and ERIC database searches across Billboard, Mediaweek, local business journals, brought up only 1 hit and Emerson wasn't the subject of the article. Google news brought up a couple of hits from a paper in Portland, Oregon and a paper in Spokane. Can this article meet WP:BIO? Subject is a bit difficult to search on because of the common name. Rtphokie (talk) 23:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not taking a position on this. The guy and his show are clearly sufficiently notable for a WP article, but there's been more non-encyclopedic editing on both articles than I'm interested in dealing with; and a bad article might be worse than no article. However, if anyone does want to work on a better article, here are just a few of the many sources available about Emerson: -Pete (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor, Dawn. "Geeks tune in to their time: Disenfranchised find home on the airwaves and in pop culture", Portland Tribune, April 1, 2008.
Werkhoven, Todd. "Static follows Entercom’s move", Portland Tribune, May 27, 2005.
Beck, Byron. "Rick Emerson "Weenie" Roast: It Was Kind of Like Oz (HBO's Prison show, not the Land of Munchkins)", Willamette Week, May 16, 2008.
Baumgarten, Mark. "Return of the pleasantness", Willamette Week, March 22, 2006.

delete local coverage of this sort does not establish notabilty. DGG (talk) 20:42, 15 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, Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this article is not local content. The subject is known world-wide. Albeit is a smaller capacity than some others, but with a large following of loyal listeners, listening through online streams and podcasts, this article is of definite quality and should be kept. TEG (talk) 00:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - references in the article do not support this person being known "world-wide". The only references are original sources or are from the local newspaper.--Rtphokie (talk) 01:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I just happen to operate one of the many outlets for his show, and I have logs that indicate people from around the world download and listen to his show. He has also mentioned on air the different places his show is downloaded, including by troops serving in Iraq. I will try to find the direct reference to it in the minutes of the show and reference it accordingly. TEG (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Podcasts run by people out of their basements are downloaded by people around the world, that doesn't make them notable. References need to come from reliable 3rd party sources.--Rtphokie (talk) 11:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply While I don't agree with you, it doesn't matter - you're setting up a straw man. The podcasts are not made in somebody's basement, they're recordings of the on-air feed made available on the radio station's website, which is owned by CBS. As for references, the archive TEG operates has been up for over two years, and he is not related to the show, to Rick Emerson, or to CBS Radio - I'd say that makes him a reliable third party. Owenja (talk) 09:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You miss my point, the availability of a podcast doesn't guarantee notability. A podcast which was originally broadcast over the air isn't any more notable either. Also, can you expand on how TEG's archives establishes notability? It's an self-published audio archive. WP:V#SELF tells us "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons" --Rtphokie (talk) 09:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I disagree, a talk show broadcast over the radio is more notable than a self-produced podcast. The podcast was made by audience request so that people outside the station's coverage area could listen to it, and its availability wasn't used to demonstrate notability, its download statistics were -- specifically, that people around the world download it. I'm saying that as a third-party redistributer TEG is able to provide those statistics. Owenja (talk) 18:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I landed on this page looking for information about Emerson, though the article doesn't provide any real idea what kind of show he puts on but the sources were helpful. ∴ Therefore | talk 04:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With a global listening audience via podcast, including many troops in Iraq, a member of CBS Radio, the fact that he been made and directed movies, and lead singer in a band, that does qualify enough content for maintaining his wiki entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by F3u3rfr3i (talk • contribs) 16:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My reading of WP:BIO would seem to indicate that he clearly meets the basic criteria, as Pete lists several independent articles above. He also meets at least the additional criteria for WP:ENTERTAINER for his roles in the movies Remote Control and Bigger Than Jesus, the song Geek Like Me, and of course his ongoing talk show; I would also assert that he has a large cult following, although this is hard to verify or cite. As to the suggestion that it's difficult to search for Rick Emerson, as of this writing 23 of the top 29 hits on google directly relate to him or his show. Owenja (talk) 03:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep article seems to meet WP:BLP now. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:53, 29 June 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. Not notable. Malinaccier (talk) 00:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Mercy Dolls

fails WP:MUSIC. awards are minor and for the clips creator, only one ep, claims of controversy are unsourced. Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:43, 8 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, Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My google search turned up 82 hits for this music group. Most are from youtube and blog sites here I'm leaning toward a weak keep at present since it doesn't look like spam. Artene50 (talk) 00:12, 13 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, Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only one reliable source (the Rave magazine source), no assertations of notability. Awards were for the clip creators. Fails WP:BAND. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I hate to just say "fails WP:BAND" but I find it hard to say much more on the subject. I fail to see the Rave magazine source as "signifigant coverage". -Verdatum (talk) 16:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FL2 Interactive

I would keep an eye on this for a few days... as it stands now its a CSD but it could be legit if more external sources and other stuff keeps get added to it to meet WP:CORP. I dont want to CSD it just yet so I'm opening an AFD for this article. Katanada (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to spam but... What would you suggest? I tried to model this after what Crispin Porter & Bogusky has done and their section is approved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FormIsEmpty (talk • contribs) 16:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:COMPANY. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, the sources added since the afd was create do not do anything to establish notability. The adobe link is because the company uses adobe products. The webby awards link is for their clients.--Finalnight (talk) 00:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Delete Seems like the Adobe link is reference to an award they won. Not about products. The Webby Award, if you went down the page referenced the two sites which had won the award.

Precedence Modernista.com is using wikipedia as their actual homepage - used strictly as a marketing piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.43.146 (talk) 16:45, 29 June 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. Until today, this was a redirect to Saying, until it was overwritten as a carbon-copy of List of famous sayings — a laundry list of loosely associated sayings which is also up for AfD. I have redirected this back to Saying, as I felt that this was a non-controversial move. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sayings

This potentially endless list of witticisms belongs to wikiquote Mukadderat (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 13:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Lopez

Non-notable actor. This individual has only appeared in reality TV (as seen in this IMDb link and has no notable accomplishments except for receiving second place in the March of Dimes, a non-notable event. Cunard (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability guidelines for actors. While the March of Dimes itself is very notable, I would imagine that a dance for them isn't individually notable. Alternatively, redirect to the HGTV show he's featured in. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not redirect. I could see redirection if he was one of the hosts, the announcer, or maybe even producer, but not a carpenter. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have not seen this TV show, but my impression is that this person is someone who works behind the scenes, but rather an on-camera performer whose work plays an important part in making the house more valuable and more attractive to prospective buyers. I do not know how many on-screen minutes he averages per show, but I think he is a significant cast member. -- Eastmain (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't seen it either, but according to the Designed to Sell article, there are 4 hosts, 4 designers, 9 "experts", and 10 carpenters(!). Neither article in any way indicates he's any more notable than the rest of the bunch. I'm sure he does make the houses more attractive, but the same could be said for whoever mows the lawn, takes the trash away, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Designed to Sell. Being a carpenter on a design show is a bit different from being a behind-the-scenes carpenter. You're on camera, your designs are featured as solutions, etc. That isn't enough for an article, but makes you a plausible search term. Generally on these shows there is one featured carpenter per house/show, so it isn't like he's one of several people hustling in the background. --Dhartung | Talk 23:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's always been two carpenters per program on Designed to Sell. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 18:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect As per Dhartung -- I don't see the point in deleting this article if he is a part of the programme. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Articles about people notable only for one event. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Designed to Sell. Hes a guy on national TV, but a carpenter? Not enough to warrant an article, but a redirect would suffice. Of course, he would be notable if he bombed _______, but this isn't a keep arguement, =). DA PIE EATER (talk) 01:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Designed to Sell. Don't get me wrong, I love the show. But this is not for our wiki to have. And Starblind: Why everything's so inflated is because it films in four different locations, under two (or three) different production companies, with real estate experts like crazy (some appear on other HGTV programs, like Brandie Malay and Donna and Shannon Freeman). The four designers don't appear anywhere else, only ONE of the hosts (that would be Clive Pearse, who is also at the helm of Design Star) does something outside of the program, and ONLY one carpenter should have his own article (Steve Hanneman, who also has the Hammer Heads program). The carpenters in Designed to Sell outside of Hanneman probably don't need articles. I have watched innumerable amounts of Designed to Sell. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 18:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Designed to Sell. The subject does not have any independent reliable sources coverage of himself and is not the lead or host of the show. Does not meet WP:BIO or WP:ENTERTAINER guidelines a result.--Finalnight (talk) 00:15, 29 June 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 salt. This is a difficult decision but I'm going to have to make a decision one way or the other to end this recreation/renomination cycle. I will delete it because:

The article appears to be self-promotion, raising spam/conflict of interest problems.
Most of the Google News references are from non-notable websites such as easier.com
The Google News articles that are from credible news sources are not actually about the website.

I refer people to Deletion Review if they wish to pursue this further. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moneyfacts.co.uk

Nominated for speedy and declined. Non-notable company/website, spammy, no reliable sources. Re-creation of a previous article that has been deleted as spam THREE times (albeit with a different title). ukexpat (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC). Also, WP:SALT to prevent re-creation. – ukexpat (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The primary source is fine, the second Alexa source neither confirms nor contradicts the article and is useless, and the third Wikia source reads like an advert. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy Delete~~Weak Keep The article appeared to be blatant advertising to me because of its lack of reliable 3rd party sourcing and the only references appeared to be external links to help sell the subject. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy-delete as {{db-web}}. DMacks (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nom: I did nominate for speedy but it was declined (on rather thin grounds, IMHO, but that's not relevant). – ukexpat (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as non-notable web content per DMacks. This article is definitely spam. Cunard (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete I wouldn't quite call it blatant spam, but it's definitely non-notable and the fact that it keeps coming back strongly suggests a WP:COI issue. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - does not claim to be notable. also spam. --T-rex 22:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I also suggest SALT-ing the title as there is no doubt it will be recreated a fourth time if this AfD succeeds. Darrenhusted (talk)

Delete - neither the business nor the website notability criteria are met. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The other editors said it best...and first. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Usually I respond to unresearched deletion nominations by adding the sources I can find to the article, but for this one I just don't have the time - it would take far to long to add references to all of the 1100 sources found by Google News, so I would urge the ten people above who didn't bother to even do any basic research before joining in the feeding frenzy to add one each. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep a major company, there's already one good though short RS 3rd party article in the external links ~~The Observer,~~ and what Phil found is pertinent. (It was I who declined the speedy on what someone seems to think are the thin grounds that the article was even if looked at by someone who didnt check importance not purely promotional--which is the requirement for speedy G11).DGG (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fixed the link: it is [14] DGG (talk) 14:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that some of the people "voting" delete above did do research. Saying that we didn't bother looking at this is ridiculous. This article neither asserts notability nor did it make any attempt at reliable 3rd party sourcing (both of which articles which aren't simply advertising should have from the beginning). Also, and somewhat separately why does "Moneyfacts" redirect to Ethical banking? Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Aren't "has over half a million users" and "supply the majority of the national and regional press and over 100 Financial websites with Best Buy charts" assertions of notability? And wouldn't the normal research done by anyone nominating or commenting at AfD include a news archive search? I've no idea why Moneyfacts redirected to Ethical banking - you'd better ask User:Mac who did it if you really want to know. I've changed the redirect to go to the page under discussion here. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I grant you the users thing and the other thing says popular. I was under the impression notability was about more than just that though. The news stuff I saw seemed to be moneyfacts commenting on other people and not the other way around (which is also something I thought was the requirement). I'm willing to change to a weak keep if I was wrong on these though. It still doesn't justify your generalisation of people though. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the Google News hits are reporting quotations from Moneyfacts, but many also are major media sources referring to Moneyfacts as one of the best places to go for information on the UK consumer finance market. The first 50 of those hits include such statements from the BBC, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, The Independent and The Times - the five major non-tabloid general news sources in the UK. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm confused. More so than usual. DGG's link to The Observer seems to be about vintage guitars, and I'm not at all sure how it confers notability on this business. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fixed, see above.DGG (talk) 14:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Phil Bridger and DGG have shown this website clearly meets the notability guidelines with significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. RMHED (talk) 15:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article could sure as heck use some cleanup and improvement, but notability has been established for the subject. Just because it isn't pretty doesn't mean it doesn't belong.--Finalnight (talk) 00:18, 29 June 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) 18:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Fairburn

Non-notable radio broadcaster. Fails WP:BIO. Cunard (talk) 15:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. References seem to indicate notability. --Eastmain (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Type his name into google . Very notable. With more info and time could become a great article (Sam :x0 (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Weak Keep Article is barely 24 hours old so an AfD seems a bit hasty, especially as at least a couple of sources have been provided. I would feel a lot better if this article was a lot better sourced for notability and verifiability. I have fixed some formatting and typographical errors. I've also fixed the copy/paste from the subject's own website. Write your own prose and source it, please. - Dravecky (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems notable enough. 5 articles on his latest career move where he was the subject including 1 in the mainstream press (The Guardian) and a couple of industry weeklies. The articles seem to be independently written and not a case of press release copy and paste that some industry periodicals are known for.--Rtphokie (talk) 01:56, 20 June 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. (jarbarf) (talk) 23:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical Reaction (artscene group)

Uncertain if notable. Has been prodded (and contested) and speedy-tagged and -deleted and contested. Claims of "it's notable/important" have not been supported with RS cites. Seems like it could be important historically and/or in its genre. DMacks (talk) 15:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7/nn-group. Everthing's important to somebody, I guess, but there's just no notability here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think it is notable. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Chemical Reaction is one of the oldest and well established art groups from Europe. I agree that there should be improvements made to the article, but there is a general issue when it comes to the definition of "reliable sources". The whole subject of this type of art happened outside the coverage mainstream media. There are barely any mentionings in any type of print publication, even for the largest, oldest and most respected groups. I was avoiding to look for diskmag citations, because it would be necessary to establish notability for those diskmags first, which is as hard as establishing notability for the group itself. p.s. I created the article originally, just FYI. I was the leader of a competing art group, which has an article too and survived multiple AfDs already. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 16:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you provide links to those AfDs so we can see some precedent? DMacks (talk) 06:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm I don't really know if this article is in the main point of interests on what wikipedia is about. But i know for sure that cRO is a big player in the underground internet scene for 10 years now, so they are quite respectable for their work and arts. I think cRO doesn't really care if you delete the article - whenever wikipedia dies - cRO is still alive.^Talk! .oOo. 00:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.117.182.67 (talk) [reply]
Keep. This noteworthy organization has a history extending ten years back, and is appropriate for coverage in a niche encyclopedia such as this. RFerreira (talk) 17:37, 24 June 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 The only user to vote delete seemed to have some sort of axe to grind, and keep votes were made by trusted and established users. Non-admin closure...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 16:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Real World/Road Rules Challenge: The Inferno

Completeing nomination for new user whose edit summary referred to this being unsourced Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- KEEP

Jaime Moore 21:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete There are no sources. Not even one. The external links point to a Real World 14 page with has nothing to do with this article and MTV.com (which might air the show but it does not point to anything substantive which would explain where this article came from.) For all we know the entire article is pure speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zredsox (talk • contribs) 2008-06-15T18:23:58
Keep There are a bunch of RW/RR articles out there right now that are currently sporting a Zredsox-initiated AfD tag. Appears to be a reaction to this CSD-DRV from June 10. I sourced Real World/Road Rules Challenge this morning and will work on the other batch of articles Zredsox tagged over the next few days; this is a well known and long running series, as Zredsox himself will attest to. Just asking for good faith and reasonable time. (If closing admin could courtesy-ping my talk page to let me know this has been closed and my efforts will be worthwhile, I'd appreciate.) Townlake (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional reading This AfD illustrates the WP:TE issues currently threatening a lot of the RW/RR articles. Townlake (talk) 18:51, 18 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, Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Townlake, it seems tht Zredsox has an axe to grind. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:13, 19 June 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 speedily deleted. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Wayne Sinclair

Page has been deleted multiple times under various editions and criteria - attack page, non-notable, even G4 (even though that was misapplied). Larry Sinclair was salted; this page was an (annoying) "workaround". We (read: I) decided on the RPP page that I'd bring it here and get some consensus on notability - it seems borderline. At least the page is sourced now. Tan | 39 14:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like the previous version was salted for good reason. Someone is clearly desperate to get this onto Wikipedia, and that alone is good reason to treat it as highly suspect. Delete as attack page, non-notable, BLP violation, WP:NOTNEWS, etc etc etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~Keep Attack page on who, Sinclair or Obama? It was a notable event and this seems to be written from a reasonably NPOV, given partisan politics and the ongoing election cycle. Can someone link the past AfD's here for latecomers to catch up on past arguments? Jclemens (talk) 15:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there were any, Jclemens - had only been speedied. Tan | 39 15:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reread WP:BLP, and I do not see how this is in violation. It's well-sourced. The only thing I'm not convinced of is enduring notability as an event, it appears to be solely relevant to United States presidential election, 2008, but similar information on other accusations and controversies is not included in that article, so a merge would be of questionable appropriateness. Jclemens (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Don't we have an article on Paula Jones? These media sideshows occur during every U.S. Presidential election. By holding a press conference yesterday, Mr. Sinclair has opened the door to being a public figure about whom we could reasonably have an article. As long as these allegations are out there in the rumor mill anyway, I think we owe our readers, per WP:ENC, to provide balanced, sourced information about the man behind them. -- Kendrick7^talk 15:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep an article, so it doesn't matter if we have an article on Paula Jones. What matters is notability via third-party, reliable sources. Tan | 39 15:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I went on to note the new version of the article is sourced, although I'm having some problems keeping sources in the article. this would be my preferred version currently: [15] -- Kendrick7^talk 15:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this was re-created at a different location to bypass protection. We might as well scrap the WP:BLP policy otherwise. Shem^(talk) 15:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The previous article was deleted as an attack page. I disagree strongly with the way this page was recreated to bypass page protection, but the new version is not an attack page, and is well-sourced and well-written. As it stands it passes WP:BLP and it passes WP:V. If this degenerates into an attack page by the end of the process the closing admin is asked to strike my vote. BradV 15:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This calls into question the appropriateness of salting the prior article--regardless of how bad the last one was, this one has a reasonable facsimilie of balance, so the prior one could have been improved. If the consensus is to keep as a separate article, it seems appropriate to move it back to the previously salted name. Jclemens (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and I've expressed that at WP:RFPP. BradV 15:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think salting was fine given the lack of reliable sources prior to a few days ago; we never know the future. Refusing to unsalt Larry Sinclair after new sources came to light isn't so cool though. -- Kendrick7^talk 16:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep he seems notable at present but, I have to admit this strikes me more as an "In the News" thing than a bio. Honestly, I don't like it for a number of reasons (including the "work around". WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS really isn't a reason to keep it or delete it. It is reliably sourced (though more sources are better). I think if people are more likely to search for him -or- he is better known as Larry Sinclair than the article needs to be there and someone needs to ensure NPOV, etc. I note that significant work appears to be going on to sort the BLP concerns though I'm not sure whom precisely it attacks more/less, etc. If it's a one event thing though maybe it would more appropriately be included in a controversies article that covers all the "candidates"? Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(EC)Delete. Let me start by disclosing that I edited this article for content on BLP grounds, to include removing most of the sources that Kendrick7 favors, before it was nominated. As stated above, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is generally not considered to be a persuasive argument at AfD. My concern here is in three parts: 1. The subject is not notable, as he has not been covered in multiple independent reliable sources. Blogs, absolutely, but reliable sources, no. The only reliable mention I see so far is in the Sydney Morning Herald, and that is no better that borderline as to notability. 2. The subject itself is not yet appropriate for encyclopedic treatment per WP:NOT#NEWS. This subject is pure blogosphere fare. Virtually no reliable sources (call them "mainstream media" if you like) have weighed in on this story. We are not supposed to be the vehicle to publicize facts, we merely summarized what reliable sources all ready have stated. At this point, this is a story for WikiNews, not WP. 3. BLP - not so much for Obama (he's a public figure of the first order) as for the subject himself. Various version of this article claimed a lengthy prior criminal record without reliable sources. I think that WP:BLP is very clear as to the need for top-tier sources for negative information in this articles. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles in the Sydney Morning Herald (reprinted in The Age) and The Politico and on News Limited's site. Yes, the story has appeared in dozens of blogs over the past 4 months, but the article doesn't rely on such sources. -- Kendrick7^talk 16:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's appeared in such diverse sources as [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57248 WND] and The Washington Blade. The Huffington Post covered it, and The Sun Herald, of all places, picked up the press club event news release. Jclemens (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will say that the sourcing on the article has improved considerably since this morning. I am not familiar with all the sources that have been mentioned, as normally I don't do much with political articles. I will considering revising my !vote if it appears that that these other sources establish the information in the article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the article. I've added even more sourcing. --Faith (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move back to Larry Sinclair. IMO, there was insufficient reasoning to justify deleting and salting Larry Sinclair in the first place. BLP concerns? Remove anything potentially defamatory/libelous, and then protect the page if need be. Since when do we delete? The reasoning to salt Sinclair's article could be used on a lot of high profile and/or controversial BLPs. We don't do that. Sinclair passes WP:N. Enigma ^message 16:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant coverage in WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep coverage is becoming more extensive as the days pass. I found 4 RS with minimal searching. --Faith (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:NOTNEWS. No permanent encyclopedic value to humanity, even though it might be of interest to citizens of one country immersed in the sidebar dramas around their election (as indeed I found the sentence "Sinclair's biography, though, may get in the way of that pitch: Public records and court filings reveal that he has a 27-year criminal record, with a specialty in crimes involving deceit." in [16] to be of news-ish value, odd that what purports to be a biography of Sinclair doesn't mention that, eh?). Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the article history--it was in there, but another editor took it out due to BLP concerns. I agree that it adds balance and perspective to the article, and should be included if it is kept in any form. Further, would you suggest an appropriate venue to merge this information? Does it belong in a summary of the 2008 presidential campaign? I agree that the event is more notable than the instigator. Jclemens (talk) 19:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)There's ongoing discussion on the article talk page about that. Two sources and Sinclair himself (in his blog and press releases which I'm not going to link to) all admit to his criminal past, but that's not quite convincing my fellow editors. I'm unfortunately at 3RR over that. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re my opinion about a suitable venue: does wikinews have a tabloid/gossip section for trivial election press inanities? this could go right next to "terrorist fist bump" Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE This guy has no credibility whatsoever, as evidenced by the fact that none of Obama's opponents have tried to capitalize on these allegations, which are roughly equivalent to some random guy claiming that he had a threesome with the McCains or the Romneys. --Midnite Critic (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It really doesn't matter that he has no credibility. It was reported in RS's, who have raised their own questions about his credibility. Even WND, no friend to Obama, reported that he failed the lie detector. Jclemens (talk) 19:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, how does it matter whether he has credibility? That has nothing to do with whether an article on him belongs on Wikipedia. Tons of people with no credibility have articles, as that is not a factor. Enigma ^message 20:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - under WP:NOTNEWS, and the quality of the sources. Now, I think the Australian news services are generally reliable sources, but I am hard-pressed to say they are doing anything other than publishing a "look at the crazy Americans and their political process" article here, and there is not a single mainline American news source covering Larry Sinclair's allegations. In particular, the link farm is worrisome, filled with fringe sites, weekly special interest papers, press release publishers and blogs. It will be noteworthy when, say, CNN does a 90-second report on him or the NY Times publishes an actual article (as opposed to a 2 column-inch filler). Right now, this is tabloid news, not an encyclopedic subject. Risker (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The American MSM has obviously taken a collective a pass on this, with the exception of The Politico. Arguably, the Australian media is being objective and doing their job. Anyway, WP:N isn't "only things covered by CNN." -- Kendrick7^talk 20:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I have been pondering this one all day. Although I believe that weak notability has been established I believe this individual is trying to gain exposure by making these accusations and an article on him only helps him achieve his goal while it does not better the Wikipedia project. I would suggest that a sentence or two on the accusations be included in the article on Barrack Obama and this article be deleted until such time as any of his statements are made credible. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:NOTNEWS. I don't see this article as being "useful" (before someone asks why a road in Texas is useful and not this: because this is nearly certainly a fabricated lie, a publicity stunt by a probably random Obama-hater). · AndonicO ^Engage. 19:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point about the publicity stunt angle. The available information feels very "spammy" and self-promoting. Risker (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Larry Wayne Sinclair is a fabricated lie? -- Kendrick7^talk 20:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood; I'm sure the "this" referred to Sinclair's accusations. --Faith (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sinclair is back in the news and is being covered by US RS news sources in recent days. This establishes more NOTE than before, and is certainly pressing this into an article worth fleshing out (including adding back in his criminal record). Lack of credibility should be included in the article, not used as a means to delete the article itself. --Faith (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which American links or reference sources in the article would you consider to be reliable mainstream sources? Risker (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Larry_Wayne_Sinclair&action=submit#External_links --Faith (talk) 20:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is not in question. Credibility, though, is another matter. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Textbook case of inserting oneself into public controversy. Wacky "press conference" seems to have resulted in a number of new sources becoming available. FCYTravis (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt as a recreation of what was already deleted and salted. Textbook cases of "inserting oneself into public controversy" does not encyclopedic make. This is massively inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So, just to get this straight, while Americans are barraged by partisan snippets of this man's story in their inboxes for the next 5 months, or even 4 years and 5 months, you think that under no circumstances should they have recourse to wikipedia as a NPOV source to know anything about the man behind these allegations? Seems like a partisan stance. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it makes you feel better, I'm not an Obama supporter by any stretch. And what part of this article that you've had deleted several times makes you believe it's NPOV? It's a content fork, it's not even a biography of Mr. Sinclair. It fails on so many levels I don't even know where to begin...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that if you honestly believe that this person will still be talked about in 4 yrs and 5 months (or even 8 years and 5 months), then I'll be the first in line to apologize. I'm willing to bet he won't be talked about in the next 5 months even. Unless of course, Wikipedia is stupid enough to believe that he has done anything meriting a page dedicated to him because of his "press conferences", on a top-10 website. I don't care what anybody's inbox says. Unsubscribe to the chaff my friend. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, we have 2,419,731 articles. If he's talked about elsewhere, our readers will have this article as a resource. If not, hardly anyone is going to stumble upon this. I've not trying to get this on the front page! -- Kendrick7^talk 21:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every article should be trying to get on the front page, and every article needs to be a credible article, appropriately balanced, appropriately cited, and appropriately encyclopedic. We do have 2.4 million articles. And more than 8 million editors. So what. That doesn't excuse even one bad article (although there are many, I agree, and that doesn't mean we don't block the one bad editor that we stumble upon daily. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the controversy exists. He's a liar, criminal, and not credible; then we put that in the article. We don't delete because the person caused their own controvery; we report it according to the RS. --Faith (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is the very definition of FORK. It isn't about Mr. Sinclair, it's about his alleged encounter(s) with a notable person. At the very least, it is improperly named. It should be in a "controversy" article about Obama, or as a snippet somewhere else. I'm absolutely baffled as to why anyone would find this appropriate as an article at this point. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do rather suspect that if it were periperial to an election in South America, rather than North America, that all of a sudden it would be seen as the news trivia that it is... Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP1E. The article is a blatant coatrack. EJF (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff#Summary deletion of BLPs, and standard message given on create-protected pages Sceptre ^(talk) 21:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does this meet CDS G4? Tan | 39 21:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that much of the material is the same as what was on Larry Sinclair. Kendrick7 was working on it on the article's talk page, but that was then deleted as well. Enigma ^message 22:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G4 is only for articles previously deleted via deletion discussions, like this one. It's not for things that were previously deleted only by CSD criteria. Tan | 39 22:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It meets the spirit of G4, not the letter. This is definitely an instance of WP:IAR. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as G4 reads, "This does not apply to ... speedy deletions", I'm pretty sure we can't apply it here. But I'm really just arguing for the fun of it, I know what you guys are saying. Tan | 39 22:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...which means we agree :-). G4 is for previous whatever whatever whatever. I agree, in 99.9% of deletion debates. IAR, on the other hand, is for debates that don't hafta follow G4. This was deleted and salted, by several admins, for very good reasons, and should be deleted again. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's really not even close to the same article as before, though. I think the argument should focus on why it should be deleted now, not why it was deleted in the past. Tan | 39 22:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same article. Over and over and over again. The difference this time is it just has superscript reference numbers now, all of which prove that this is a fork, a coatrack, a BLP vio, and a one event vio, suitable for slow news days, tabloid type newspapers, yellow journalism, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and blogs. Not for an encyclopedia. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was salted by one admin, because people kept recreating unsourced garbage. Per WP:BURO, that's of no matter now. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was salted by one admin after being deleted by several beforehand. No admin salts after the first deletion. This also has absolutely nothing to do with "BURO", which I personally detest. I'm all for article creation, and article enhancement, and article protection. I'm strictly against BLP problems though. This has severe BLP problems, both against Mr. Sinclair and Mr. Obama. This has absolutely no place in Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, not a blog, and not a "news source". Wikipeida regurgitates old news, of the notable nature. This person is not notable, and neither are his claims to notability. This is an aggregious misuse of Wikipedia to further his agenda. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As you can see, User:Lucasbfr went ahead and deleted and salted it, rendering the AfD moot. Enigma ^message 22:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which was absolutely inappropriate and a total abuse of admin tools, in my opinion. Tan | 39 22:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article is already at DRV as it turns out, see Wikipedia:DRV#Larry_Sinclair. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:45, 19 June 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. Non notable neologism. Malinaccier (talk) 00:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Al Kudlow

Apparently non-notable neologism. Can find no coverage whatsoever in secondary sources. Gr1st (talk) 13:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologism, borderline attack page. All the Google hits seem to be someone named "A.L. Kudlow", so this isn't even in use. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge if sources provided of actual usage. Gamaliel (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a non-notable neologism. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced neologism used to attack an identified living person. No Google News hits at all, no Google Groups hits at all, no Google Blogs hits at all. I could find no relevant Google Web hits other than Wikipedia itself. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Neologism on display. This doesn't belong here. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:23, 20 June 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, I'd recommend deleting all non-encyclopaedic content and material not referenced to reliable sources. This will reduce the present article to a reasonably good stub. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E-Sword (2nd nomination)

This has been AfDed and closed as delete twice (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E-Sword (second nomination) in 2006, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E-Sword in 2004 (although never deleted)) and has been deleted thrice). It was also bundled as a part of a larger AfD that was closed as "Keep as bundled. I would recommend that individual articles are nominated by themselves, as some may have slipped through the cracks."

The current article is nothing but an ad/how to/feature guide which would not be a problem if it could be improved but there appear to be a lack of non-trivial sources. There are vague claims to notability made at AfD but the article remains sourced almost wholly from its own website. There is no evidence from its history and RS coverage that this article has the potential to be anything encyclopedic. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 13:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)}}[reply]

Keep, weakly. A relatively minor case for notability is made out in this article, which cites independent reviews, including one in Publisher's Weekly. Yes, there is a lot of how-to stuff and promotional crowing in the article; that's a case for editing, not deletion. This particular package meets the "heard of it before seeing a Wikipedia article" test, even though I still prefer my old Online Bible for DOS. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Man. It keeps on looking like it will establish notability through independent sources, but keeps on not quite making it. The reference from publisher's weekly only mentions the product in passing as inspiration for another product. All the pocketpc magazine references are merely nominations/finalist, not winners. Remaining sources are self-published, or reviews from organizations that are so specific that reviewing a product merely establishes it's realm, not it's notability. If appropriate sources are uncovered I'll happily change my vote. -Verdatum (talk) 17:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More copies of this program have been distributed, than have been distributed/sold by any other Bible Study Program. (The number of downloads per year is almost equal to the total number of units sold/distributed by any single competitor, in the entire history of the competitor.) The e-Sword license prohibits distribution within a commercial context, and further mandates that all distribution be gratis. One consequence is that market research reports in the industry omit this program. (Marketshare is measured as a percentage of revenue. If revenue is zero, then market share is zero, regardless of the number of copies distributed/used.) [BTW, this is the third AfD for e-Sword, excluding the two AfDs where it was bundled with other articles.]jonathon (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know it's the third, as I said in the nom, This has been AfDed and closed as delete twice (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E-Sword (second nomination) in 2006, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E-Sword in 2004 (although never deleted)) and has been deleted thrice).. Re your comment: One consequence is that market research reports in the industry omit this program. unfortunately notability needs RS coverage. Number downloaded and or otherwise distributed doesn't necessarily show that. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 19:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/clarification: This article has previously been submitted for AfD on five separate occasions. Three times as an individual article, and twice as part of a bundle. This is the sixth time for it to go down the AfD track.jonathon (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

where's the second bundle? I must have missed that one. I only see one where the outcome was keep, it's been deleted three times as well. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 19:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was before the 2006 AdF. I just saw that the December 2007 AdF was not correctly submitted, so I shouldn't have counted it.jonathon (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, thanks! _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 20:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep"The current article is nothing but an ad/how to/feature guide " I disagree, it does not read like an ad to me at all. This is a significant piece of software with millions of downloads. I don't see the entry as all that substantially different from entries for other significant software (I looked at the 'Microsoft word' entry for example). I don't see a good reason to delete the entry, edit it if you want... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.35.228 (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC) — 71.123.35.228 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep"Article currently contains two links to independent, reliable sources. While the article is over long and could use some work, it does meet the notability requirements. Google News, while a great first step towards research, is not the only one. Searching Google finds a decent amount of references in articles in mainstream Christian publications. Iarann (talk) 02:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs improving, but so do the majority of others here; that isn't an argument for deletion. As to notability, TravellingCari's dismissal of jonathon's argument is misleading. The number of downloads does tend to imply notability; look at OpenOffice.org for an example of how free software market share is hard to come by, so that the distributer's own numbers are taken. In addition, the deletion has been turned down or reversed however many times it is, and that in itself is an argument for notability ~ if it weren't notable, the previous deletions would have succeeded or stuck. Cheers, Lindsay 09:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Re: In addition, the deletion has been turned down or reversed however many times it is, and that in itself is an argument for notability ~ if it weren't notable, the previous deletions would have succeeded or stuck. WHere has it been reversed or overturned? I don't see any evidence for anything other than its been re-created a number of times? Being deleted three times says a lot. And while it's an essay, I suggest you have a look at WP:BIG, including A commonly seen argument at AfD is "Subject has X number of Y, that's notable/non-notable". Notability isn't determined by something's quantity of members, but rather by the quality of the subject's verifiable, reliable sources. It's something to keep in mind, the latter are still lacking in terms of non-trivial coverage. Also while it's software and not wholly a website, this portion of WP:WEB is worth keeping in mind, Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 13:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A synopsis of why the article was previously deleted can be found on the talk page of the article.(Note: WP:SOFTWARE no longer points to the page the lists the criteria that software must meet, for it to be notable.) jonathon (talk) 15:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WHere has it been reversed or overturned? I don't see any evidence for anything other than its been re-created a number of times? I guess i was meaning that the recreation itself is an indication that some people obviously consider it meets the notabilty level. And should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance is exactly what i meant by [t]he article needs improving. It's on the road, just not there yet. Cheers, Lindsay 17:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re-creation doesn't mean it's notable per Wikipedia's standards, it means that people don't read the screen that asks if you want to re-create a deleted article . Repeated recreation sometimes leads to artiles being protected against re-creation, not kept by default, although salting is unlikely here. As for it being 'on the road', there's no evidence of active work and no evidence that it's notable, therefore improvments are not likely to have a difference. The need to rely almost exclusively on its own site is not a sign that it has reliable source coverage _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 00:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, i understand. It simply seems odd to me that a product with X number of users, where X is some relatively large number, is not notable simply because it's a popular product in a small niche. Still, that's a point for a different forum, and i won't argue it here. In the interests of disclosure, i ought to point out that i use the product, that's how i happened to end up with it on my watchlist; but i'm certainly not wedded to the article, i'm not even sure i've ever edited it, and won't complain if consensus it to delete. I argue no longer. I am silent. I stop typing. The end...Cheers, Lindsay 10:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back in 2004, the size of the userbase was one of the factors that determined notability for software. The software with the largest userbase was automatically deemed to be notable. jonathon (talk) 19:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I, agree. It keeps on looking like it will establish notability through independent sources, but keeps on not quite making it. The reference from publisher's weekly only mentions the product in passing as inspiration for another product. All the pocketpc magazine references are merely nominations/finalist, not winners. Remaining sources are self-published, or reviews from organizations that are so specific that reviewing a product merely establishes it's realm, not it's notability. If appropriate sources are uncovered I'll happily change my vote. -Linestools (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - yes the number of downloads is self published, but that is going to apply to any downloaded software. In the end there are sufficient sources for this. Article needs serious clean up, but that is not a reason to delete --T-rex 17:09, 28 June 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.

Wikipedia:ARticles for deletion/Ram Shanker

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 Nancy, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Wilson

Musician with no releases (according to this he plans for an album in late 2008. As that is the only news article I can find and there is noone else reliable talking about him the article fails to be verifyable and he does not pass the biographical notability requirements Peripitus (Talk) 13:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real context, and no reliable sources - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 13:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete WP:SPEEDY#A7, article now tagged as such. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 13:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This is a classic A7 speedy. Not even a hint of notability asserted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No assertion of notability whatsoever, thus I endorse the A7 tag. WilliamH (talk) 14:45, 19 June 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. Kevin (talk) 00:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mysql lite administrator

It is a non-notable piece of software; the homepage is a google spacing, it's still in Beta testing. Has no other sources or third-party references attesting to any favourable reviews/download stats/awards and so on that I could find. Ironho lds 13:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nom. Maybe when it's not "beta" and picks up some following as "real" software, the author can build another Wiki entry, but for now, it's "non-notable". Proxy User (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into MySQL. The software, even if reliably sourced, is of questionable notability, but would be appropriate to include in the main article. Jclemens (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. — Scientizzle 17:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacks notability -Rushyo (talk) 00:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:57, 19 June 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. Fram (talk) 09:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Raza Hashmi

Article on a young man from Pakistan who did well in matric in 2004. After that he has faded from media interest and seems to clearly fail biographical notability. Peripitus (Talk) 13:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nom. Proxy User (talk) 13:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no real claim of notability despite some puffy language. A millimeter away from an A7 speedy, it does claim he was on TV once. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That and the few web mentions just avoided speedy delete - Peripitus (Talk) 21:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:58, 19 June 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 20:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous sayings

List with vague criteria for inclusion and little encyclopedic content. Contested prod. Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It was suggested this would be more appropriate on Wikiquote, but I don't think it is necessary anyway, since "famous" seems to me an ambiguous term. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 13:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as 1) this should go in WIkiQuote and 2) poorly formatted and not at all a Wikipedia article. BobAmnertiopsis _{ChitChat Me!} 14:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Famous" is way too subjective, and I can't imagine how this could possibly be turned into an encyclopedia article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not an article. Also WikiQuote does exsist --T-rex 15:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Loose inclusion criteria, bad formatting, indiscriminate. That, and they left out "That's Numberwang!" Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A duplicate page was made at Sayings. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Highly unencyclopediac, poor format, and per WP:RS and WP:NOT. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the directly above (I wouldnt even move this to Wikiquote!)...--Cameron (T|C) 16:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Famous" is subjective, and lists of quotes belong at WikiQuote, not here. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 18:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another randomly assembled, highly subjective list. (And, sorry, but Homer Simpson isn't a real person!). Ecoleetage (talk) 03:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. Doesn't belong at Wikipedia. JuJube (talk) 06:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Andrew Lenahan Buc (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not an encyclopedic topic. Mukadderat (talk) 15:55, 24 June 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. Not notable. Malinaccier (talk) 00:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Bonto

Normally I wouldn't nominate this for AfD just three months after surviving a previous AfD, but despite much research, I can't establish the notability claimed by the previous two keep !votes. Amazon only shows one published book, 78 pages and published by PublishAmerica, a vanity press. Although the article claims he's won "several major comedy competitions", the subject's own website doesn't support this claim (lists awards like winning a military talent show - hardly a major comedy competition). His television show is a public access show -- his website says it's carried in five markets, but a gsearch isn't confirming that, nor does it turn up any information about the PACE award won for the show. The subject's website also claims awards won at the Flint Film Festival, but gnews and gsearch isn't confirming this, nor does this appear to be a major film festival. Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nom. "Non-notable". Proxy User (talk) 13:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's research. The previous AfD really should have been extended to gather more consensus, IMHO. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:01, 19 June 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 withdrawn. PhilKnight (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Engkanto

Notability concerns - lack of coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 12:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Have added two journal article reference to talk page and intend to update page itself later. Dpmuk (talk) 13:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This appears to be part of traditional Filipino beliefs. See http://www.google.com/search?q=Engkanto See the scholarly article at http://www.jstor.org/pss/1177781 --Eastmain (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The aforementioned Google search turns up a lot of irrelevant links, and the few that relate to the subject may not pass WP:RS requirements. (The JSTOR article is not accessible to non-subscribers, so I cannot comment on that piece.) As for "traditional beliefs," it appears to be isolated to some rural areas and not the Philippine culture as a whole (do Engkantos turn up in Manila?) If additional information is presented to justify its notability, I will gladly switch sides on the matter. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Quote from article "What is noteworthy is that this belief seems to have perdured for at least four centuries: Povedano (16th century), Alzina (17th) and Pavon (19th) allude to the belief in engkantos. Nor is the belief dead today. In a year's time I was able to collect 87 long and short narratives from persons who either themselves had been befriended or kidnapped by engkantos, or from people very closely associated with the victims, and are therefore presumed to know about the case." I think what's noteworthy about that is that it's 87 people who have been effected by it so it's probably (was?) a much more widly held belief - after all lots of people believe in UFOs but relatively few say they've seen one. Dpmuk (talk) 13:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Even though the full text of the JSTOR article is unavailable to nonsubscribers, enough of it is displayed to confirm coverage in reliable sources (in this case, a scholarly journal article written by a Jesuit). --Eastmain (talk) 13:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That JSTOR article is a reliable search both on visual inspection of the first page and further investigation. Google scholar is aware of two citations to it, and is clearly understating that number because it was also republished as a piece of the book Myths and Symbols, Philippines by the same author, which has had at least two editions in 1978 and 1981. The author (now deceased) was "one of the most active scholars in the area of Philippine folklore. [17] and "widely recognized" [18]. It appears there is some lack of agreement on the proper transliteration into English; this JSTOR paper uses "Ingkanto" (and cites F. Demetrio's, but google scholar doesn't list that as a cite...) is also clearly a reliable source on the topic. I thus believe that keeping the article is appropriate. GRBerry 14:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On the JSTOR article: what can be seen to non-subscribers appears to be a wholly anecdotal collection of comments from an extremely limited number of people (in comparison to the overall population of the Philippines). The UFO analogy is wobbly, at best – a great many people have claimed to have seen UFOs and there is plenty of footage of unidentified objects that have yet to be explained away, where I don’t believe any footage exists regarding these very isolated Pinoy spirits. I would also question the inclusion of Encyclopedia Mythica as a reliable source in the main article – that looks like the IMDb of ghost stories. That being said, this will be my last comment on this subject, as I would rather see full consensus from the Wikipedia community on this article's notability. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree the UFO analoy is dodgy - it was the best I could come up with. Personally I think it's on the border line but also looking for consensus so will be my last comment as well. Have changed my statement above to 'weak keep' Dpmuk (talk) 14:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Do not rely on Google when searching for articles about the Philippines, as its websites often have no reliable search functions or not accessible in search engines. Engkanto is a part of Philippine mythology that is still believed in the rural areas, and may have notable sources from books and other archived publications. Starczamora (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found this article from The Open University in UK entitled "The Ethics of Suspicion in the Study of Religions" by Paul-François Tremlett, stating...

Any visitor to the Philippines willing to spend a little time each day to watch local television, read newspapers and comics, catch a movie or live with a family will soon come to be aware of stories about sorcery and witchcraft (kulam), of blood-sucking flying bats (aswáng and manananggal), dwarves and elves (duwende), spirits that enchant the unwary such as the engkanto and tikbalang, ancestral spirits (anito), as well as the pervasive use of creolised prayers that combine Tagálog, Spanish and Latin (orasyón) and amulets (antíng-antíng) through which to guard against the mischief or possible malevolence of these alleged super-natural agents or for the accumulation of spiritual power and potency (kapangyarihan). These kinds of beliefs and associated practices sit beside popular christianised practices of healing and pilgrimage as well as more ‘exotic’ practices such as self-flagellation and crucifixion...

The engkanto are spirits whose domain of specialisation and modus operandi is the seduction and then possession of human subjects. The results of seduction and possession amount to a diminution of the self and the erasing of physical and mental individuality such that the one possessed can no longer be recognised. Typical symptoms of seduction and possession include conversing with invisible others, becoming stiff and going into a trance-like state, getting lost in the woods, acting violently towards family members and friends and memory loss.

Tagálog healers claim that the self consists of seven aspects that must remain bound together if the integrity and identity of the self is to be maintained. Seduction and possession by an engkanto leads to the separation or loss or calling away of one or more of these aspects or strands of the non-material aspects of the self. Vulnerability to loss of identity resonates with local uses of amulets (antíng-antíng) that render the wearer invulnerable to either physical or spiritual harm. However, vulnerability to seduction also resonates with the complex history of a country that since 1565 has been subject to Western influence and which, in more recent years, has made its most profitable export its own population who work the globe as seamen, dancers, hostesses, nannies, nurses, carers and teachers. Starczamora (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I have reviewed the full Francisco Demetrio article on JSTOR and in my view it is both comprehensive and academically rigorous. Other sources and citations provide support to the accuracy of the citation. This is precisely the kind of article that a good encyclopedia should cover. Applying the same ghit requirements to this article that are applied to every third-rate professional Singaporese soccer player would, seriously, be a travesty. I also raise a metaphorical eyebrow at the nom.'s concern about "lack of coverage ... independent of the subject". For my money, if this is not independent of the the subject then hallelujah brothers, God does exist and he really is a Wikipedian... Debate 木 15:13, 19 June 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. The article was basically an advertisement.-Wafulz (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Heard Choir

Local choir formed in February 2007. Close to no news interest (no articles I can find except the one in the article). fails the WP:MUSIC notability requirements Peripitus (Talk) 12:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nom. "Non-notable". Proxy User (talk) 13:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are other national press articles on The Heard(The Guardian etc)-valid music group like other bands already in wikipedia-should be kept in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.204.139.243 (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then prove their notability. Add the sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G12 Article was copied directly from their My Space. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:40, 19 June 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 Snow Keep Non Admin Close Dusti^SPEAK!! 19:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mohd Mardani

Not an international player, and not among the top players in Singapore. Not significant enough to justify a Wiki page. Frankie goh (talk) 13:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:ATHLETE as he's played in the S.League, a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:BIO. Mattythewhite (talk)
Keep per two preceding reasons. Chensiyuan (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Number57. Giant Snowman 14:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Professional player, in a professional league. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 20:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SynergeticMaggot. This passes bio and athlete rather well. Lack of a reason to delete, suggest WP:SK. — _Maggot^Syn 01:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - easily passes WP:ATHLETE. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ram Shanker. matt91486 (talk) 19:18, 20 June 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, if you look at the Athlete policy, Mr. Filho meets the criteria as he played professionally in a fully professional league. Further, I suggest someone familiar with the subject add more information and improve the information contained in the article. Non Admin close Dusti^SPEAK!! 19:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rivaldo Costa Amaral Filho

A journeyman player who is not well-known in Southeast Asia, let alone in Brazil. Should not be important enough to have a page in Wiki Frankie goh (talk) 13:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:ATHLETE as he's played in the S.League, a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Number57. Giant Snowman 14:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While the players have met the basic WP:athletes criteria, his article is only created by a local Singaporean fan after he join a local club. By no means can we expect the article to be maintained or remain inportant to the local fans or the Brazilian fan should the player left the club. Furthermore, there is a lot of missing information about the player, showing his relative insignificant. 124.197.92.245 (talk) 07:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the rationale that only one fan in Singapore is interested in editing this article is irrelevant, even if it were true. Wikipedia doesn't discriminate on basis of either the subject's or the editor's nationality. If someone or something is notable in a place, then, that notability carries forward to Wikipedia regardless. Neier (talk) 11:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - per discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ram Shanker. He passes WP:ATHLETE explicitly. matt91486 (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article doesn't make his notability clear as well as it could but he passes the criteria as he has played professionally. Esteffect (talk) 19:58, 21 June 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 23:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian City Church Watson

Non-notable Australian church; the article reads more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 18:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not asserted or demonstrated. Murtoa (talk) 23:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete run of the mill church, borderline A7 but I don't know whether churches are eligible. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 01:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable per above. Culturalrevival (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This church is in fact part of a movement which is becoming highly popular, Christian City Churches led by Pastor Phil Pringle, Pastor of the seventh largest church in Australia (Christian City Church, Oxford Falls). Here is an example from another article "...the worldwide average church attendance of all churches which at last report was 35." And when calculated against this church, it's weekly attendance is over 500% higher than that of other churches worldwide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drizzt Jamo (talk • contribs)

Comment Its relationship with Christian City Churches is irrelevant to the notability of this particular congregation, as is Christian City Church, Oxford Falls, which has attendance of 4,000 - some 2000% higher than Watson. Murtoa (talk) 07:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is one of the most notable churches in Canberra for attendence (Canberra is a small city, with the largest churches being about 400-500 in attendence each week. This church sees about 200 people each week), and the goals of the church will see it rise to that number and higher in the coming years. The senior Pastor, Melanie Marshall, is also known around Australia as she speaks at other churches and Womens' Conference's each year. Also, as stated above the average church attendence worldwide is about 35 people, and obviously this church sees many more than that, making it a notable church, especially in Canberra. In reference to the comment about it reading more like an advertisement rather than an article, i would be happy to refine the article to make it more informational. It was not my intent to make it seem like an advertisement. EDIT: Another alternative would be to write an article to do with all 3 of the Christian City Churches within the ACT and merge this article into it. The notability of the CCC movement in Australia is rather large, considering that the movement has planted over 500 churches worldwide, and aims for up to 1000, with 500 members in attendence each, most of these churches within Australia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magistrate Tyraan (talk • contribs) 11:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC) — Magistrate Tyraan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Weekly attendance of 200 is not in itself notable. What would assist would be sufficient independent verifiable sources demonstrating the notability of this particular church, which I doubt would be in existence. I don't see the point in having a separate article on the ACT instances of Christian City Churches as I doubt there would be anything inherently different about those particular churches compared with the rest of Australia. Murtoa (talk) 06:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - based on lack of any assertion of notability, although no objections to recreation if notability can be established. But the only source cited appears to be the church's own web page, which isn't anywhere near enough to establish notability. John Carter (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have policies like WP:N to keep articles like this from appearing on wikipedia for extended periods of time. Five Years 06:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Membership of a group does not necessarily confer notability. Orderinchaos 16:48, 24 June 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. Fram (talk) 09:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Jackson

No indication of why this radio personality is notable. No mention of industry awards or even radio syndication that would indicate he's known outside of the local area. Only reference in the article is a blog. Google news doesn't bring up anything helpful either. Is this person notable? Rtphokie (talk) 11:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable (I added the AfD template to the article, as it was missing). -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 11:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Dale Jackson" turns up zero results on google news, and none on google, hasnt won any awards (as far as i know) I would say that this person doesn't meet human notability guidelines. Atyndall93 | talk 11:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nom. "Non-notable". BUT have you all looked at the Edit History? It looks like it was "hijacked" from an simularly non-notable article about a fictional soap char named Dale Jackson! Too funny Proxy User (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails notability in several senses and given his current career arc is unlikely to cross that threshold until he moves along or wins a significant award. No reason the article can't be recreated when he becomes the next Sean Hannity, another WVNN alum. - Dravecky (talk) 13:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete this is a very notable person who is working at a very notable station. Jccort (talk) 12:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the notability of WVNN (AM) is not the issue here, Jackson's is. I've been unable to find any reliable 3rd party references mentioning him. This is made difficult by his not uncommon name. You can help by improving this article with references that will help establish his notability, currently there are no references at all.--Rtphokie (talk) 13:03, 22 June 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. Not notable. Malinaccier (talk) 22:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Garofano

An agent trying to push a clients profiles (badly). Mainly unreferenced, lacks proper WP:A from WP:RS for notability. No sign of any significance. Triwbe (talk) 11:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A7 (Article about a person... that does not indicate the importance of the subject.) -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 11:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A7 Doesn't say why she is notable, sounds like a bad promotional article. Atyndall93 | talk 11:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, A7. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any relevant Google hits about her outside Wikipedia itself. The linked website about her supposed former group, No Illusion [19], doesn't support the claim that there was ever anyone named Gina (or Ryan, her supposed pseudonym) in that group. The other link has to do with a notable song ("Never Ever" by All Saints), which, unfortunately, has no direct connection with the subject. There is no evidence that she is notable as a singer under WP:MUSIC or as a model under WP:BIO. For that matter, I can't even find evidence that she is a non-notable singer or model. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is just pure weapons-grade Vanispamcruftisement, IMHO ... Happy Editing! — 151.200.237.53 (talk · contribs) _{20:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 13:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Dustan Fitzsimmons

Non-notable. The article is a copy&paste of Fitzsimmons' biography given in its first source, p. 79 (which is in the public domain, so it's not a copyvio; it's not independent of her, though). No secondary sources given (the other given source does not mention Fitzsimmons). There are a few Google News hits, but none seem to provide non-trivial coverage. If sufficient sources are found to keep the article, it should be moved: The subject is Carolyn Beth Fitzsimmons, not Beth Dustan Fitzsimmons. Huon (talk) 11:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both google news, books and scholar turn up no results relating to or from her. I would say she fails human notability criteria, if people decide against deleting it, I think it should Move to Carolyn Beth Fitzsimmons because thats what the poster says is the person's actual name. Atyndall93 | talk 12:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - her name is Beth Duston Fitzsimmons (not Dustan) according the relevant government link - Peripitus (Talk) 13:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - according to the source given in the article, it's C. Beth Fitzsimmons. See the list of commissioners on p. 3 or her signature on p. 7. Huon (talk) 18:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simply not enough reliable source interest to write a verifiable article. All of the news interest seems related to her appointment to NCLIS. The company she is credited in her BIO as starting is listed on the web has having one employee....I presume herself - Peripitus (Talk) 21:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page should not be up for deletion. I corrected the spelling for the middle name, and prior evaluations were based on the misspelled name. Please see this page for researching Dr. Fitzsimmons: http://www.nclis.gov/about/fitzsimmons.html The preceding entry was added by Mrtoes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beth Duston Fitzsimmons. Copied here by Huon (talk) 21:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe the subject fails human notability criteria. Her listing within the NCLIS article would seem to be more than sufficient. If any other facts abut her are relevant, then perhaps that is where they should go. In fact this AfD throws the spotlight on to the other people listed as former chairpersons in the NCLIS article, namely Martha B. Gould and Joan R. Challinor. All the articles lack citations and secondary references, and do not seem to meet human notability criteria. It appears that they were, coincidentally, all created by a former deputy director at the NCLIS who is currently working on her autobiography at Judith C. Russell as well as creating a similarly unreferenced article about a former post that she held as Superintendent of Documents which is of highly questionable notability and is uncategorised. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and I'm not sure where the correct place is, to draw attention to this sort of thing (all advice is welcome), but it seemed to me to have some relevance to this discussion. It raises the question of conflict of interest as it's obvious that people and things seem much more notable when you have a connection with them. As a neutral observer, they don't seem to me, to meet the notability guidelines for biographical articles at all.Austin46 (talk) 12:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article subject does not meet WP:POLITICIAN criteria. Also, not notable due to lack of coverage that does not overlap with coverage in the NCLIS article--Finalnight (talk) 00:24, 29 June 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 that is too bad. Those arguing to delete based upon WP:NOT#NEWS had, in my estimation, the strongest individual arguments, however I cannot discount the volume and depth of the keep arguments, either. Honestly, the eventual fate of this article is likely to either get merged somewhere or outright deleted once the immediacy of the event has waned, but this argument clearly has not reached a consensus at this point. Shereth 19:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Puppy-throwing marine video incident

This article appears to cover a very minor incident of passing interest. As such, it seems to be a clear-cut violation of WP:NOT#NEWS. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 10:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 10:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hardly notable, if anything a short sentence about the incident should be added to the main YouTube page rather than creating an article for itself. ——Ryan | t • c 10:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Virek (talk) 11:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Casualties of the Iraq War or Media Coverage of the Iraq War. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was skeptical about the notability of this incident, but after having a look at on google news, I found that CNN, Associated Content (link is blacklisted), Unconfirmed Sources and HearldNET had reported on the incident. Which I think makes it notable. Atyndall93 | talk 12:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I am the initial editor) In case it isn't clear at first look to other editors here, my goal was simply to create an article about a viral video. It's a rather tragic one, but nevertheless what the references appear to show as a notable internet phenomenon. It's really a stub, but the nominator's perspective is understable given that the article is in a very begining state and whose contents are still mostly references. --Firefly322 (talk) 12:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. This guy's 15 minutes are up. Proxy User (talk) 13:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of good sources to establish notability of this incident, the fallout of which is still playing out. It's no Abu Gharib, but it's still a widely reported incident. Needs expansion to further explain the aftermath, though. 23skidoo (talk) 13:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)\[reply]
Merge per Col. Warden. If the coverage continues and it grows too large for that article, it can be broken out again. Jclemens (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The internet is loaded with reliable sources such as this, this, and this, which show me at least some notability. Although, I think the article should be renamed to something less complex. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge either per Col. Warden or to Viral video. This video is very noteworthy, but deserving of its own page it is not. - Shiori (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT#NEWS (policy). MrPrada (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOT#NEWS. No matter how many news agencies go over it, a slimeball lobbing a puppy off a cliff is not an encyclopedic event. How's it going to be expanded, A blow-by-blow account of the throw? Diagrams? Puppy-revolution count? There's little to add except a long list of people going "ick". If it did result in a changed law etc., and that was deemed notable itself, then this event would be nothing more than a few sentences within that article. Someone another 02:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is more than just a news story. Alot of the sources are about the video, not the event itself. There have been responses, follow ups, and stories about the controversy of the video. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 04:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Viral videos can be notable, as evidenced by AFDs deciding to keep several of them, or at least no consensus to delete, such as the Obama Girl video I Got a Crush... on Obama (no consensus) or the video about an Asian girl whose dog pooped on a bus and she refused to clean it up, Dog poop girl (Keep in 3 afds). Star Wars kid, about a young man swing a golf ball retriever like a light saber (Keep in two AFDs). The video about a profane old Chinese man on a bus The Bus Uncle, appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 7, 2007. An old man cursing someone on a bus, a dog pooping on a bus, or a child swinging a golf ball retriever like a weapon is surely no more encyclopedic than a U.S. Marine killing a puppy, if the latter got enough news coverage. This one got substantial coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources. See List of Internet phenomena for more trivial things which became notable via the internet. This not "media coverage" of a trivial event, as is addressed by WP:NOTNEWSsince no reporter made the video. It is an internet phenomenon. Edison (talk) 05:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT#NEWS. At best this deserves a mention in some relevant article on viral videos etc, but I don't think this rates as even that, at least not in this form. Summary: Someone made the video, according to a highly scientific method we have determined that people are "appalled", and the guy was fired. You can't get more newsarticley than that. Now allow me to disable the calm and collected part of my psyche for a while. *click* WILL YOU JUST LOOK AT THAT ARTICLE????++?? *click* See? Ordinary logic would tell me that this sort of articles are not encyclopaedic. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is an internet phenomenon and notable for the resulting backlash against him and his family.TheHuddledMasses (talk) 07:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC) — TheHuddledMasses (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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 19:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirection therapy

Looks like an advertisement for an non-notable therapy, invented by the author of the article. No independent sources. The very model of a minor general (talk) 10:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unreferenced and non-notable. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 10:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unreferenced and google news turns up no results, fails WP:ORG. Atyndall93 | talk 12:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable. This guy's 15 minutes are up. Proxy User (talk) 13:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete no Google news hits (including archive), 5 books hits but all appear to be passing mentions or apparently refer to something else (hosing a patient with water, for example). Doesn't seem to be any way such an article can be reliably sourced. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unreferenced and not notable per the above comments. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 18:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is absent. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The creator of the page left some comments at the article's talk page. --The very model of a minor general (talk) 11:34, 22 June 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 19:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Association for Integrative Studies

Appears non notable beyond its own self-published sources, reads like a leaflet or advert, little context. 350 members only. SGGH ^speak! 10:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reads like an advert and has no references or any indication of why the organisation is notable. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 10:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete smells like spam and google news = 0 results. I think it fails WP:ORG. Atyndall93 | talk 12:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nom. Proxy User (talk) 13:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: an organized voice and a national source of information on integrative and interdisciplinary approaches to the discovery, transmission and application of knowledge. Could their programme be more vague to the point of meaninglessness? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete substantially a cut-and-paste of a presumably copyrighted website, but the article is a total mess and isn't notable anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like marketing collateral, not an encyclopedia article. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:20, 20 June 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 19:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kaizenetics

The article is about a neologism apparently first coined in 2006. I have not been able to find any reliable sources which could be used to verify the content of the article (or even show that the article isn't a hoax) and I doubt that there are any to be found. Guest9999 (talk) 09:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to expand a Google search of Kaisenetics gives 39 results all of which appear to be about expired domain names. A Google search of "Dennis Cummins" Kaizen gives one result - the Wikipedia article in question. A search of Kaizen gives millions of hits and I would expect that a notable system relating to it would have more of an internet presence. Guest9999 (talk) 09:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Creation by user:Totalhealthtraining suggests spam even though they created no link. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Virek (talk) 11:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete have verified nom's claims and agree with them. Atyndall93 | talk 12:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sadf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.20.168 (talk) 13:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nom. Proxy User (talk) 13:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nomination. A rosily and vaguely described self-improvement plan. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No Google Books hits either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 18:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spammy spam promising to unlock the power within. I'll unlock my delete vote within. JuJube (talk) 06:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good call by the nom. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:17, 20 June 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. Possible hoax, not notable. No sources to back up claims. Malinaccier (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trayvon

Possible hoax-y article on seemingly non-notable musician. Prod declined by anon without comment or alteration. tomasz. 09:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC, is unreferenced, and the article is a complete mess! -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 11:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cannot find any sources to support claims. Fails artist notability criteria. Atyndall93 | talk 12:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the claims of notability presented were true, there would be reliable sources to back them up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 06:07, 20 June 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. Not notable. Malinaccier (talk) 22:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faye Donnelly

This is a contested prod. The character does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) and lacks reliable sources. JBsupreme (talk) 07:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, but without prejudice at recreation, should the character become a major one. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 11:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is not yet enough content to make an article. DGG (talk) 16:12, 20 June 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. Allow me to clarify a couple of things - "delete and merge" isn't really a viable option, per our license. Either they are deleted, or they are merged, not both. Also, it seems that the main discussion here is really whether these albums have standalone notability, and even the nominator says xe would not necessarily want to "lose" the information, hence we don't really have a deletion discussion here, we have a merge discussion. Merge discussions are for the talkpages of the article, usually the parent article. Find consensus there as to whether these should remain standalone articles or be merged/redirected. FWIW, if they are unlikely to have any prose in them, sourced independently (i.e., reviews, reactions, charting, impact, etc), and are more likely to stay simple track listings, then per our clear guidelines and precedent should be merged. Again, that's for the talkpages to sort out amongst interested editors. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Die volle Dröhnung

No notability asserted per WP:MUSIC. Prod will undoubtedly be contested considering the fervour with which my changing the article to a redirect was removed. I suggested to the author that this and the other album articles for this artist should be merged into a single discography page, but this has been seemingly construed as a request to create an additional page for a discography. I requested help over this issue at Editor assistance/Requests, and was advised to bring the issue here. I know opinions on music notability can be sharply divided, so I would like to ensure I'm following the correct policy. CultureDrone (talk) 06:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages by the same artist - again, no notability asserted:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question WP:MUSIC states that in general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. I get the impression that these albums are solo works from Tom Angelripper with some sort of moniker used in front of his name. From the discography page, I see that at least two other notable individuals were involved in recording one or more of these albums, namely Axel Rudi Pell and Jörg Michael. There is also one other release listed in the discography page that you have not included in this afd: Delirium (single). A google search further revealed that these albums were released jointly by Drakkar Entertainment and Bertelsmann Music Group (now Sony BMG) under the G.U.N. Records GmbH imprint: eg. 1, 2. You state that the albums listed above are not notable but that is a rather vague and general statement, one that is generally expected at any Afd. Could you explain further as to why you think these albums are exceptions to the general guideline above? More specifically, why you think these albums are not notable enough for individual articles but yet notable enough to merge onto a discography article as you suggested? --Bardin (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as you say, WP:MUSIC says "...then officially released albums may have sufficient notability ..." (my italics) - as with every album, single or song article (and everything else in WP), notability generally has to be established for the album, regardless of the band/musician - except possibly in the case of musicians so well known that anything they do is considered notable. I haven't been able to determine any notability for the albums mentioned in terms of reliable third party coverage, a high chart position etc. WP:MUSIC says "Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage", yet I can't find any - though I'm not saying that there isn't any, and also states that "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article" - since the articles mentioned are nothing but a picture of the cover and a track listing, and because of the lack of verifiable third party references, I believe they fall into this category - a track listing is not (imho) encyclopedia content, and is readily available from dozens of other sources. As stated at the beginning of WP:NOT, "merely being true or useful does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia". Since the musician is notable in his own field, and since the albums may at some point develop into something more than a track listing, I believed the most effective approach in this case was to suggest the editor create a discography article to hold the relevant information (along with the other 1,183 articles in that category), and redirect the individual articles to the discography. I'm not disputing the notability of the musicians or their bands, merely these particular articles in their current form. :-) CultureDrone (talk) 17:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I should also probably add that (again, imho) keeping the articles in some form is better than a simple delete because the musician is notable in his field - if the articles were simply deleted, then we'd probably end up with the same virtual stub articles in a few weeks/months. :-) CultureDrone (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. There does seem to be a shortage of sources in English for these albums so delete and merge with Onkel Tom Angelripper discography with no prejudice towards recreation if the articles can be expanded beyond a mere track listing with verifiable sources. --Bardin (talk) 05:05, 28 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, 69.140.152.55 (talk) 03:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge per above. Not notable on their own, but ok for discography article sections. Make into section redirects, then no info lost, and just as easy to find.Yobmod (talk) 14:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Already mentioned here, and that is sufficient. WWGB (talk) 02:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all or merge all into Onkel Tom Angelripper discography without loss of information. I think that these albums are notable within the spirit of WP:MUSIC, that WP:MUSIC is ambiguous enough that virtually any album may or may not be notable under the mere letter of the guidelines, and that we should err on the side of preserving the information in these articles. If there's a consensus objecting to the articles' simple independent existence because they may not pass the music guidelines, I don't see anything wrong with merging the information in them into the discography page. -- The_socialist ^talk? 06:18, 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 --JForget 00:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scooter-rock

Apparent case of WP:NFT; neologism made up purely to describe the genre of one (non-notable) band. No evidence term is in widespread use; non-notable and unverifiable. ~Matticus ^U_C 06:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MADEUP. Chris (talk) 08:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as WP:UTTERBOLLOCKS! -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 11:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete made-up genre of a single band we don't even have an article on. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable/WP:NFT. We actually did have an article about the one band of this genre, but I speedy-deleted it after it was tagged {{db-band}}. DMacks (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (can't remember link) It's probably something made up in a day. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 20:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:02, 19 June 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) Finalnight (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hafez Nazeri

Notability issues Avi (talk) 05:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless references are added to confirm notability because currently the article doesn't. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 11:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added one reference to the article. If you want more you can take your pick from these and add some. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:40, 21 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, Malinaccier (talk) 22:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage in a large number of reliable sources. Mostlyharmless (talk) 09:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject matter is notable enough. The article needs a lot of improvement. Not deletion. --Bardin (talk) 05:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thunder (SMV album)

The future album of a band that was deleted as non notable. No speedy category so here it is. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 05:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 07:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I'm not sure I understand why the group itself is considered non-notable in the first place, to be honest. It's a newly-formed group made up of three already established and notable musicians. This seems to fulfill criterion #6 for musicians/ensembles. What other criteria are necessary? --Fru1tbat (talk) 13:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note, by the way, that SMV (band) has been undeleted, so the nom is no longer technically applicable. --Fru1tbat (talk) 14:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. --Thetrick (talk) 13:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The band appears to be notable, but there's not enough info on their album yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this article is predicting notability without establishing it. Also, the album does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC#ALBUMS criteria either.--Finalnight (talk) 00:27, 29 June 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. After AreJay's improvements to the article, it passes notability (ie. "...now the largest private hospital chain in the UAE."). Malinaccier (talk) 22:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Medical Center

Just a name of a hospital. Nothing done in two years. No assertion of notability. Can be recreated if suddenly there's a elephant body to human head transplant or some other major event or if the hospital suddenly is expanded. Presumptive (talk) 04:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Wikipedia:Notability_(Places_and_transportation)#Buildings_and_Structures.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cameron (talk • contribs)
Delete - have to agree with nominator Xtreme racer (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think I can expand the article enough to make it meaningful. While I didn't create the article myself, I do know of the hospital and know that it's a prominent medical establishment in the UAE. I am pressed for time and will not be able to make the necessary changes today, however. I will be able to take a stab at it sometime tomorrow. AreJay (talk) 02:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per AreJay's improvements, the article now establishes notability (largest private hospital chain in the United Arab Emirates). --Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 00:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I got you a better (independent news agency) reference on the page to help establish notability. Also, they sponsor a popular cricket team in the UAE.--Finalnight (talk) 15:36, 24 June 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); article has been merged into Camp Rock. - Diligent Terrier (and friends)22:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Rock 2

Prod deleted. The fact that a sequel is being considered does not justify the amount of unsupported speculation in this article. Consideration of a sequel is the only unique and referenced material in this article and can easily be included in the Camp Rock article. A redirect to Camp Rock would be sufficient until enough unique information is available to support an article on the sequel. NrDg 04:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree/Delete. Presumptive (talk) 04:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Camp Rock per WP:CRYSTAL. Wait till more sources arise. —97198 talk 13:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is premature --T-rex 15:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dont Delet - The article should not be deleted because its going to be remade, so there is no reason why to delet it know and remake it later. And info about the movie is just coming out I will recieve more info in around 1-2 months (July-August) and if no info is realesed within a 1-2 month period the the article can be readmited or suggested for deletion again and pluss the plot was just aded!. Salcan (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Strike because of later comment. --NrDg 22:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete i also suspect Salcan, the article creator, is a User:House1090 sock, based on their shared inability to understand copyright plagiarism and tendency to put bogus block notices on the user pages of editors they disagree with, as well as propensity to edit San Bernardino area articles. Their bad grammar is also a match. Amerique^dialectics 20:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser result: likely Amerique^dialectics 15:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Camp Rock as suggested. It's relevant to that page, enough to warrant inclusion, but not presently enough for its own article. - Vianello (talk) 06:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. From http://www.cleveland.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2008/06/demi_lovato_and_the_jonas_brot.html Michael Healy, Disney Channel's senior vice president for original movies said about a sequel "We hope so, but we don't know yet, each one of these movies has to stand own its own and succeed or fail, then we evaluate it." This is confirmation that this article is pure WP:CRYSTAL speculation including in the reference used in the article. --NrDg 15:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Camp Rock I have reaserched and there is no word out about the plot or Selena Gomez coming out in the nextfilm, I creaed it hoping to find more information.Salcan (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; although some of it (first paragraph) may be speculation, there is enough referenced content confirming the plans for this movie—and the fact that it is already attracting significant interest and speculation—to warrant an article. Everyking (talk) 07:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MergeI say that we wait until there's more information about Camp Rock 2, and then make a larger article about it. Right now, the artcile is just saying things about when it'll be released and such, which isn't good information for a whole article. We can just keep Camp Rock 2 as part of the orginal Camp Rock article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soccer5525 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~or Merge~~. If we get anything passing the usual sniff test saying there will be a sequel, then we can get started on it. Until then, remove (update: User:Gary0203 has a sandbox version he had just in case, so I changed my statement from Delete or Merge to just Delete. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Today on TheHollywoodReporter.com, it said that a sequel was in the works, and was planned for a release in 09/10. --Yankeesrj12 (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.67.239 (talk) 03:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Comment - WP:CRYSTAL said "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented." Yes, it is certain to take place and preparation for the movie is already in progress. The article includes pre-production and production informations, its in good status except that banner in the top:} Also, Michael Healy's comment "We hope so, but we don't know yet, each one of these movies has to stand on its own and succeed or fail, then we evaluate it." was before Camp Rock premiered and the movie scored high ratings so it will definitely be made. It's also longer than I expected. Gary0203 (talk) 08:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no issue with reporting verifiable information about a possible film. However, per the notability guidelines for future films, a stand-alone article is not appropriate until production begins, which is never a guarantee in the film industry. Without this guarantee, there's no certainty of a plot section, a cast section, a production section, a reception section, and so forth. It is too opinionated to say, "It'll be made -- give it time." Films like Logan's Run (2010 film) and Fahrenheit 451 (2009 film) have been significant projects that still have not been produced for many years. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect into a sequel section at Camp Rock. 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. Even on projects which are a supposed lock for a greenlight. This goes the same for TV movies as it does for intended cinema releases. The article can be reinstated when and if principal photography begins. Steve ^{T • C} 13:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any relevant information to Camp Rock#Camp Rock 2 (I suggest renaming to Camp Rock#Sequel). Article should not be resurrected from a redirect status unless filming of the sequel is confirmed to have begun, per the notability guidelines for future films. See Shantaram (film) for a similar merged example of a film that was planned to begin production but has not been able to. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge until production starts Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:55, 29 June 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 Kolkata. The edit history will be preserved so that any useful information can be merged as seen fit. Shereth 21:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kolkata facts

The epitome of a violation of WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Alternately, merge this to Kolkata and subarticles, and redirect to Kolkata. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. There's a number of useful facts here - "list of X facts" is an really bad way to organize an article, but most of the underlying content looks sound. Incredibly enough, most of it even appears to be decently sourced. Zetawoof_(ζ) 07:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the relevant articles and Delete. Yes, "List of X facts" is a very bad way to collect, organize and retrieve information. This article is an excellent example of an indiscriminate collection of information. Eklipse (talk) 08:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Might I point out that "merge and delete" is not a valid option. Under the GFDL license the contribution history must be maintained if the article is going to be integrated into another article. Now for my opinion... I hardly see this collection of information as "indiscriminate". There is plenty of relevant information and organization here, and there is plenty of encyclopedic value in a list of notable people and facts about a major city. Sure some of this information is redundant, but there are plenty of redundant list articles. Such as List of oldest trees which contain a list of all the really old trees, some with their own articles such as Old Tjikko. That doesn't make "list of old trees" redundant just because it states the same information that can be found within "old tjikko", it simply lists the oldest trees in a valuable order and simplifies the task of gathering the information on your own. I see the same value here. Kolkata is a notable place with lots of notable facts which deserve a seperate list. And for full transparency, yes I have worked on this article and the reason it is so well sourced is due to me and User:Aditya Kabir putting some time into fixing this one. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 09:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (and merge whatever is needed) to Kolkata. The premise for this article, collecting miscellaneous facts, without clear criteria beyond geography (surely it is not supposed to be a collection of every fact about Calcutta) is a problem. WP:IINFO might be a relevant policy, but I will be cautious in using it since the facts themselves are in fact quite reasonable and encyclopedic. They are just better presented in the context of the main article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just delete. Kolkata is an excellent featured article, and dumping a heap of random trivia onto it wouldn't be right. While sourced, most of this stuff is just a mess and only tangentally related to Kolkata anyway ("The Calcutta Club opened its doors to women members in 2007.", "Satyajit Ray was only indian who won Academy Award. He is considered as one of the finest director ever produced.", and so on.) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Yet another article facing AfD because it's not been developed to a high standard. Please, this is a collaborative project, and articles are not submitted after meeting all quality standards. If you care about the article, develop it. If you don't have the time or the resources, tag it with {{cleanup}} or something. Deleting articles are detrimental to the growth of Wikipedia, and is not a proposal to be wielded lightly. The current state of the article is not probably the best way to organize an article, but that calls for article development. Getting rid of things that looks like work is not called organization, it's called demolition.
This is a sub-article of the Kolkata article, so the merge proposal doesn't seem valid, especially since the mother article is a quite stable article of featured status. The information is encyclopedic enough to warrant a keep anytime, and it's well sourced as well. What policy stands against this article, apart from a loosely used "indiscriminate information" identification? Since the information is already very much about a number of highlights of the city of Kolkata, even that doesn't apply. It is not a coincidence that the merge opinions holders have already acknowledged the usefulness and encyclopedic nature of the information.
The two pieces of information cherry-picked and presented put of context is even less of a reason for deletion. They are very much part of an attempt at contextualizing the information in the article. Like, if you don't know who Satyajit Ray is, you don't have to click on the link first, rather the article would give you a short brief on the person and his notability. That is very much a Wikiepdia way of doing things, not the other way round. And, if you don't like it still, try copyedit.
I don't care about it or I don't like it are not deletion arguments, they are subjective opinions of a personal kind. I understand that this nomination was made in good faith and those who voiced for delete and merge acted in good faith, but, please, don't demolish the house while it's still being built. I have worked on the article along with ErgoSum to build a house, not to demolish it, and so can you. It's not that difficult. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't care" and "I don't like" were not the arguments for deleting this article. The main problem with this page, and its title, is that it has no scope other than "things related to Kolkata". In which direction would you improve this list if its scope is not even defined? Eklipse (talk) 12:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the name and/or scope of this article is not the whole reason behind this debate. When I found this article it was titled "Kolkata trivia" which I then changed to "List of Kolkata facts" in the interest of being "encyclopedic". I think the WP:INDISCRIMINATE policy is being taken a little too far here. I think this can be summed up with "One man's trash is another man's treasure." What some people see as a trash pile of random "trivia", others see as a well-organized list of notable "facts". I would like to point out the main issue here is that most of the information contained in this article is already contained in other articles and simply deleting or merging this article will have accomplished next to nothing. If this information is notable enough to be included within other Kolkata-related articles, then what is the harm in keeping a separate list? List of Monctonians, List of people from Connecticut, and the mother of all lists Lists of Americans are just as "indiscriminate" in their guidelines for inclusion and should rightly be considered "trivial" in nature but seem to be largely favored by the community. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 10:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between List of people from Connecticut and List of Kolkata facts, though.

First, it is possible to enumerate people from Connecticut, and to determine which people qualify. It's a large set, but one which has well-defined boundaries. A "Kolkata fact" is not something quite so well-defined, though. You cannot look up one of these facts and determine whether it qualifies as a Kolkata fact or not. Hence, the selection of items is purely subjective.
There's also a subtle distinction that you're missing between the partial duplication which exists in most lists and the duplication which exists in this one. Lists are considered important on Wikipedia because they serve as a "value-added" extension of categories - ideally, each item in a list represents some item which is expanded upon elsewhere. Moreover, this duplication only exists because the list is summarizing information from elsewhere. Since all of the notable "Kolkata facts" all belong in Kolkata and related articles, and there's no further expansion to be done on most of these facts, there's no value added by selecting them for appearance here.

Finally, there's simply no value in such a list as this for the reader. Someone who's looking for information on Kolkata will start looking at Kolkata, not List of Kolkata facts. If the exact information they're looking for isn't there, they'll look at a more specific article or a related article - at no point is a "list of facts" a logical location to find information. Which is, in the end, what we're after: organizing information. Zetawoof_(ζ) 19:58, 22 June 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. Shereth 19:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brice Dickson

Non-notable academic. No evidence is presented that this academic rises above others of his discipline or specialty, aside from his short stint as head of a a human rights commission. Relevant Google hits are few, with the only one that wasn't a listing of his books being a BBC article about a politician urging him to resign his HRC post Fails WP:PROF. (Contested speedy.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Co-sign deleter. Y5nthon5a (talk) 04:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable as a human rights official. See this Google News archive search for abundant coverage by reliable sources. --Eastmain (talk) 04:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 04:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 04:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain's Google News discovery. The gentleman was clearly an important actor in a prominent area of NI governmental affairs, as reliable sources attest. Townlake (talk) 05:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain's GoogleNews results. The subject may not be notable under WP:PROF but he is notable under WP:BIO for his role as the NIHRC chairman. It'd be good to add some references regarding his NIHRC activities to the article. Nsk92 (talk) 05:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for same reasons as Alison Mawhinney. Mr. Dickson's notability comes from the same reasons and the same type of accomplishments and interests as Ms. Mawhinney. Rotund, but sweet (talk) 02:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So why then did you vote Keep for Mawhinney and Delete for Dickson? In any event, Dickson appears a lot more notable than Mawhinney to me. He was a major human rights official who received a great deal of coverage in the mass media. She is just an academic specializing in human rights research. The two aren't really comparable, so logically it should be Keep for Dickson and Delete for Mawhinney, not the other way around. Nsk92 (talk) 05:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NO: I voted as I believed was the logical consequence of pointing out that Mawhinney and Dickson are equals as far as I am concerned, and what's good for the gander is good for the goose. Also, I have updated Mawhinney's page in case anyone wants to take a look to reconsider their opinions. Rotund, but sweet (talk) 12:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't get you. If you think that their notabilities are equal, then why did you vote differently in the two AfDs? Are you making a WP:POINT here? Nsk92 (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of the Commission. DGG (talk) 03:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to his position on the commission and the many news stories relating to that found by Eastmain. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:52, 22 June 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. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Boru Irish Pipe Band

non notable, uncited band article. SGGH ^speak! 18:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:22, 13 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, Dusti^SPEAK!! 03:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The claim to notability in the article "biggest, and most famous Irish bagpipe and drum band in the twin cities metropolitan area." isn't enough for WP:BAND and I can't see anything else to rescue it on the web. -Hunting dog (talk) 07:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. This band was also added to a few lists. --Thetrick (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very, very, very, very far from even coming close to passing WP:MUSIC. Probably could have been speedied, as there's no real claim to notability in there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, --BobAmnertiopsis _{ChitChat Me!} 14:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)no refs, etc. BobAmnertiopsis _{ChitChat Me!} 14:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be contrary, but keep...? The article might pass the bar of criterion #1 of WP:MUSIC if anyone is willing to make the effort to add some sources. They get a fair number of hits on Google News archives, and there's an article by Laura Yuen, "Passing on the pipes: For 45 years, Brian Boru bagpipers have played – and taught – traditional Celtic tunes", Knight-Ridder Tribune Newswire, 10 Aug 2007. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has referenced sources that would suggest some marginal notability. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:22, 20 June 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, any future merge proposal is an editorial matter. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meditation therapy

Recently de-spammed, with many issues tagged and uncorrected, this page appears to add nothing to wiki since meditation as therapy is just meditation. I suggest relinking all links to "meditation" Redheylin (talk) 02:58, 13 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, Dusti^SPEAK!! 03:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Meditation- suggest cleaning it up and moving to subsection "Health applications and clinical studies of meditation" in the Meditation article. L'Aquatique[review] 04:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Nomination seems to be proposing merger/redirection which is not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per L'Aquatique.--Jessika Folkerts (talk) 13:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand--expansion and sourcingis needed, but rather obviously notable. Mediation is a very broad subject, and therapy just a part of it--though prominent in its own right. DGG (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep per WP:SNOW, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piczo

Not notable, no sources exist, probably an advertisement LightSpeed (talk) 03:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While not as popular as Myspace, reasonably popular; gets 25 Google news results, which is pretty decent for a website. An Alexa traffic rating of 634 isn't that shabby either. this CNN article mentions it in the same sentence with Bebo, LinkedIn, and Tagged.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've heard about it plenty of times, and I've seen it on NBC before.Y5nthon5a (talk) 04:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a fairly well-known and established website, passes WP:N, though I admit it has some work to be done as it reads like an advertisement a bit. cheers! Boccobrock•T 05:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs a bit of a rewrite, but is certainly notable. Enigma ^message 05:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Snowball keep please Enigma ^message 15:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball (i.e. speedy) keep - strange to nominate an obviously notable web service. Wikidemo (talk) 15:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend as a Snowball keep. I'd do it but I've participated. Nominator has a bit of a strange history, too, including his/her participation in AfDs. Enigma ^message 15:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per all the good reasons above. Article needs improvement, but potential for doing so is clear, so no need to delete. Townlake (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others above, and theres a lack of a reason to delete. That makes seven keeps which is inline with WP:SK. I would have closed it but I get into too much trouble when I close too many, too soon. :) — _Maggot^Syn 01:23, 20 June 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 19:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberclash

Never released video game...the article consists of a plot summary and what appears to be ad copy for the non existent game. Fails WP:NOTE LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it's not-notable, there's very little evidence that this game was ever even planned (as is acknowledged in the article itself), and what evidence there is comes from a primary source (i.e. the company that planned this release). The "legacy" section is completely OR. --Craw-daddy | T | 10:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Occasionally an unreleased game, book, album, etc will be notable due to unusual cultural significance, a well-known development history, high-profile lawsuits, etc. The vast majority of them aren't notable at all though, and the article even admits no information exists besides a quick blurb on an obscure advertising disc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Someone another 02:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unreleased video game, article composed of old advertising and original research. TN‑X-Man 13:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons Tnxman mentioned above. MuZemike (talk) 18:55, 23 June 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 Speedied G6, non-admin close. ukexpat (talk) 02:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expected films

Contested Speedy as nonsense. By the letter of the law, is not a G1, I suppose. Delete as WP:OR type essay. At best userfy as an essay. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 01:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC). Dloh cierekim 01:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Afd nomination clashed with deletion of article, now tagged for speedy as housekeeping, G6. ukexpat (talk) 01:58, 19 June 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. Will re-direct to Tetherball#swingball as a potential search term. Shereth 18:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swing-ball

Alleged new sport. Fractionally better than MADEUP - they have created a website. But not (yet) notable. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are a blog, message board, and org's own site. Not enough to overcome NFT. And, if you google the term, there are multiple games "swingball" refers to, including varieties more notable than this. Townlake (talk) 01:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT and WP:RS. C'mon now. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NFT. JJL (talk) 02:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tetherball per the redirect at Swingball - the name happens to be used for an existing (unrelated) game. ~Matticus ^U_C 07:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just having a website doesn't mean it isn't WP:MADEUP. No reliable sources possible, etc. No opinion on the redirect. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to tetherball#swingball. This is what I would have expected an article called "swing-ball" to be about. Grutness...wha? 01:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tetherball#swingball as suggested above. TN‑X-Man 13:07, 20 June 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) 15:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nashua-Plainfield High School

High school whose article has no content other than a "directory listing", with no notability asserted. WP:NOTABILITY applies to school's articles too. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 00:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per standing practice with high schools. Townlake (talk) 01:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are sufficient sources available to meet WP:N. We delete articles that cannot be expanded rather than those where, as here, they have yet to be added. TerriersFan (talk) 02:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is an acceptable stub. Passes WP:N. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as valid high school stub. Expand rather than delete.--Sting Buzz Me... 07:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's a high school, it isn't going anywhere. There's some RS coverage if anyone interested in including schools wants to use it. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 14:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A comment about this "RS coverage", out of the 10 returns in all the archives (as a comparison, my middle school returns 377 results [20], and out of those 10, only about 4 are really actually about the school itself, the rest are either not about the school at all or about someone who had attended the school. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 15:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My middle school was lame. I don't disagree re: notability but when was the last time a high school got deleted at AfD. It's one of those semi-inherent notability, just like school districts where if it were another topic, it might get deleted. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 16:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a BTW, I think that the sources available for Jane Lathrop Stanford Middle School would support it being broken out again. Since it was merged, a significant controversy has been added to its section in the district article and there is another here. Going back to Travellingcari's point, there are many categories of pages that are considered notable even if not strictly 'inherently notable' and these include: inhabited places, numbered highways, railway stations, airports, fauna and flora, peers of the realm, high court judges and many others. This approach is adopted to avoid jumping through the same hoops each time. TerriersFan (talk) 17:32, 19 June 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 18:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Mawhinney

Non-notable academic. No evidence is presented that this academic rises above others of her discipline or specialty. Article mentions that she has presented a paper at a symposium and published an article, but there's nothing inherently notable about either, no was any notable action taken as a result of either. This seems like a bit of a vanity article, though I'm far from certain that's the case. Relevant Google hits are few, and Google Scholar returns are also few and not particularly noteworthy. (Contested speedy and PROD.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE KEEP: As the creator of this article I am obviously biased, but I would like to say that Dr. Mawhinney is not a "non-notable academic", any more than Brice Dickson, whose article page is minute in comparison to Dr. Mawhinney's, is non-notable. Mawhinney has done more than "presented a paper at a symposium and published an article". She began lecturing at the School of Law at Queen's University Belfast (QUB) in 2006. She maintains direct communications and gives her advice and counsel to the Chief Commissioner of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission as well as the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion, submitting reports regarding freedom of religion, children's rights, denominational schooling as well as interdenominational & non-denominational schooling, demography, and other important topics. Rotund, but sweet (talk) 00:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I've nominated Brice Dickson for deletion, thanks to Rotund's heads-up. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am sure this academic will someday qualify for an article, but she doesn't pass PROF muster yet unless there's more relevant data about her accomplishments that has yet to be included. Townlake (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PROF. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ACADEMIC. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:PROF, with a little bit of a soapboxing problem as well due to the article mostly being a lengthy quote from an essay she wrote. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I dont want to sound like a tenure committee reviewer and say "inadequate amount of publications" but that's the phrase that comes to mind here. DGG (talk) 03:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional reason added for keeping: I have added Mawhinney's publications to her article - can you re-review? Thanks. Rotund, but sweet (talk) 12:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had seen them. Three journal articles is a good definition of "inadequate" unless they become very highly cited. At this point, Google Scholar doesn't show any citation, but if you can find anything significant (say over 20 journal citations, or citations in really major appellate cases) in the legal indexes, please add the information. They're still new, so she may become notable in the future.DGG (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have to agree with DGG. There's a difference between having scholarly articles published and meeting the standards set by ACADEMIC. Townlake (talk) 20:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most academics so soon after their Ph.D. have not yet made enough of an impact to pass WP:PROF, and she seems no exception. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:54, 22 June 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 18:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Insatiable (film)

Not notable L is for Lover (talk) 00:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article is non-notable, consists entirely of a plot summary and an external link. No reliable sources listed. TN‑X-Man 01:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:N, can't find it on imdb either, unless someone can rewrite it and find some RS it should be nuked. MrMarkTaylor ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 02:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MOVIE. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources, fails WP:MOVIE. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the more notable film of the same name. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even an imdb entry. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probably an Internet film that got 7 views. is it snowing? RC-0722 ^361.0/1 19:59, 19 June 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 18:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Leaf Tea Company

Contested prod, fails WP:CORP, no independent third party sources located indicating notability. Montco (talk) 03:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Google search reveals 34 hits here almost all of which are from blog sites or forums rather than reliable independent sources. Secondly, all the info for the article comes from the company's web page and blog site which suggests it lacks notability. Artene50 (talk) 04:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even shortening the search term doesn't provide any additional evidence of notability. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 13:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A7 Doesn't even assert notability. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

speedy declined indicates some possible importance as large scale supplierDGG (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of ghits, and zero gnews hits. You could substitute in the name of just about any independent US tea supplier in this article and have everything be true -- not seeing anything special about this one.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:08, 19 June 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 withdrawn. PhilKnight (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Engkanto

Notability concerns - lack of coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 12:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Have added two journal article reference to talk page and intend to update page itself later. Dpmuk (talk) 13:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This appears to be part of traditional Filipino beliefs. See http://www.google.com/search?q=Engkanto See the scholarly article at http://www.jstor.org/pss/1177781 --Eastmain (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The aforementioned Google search turns up a lot of irrelevant links, and the few that relate to the subject may not pass WP:RS requirements. (The JSTOR article is not accessible to non-subscribers, so I cannot comment on that piece.) As for "traditional beliefs," it appears to be isolated to some rural areas and not the Philippine culture as a whole (do Engkantos turn up in Manila?) If additional information is presented to justify its notability, I will gladly switch sides on the matter. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Quote from article "What is noteworthy is that this belief seems to have perdured for at least four centuries: Povedano (16th century), Alzina (17th) and Pavon (19th) allude to the belief in engkantos. Nor is the belief dead today. In a year's time I was able to collect 87 long and short narratives from persons who either themselves had been befriended or kidnapped by engkantos, or from people very closely associated with the victims, and are therefore presumed to know about the case." I think what's noteworthy about that is that it's 87 people who have been effected by it so it's probably (was?) a much more widly held belief - after all lots of people believe in UFOs but relatively few say they've seen one. Dpmuk (talk) 13:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Even though the full text of the JSTOR article is unavailable to nonsubscribers, enough of it is displayed to confirm coverage in reliable sources (in this case, a scholarly journal article written by a Jesuit). --Eastmain (talk) 13:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That JSTOR article is a reliable search both on visual inspection of the first page and further investigation. Google scholar is aware of two citations to it, and is clearly understating that number because it was also republished as a piece of the book Myths and Symbols, Philippines by the same author, which has had at least two editions in 1978 and 1981. The author (now deceased) was "one of the most active scholars in the area of Philippine folklore. [21] and "widely recognized" [22]. It appears there is some lack of agreement on the proper transliteration into English; this JSTOR paper uses "Ingkanto" (and cites F. Demetrio's, but google scholar doesn't list that as a cite...) is also clearly a reliable source on the topic. I thus believe that keeping the article is appropriate. GRBerry 14:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On the JSTOR article: what can be seen to non-subscribers appears to be a wholly anecdotal collection of comments from an extremely limited number of people (in comparison to the overall population of the Philippines). The UFO analogy is wobbly, at best – a great many people have claimed to have seen UFOs and there is plenty of footage of unidentified objects that have yet to be explained away, where I don’t believe any footage exists regarding these very isolated Pinoy spirits. I would also question the inclusion of Encyclopedia Mythica as a reliable source in the main article – that looks like the IMDb of ghost stories. That being said, this will be my last comment on this subject, as I would rather see full consensus from the Wikipedia community on this article's notability. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree the UFO analoy is dodgy - it was the best I could come up with. Personally I think it's on the border line but also looking for consensus so will be my last comment as well. Have changed my statement above to 'weak keep' Dpmuk (talk) 14:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Do not rely on Google when searching for articles about the Philippines, as its websites often have no reliable search functions or not accessible in search engines. Engkanto is a part of Philippine mythology that is still believed in the rural areas, and may have notable sources from books and other archived publications. Starczamora (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found this article from The Open University in UK entitled "The Ethics of Suspicion in the Study of Religions" by Paul-François Tremlett, stating...

Any visitor to the Philippines willing to spend a little time each day to watch local television, read newspapers and comics, catch a movie or live with a family will soon come to be aware of stories about sorcery and witchcraft (kulam), of blood-sucking flying bats (aswáng and manananggal), dwarves and elves (duwende), spirits that enchant the unwary such as the engkanto and tikbalang, ancestral spirits (anito), as well as the pervasive use of creolised prayers that combine Tagálog, Spanish and Latin (orasyón) and amulets (antíng-antíng) through which to guard against the mischief or possible malevolence of these alleged super-natural agents or for the accumulation of spiritual power and potency (kapangyarihan). These kinds of beliefs and associated practices sit beside popular christianised practices of healing and pilgrimage as well as more ‘exotic’ practices such as self-flagellation and crucifixion...

The engkanto are spirits whose domain of specialisation and modus operandi is the seduction and then possession of human subjects. The results of seduction and possession amount to a diminution of the self and the erasing of physical and mental individuality such that the one possessed can no longer be recognised. Typical symptoms of seduction and possession include conversing with invisible others, becoming stiff and going into a trance-like state, getting lost in the woods, acting violently towards family members and friends and memory loss.

Tagálog healers claim that the self consists of seven aspects that must remain bound together if the integrity and identity of the self is to be maintained. Seduction and possession by an engkanto leads to the separation or loss or calling away of one or more of these aspects or strands of the non-material aspects of the self. Vulnerability to loss of identity resonates with local uses of amulets (antíng-antíng) that render the wearer invulnerable to either physical or spiritual harm. However, vulnerability to seduction also resonates with the complex history of a country that since 1565 has been subject to Western influence and which, in more recent years, has made its most profitable export its own population who work the globe as seamen, dancers, hostesses, nannies, nurses, carers and teachers. Starczamora (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I have reviewed the full Francisco Demetrio article on JSTOR and in my view it is both comprehensive and academically rigorous. Other sources and citations provide support to the accuracy of the citation. This is precisely the kind of article that a good encyclopedia should cover. Applying the same ghit requirements to this article that are applied to every third-rate professional Singaporese soccer player would, seriously, be a travesty. I also raise a metaphorical eyebrow at the nom.'s concern about "lack of coverage ... independent of the subject". For my money, if this is not independent of the the subject then hallelujah brothers, God does exist and he really is a Wikipedian... Debate 木 15:13, 19 June 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) - subject of the article is notable. - Diligent Terrier (and friends)17:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SMK King George V

A common school that has no point of interest. Nothing special apparently. No whatsoever stark acheivement that may amaze.

Page aren't taken cared of. Historical details are still very unclear with little historical evidence. Perhaps a lie. Still very confusing and uses low resolution pictures depicting a usual activity in a regular educational institution. It's just an another school in seremban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicklesputter (talk • contribs) 17:21, 19 June 2008

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable secondary school with plenty of history. --Eastmain (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Any notable alumni? RC-0722 ^361.0/1 19:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See SMK_King_George_V#Notable_Georgians (that is, see the heading "Notable Georgians" in the article. --Eastmain (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oops, edit conflict. They are now at SMK_King_George_V#Notable_alumni. TerriersFan (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 02:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a particularly important Malaysian school with plenty of encyclopaedic content. It needs a cleanup, the list of societies can go for starters, but that is an editorial matter. I am curious what prompted this nomination; this is the nominator's only substantive contribution for about a year. TerriersFan (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as looks easily notable to me. Perhaps nomination was bad faith as comments on users page seems to show a bit of an attitude. Probably snow this and save everyones time?--Sting Buzz Me... 22:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looking at the article again, I'd say it's noteworthy. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 02:58, 20 June 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. Not notable at the moment. Malinaccier (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alfredo Parra

Non notable actor, claim to fame is a future envent. Speedy removed by article's creator, so brought here for debate. Richhoncho (talk) 19:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 19:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - still a minor-role actor, unable to even find an IMDb entry - fails notability. CultureDrone (talk) 11:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails per WP:SOAP and WP:CRYSTAL. SOAP because the author appears to be the subject of the article and CRYSTAL because it is predicting future notability when there is no basis to do so.--Finalnight (talk) 15:25, 24 June 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.